Questions
Here’s a short quiz:
Q1: Are complementarian teachings novel or historic?
Q2: Are egalitarian teachings novel or historic?
How did you answer?
If you think that complementarian teachings are historic and egalitarian teachings are novel, I invite you to read on. The truth is rather different. It is also more complex than a simple binary of novel or historic.
In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991), John Piper and Wayne Grudem offered what they called a “new vision”, which they labelled “complementarian” (page 11 or pages 14-15 in the 2021 reprint).
To see what is new and what is not, we will begin by identifying the traditional majority views in the Church on three topics:
women’s nature, compared with men’s;
the reasons for prohibiting leadership by women; and
interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12–14 (where Paul does not permit a woman to teach and overmaster a man).
1. The traditional majority view of women’s nature, compared with men’s
Around 1665, the famous Puritan theologian Richard Baxter wrote A Christian Directory, Part II: Christian Economics. In Chapter 1, he advised men, before they decide to marry, to consider how much patience they would need in view of women’s defective nature:
“. . . it is no small patience which the natural imbecility of the female sex requireth you to prepare. Except it be very few that are patient and manlike, women are commonly of potent fantasies, and tender, passionate, impatient spirits, easily cast into anger, or jealousy, or discontent; and of weak understandings, and therefore unable to reform themselves. They are betwixt a man and a child: some few have more of the man, and many have more of the child; but most are but in a middle state.”
He did not consider himself to be denigrating women. He was simply stating the facts of life, as understood across the centuries by supposedly right-thinking persons. To similar effect, we could cite illustrious Christian teachers through the centuries: Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley, and many others. We could go further back, into pagan philosophy, and cite Aristotle to the same effect. This was the prevailing cultural view of women.
When the Church of England was established, this inferiority of women’s nature was even incorporated into its official teaching. A Homily on The State of Matrimony was appointed to be read in all churches, which contrasted wives unfavorably with husbands:
“For the woman is a weak creature, not endued with like strength and constancy of mind: therefore they be the sooner disquieted, and they be the more prone to all weak affections and dispositions of mind, more than men be; and lighter they be and more vain in their fantasies and opinions.”
According to Article 35 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Homily contains “a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times”.
Some authors have tried to say that the facts of history are other than what they really were. But there is nothing to be gained by pretending.
The development of views about women in the early years after the New Testament period is not very clear. But from around the beginning of the third century AD, there was a remarkable consistency in the Church’s traditional majority view of women, until the twentieth century.
The majority opinion was that women were generally less intelligent, less able to reason, more prone to sin, and unfit for the kinds of leadership which men were able to provide.
2. The historic reasons for prohibiting leadership by women
In the traditional majority view, women’s innate inferiority of nature justified their inferiority of position.
Because of their inferior nature, they needed to be subject to men’s leadership in all matters of importance.
In about 400, John Chrysostom put it like this:
“If the more important, most beneficial concerns were turned over to the woman, she would go quite mad. Therefore God did not apportion both duties to one sex . . . Nor did God assign both to be equal in every way . . . But taking precautions at one and the same time for peace and for decency, God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of human life into two parts and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman. God’s plan was extremely desirable for us . . . so that a woman would not rebel against the husband due to the inferiority of her service” (The Kind of Women Who Ought to Be Taken As Wives, trans. by Elizabeth Clark in Women in the Early Church, 37)
In 1597, the respected theologian Richard Hooker explained that men must make decisions for women because of women’s natural inferiority and imbecility:
“[T]hings equal in every respect are never willingly directed one by another: woman therefore was even in her first estate framed by Nature, not only after in time, but inferior in excellency also unto man . . . [I]n ancient times . . . women . . . were in marriage delivered unto their husbands by others. Which custom retained hath still this use, that it putteth women in mind of a duty whereunto the very imbecility of their nature and sex doth bind them; namely to be always directed, guided and ordered by others.” (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 5.73)
With this view of women, it appeared obvious that men should be the leaders in all walks of life, whether in society generally or in the Church.
At different times, many additional reasons were given for excluding women from leadership in the Church:
- Natural propriety and the unseemliness of government by women.
- The Levitical priesthood was all-male.
- Women were unclean because they menstruated.
- The Twelve Apostles were men.
- Only men were in the image of God.
- Only men were perfect members of the Church; women were imperfect members.
- Only a person with a male body could represent Christ at the Eucharist.
But among all this variety, the driving influence was the settled belief that women were naturally inferior to men in their nature. William Witt summarizes the outcome of a wide historical survey:
“From a variety of sources—eastern, western, patristic, medieval, Reformation, Catholic, Protestant—the following has been the key argument: women cannot be ordained or indeed exercise any positions of leadership in the church because of an inherent ontological incapacity. Women were characterized as less intelligent, more sinful, more susceptible to temptation, emotionally unstable, incapable of exercising leadership.” (Icons of Christ, 28–29)
3. Traditional interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12–14
Chrysostom offers the fullest discussions of these verses which come down to us from the Church Fathers.
In his Homily 31 on Romans, he mentions the teaching ministry of Mary of Rome, and offers his explanation of how her ministry may be reconciled with what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:
“In what sense then does he say, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach?’ He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching.”
Chrysostom offers the same explanation for the teaching ministry of Priscilla (First Homily on Priscilla and Aquila).
The bema is the raised platform reserved for the official clergy. Chrysostom’s explanation is uncharacteristically lame. Paul cannot have meant in 1 Timothy 2:12 that a woman should not teach in public from the bema, for Paul knew nothing of fourth-century churches meeting in public basilicas with a raised platform occupied by official clergy.
Chrysostom’s longest discussion of the verses is in his Homily 9 on 1 Timothy. As might be expected, his exposition is driven by his view of the moral and intellectual weakness of women, and on woman’s consequent responsibility for the Fall. He says:
“. . . let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. ‘For Adam,’ says he, ‘was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’
“If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. . . . . . . For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. . . .
“. . . The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but ‘the woman,’ which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.” [emphases added]
The idea that Paul was banning all women from teaching because of the moral and intellectual weakness of women’s nature was very persistent. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament explained Paul’s reference to the woman being deceived: “this shows why she ought not ‘to teach’. She is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives.” In 2004, US pastor Mark Driscoll wrote in a theology series for his Mars Hill Church: “when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men.”
We should also notice the oldest understanding of Paul’s Greek verb authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12. In this verse, Paul is not permitting a woman to overmaster a man. The oldest understanding can be seen in the early versions which translated Paul’s letter into other languages.
The Peshitta, in Syriac (around second to fifth century), uses a word for authenteō which means “dare against” / “lord it over” / “be presumptuous over”. The third century Coptic version translates it with a word that means “be lord of”, and the fourth century Gothic version uses a word that means either “lord it over” or “usurp authority”. (See Belleville in Discovering Biblical Equality, 3rd edn, 210-211.) In the Vulgate, the Latin verb used for authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 is the same as in 1 Peter 5:3, where Peter forbids church elders to “overmaster” or “lord it over” the flock.
Now we are in a position to see to what extent complementarian and egalitarian views are novel or historic.
1. Complementarian and egalitarian views on women’s nature
Genesis 1 presents man and woman as created in God’s image and as joint rulers over creation.
In line with this, Jesus treated women with respect, as full human beings. He never said or even implied anything even remotely like the traditional view of women’s inferiority of nature.
Both complementarians and egalitarians take their cue from Genesis 1 and from Jesus. They are united in rejecting the traditional majority view that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men. They reject it because it is unbiblical.
The complementarian Danvers Statement says: “Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons . . .”
Complementarian scholar Tom Schreiner emphasizes:
“Not only are both males and females made in God’s image, but also they are equally in God made in his image. No evidence exists that males somehow reflect God’s image more than females.” (Two Views on Women in Ministry, 272)
Egalitarians agree.
This view of men and women is novel in the sense that it is different from the traditional majority view.
But it is historic in the sense that it is based on what the Bible teaches.
And in church history, there have been minority voices which affirmed it. For example, in the fourth century Basil the Great referred to Genesis 1:27 and affirmed that women, like men, are according to the image of God. He added a ringing affirmation of the moral and intellectual equality of their human nature with men’s: “The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike.” (On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1)
2. Complementarian and egalitarian views on leadership by women
The egalitarian view on leadership by women is straightforward: there are no special restrictions. In the Church, leadership depends on God’s calling and God’s gifting. Egalitarians believe this view to be biblical. But through most of church history, it has been a minority position. The historic existence of this position is evidenced by official decrees which were issued to put a stop to women’s leadership.
Complementarian scholars believe that there ought to be some restriction on leadership by women. But they have many different views on the extent of the proper restrictions. So the Danvers Statement says, with unavoidable vagueness, “some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men”.
We will not adjudicate here on the extent to which the modern outlook which is called complementarianism is biblical. We will only compare it with the traditional majority view on leadership by women to see how far it is novel.
This comparison shows it to be novel in two notable ways:
- Within complementarianism there is a wide range of views on the particular kinds and circumstances of leadership from which women should be prohibited. But historically, women were believed to be unsuitable for all forms of leadership.
- In complementarianism, the central justification for prohibiting women from certain kinds of leadership is the idea that God has allocated different “roles” to men and to women. Complementarianism took its novel terminology of differing “roles” from modern sociology. It was not used historically in biblical exegesis, nor is it found in the Bible. Historically, the driving reason for keeping women away from leadership was not an allocation of “roles” but their natural incapacity.
3. Complementarian and egalitarian views on 1 Timothy 2:12–14
Complementarians and egalitarians have differing views on the intent of Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12. Egalitarians understand him to be prescribing a remedy for a local situation, which he illustrates by his reference to Adam and Eve in verses 13–14. Complementarians understand him to be stating some kind of general rule which expresses a principle of male-over-female authority.
Complementarian and egalitarian interpretations are both equally novel in rejecting the majority historic understanding that Paul’s instruction is founded on women’s moral and intellectual inferiority.
But there is an interesting difference between complementarians and egalitarians when we come to consider the meaning of Paul’s word authenteō in verse 12.
Complementarian interpretations reject the earliest understanding, that it means “overmaster”, “lord it over” or similar. They take this word to refer to the proper exercise of authority in the church by a male church elder: this is something that a woman must not do, because she is a woman.
In contrast, egalitarians agree with and adopt the earliest understanding of the meaning of authenteō. This is something which even a male elder ought not to do. Elders are expressly forbidden to lord it over the flock.
Novel or historic?
The answer is complex.
Both sides reject the traditional majority view of women’s nature as morally and intellectually inferior to men’s.
Both sides reject the complete ban on leadership by women. Egalitarians maintain no ban at all. Complementarians maintain a variety of limited prohibitions, based on a novel idea of allocation of differing roles.
Both sides reject the traditional interpretation of Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 as being founded on women’s moral and intellectual inferiority.
Egalitarians accept the earliest understanding of Paul’s rare Greek verb authenteō in verse 12, but complementarians reject it.
In sum, it is certainly wrong to say that egalitarianism is novel while complementarianism is historic.
Explore Further
For more on complementarianism, egalitarianism, and church history, see Bartlett, True Complementarity: The Way of Christ for Men and Women, chapters 2, 5 and 23, and Williams, How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy, chapters 2–3.
For more on 1 Timothy 2:12, see Williams, How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy, chapter 7, and Bartlett, True Complementarity: The Way of Christ for Men and Women, chapters 23-29.