Back in the day, my Bible college professor would jokingly quote the old adage, ‘I don’t smoke, drink or chew, or go with those who do.” He’d grown up in the Pentecostal Holiness movement, where even playing cards or bowling were seen as sinful.
Photo by Jim Petkiewicz on Unsplash
Today, most Christians don’t hold to strict rules against ballroom dancing or enjoying a glass of wine. Yet there’s an insidious form of legalism running rampant in the church.
Legalism is adding man-made rules to the Word of God, calling things sinful which God does not.
It is based on works (the belief one can earn God’s favor through religious performance). It traps the believer in an endless cycle of “try-hard Christianity,” promising rewards for compliance which never materialize.
(Think of the Pharisees and the traditions they added to Scripture.)
Legalism is the opposite of grace. Its bad fruit includes exhaustion, bondage, fear, pride, judgmentalism, and even abuse.
Recently, I was surprised to encounter legalism coming from a source I hadn’t considered.
On the heels of Al Mohler’s proposed amendment for the SBC to tighten up their stance on women preaching, Alisa Childers interviewed Denny Burk, president of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, on common questions surrounding the egalitarian complementarian debate.
Childers asks,
“What are the biblical parameters for women in ministry? Is it wrong for a woman to have a podcast? Is it wrong for a woman to preach a sermon if she’s doing so under the authority of the male church elders?”
With growing dismay, I listened to Childers and Burk discuss the wide spectrum of opinions on what women may not do in the church.
Like other forms of legalism, complementarianism is far from unified on exactly what’s against the rules. The one thing adherents do agree on is women should be restricted from church leadership on some level.
Aligning with Burk on forbidding women pastors, Childers says,
“…you don’t want to be on the side of just seeing what you can get away with… I’m always thinking not what can I get away with, how far can I take this, but I would rather err on the side of being careful.”
To those trapped in legalism, rule-keeping feels safer than freedom in Christ.
I can’t adequately address all the problematic comments in this interview in one post (for example, Burk’s take on preaching as commanding people what to do), but here’s one important takeaway:
Complementarianism is legalistic, and legalism produces confusion and anxiety.
Gender roles are greatly emphasized by complementarians, though the term “roles” is not found in Scripture.
They claim that male rule was established before sin entered the picture, though they must insert numerous assumptions into the text of Genesis 2 (at least six, up to thirteen) to do so.
They read 1 Tim. 2:12-14 as Paul referring to a creation principle of male-over-female authority and thus conclude it is wrong for women to have authority over men because that would violate God’s creation design (part of his revealed will).
(Find brief discussions of key passages on the complementarian/egalitarian debate at Full Complementarity.org.)
Consider the words of Andrew Bartlett,
“To disobey God’s revealed will is sin. To do so knowingly is rebellion against God. Accordingly, the Danvers statement says that it is sinful for women to ‘resist limitations on their roles (Danvers Statement, Affirmation 4).’”[i]
But gender roles is a man-made concept, so resistance to it cannot rightly be called sinful. What is sinful is adding extra rules to the Word of God.
In promoting male headship and female subordination, complementarians often employ the euphemism, “God’s beautiful design.”
In reality, the doctrine is neither beautiful, nor God’s design.
It’s legalism.
In his recent article Complementarian Obsolescence, Nick O’Brien tells the story of a complementarian woman who went to a church-based counselor because of her husband’s abusive behavior.
The counselor said he’d advised many wives about this very issue. His solution to the problem? She should honor her husband more and submit to him better.
This scenario has played out countless times for complementarian women—the receipts keep piling up—and no wonder.
Legalism says, “Just try harder.” Like the proverbial carrot dangling in front of the donkey, it offers the false promise of a reward if you’ll just put in more effort.
The Childers/Burk interview offers insight into the regrettable nature of complementarianism.
Mucking around in the weeds of religious nitpicking about women, splitting hairs over what a woman may not say on her own podcast in 2026—these are hardly effective ways to let the gospel shine.
Biblical mutuality is neither confusing nor confining.
Mutuality offers women freedom and a place at the table. It restores their voices and their dignity—and not just in word. It entrusts them with any and all leadership responsibilities to which God calls them instead of dismissing their discernment of his call as mistaken.
Complementarianism offers women “roles,” rules, restrictions, and try-hard religion.
What a pathetic aberration of the gospel of grace.
***
I break down the main arguments in the complementarian/egalitarian debate in my newly updated book, Prophesying Daughters: How Prophetic Ministry and Women in Leadership Strengthen the Church. Grab it and the study guide for under $20. Also available in audio book and eBook!
[i] Bartlett, Andrew (2026, August 7). Finding the Big Points: What Really Matters in the Biblical Equality Debate [Workshop presentation]. Christians for Biblical Equality Conference, Chicago, IL.
Leave a Reply