Christians generally take one of two views regarding women’s roles in the church—either the complementarian view, or the egalitarian (or biblical mutualist) view.
Complementarians believe men and women share equal value, but have different God-given roles. (What this means in plain English is women are restricted from certain leadership roles in complementarian churches because of their gender.)
Egalitarians believe men and women are created for partnership and should be treated equally, including serving as leaders in the church.
In the ongoing debate on this topic, I’ve observed a few accusations which complementarians seem to commonly make about egalitarians. Let’s examine these claims to see if they are valid.
1. Complementarians sometimes claim that egalitarians say men and women are the same.
After all, egalitarians believe the two sexes should be treated equally.
However, it only takes a simple grasp of the English language to understand “equal” does not mean “same.” According to Meriam Webster’s:
Same: identical with or similar to another; resembling in every relevant respect; corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable.
Equal: to be identical in value to.
Equality: like for each member of a group, class, or society.
Egalitarians believe women and men are distinct, but should be treated equally rather than one being subservient to the other. To claim this means egalitarians think men and women are the same is silly semantics at best; at worst, it’s dishonest.
2. Complementarians sometimes accuse egalitarians of holding a low view of Scripture.
They think the reason egalitarians believe women should be allowed leadership responsibilities in the church is they don’t believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God.
However, evangelical egalitarians believe men and women should be treated equally because of their high view of Scripture. They believe complementarians have incorrectly interpreted a handful of passages to build a doctrine which excludes gifted and called women from serving the church in leadership capacities.
Between evangelical egalitarians and complementarians, the debate does not center on who holds a high view of Scripture, but rather, on how Scripture is interpreted by each side.
3. Complementarians sometimes say that egalitarians merely follow culture.
They allow women to take on leadership responsibilities in the church because second-wave feminism in the 1960’s informed their view.
However, this claim ignores church history. Many theologically conservative, doctrinally orthodox denominations have been ordaining women long before the sixties, such as Assemblies of God, Foursquare, First Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal Holiness, to name just a few.
Ironically, it is complementarians who go along with culture—not today’s culture, but that of ancient Greece and Rome.
In New Testament times, a strictly hierarchical society favored men and subordinated women. Complementarians see this model as prescriptive for our day.
But when Paul discusses household codes or talks about temporary rules for women in his epistles, his instructions help New Testament churches present a radical, table-turning gospel in such a way that outsiders are not unnecessarily offended.
Paul’s principle applies today: make the gospel appealing, and don’t offend the people who need it.
In New Testament times, that meant making sure Christian women didn’t appear to be rebellious to the Greco-Roman social order.
But in our day, when a woman can head up a large company or run for president, a hierarchical view which subjugates women to men makes the gospel repugnant.
To summarize, evangelical egalitarians hold to a high view of Scripture. They believe men and women are distinct but should be treated as equals in the church. They present the empowering, liberating, inclusive gospel without setting the stumbling block of hierarchy in peoples’ way.
If you are complementarian, you can certainly disagree with your egalitarian sisters and brothers—but please don’t make false claims about them.
