Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian

Part 7 of My Gender Role Journey

Another requirement for the class, “Race, Gender, and the American Church,” was reading the book, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian, by Michelle Lee-Barnewall. This seemed like a safe entry point to begin my research on gender because it did not advocate for either side but sought to reframe the discussion. A complementarian wrote the forward, and an egalitarian wrote the afterword. I wondered if, like many topics in theology, there was a third way between the two poles of thought on gender roles. Lee-Barnewall explores key biblical themes that focuses the gender discussion on the example of Christ, rather than the differences that divide.

Recently there seems to be an increased discussion in Christian circles about the “narrative arc of scripture.” Our family’s favorite children’s Bible communicates that “every story whispers his name” and says there is one story beneath all the stories.[1] Scripture is not disjointed bits and unrelated tales but an interconnected tapestry. We need to examine it closely, but we will not appreciate it fully if we only view it up close. We also need to survey it broadly to notice the interconnecting themes. Lee-Barnewall does this by showing that scripture often includes the themes of reversal, inclusion, and God’s kingdom expanding.[2] From the moment Adam and Eve are excluded from God’s presence in the Garden of Eden, the narrative arc of scripture is moving toward the total restoration of that fellowship through an inclusive community spreading throughout the world. Beginning with the promise to one man, Abraham, God will bless him and through him, bless all nations. Although there had been restrictions on who was allowed to enter God’s presence, through Christ, all are now welcome. The gospel was offered to all, but to the Jew first and then to the Greek (Rom 1:16). In the New Testament, the Spirit was poured out on men and women, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor. God’s kingdom is characterized by unity among diverse people. This was not necessarily to demonstrate that all people were equal, rather it proved everyone was invited to be part of God’s kingdom.

Lee-Barnewall’s book also included a detailed discussion of different interpretations of Genesis 1-3. I knew of the complementarian view that Adam was created first as the leader but forsook his leadership role and allowed Eve to lead him into the fall. However, in Genesis 1 and 2 we don’t see any indication of authority or leadership instituted between them, but rather they are co-regents. Some point to Adam’s being created first to indicate he is designated as the leader, yet the animals were created before him and are not granted authority over humanity. While the Genesis passages do detail the creation of man and woman, differences in authority are not the focus. Rather, the creation narrative revolves around Adam’s relationship to God’s command and the unity of Adam and Eve.[3] They are each given different charges, and both fail. Yet, the good news of the gospel is that in Christ’s obedience he succeeds where they failed and reverses the effects of their sin. There are more fruitful ways to approach this passage than looking for an institution of hierarchical gender roles.

Some will point to Eve being created as a helper (ezer) for Adam as proof of her subordinate role. Yet, this is drawing more on our English connotations of the word helper rather than the original Hebrew meaning. Many have drawn attention to the fact that God is the one who is most often referred to as Israel’s ezer and the term is never used to indicate someone who is in a subservient position.[4] In fact, the ezer is often in a higher position and thus able to offer assistance. We cannot infer that women are created with less authority because she is a helper. It would be just as wrong to read into the passage that Eve has a greater authority because she was last to be formed, the pinnacle of creation, and has a unique ability to give aid to Adam. The passage is not intended to set up a chain of command. We should not approach scripture to get an answer about gender roles if that is not the thrust of the passage. We must allow the scripture to inform us of its message.

Others will point to Adam’s naming of Eve as proof of his special authority over her. However, there are two problems with that idea. First, naming someone (like Hagar does to God in Genesis 16:13) does not necessarily indicate authority over them. Second, Adam didn’t name Eve until after the fall. I think using naming as proof of authority is mixing up Adam’s command to name the animals with Adam and Eve’s joint commission to rule over them. If Genesis 1-2 is meant to set up Adam as a leader, why is there no command similar to the one God gave them both? “Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” This pre-fall passage is about joint rulership over creation. We don’t hear about Adam ruling over Eve until we read the curse in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” How much of Genesis 3 have we been reading into the original design of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? Have we gotten it all backwards? What if man ruling over women, in marriage, in church, in society, is all part of the curse, not God’s good creation order?

Relatedly, I was compelled by Lee-Barnewall’s discussion of the many reversals in scripture.^[5] The meta-narrative of scripture shows that Jesus’s mission was to undo the effects of the fall. In stories throughout scripture, we see reversals illuminating how God works through weak and unexpected people to reveal his upside-down kingdom values. The younger brother is chosen. The army is thinned out before battle. The poor man is commended while the rich man goes to Hades. “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1 Cor 1:27-29). Suddenly, I began to consider that a woman in ministry leadership could be there because God called her to display his power, not because she was striving for her own rights.

Jesus permitted and defended women’s inclusion as his disciples, but one question has nagged me along the way, “if women are permitted to lead, why didn’t Jesus choose any women in his twelve disciples?” Jesus chose twelve Jewish men, a symbolic number to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Yet here we return again to the themes of reversal, inclusion, and expansion. Jesus often praised the faith of Gentiles (Matt 8:10, 15:28) but the Jewish believers had a big problem with including Gentiles in the church. It took a thrice-repeated, miraculous vision to Peter before he consented that, yes, it was part of God’s plan all along that the Gentiles be included in the family of God (Acts 10). Gentiles are now welcomed as leaders in the church, another reversal toward expansion of the kingdom by the inclusion of people formerly considered outsiders. No one says that because there were no Gentiles in the twelve disciples that only Jewish-born believers should now lead in the church. Understanding this has helped me see that Jesus’s choice of twelve disciples was neither an institution of specifically male nor Jewish authority, but a symbolic display of how his kingdom is expanding through those twelve tribes. Similar to how scripture commends of the faith of Gentiles, there are many positive portrayals of female disciples in the gospel accounts that are encouraging and compelling. Lee-Barnewall says, “Not only were women accepted and presented as exemplary disciples, but in a surprising reversal, they are even portrayed as being more faithful than the Twelve.”[6] Many have observed that a woman’s testimony was not accepted in court at that time. It is a shocking reversal that Jesus delays appearing until his male disciples have left the tomb and only the women remain. This is not done to show that women are equal to men, but to upend the expectations of the nature of the Kingdom of God. God includes the outsiders and challenges the traditional categories.

Some proponents for egalitarianism emphasize women’s rights and equality. However, I do not feel a need to have equal opportunities simply for equality’s sake. I only want to be obedient to what God has called me to do in the world. Too many egalitarians lose ground with people who are insistent on submitting to long-held beliefs about God’s apparent restrictions on women. Egalitarianism has been linked with feminism and its political goals and this thwarts opportunities to gain a hearing with conservative complementarians who are wary of liberalism. However, in my continued study on this issue, I now see that the question of women in ministry leadership is not about her right to be there but because she has a responsibility to follow God where he has called her. It is not “Should we take God’s commands seriously?” but rather “What is God commanding?” Perhaps God is calling women, like me, to be the weaker vessel that displays his strength. Women’s gifts are ripe and rotting on the vine while the world is starving. The church remains malnourished because women have been prevented from sharing their fruit. The body of Christ is deficient without the insight of women. The American church is now thwarting the power of the gospel to reverse the harm of patriarchy by contending God’s design for women is to submit and follow men. God has called me to follow his lead and, with Peter I must say, “We must obey God rather than human beings!”

However, following God has cost my family an important source of income, our beloved community, and dear friendships. I feel like I have left Egypt but am now wandering in the wilderness. God remains the good and faithful shepherd, and I would not trade the closeness with him for all the belonging the world has to offer.

---

[1] Sally Lloyd-Jones, The Jesus Storybook Bible (Zondervan, 2010).

[2] Michelle Lee-Barnewall, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate. (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 84

[3] Lee-Barnewall, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian, 144.

[4] Carmen Joy Imes, “Helper: You Keep Using That Word for Women.” Christianity Today, August 30, 2022. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/08/womens-rights-leadership-old-testament-using-word-helper/.

[5] Lee-Barnewall, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian, 76

[6] Lee-Barnewall, Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian, 95.