CONCLUSION

Genesis 1-3 is a crucial passage. It is not an overstatement to suggest that the complementarian case stands or falls on whether or not it can be established from these chapters that the man had authority over the woman before the fall. The complementarian case is that a principle of male authority is established in Genesis 2 based on the order of creation and thus male authority and female subordination, rather than the equality of the sexes, is the creation ideal. These days, however, they acknowledge that both men and women have been given equal authority to rule over creation, and because of this they see the principle of exclusively male authority applying only in the church and in the home.

We have already noted the problem with this - that it makes Genesis 2 appear to contradict Genesis 1. The question that arises for complementarians is that if men and women have been given equal authority to rule over creation, then why would it be any different in the church or in the home? If the principle of equal partnership and shared leadership is established by Genesis 1: 26-28, then why would the church and the home be excepted from this? 

Michael Bird expresses the problem this way:

'The problem I have is that some complementarians appeal to Genesis and the order of creation to show that it is inherently wrong for a woman to be in a position of authority over a man and yet they only apply that restriction to church life or Sunday worship. If it is such a clear violation of God’s ordering of creation for a woman to have authority over a man, then this should apply to all spheres of life, whether it is business, government, politics, civil service or church because God is sovereign over all institutions and all of life is lived before God and under God.'1

Historically speaking, prior to 1960 it was almost universally argued that women were to be subordinate to men in the home, in the church and in society. So on what basis do complementarians now allow women to lead in society but not in the church and in the home? It seems to me that, although they will not admit this, the only reason they have for granting that men and women may equally be allowed to lead in society is because it would be impossible to maintain with any credibility in today’s world that only men should be leaders in areas such as education, politics and business. But if Genesis 1: 26-28 permits men and women equally to lead in society, then why should they not equally be allowed to lead in the church and in the home? And on the other hand if Genesis 2 teaches that because men were created first and women second women should be subordinate to men, why would this apply only in the church and in the home and not in the rest of society?

It seems to me therefore that neither in Genesis 1 nor in Genesis 2 is there any textual warrant for differentiating between the home, the church and society in relation to the subordination of women. Either men and women are equally called to lead in every sphere of life or in none. If subordination is the creation ideal - then surely it must apply not only in the church and in the home but in society as well. But complementarian theologians are strangely silent about this.

Terran Williams sums up the problem with any restriction of the application of the subordination of women to one or two spheres only as follows:

‘If the complementarian uses ‘creation order’ as a basis for banning women from leading, or co-leading with men in the church and home - then this applies to all of society, too. Creation, theologically, extends to every sphere. Adam and Eve were not only the first family and the first church, they were also the first community of humans, the seed of society itself. Though I do not agree with John Piper’s view, I commend him for being consistent. Creation, he thinks, limits women (not only in the home but) in ecclesial and societal structures too. He affirmingly quotes another theologian: ‘Genesis 2 convinces me that the man-woman relationship is intrinsically non-reversible. (A) female boss (who) has a male secretary...will put strain on the humanity of both parties. This is part of...creation, a given fact that nothing will change.’2

When it comes to Genesis 2 we have argued that Adam did have a leadership role of some kind in the garden. But how is this to be applied? Does it mean that men are to lead and women to submit to their leadership in every aspect of life? 

The whole point of the second half of the creation account in Genesis 2 - from verses 18-25 - is to establish the equality and complementarity of the man and the woman in marriage. This is how the narrator explains the point of the story when he says in verse 24: 'That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’. This is the only explicit point the narrator makes. We may make other inferences of our own but this is what the narrator wants us to understand. The story has not been told to establish the authority of the man over the woman, as complementarians like to argue, but to reinforce what is said in Genesis 1 and apply it to the marriage relationship. Men and women are designed to be both equal and complementary and this is intended to be seen especially in the way husbands and wives relate together in marriage.

The narrative structure of verses 18-24 reinforces this conclusion. The problem is stated in verse 18 when God says: 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' In verses 19-20 we read of Adam's search for a mate but from among the animals 'no suitable helper was found'. Finally God takes one of Adam's ribs and uses it to make the woman. The climax then comes in verse 23 when Adam declares Eve to be ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’. 

Mary L Conway comments:

Marriage in Genesis 2: 24 is described as the man (ish) and the woman (ishah) returning to 'one flesh' again, a re-union and completion of their shared humanity after the separation of the woman from the man. It also emphasizes the similarity and equality between men and women. Indeed, that the man calls the woman 'bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh' (Genesis 2:2 3) implies equality and similarity, not subordination or inferiority.'3

Genesis 2 relates to marriage. Whatever authority the man was given to rule over and subdue the earth in verses 4-17 he now shares equally with his wife in verses 18-25. That, as the first to be created, the man is made responsible for ensuring that all this happens as it should may be taken to mean that he has a leadership role that the woman does not have but this is a role that is to be exercised in marriage only and it is, as we have said, the kind of leadership that exists between two equals rather than the kind that exists when one is subordinate to the other. 

Nowhere in the Bible is it ever stated that because the man was created first, he has any authority to rule over the woman or that the woman is in any way inferior or subordinate to him. The creation ideal is the equality of the sexes in leadership rather than the subordination of the one to the other and Genesis 2 only reinforces this ideal and applies it to marriage. 

When Jesus refers to the fact that God created human beings both male and female, He too understands the primary application of this to be in relation to marriage. He quotes and endorses the conclusion of the author of Genesis in Matthew 19: 5 confirming that the Creator's intention is that: 'a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'.

It is true that Paul sees further significance in the fact that the man was created first and applies this in other ways in both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 but, as we shall see, in neither case does he suggest that there is a creation principle of male leadership that extends beyond marriage. Thus, in my view, there is no basis to be found in Genesis 2 for excluding women from leadership roles either in the church or anywhere else in society.

Kevin Giles sums up what we find in Genesis 1-3 as follows:

‘Genesis 1 and 2 teach the substantial equality of the two differentiated sexes. Genesis 3: 16 makes the subordination of women entirely a consequence of the fall. It is only after they have both sinned that the man begins to rule over the woman. This is not the creation ideal. It reflects life in our fallen world.’4

And Graham Joseph Hill puts it this way:

‘Genesis 1–3 proposes the full dignity and equality of women and men - a beautiful, equal partnership characterised by unity, difference, love, co-stewardship and intimacy with God and each other. Hierarchy and conflict only emerge as a result of the fall and are not God’s ideal. All the best modern, Christian, evangelical scholarship agrees on this point. Only complementarians disagree, and that’s because their interpretation of Pauline passages becomes very weak once they concede this point.’5

Kevin Giles goes on to say that a clear hermeneutical rule for dealing with apparently conflicting texts with regard to male-female relationships in the Bible emerges from Genesis 1–3. It is this:

‘All texts that imply or speak of the substantial and essential equality of the two sexes reflect the creation-given ideal; all texts that imply or speak of the subordination of women reflect the fall. They are not the God-given ideal. They either mirror the culture of the time or give practical time-bound advice to women living in a world where their subordination is assumed or address an exceptional situation where the behaviour of some women is causing offence. All evangelicals who want to uphold the theological unity of Scripture should be pleased to embrace this rule.’4

It seems to me that once we accept that ‘the substantial and essential equality of the sexes reflects the creation-given ideal’, at least two problems are immediately resolved. Firstly, it means that there is no longer any danger that our teaching will seem to put power into the hands of men and be used to justify abuse. And we will be free to speak out unequivocally against any form of abuse that results from gender inequality in our society.

Secondly it will help us to avoid endless debate about what women can and cannot do in church life. One of the biggest difficulties that complementarians face is that of determining how to apply the principle of male leadership in a local church setting. According to Marg Mowczko:

In an article entitled ‘But What Should Women Do in the Church?’6 Wayne Grudem has gone to the trouble of painstakingly listing 83 church ministries in what he sees as decreasing order of the ‘authority’ and ‘influence’ needed to minister and participate in these ministries. He has categorised these 83 ministries into three lists. List 1 includes ministries that involve ‘governing authority’; List 2 includes ministries that involve Bible teaching; List 3 includes ministries that involve public visibility and recognition.

There is no doubt that the lists were compiled so that a line could be drawn somewhere, and that women be excluded from the ministries ranking above this arbitrary line. Grudem himself is vague about where exactly this line is to be drawn. The position of this line, in fact, varies from denomination to denomination, and congregation to congregation. Few congregations, however, do not have any line, either explicitly stated or implicitly understood, that excludes women from the ‘top-ranked’ roles and positions.’7

This all seems very legalistic and Pharisaical to me – a million miles away from the freedom from bondage to written rules and regulations that Jesus offers. How freeing it is in my view to be able to answer all of the questions listed in the chapter on Framing The Debate with a straight ‘yes.’ We can leave the ‘gnats’ of gender difference behind and concentrate on the ‘camels’ of character, gifting and calling when appointing leaders.

Accepting that the equality of the sexes rather than the hierarchy of one over the other is the creation ideal is I believe a paradigm shift that will alter the way you interpret every other passage in the Bible that relates to men and women. 

You will see the patriarchal culture that pervades the Old Testament as the result of the fall and when you discover that there were women who were recognised and accepted as leaders in Israel in spite of this, you will detect the beginnings of God's plan to restore the creation ideal of full equality between men and women. Then when you read of how Jesus broke all the conventions of his day in relation to women - allowing them to sit as his feet as his disciples, for example - and when you read Romans 16 and see the remarkable number of women that Paul regarded as his co-workers and commended for their ministry you will see God's plan to restore women to full equality in ministry with men become even clearer. 

And when it comes to the tricky passages in Paul's letters in regard to what he says about women, you will know that he cannot possibly be silencing them or excluding them from church leadership on any permanent basis for this would be contrary to his own practice and to the overall flow of Scripture. And so you will be forced to look more carefully at what Paul says and the context in which he says it in order to understand what he means and how it applies to us. 

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Next we will consider the part that women played in the rest of the Old Testament.

Notes

1. Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives and Bobby Haircuts: A Case for Gender Equality by Michael F Bird

2. How God Sees Women by Terran Williams

3. Mary L Conway in Discovering Biblical Equality edited by Ronald W Pierce

4. The Headship Of Men And The Abuse of Women by Kevin Giles

5. Holding Up Half The Sky by Graham Joseph Hill

6. http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1-2.pdf

7. https://margmowczko.com/wayne-grudem-women-in-church