Complementarity and the Cost of Compromise

Nicholas W. Evans

Few issues in our culture have changed as rapidly over the last fifty years as our understanding of men and women. Questions that previous generations considered obvious are now fiercely debated. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? Are men and women fundamentally different, or are those differences merely the product of culture and expectation? And if there are differences, do those differences have any implications for the home, the church, or society?

After previously addressing Dr. Mohler’s Truth and Unity Amendment from this year’s SBC in Orlando, I thought it would be helpful to show how Christians have historically answered those questions.  To do this, we don’t begin by looking to sociology, politics, or personal experience. We begin where the Bible begins: creation.

God’s Good Design

Scripture tells us that God created mankind in His image, "male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). Men and women are therefore equal in dignity, equal in worth, and equal in value before God. Both bear His image, are fallen in Adam, and are redeemed by grace through faith in Christ.

At the same time, Scripture teaches that equality in worth does not require sameness. Men and women were created by God to complement one another, not to be interchangeable. Their differences are expressions of God's wise and good design for humanity.

“Men and women were created by God to complement one another, not to be interchangeable. Their differences are expressions of God’s wise and good design for humanity.”

These distinctions appear first in the home. Husbands are called to sacrificial leadership that reflects Christ's love for His church, while wives are called to submission that reflects the church's joyful submission to Christ (Eph. 5:22–33). These distinctions then extend to the church, where Scripture reserves the office and function of pastor or elder for qualified men (1 Tim. 2:11–14; 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9).

Importantly, the apostles do not ground these instructions in the customs of first-century Ephesus or in assumptions about women's abilities. Paul roots his argument in creation itself: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13). The argument Paul makes is creational, not cultural. 

Complementarity does not deny the gifts or usefulness of women in Christ's church. Quite the opposite. The New Testament presents women praying, prophesying, discipling younger women, supporting missionaries, serving the saints, and laboring alongside the apostles in the work of the gospel. Every Christian man and woman receives gifts from the Holy Spirit for the building up of Christ's body.

The Bible’s responsibilities and restrictions for the sexes are reflections of creation principles evident in natural differences between men and women, but they cannot be boiled down to a simple question of personal gifting. There is a difference between possessing the ability to do something and possessing the authority to do it. A police officer's authority does not arise from his intelligence, charisma, or physical strength but from the office he occupies and the authority delegated to him. In much the same way, Christ has established offices within His church and attached particular responsibilities and authority to those offices. The issue before the church is whether Christ has the authority to determine how His church is ordered and whether churches possess the authority to alter that order.

God’s Design Challenged

For most of Christian history, the church spoke with remarkable unity on the question of men and women in the home and church. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists all understood the office of pastor or elder to be reserved for qualified men. The modern debate over complementarity did not arise because Christians suddenly discovered new biblical evidence. It arose because broader cultural developments caused many Christians to revisit questions that previous generations believed Scripture had already answered. Much of that story begins with the rise of modern feminism.

During the earliest waves of feminism women pursued protections under the law, access to education, property rights, and eventually the right to vote. During the twentieth century, however, portions of the feminist movement began openly pursuing something more ambitious than legal equality. 

Thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir argued that womanhood was not rooted in creation, biology, or nature but was largely a social construct imposed by society. If differences between men and women are merely the product of culture, then distinctions in marriage, family life, or church leadership increasingly come to be viewed as injustices to be dismantled.

These assumptions did not remain outside the church for long. By the middle of the twentieth century, many Christians had begun asking whether Scripture's teaching on men and women reflected timeless truths rooted in creation or merely accommodated the patriarchal assumptions of the ancient world. Were Paul's instructions regarding eldership intended for all churches in all times, or were they simply temporary restrictions appropriate for first-century Ephesus? Could the church preserve the spirit of Scripture while moving beyond some of its specific instructions? These questions gave rise to what became known as evangelical egalitarianism, the belief that Scripture permits both men and women to serve interchangeably in the offices of the church and in the leadership of the home.

It was in response to these developments that the modern complementarian movement emerged. In 1987, a group of evangelical pastors and scholars founded the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and in 1988 they published the Danvers Statement. Leaders such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Thomas Schreiner, and others were attempting to defend what Christians had historically believed while articulating it in language suited for a new cultural moment.

In fact, the term complementarian itself is relatively new. While the label is novel, the doctrine is ancient. The church found itself needing a new vocabulary to defend historic Christian convictions. 

Counting the Cost

At this point, you may be wondering why Southern Baptists care so deeply about this issue. If women love Christ, faithfully teach Scripture, and serve the church well, why should disagreements over the pastoral office become matters of denominational cooperation or confessional clarity?

It is important to recognize that the debate over complementarity may begin by addressing who is allowed to preach from the pulpit on Sunday mornings, but it never seems to end there. Rather, it tends to become a test case for a much larger question: When Scripture conflicts with the assumptions of the surrounding culture, which one will ultimately govern the church? That question helps explain why the issue of men and women in the church has often functioned as a bellwether issue in broader theological disputes.

Consider the interpretive approach of egalitarianism. For centuries Christians understood texts such as 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 to establish a universal pattern for church leadership rooted in creation itself. But beginning in the twentieth century, many argued that these texts were not intended as permanent norms for the church but were accommodations to the cultural realities of the ancient world. The significance of that interpretive move is difficult to overstate.

Once the church concludes that clear apostolic instruction may be set aside because it reflects ancient cultural assumptions rather than enduring truths, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why the same principle should not apply elsewhere.

This pattern has appeared repeatedly over the last fifty years. In 1974, a group of evangelical leaders founded Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) under the leadership of Ron Sider. The organization sought to encourage evangelicals toward greater concern for social issues such as poverty, racial injustice, and peace. One of those many issues also involved a more egalitarian view of the sexes. Yet within little more than a decade the movement had become deeply divided over questions of homosexuality and sexual ethics. By the mid-1980s, many within the movement were advocating positions on homosexuality that departed from historic evangelical teaching, forcing those opposing it to separate from the organization altogether. 

The same pattern appeared in virtually every mainline protestant denomination that embraced a more egalitarian view of gender roles. 

  • The Presbyterian Church (USA) began ordaining women in 1956 and approved the ordination of openly practicing homosexual ministers in 2011.

  • The Episcopal Church approved women priests in 1976 and consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003.

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America inherited women's ordination from its predecessor bodies in 1988 and voted in 2009 to permit pastors in publicly accountable same-sex relationships.

  • Most recently, the United Methodist Church, which granted full clergy rights to women in 1956, removed its long-standing prohibitions on practicing homosexual clergy in 2024.

This does not mean that every single church that ordains female clergy will then immediately compromise on issues of sexual ethics, but the shift given generations of time seems inevitable with the historical perspective of mainline protestantism in view. There are egalitarian Christians who remain committed to historic Christian orthodoxy on these matters, but the method of interpretation they utilize may be used in different ways by their successors given time.

“The deeper question at play is whether the church possesses the authority to revise apostolic teaching when it comes into conflict with the moral instincts of the age. History suggests that once a church answers that question incorrectly, the consequences rarely remain confined to a single doctrine.”

The arguments used to revise the church's teaching on the pastoral office often reappear in later debates over sexuality, marriage, and gender. In these arguments Biblical prohibitions are described as culturally conditioned. The church is encouraged by this approach to move beyond the limitations of earlier generations in the name of justice and equality. Whether applied to the pastorate, marriage, or sexual ethics, the hermeneutic remains remarkably similar.

Complementarity has served as a bellwether issue and that’s why Baptists have chosen to address it with the urgency it requires. The deeper question at play is whether the church possesses the authority to revise apostolic teaching when it comes into conflict with the moral instincts of the age. History suggests that once a church answers that question incorrectly, the consequences rarely remain confined to a single doctrine.

All of this helps explain why Southern Baptists are so concerned with this issue and see the Truth and Unity Amendment as something that is necessary. The amendment passed by Southern Baptists this year seeks to add clarity to the convictions that we already hold. History suggests that questions surrounding men and women in the church rarely remain isolated to a single doctrine. Being good stewards of our denomination therefore requires us to carefully define these categories and protect them before confusion takes root.

ArticleNicholas EvansCovenant Baptist ChurchSBC Annual Meeting, Truth and Unity Ammendment, Pastors, Women in Ministry, Women Pastors, Unity, Complementarianism, Biblical Manhood and Womanhood