The Role of Women in the Church: Complementarianism and the Ongoing Debate (Part 2)

There is no doubt that the complementarian view has faced significant criticism in recent years. Many, particularly in popular-level books, argue that some Christian men have used complementarianism to justify chauvinism, holding onto it not out of biblical conviction but to maintain a sense of superiority. However, I firmly believe most complementarians are sincerely striving to interpret Scripture faithfully and align their beliefs with biblical texts. That said, scandals involving complementarian pastors and organizations in recent years cannot be ignored. Even so, it’s important to distinguish between the broader movement of complementarianism and the actual arguments supporting it—which is my goal here.

Last week, we explored four recent contributions to the egalitarian movement, summarizing their arguments and offering a snapshot of where the debate stands today. This week, we’ll shift our focus to complementarianism, highlighting some of the movement’s most influential voices and analyzing the more recent developments within the camp. We'll start with the foundational work of John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

John Piper, Wayne Grudem & Co.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, may not be a recent contribution; it was first published in 1991 and reissued in 2006, but it remains the go-to text for complementarians today. The book is a collection of essays from various scholars and pastors, covering everything from biblical exegesis to cultural commentary on gender roles in modern society. While it's not helpful to summarize each essay here, I focused primarily on the New Testament discussions, which I’ll unpack more fully in a later post. The purpose of this volume is clear: it stands as a direct response to what the authors see as the encroachment of feminism into evangelical theology.

Strengths: One of the book’s key strengths is its comprehensive nature. It's essentially a one-stop resource for the complementarian case, addressing topics like motherhood, masculinity, biblical leadership, and the theological underpinnings of gender roles. The breadth of topics can feel overwhelming at times, but perhaps that’s part of the point—there’s a sense that the authors want to demonstrate the wide-ranging relevance of their position to both church and family life. In one sense, I think this is where some egalitarian works fall short. While egalitarians often make compelling cases for gender equality, they sometimes leave readers wondering: What does this look like in daily life? How does this vision apply to marriage, singleness, parenting, or church leadership? This book, by contrast, attempts to provide both the theory and the practice of complementarianism. Another notable strength is the scholarly depth of the New Testament exegesis. Heavyweights like D.A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, and Doug Moo contribute essays that rigorously engage with the more challenging Pauline texts.

Weaknesses: However, some of the book's strengths also reveal its weaknesses. The sheer ambition of the volume results in a somewhat monolithic view of complementarianism, one that feels rigid at times. For instance, in one essay, Piper suggests that even single women should embrace homemaking, claiming that failing to do so is a dishonor to both themselves and their Creator (37). This struck me as a significant overreach, given the lack of clear biblical support for such a claim. The tone of the book is another sticking point. While many contributors write with academic precision and pastoral care, certain sections adopt a more alarmist posture. The 2006 preface, for example, warns that pastors who embrace egalitarianism are abandoning biblical truth about gender roles. Elsewhere, Piper and Grudem argue that egalitarian logic naturally leads toward affirming same-sex relationships. While it’s true that affirming churches tend to also identify as egalitarian, this supposed inevitability feels more like a rhetorical leap than a solid conclusion. In fairness, egalitarians have made similarly tenuous connections, sometimes attributing instances of domestic abuse to complementarian theology as if correlation equals causation. The reality is more complex on both sides, and both camps would benefit from more careful, less polemical engagement. All in all, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a significant and, at times, provocative resource. It provides a thorough, if occasionally overstated, defense of complementarianism, with some essays standing out as genuinely insightful contributions to the gender debate. Whether you agree or disagree with its conclusions, it’s a book that continues to shape the conversation—and for that reason alone, it’s worth engaging with.

Köstenbergers

Next, we turn to the Köstenberger duo and their book, God's Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey, co-authored by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger. Andreas, a New Testament scholar with a PhD and a robust publishing record, has held various academic positions throughout his career. Margaret, an accomplished author and writer in her own right, brings her own thoughtful voice to the discussion. Together, they attempt something distinctive in this ongoing debate: providing a biblical-theological survey of complementarian gender roles across the entire arc of Scripture. This book aims to demonstrate that the complementarian vision is consistent throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Paul’s letters. The authors argue that the same gender roles established in the Garden remain the ideal design for men and women today. Their approach is both thorough and accessible, systematically working through key biblical figures and passages.

Strengths: One of the book’s greatest strengths is its balance between scholarly rigor and pastoral insight, presenting a compelling case for complementarianism without becoming overly technical or polemical. While intended for a general audience, it doesn’t shy away from difficult texts but instead offers concise, plausible interpretations. The authors introduce readers to major scholarly discussions without getting lost in minutiae, making complex debates approachable. Notably, the book is refreshingly non-dogmatic; rather than attacking opposing views, the authors focus on presenting their case as compelling, good, and true.

Weaknesses: Throughout the book, the authors list nearly every major man and woman in the Bible, suggesting in some sense that because men outnumber women, male leadership is the norm—this is a flawed argument. This observation adds little to the discussion, as the numerical imbalance is undisputed and does not need to imply a theological conclusion. Additionally, while their complementarian readings of New Testament women (e.g., Phoebe not being a formal deacon, Prisca not holding a leadership role) are well-argued, they sometimes feel overly tidy. The authors leave little room for ambiguity, insisting that every case fits their framework, even when the text allows for other possibilities. This rigidity weakens an otherwise strong and thoughtful book. Despite these issues, God’s Design for Man and Woman is a valuable resource for understanding the complementarian perspective. While it hasn’t had the impact it perhaps deserves, it remains a well-crafted, Scripture-wide argument that engages the debate with clarity and grace.

Kevin DeYoung

Next, we turn to Kevin DeYoung’s Men and Women in the Church: A Short, Biblical, Practical Introduction. DeYoung, a prominent voice in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, serves as both a pastor and professor in North Carolina. In this recent work, he aims to provide a concise introduction to complementarianism—something rarely attempted in such a brief format.

Strengths: At just under 80 pages (in the e-book version), DeYoung’s book is fast-paced and well-argued. His greatest strength lies in his ability to present a debate, lay out the counterarguments, and then state his own position succinctly. His brevity reassures readers that these passages can be interpreted straightforwardly without requiring exhaustive Greek or Hebrew word studies. Additionally, he addresses the key contested verses in Scripture and offers a vision of how complementarianism can be lived out practically. This combination strengthens his argument, leaving readers with a confident grasp of his perspective, one that can be absorbed in a single sitting.

Weaknesses: However, DeYoung’s approach lacks nuance. For instance, he argues that Junia, mentioned in Romans 16, was not an apostle, a defensible position, but also insists that Junia was not a woman. This is a significant oversight, as there are no known instances of the name Junia being used as a male name in all of ancient Greek, while numerous examples of women bearing that name exist. Moments like this make his argument feel overly rigid and formulaic. This pattern recurs throughout the book; by the end, no woman in Scripture is ever granted a leadership role. I found this aspect of his argument unhelpful—while allowing for female leadership does not necessitate an egalitarian reading, the evidence for such roles exists. Altogether, this book pairs well with Mike Bird’s similar-sized book covered last week. Both works are short, charitable, and to the point. A great introduction for people to grasp the larger arguments in a short period of time.

Kathy Keller

Lastly, Kathy Keller’s Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry is an exceptionally brief book, just 20 pages, making it even shorter than DeYoung’s, which he claims is the shortest! This work is unique among complementarian literature, as it is one of the few single-author volumes written solely by a woman. Keller’s book has two primary goals: first, to provide a clear hermeneutical reading of the relevant biblical texts; and second, to share her personal journey on this issue, particularly during her time in seminary and as the co-founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. The book is concise and direct, affirming that the so-called "thorny" biblical passages speak for themselves. Keller firmly rejects the argument that these texts are merely responses to cultural issues in Ephesus or Corinth. While she does not introduce new insights, her analysis is both succinct and clear.

Strengths: In the more personal section, I appreciated Keller’s honesty about the challenges and even hostility she has faced in discussing this topic. However, she emphasizes that this debate is not about personal feelings but a theological matter that demands careful consideration. The book’s greatest strength is its brevity, making it a quick and accessible read.

Weaknesses: However, its primary weakness is its inability to contribute anything new to the conversation. While it may serve as a useful starting point for some, I would still recommend DeYoung’s book as the better introduction to the subject.

Summary of the Recent Moves:

As I set out to summarize the recent developments in the complementarian debate, it is worth noting that, compared to egalitarian scholarship, complementarians have produced significantly less recent literature. Several factors likely contribute to this, one being that many complementarian scholars see little need for further discussion. To some extent, this is understandable—complementarian scholars have already produced a substantial body of work reaffirming their interpretation of Pauline texts. However, there has been little to no recent scholarship directly responding to egalitarian arguments regarding early church leadership, nor has there been significant engagement with contemporary issues, such as the moral failures of complementarian pastors in cases of sexual sin or abuse. This lack of response is not entirely unexpected, given that the complementarian position is fundamentally rooted in textual interpretation—for them, the authority of Scripture is the primary and final issue, making appeals to historical church practices or current events largely secondary.

With that in mind, the following is my summary of where the complementarian debate has either progressed or remained largely unchanged.

1. An Emphasis on Biblical Theology (Genesis to Paul)

To maintain continuity, a central point in the complementarian argument is that the distinct roles of men and women are rooted in Creation (not the Fall) and remain prescriptive throughout the entire canon of Scripture. This is why, when Paul discusses gender distinctions, he frequently appeals to Creation (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In doing so, Paul is not introducing a new concept but reaffirming what was already established. From my readings this is a key strength of the complementarian position. If Paul were affirming women as preachers and elders, one would expect him to be a bit more explicit in order to justify a departure from the long-standing biblical tradition of male leadership. Instead, Paul’s reliance on the Creation order seems to suggest continuity rather than a break from precedent. While this is an argument from silence, it is still worth noting.

2. The Deemphasis on Women in the Bible

A consistent trend in complementarian scholarship is the tendency to downplay the leadership roles of women in the New Testament. From my readings, complementarian scholars readily highlight the significance of women as witnesses to the resurrection and as companions in Jesus’ ministry. However, these women are often juxtaposed with the greater number of men in Jesus' inner circle, reinforcing a hierarchy rather than recognizing their contributions on their own terms.

Additionally, complementarians often engage in interpretive gymnastics to reframe certain biblical women in ways that align with their theological framework. This includes recasting Junia as a man, reducing Phoebe to a mere servant rather than a deacon, and portraying Priscilla as operating under her husband's authority rather than as a teacher in her own right.

Ironically, complementarians frequently accuse egalitarians of twisting Scripture to reinterpret Paul's prohibitions on women in leadership, yet a similar charge could be made against their own handling of biblical women’s roles. The result is that the influence of women in the early church is often diminished, either by minimizing their significance or altering the Greek text’s meaning to change their gender or authority.

3. The Clarity of the Text

One of the strengths and staples of the complementarian camp is that their reading of Pauline texts tends to be more straightforward. Their interpretation does not need to rely on Greco-Roman culture, a local heresy, or an interpolation to explain Paul’s words; instead, they tend to take the text at face value. Additionally, complementarian scholarship, particularly figures like Carson, Schreiner, and Moo, have effectively refuted many egalitarian arguments. In some cases, they highlight the extreme lengths to which some egalitarian scholars have gone to reinterpret Paul’s words in a way that diverges from their apparent meaning. Since their interpretation does not require such external explanations to adjust Paul’s meaning, it tends to feel more natural or more intuitively correct. Not necessarily that it is, but it requires less effort to maintain.

4. The Connection of Church and Family

One of the ongoing discussions within complementarianism is the relationship between gender roles in the church and the family, particularly regarding women working outside the home. While many complementarians acknowledge that women can pursue full-time work beyond their household responsibilities, some argue that they shouldn’t. John Piper, for instance, has expressed this sentiment, stating, “Having said [women] can… I want to discourage it because mothering and homemaking are huge and glorious jobs.”

While this perspective is rooted in a sincere desire to honor biblical principles, I believe it does not fully align with the broader scriptural witness. When we consider the relatively small number of verses emphasizing women as "home managers" (three to four at most) in contrast with the many examples of women in the New Testament engaged in work outside the home, the weight of biblical evidence seems to support the latter. This is just one example where complementarian arguments, though well-intentioned, may extend beyond what Scripture actually prescribes.

Moving On

By this point, I hope readers have recognized that both perspectives bring valuable insights as well as significant challenges that warrant careful consideration. The goal of these articles is not to propose a “third way” or a “middle-ground” approach but rather to highlight the strengths of each position in order to foster a more charitable and informed understanding of one another.

Having explored the recent and prevailing developments within both camps, I now want to shift our focus. Next week, we’ll take a break from the debate (a fun NYC article is coming instead). After that, we will examine how each side engages with the biblical texts (particularly the Pauline passages), which has been, for me, one of the most illuminating aspects of wrestling with this issue.