Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? No, Paul Wouldn’t Agree.

Part One

This is a response to Gordon P. Hugenberger’s article, “Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Yes, Paul Would Agree.”, featured in Christianity Today’s April 2024 issue titled, Division of Labor.

As the evangelical gender wars continue to rage on, gender remains the specter that haunts the American church. Gordon P. Hugenberger, a senior professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and former minister, argues that complementarianism has more to do with marriage while egalitarianism has to do with ministry. In this article, I would like to suggest that this bifurcation of marriage and gender roles is unsustainable, and his argument is untenable.

Hugenberger advocates a hybrid position on complementarianism and egalitarianism. On one hand, complementarians affirm the equal dignity of both men and women, but their different roles complement each other. Male headship and female submission extend beyond the bounds of domestic life and into the church. In this case, only men should assume leadership in the home and church respectively. On the other hand, egalitarians also celebrate the equal dignity of both men and women but they believe that women should have the same equal power and authority as men to assume the official leadership roles in the church as elders, pastors, and deacons. Hugenberger argues that both positions are compatible.

Hugenberger makes two main arguments. First, he argues that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not prohibit women from teaching or leading. Second, he also argues that 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2 are androcentric (use language that stresses a “male point of view”) but do not necessarily imply the exclusion or prohibition of women from teaching or leadership roles in the church. I will focus on the former and deal with his latter argument in a separate article.

Hugenberger argues that 1 Timothy 2:12 is strictly about marriage, not gender roles. He argues that Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve suggests it was not a “prohibition against gender roles but rather a prohibition against marriage roles—how a wife and a husband should relate to each other.” According to Hugenberger, gender roles relate to the broader relationships and roles between men and women in the church and society. He provides three reasons to justify this argument, but none of them stand under closer biblical scrutiny.

First, he connects 1 Timothy 2:13-15 to Genesis 2:24 and concludes that it is about marriage and the two becoming “one flesh”. He argues that the head-body analogy is used almost exclusively to talk about marriage roles, not gender roles. This analogy is indeed used to talk about one-flesh union and marriage roles. However, Paul’s focus in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 is not Genesis 2:24 and it is about the scheme of creation, fall, and redemption in Genesis 1-3. He appeals to the normative order of creation as God’s perfect design for humanity and the church as an imperative for “gender roles”. Paul’s overall argument focuses broadly on God’s design for the church as a redemptive context through which His cosmic purposes are upheld, and not overturned. Therefore, Adam and Eve are examples or prototypes of God’s design for marriage and the church.

He also tentatively suggests that the words man (anēr) and woman (gynē) are normal terms for husbands and wives. Although Hugenberger does not provide any substantive and contextual evidence to justify this claim, he agrees that context determines the meaning of words. However, the immediate and broader contexts of 1 Timothy 2 suggest otherwise. The immediate context is about the good warfare of a well-ordered life. Paul’s charge to Timothy to “wage a good warfare” (1 Timothy 1:18) is connected to “a peaceful and quiet life” grounded in prayer. The Greek word hēsychazō, for a “quiet life,” simply means a well-ordered life. Quite contrary to Hugenberger’s claim, Paul’s usage of the words anēr and gynē is not necessarily about marriage but a well-ordered life in a broad sense (this includes the three spheres of family, government, and church).

Additionally, we also need to recognize the threefold structure in 1 Timothy 2 about a well-ordered life from a broad to a narrow perspective. One, Paul broadly defines a well-ordered life as living in glad submission rooted in prayer through Christ as our mediator (1 Timothy 2:1-7). It begins with a broad scope—it applies to “all people, for kings, and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:1)—and transitions to a narrow perspective. Two, Paul narrowly defines a well-ordered life for men as leading by humble submission in prayer. In every place, both the home and church, men should lead with self-control with the readiness to faithfully serve with their hands and not by coercion (1 Timothy 2:8). A well-ordered masculinity consecrates the hands of men in humble submission for holy service, not to break down but to build fruitful homes and faithful churches for human flourishing in the fullness of God’s glory.

Three, Paul also narrowly defines a well-ordered life for women as learning through joyful submission to male leadership in the home and church (1 Timothy 2:9-12). A well-ordered life delights in God’s good and beautiful design for family and displays that glorious reality in the church. A well-ordered femininity rests securely in the purposes of God’s design and promises of God’s word. It is clear, therefore, that 1 Timothy 2 is broadly about God’s design for family restored in Christ and realized through the church.

The broader context focuses on a well-ordered church. Paul’s intended message is for Timothy “may know how one ought to behave in the household of God” (1 Timothy 3:13-15). Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 broadly applies to the roles of men and women both in the home and in the church. This strongly supports the case that the order of creation is not narrowly defined or limited to marriage roles, but it applies to sex roles in the context of ministry or church.

Second, Hugenberger also proposes that 1 Timothy 2:9 which talks about modesty is only applicable to wives, and not women. However, he does not provide plausible evidence, except for a vague reference to the Greco-Roman period. Modesty is about how women should live a well-ordered life. A well-ordered life is modest and it is more about our heart attitude than it is physical appearance. This heart attitude is “what is proper for women who profess godliness” (1 Timothy 2:10). Godliness is the great confession of the mystery of the gospel (1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, every woman—married or unmarried—who believes in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ ought to lead a well-ordered life “with modesty and self-control” (1 Timothy 2:9).

Third, Hugenberger argues that the striking similarities between 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 strongly support the claim that 1 Timothy 2 is about marriage and not ministry. It is clear that Peter is addressing wives, but he is applying a general principle to a specific case—how wives should live with their unbelieving spouses. Peter appeals to this general principle, “For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands” (1 Peter 3:5). This is the rule for women who are saved by faith and justified before God, not an exception.

Moreover, Hugenberger concedes to sola scriptura—that Scripture interprets Scripture, and we should interpret obscure passages with clear ones. 1 Timothy 2:12 states, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.” It seems that 1 Timothy 2:12 is rather obscure given Hugenberger’s argument that it is merely about marriage roles, not gender roles but I disagree with this position. I cannot think of any better passage than 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Hugenberger oddly leaves out this passage, even though it is more clear than 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Although 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are two different contexts, Paul is still dealing with the same theme of a well-ordered life. In the former, Paul is dealing with the role of prayer in living a well-ordered life as part of good warfare. In the latter, Paul argues that proper stewarding of spiritual gifts builds up a well-ordered church. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Paul unequivocally states:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

I want to highlight two main points from this passage. One, this was a general rule—not an exception—in all the churches. It was a biblical practice grounded in the order of creation, restored in Christ, and rehearsed in the church. Paul is quite dogmatic: there is no exception and spiritual gifts are not even exemptions for women to assume leadership roles in the church. Two, women should ask their “husbands at home”, if they want to learn anything. On the contrary, both 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 strongly suggest that 1 Timothy 2 is not merely about marriage roles but so-called gender roles—God’s overall design for the church.

In conclusion, this bifurcation of marriage and gender roles is a false dichotomy and unsustainable. It makes Hugenberger’s argument untenable and overlooks God’s design for His church. The fall in Genesis 3 overturned Edenic life, a well-ordered life rooted in joyful surrender to God’s word. God’s redeemed people are to the world what Adam and Eve were to Eden. God’s design for the church is the restoration of Edenic life and cosmic transformation. God does not overturn but restores His original design and purpose to creation through the marriage of Christ and the church because it is good and pleasing before God (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 2:3).