The standard line I often hear from complementarians is that women are “equal but different.” Nothing we don’t all agree on there. Push a little further and the slogan becomes “equal in worth but different in role.” The Danvers Statement expresses it this way: “Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons,” while “distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order.” But this formulation can become little more than a theological whitewashing of patriarchy. The issue is not that men and women may freely choose different roles or responsibilities. Freedom includes the freedom to embrace traditional patterns if that is one’s genuine calling. The issue is that complementarianism makes certain roles permanently unavailable to women simply because they are women. Women are not being treated as equal in worth when their voices are not treated as carrying equal worth.
John Piper argues that “one can possess a different function and still be equal in essence and worth.” But authority is one of the primary ways we communicate whose judgement we trust. If someone’s discernment can be categorically discounted—not because of a lack of wisdom, character, or gifting, but simply because she is a woman—claims of equal worth begin to sound rhetorical rather than substantive. I think every theology should be tested by its fruit. And if my experience online is any indicator, one of the most visible fruits of complementarianism is not humility or mutual honour but contempt for women. Not every complementarian displays that contempt, of course. Many are gracious and sincere. But when a theology repeatedly produces spaces where women are dismissed, patronised, or treated as less capable of theological discernment, we should at least ask whether the tree has something to do with the fruit.
Jesus consistently moved in the opposite direction. He welcomed women as disciples, defended Mary of Bethany’s choice to sit at his feet, saying, “Mary has chosen the better part,” and entrusted the announcement of his resurrection to Mary Magdalene: “Go to my brothers and say to them…” Again and again, Jesus elevated those whose voices carried the least weight in his culture. He did not simply honour women in theory; he entrusted them with responsibility. If Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, then our theology should make us quicker to recognise the Spirit’s gifts in women, not quicker to explain why their calling must always stop at the same boundary. The kingdom he proclaimed was not built by preserving status but by surrendering it. Authority was transformed into service, not used to maintain hierarchy.
Perhaps the real question is not whether complementarians believe women are equal in worth. Many sincerely do. The question is whether a theology that permanently reserves authority for men can ever embody that claim in practice. Paul envisioned a new humanity in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” If our language proclaims equality while our structures consistently tell women their voices matter less, regardless of their gifts, wisdom, or faithfulness, perhaps the problem is not merely with the fruit. Perhaps it is with the tree.
Leave a Reply