Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 38:4 (Autumn 2024)
Article: Apples And Oranges? Re-Evaluating “Egalitarian” And “Complementarian” In The Gender Debate
Author: Joshua Kenneth George

PP 38:4 (Autumn 2024) p. 23

Apples And Oranges? Re-Evaluating “Egalitarian” And “Complementarian” In The Gender Debate

Joshua Kenneth George

Joshua George (PhD, Australian College of Theology) teaches Practical Theology at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies, Bangalore, India, and is Dean of Online Studies. His academic interests include pastoral theology, homiletics, family and marriage, gender studies, and the integration between theology and the social sciences. He is an avid technophile and loves reading science-fiction.

The discourse on the male-female gender dynamics, at least within evangelical Christianity, often revolves around the assumption that “egalitarian” and “complementarian” are accepted terms referring to the two opposing views. Following a 1986 convention organized by the Evangelical Theological Society on gender roles, two distinct camps emerged, each representing contrasting views that persist to this day.1 Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) advocated for the egalitarian perspective that men and women share equal authority both within the church and in the home. On the other hand, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) asserted the complementarian position of male authority and female subordination, while emphasizing the different roles and equality of both genders before God. The book, Two Views on Women in Ministry, part of the Counterpoints series, reinforced these positions.2

This article challenges this framing of the discourse within Christian circles, particularly with respect to the use of the terms “egalitarian” and “complementarian” as accurately representing the primary distinctions of each position. It argues that egalitarianism and complementarianism should not be treated as opposing viewpoints within the same debate but rather as separate discussions in themselves. The term “egalitarian” is related to structures and hierarchies, while the term “complementarian” or “complementarity” focusses on distinctions in nature and function.

Currently, the discussion has conflated both structure and function into the same debate, leaving little room for nuance. By carefully examining the meaning of each of these terms and analysing the historical development of this discussion, we will show the need for a shift in the framework of the discussion. So, while agreeing that both structure and function are relevant to the gender debate, we ask if they should constitute an opposing pair. Simply put, are we comparing apples with oranges simply because they are both fruits?3

Historical Development Of The Terms