The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Comprehensive Case for Complementarianism, Part 8

Posted on 08/04/2025 at The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

Complementarianism in the Church

On Mother’s Day 2024, a friend in a group chat shared that his pastor’s wife delivered a compelling message at their church, urging contentment in life’s seasons while warning against settling for “half victories,” using the two and a half tribes who stayed east of the Jordan (Numbers 32) as an example. The sermon resonated, but one detail sparked debate among us: should the pastor’s wife have been preaching? Citing 1 Timothy 2:12 – “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” – some argued it was unbiblical, while my friend saw it as a rare exception, not worth leaving the church over. This friendly but passionate exchange mirrors countless churches wrestling with women’s roles in worship. From pulpits to practical service, these questions demand biblical clarity.

Why This Matters

Church order isn’t just logistics; it reflects God’s design, mirroring the gospel (Ephesians 5:32). Genesis 2 establishes men and women as equal image-bearers (1:27) with distinct roles – Eve as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) complementing Adam’s leadership (2:18). New Testament passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 reserve authoritative teaching and eldership for men, as Articles 3 and 4 showed, yet women’s contributions, like mentoring (Titus 2:3-5), are vital. Missteps – whether egalitarian role erasure or patriarchal overreach – risk distorting this design. Our group debate reflects the stakes: how do churches honor God’s blueprint while empowering all to serve? This eighth article explores complementarianism in church life, tackling male eldership, women’s roles, deacons, head coverings, and other questions (e.g., “Can women lead singing?”). Let’s test all claims against Scripture, praying for wisdom.

Male Eldership: God’s Design for Church Leadership

Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 anchor church leadership: “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:1-2). The Greek ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, overseer) and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros, elder) in Titus 1:5 denote the same role, requiring men to be “apt to teach” (διδακτικός, didaktikos, skilled in teaching; BDAG). The phrase “husband of one wife” (μιας γυναικός ἀνήρ, mias gunaikos anēr, one-woman man) explicitly points to male elders, aligning with 1 Timothy 2:12’s prohibition on women teaching authoritatively, rooted in creation (1 Timothy 2:13). Egalitarians challenge this, citing texts like Galatians 3:28, but complementarians see these qualifications as reflecting God’s created order, as Article 4 argued.

Egalitarians, such as Philip Payne, cite Galatians 3:28 – “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” – to argue that gender distinctions in church roles, including eldership, are abolished, allowing women to lead based on their gifts. In Man and Woman, One in Christ, Payne contends this verse reflects Christ’s restoration of creation’s equality, with the Spirit’s universal gifting (e.g., Acts 2:17-18, “your sons and daughters shall prophesy”) supporting women in authoritative roles. As discussed in Article 4, however, this interpretation overextends the text’s scope. Douglas Moo, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, clarifies that Galatians 3:28 addresses salvation equality – equal access to God through faith (Galatians 3:26-29) – not the erasure of functional roles. Paul’s other teachings, such as 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man”) and 1 Timothy 2:12, maintain distinctions in church order, suggesting Galatians 3:28 does not negate role-specific callings. While egalitarians rightly celebrate the Spirit’s gifting, complementarians argue that gifts operate within God’s designed order, as Article 4 explored.

Egalitarians also point to women like Priscilla and Junia to support women in leadership. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), and Junia is described as “notable among the apostles” (Romans 16:7), which some, like Linda Belleville, interpret as holding apostolic office. Article 4 noted, however, that Priscilla’s teaching was informal, alongside her husband, not an authoritative eldership role. Similarly, As John Piper and Wayne Grudem point out, Junia was likely “respected by” apostles or a missionary, as apostolos can denote a missionary or messenger (e.g., Philippians 2:25). These women’s contributions are inspiring, but they don’t override New Testament patterns restricting authoritative teaching to men (1 Timothy 2:12). Complementarians affirm women’s vital roles, such as teaching other women and children (Titus 2:3-5), while upholding distinct callings.

Male eldership, rooted in creation (1 Timothy 2:13 – “For Adam was first formed, then Eve”), reflects God’s design for church order, as Article 4 emphasizes. Paul’s appeal to creation order, echoed in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, underscores a normative pattern, not a cultural accommodation. While egalitarians’ passion for empowering women is commendable, their exegesis often prioritizes modern ideals over Scripture’s consistent teaching. Complementarianism offers clarity: men and women, equal in worth, serve in complementary roles, reflecting the gospel’s beauty (Ephesians 5:32). Let’s pursue unity, studying Scripture together to honor God’s design.

Women’s Roles: Vital Contributions in the Church

Women shine in non-authoritative roles, complementing male leadership. Titus 2:3-5 urges older women to be “teachers of good things” (καλοδιδάσκαλος, kalodidaskalos, teachers of what is good; BDAG), mentoring younger women in godliness. Romans 16:1-3 praises Phoebe and others for serving (διάκονος, diakonos, servant), supporting the church without usurping authority. These roles – mentoring, hospitality, service – reflect Eve’s עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) calling, glorifying God. Let’s address the critical issue of women preaching, raised in our Mother’s Day debate, before exploring deacons, head coverings, and other questions.

Women Preaching: A Biblical Opposition

The Mother’s Day sermon by the pastor’s wife, though compelling, raises a pressing question: can women preach in church? 1 Timothy 2:12 is unequivocal: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” The Greek διδάσκω (didaskō, to teach) refers to authoritative instruction, and αὐθεντέω (authenteō, to exercise authority) denotes assuming governing authority, per BDAG. Preaching – expounding Scripture, exhorting the congregation – is inherently authoritative, exercising spiritual oversight over all present, including men, which violates 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul grounds this in creation: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (v. 13), tying it to Genesis 2’s עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) design, not temporary circumstances.

Preaching’s Authoritative Nature: Preaching is intrinsically authoritative, as it involves publicly proclaiming and interpreting God’s Word with the expectation that hearers will obey. In 1 Timothy 3:2, elders must be “apt to teach” (διδακτικός, didaktikos), linking preaching to their role. No New Testament example shows a woman preaching in a church assembly. Philip’s daughters prophesied (Acts 21:9), but prophecy (relaying God’s message in that era) differs from preaching’s ongoing, authoritative teaching, as Grudem notes. Today, sharing the gospel is a comparable non-authoritative act women can perform. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reinforces this: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” The “silence” prohibits authoritative speech like preaching, with “the law” referring to the Pentateuch – including Genesis 2.

Egalitarian Counters: Egalitarians, like Payne, claim 1 Timothy 2:12 addressed Ephesian issues, particularly false teaching by women, making it culturally specific. Some, like my friend, argue the pastor’s wife preaching under her husband’s authority is permissible. These views falter. The false teachers that Scripture highlight in Ephesus during Paul’s ministry were men, not women: 1 Timothy 1:19-20 names Hymenaeus and Alexander; 2 Timothy 2:17-18 cites Hymenaeus and Philetus; Acts 20:30 warns of men “speaking perverse things.” No text suggests women were the primary false teachers, undermining the claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 targets a local issue. Paul’s appeal to creation (1 Timothy 2:13) and the Fall (v. 14) confirms a universal principle: the prohibition is rooted in God’s design, not Ephesian culture. Even under a pastor’s authority, a woman preaching exercises spiritual authority over men, contradicting αὐθεντέω (authenteō). Priscilla’s private teaching (Acts 18:26) and Galatians 3:28’s salvation equality don’t override this.

Practical Implications: The pastor’s wife’s sermon, though well-intentioned, steps beyond biblical bounds. Preaching isn’t about gifting – many women are eloquent – but obedience to God’s order. Churches must reserve preaching for men, typically elders (1 Timothy 3:2), reflecting Christ’s headship (Ephesians 5:23). Women can share testimonies, mentor (Titus 2:3-5), or share the gospel, but preaching crosses 1 Timothy 2:12’s line. Allowing women to preach risks eroding biblical authority by prioritizing culture over Scripture. Our Mother’s Day debate underscores the need for clarity: obedience to God’s Word brings flourishing, not restriction.

Deacons: Wives, Not Deaconesses

Ever heard someone say women can be deacons, pointing to Phoebe in Romans 16:1? It’s a fair question, and one that gets folks talking. Let’s dig into what Scripture says, because this matters for how we serve together. Romans 16:1 introduces Phoebe: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (διάκονος, diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea.” That word diakonos can mean “servant” or “deacon,” so is Phoebe proof women held the office? Then there’s 1 Timothy 3:11: “Even so must their women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” The Greek γυνή (gunē) here could mean “women” or “wives,” but I’m convinced it’s about deacons’ wives, not deaconesses. Let’s unpack why, leaning on the text.

Start with 1 Timothy 3:8-13, where Paul lists what deacons need to be: “men of honest report” (v. 8), “husbands of one wife” (v. 12). The focus is clearly on men. Right in the middle, verse 11 mentions “their wives” (γυνή, gunē). The Greek lexicon BDAG notes gunē typically means “wife” in contexts like this, tied to marriage. If Paul wanted to include women as deacons, he could’ve used diakonos again, as he did for Phoebe, but he doesn’t. Instead, he highlights wives who support their deacon husbands with godly character – grave, not slanderers, faithful. It’s like Paul’s saying, “Deacons need solid wives to serve well,” not “Here’s a job for women deacons.” The text’s structure points to wives aiding deacons, not holding the office.

Now, let’s consider Phoebe. Her role as diakonos in Romans 16:1 is significant, but diakonos is a flexible term – think “servant” in everyday tasks (John 2:5) or “deacon” in formal roles (Philippians 1:1). There is no clear evidence Phoebe was an ordained deacon; she likely served in practical ways, like hospitality or aid. Phoebe was a faithful servant, vital to the church, but the Bible doesn’t place her in the deacon’s office.

Why include qualifications for deacons’ wives but not elders’ wives? Some argue this proves “women deacons,” but it’s more likely deacons’ wives assisted in practical tasks, like serving women, needing clear standards. Elders’ wives, less involved in public duties, are assumed godly.

What About the Other Side? Egalitarians, like Philip Payne, point to diakonos and gunē as evidence for female deacons, sometimes citing early church practices. Yet, the male-centered flow of 1 Timothy 3 – men, wives, men again – makes that interpretation challenging. If Paul meant female deacons, why not be explicit? Complementarianism sees deacons as male, like elders, aligning with 1 Timothy 2:12’s boundaries. The picture is clear: men serve as deacons, their wives support them faithfully, and together they strengthen God’s church.

Head Coverings: Cultural Symbol of Headship

Now, let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 – a passage that might raise eyebrows. Paul writes, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head” (vv. 4-5). Then he adds, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (v. 10). Should women today wear head coverings in church? I don’t believe so, but let’s explore why this was a big deal in Corinth and what it teaches us about God’s design.

Imagine you’re in first-century Corinth, worshiping with the early church. Women are praying or sharing God’s message (back when prophecy was active, per 1 Corinthians 11:5). Paul says they need to cover their heads to honor God’s order. Why? He points to creation: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” (v. 3), using κεφαλή (kephalē, head or authority; BDAG). This isn’t about hair – verse 15 calls hair a περιβόλαιον (peribolaion, wrap), distinct from the κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptō, to veil; vv. 5-6) Paul requires. Plutarch notes that it is “more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered,” as was common in Roman religious settings. In that culture, a head covering was a visible sign of respecting male headship, like a gesture affirming God’s design: the veil symbolized submission to God’s created order.

What’s with “because of the angels” (v. 10)? No need for wild theories like angels lusting after women (Genesis 6:1-4) – Scripture doesn’t support that. Angels observe worship: “We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels” (1 Corinthians 4:9); they “desire to look into” salvation (1 Peter 1:12). An uncovered woman in Corinth signaled disregard for headship, which grieved angels who cherish God’s order. It’s about worship reflecting truth, not mystical concerns.

Is This for Today? The headship principle – men leading, women complementing – is timeless, rooted in Genesis 2’s עֵזֶר (ezer, helper). But the covering itself is cultural. No other New Testament church receives this instruction, and early practices varied. Paul doesn’t prescribe a specific meaning for head coverings, only that they signaled a man’s headship, which he roots in creation (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). Thus, a Corinthian woman without a veil wasn’t just flouting custom but rejecting God’s created order. Today, we honor headship through roles, like male eldership, not veils, living out God’s design without imposing rules He didn’t command.

What Do Egalitarians Say? Some scholars, like Philip Payne, argue that the “uncovered head” in this passage refers to “hair hanging loosely” and the “covering” to “hair done up,” suggesting Paul addresses a Corinthian practice tied to cultural disgrace (e.g., Dionysiac cult influences) rather than headship. Payne cites Leviticus 13:45 (LXX) as using ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakalyptos, uncovered) to mean loose hair, matching 1 Corinthians 11:5’s ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ (akatakalyptō tē kephalē). However, standard LXX texts (e.g., Codex Vaticanus, Swete) use ἀκάλυπτος (akalyptos) in Leviticus 13:45, not akatakalyptos, undermining Payne’s linguistic link. Payne also notes verse 15’s reference to hair as a “covering” (περιβόλαιον, peribolaion). While his cultural insights are valuable, this view faces challenges. First, κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō) typically implies a garment or veil in Greek literature (e.g., Plutarch, Roman Questions; Philo, Special Laws 3.56, 3.60, where a suspected adulteress has her “kerchief” removed to bare her head, stripping the “symbol of modesty” worn by innocent women). Second, the distinct terms peribolaion (v. 15) and katakalyptō (vv. 5–6) suggest Paul differentiates natural hair from the required covering in worship. Most critically, Payne’s interpretation downplays Paul’s emphasis on headship (v. 3, 7–9), which ties the covering to the creation order (Genesis 2). A veil, as a public symbol of submission, better fits the cultural context and Paul’s theological argument. Complementarianism holds that coverings were a cultural expression of a lasting truth: men lead, women support, and together we glorify God. No headscarves needed, but let’s keep headship clear in our roles.

Questions on Women’s Participation in Worship and Service

Churches face practical questions: Can women lead singing, make announcements, serve communion, pass offering plates, teach teenagers, or pray in mixed company? These balance women’s gifts with 1 Timothy 2:12’s boundaries.

• Can Women Lead Singing? Leading singing (e.g., directing from the front) guides congregational worship, exercising authority (αὐθεντέω, authenteō) prohibited by 1 Timothy 2:12. Singing in a choir or sharing the gospel (Acts 18:26) is non-authoritative and permissible. Men should lead worship to reflect headship.
• Can Women Make Announcements? Non-authoritative announcements (e.g., reading event details) align with Phoebe’s service as a διάκονος (diakonos, deacon; Romans 16:1), not violating 1 Timothy 2:12. Directive announcements (e.g., setting church policy) are for elders or men.
• Can Women Serve Communion or Pass Offering Plates? These practical services, like Phoebe and Priscilla’s ministries (Romans 16:1-3), are non-authoritative, not assuming eldership’s governing role (1 Timothy 3:1-7). Women may serve in these roles.
• Can Women Teach Teenagers? Teaching teenage boys risks authoritative teaching over future men (1 Timothy 2:12’s αὐθεντέω, authenteō), as it shapes their spiritual leadership. Titus 2:3-5 prioritizes women teaching women and younger children; male teachers are best for teenage boys.
• Can Women Pray in Mixed Company? Public prayer is biblical (1 Corinthians 11:5), not authoritative, as women prayed with covered heads, honoring male headship. Women can pray in mixed settings, reflecting submission to God’s order.

Practical Takeaways: A Thriving Complementarian Church

Picture a church where men preach as elders (1 Timothy 3:2), women mentor (Titus 2:3-5), and all serve in biblical roles. Deacons (men) and their wives support faithfully, headship is honored without veils, and women pray and serve, not preach. This rejects egalitarian preaching (1 Timothy 2:12) and patriarchal control (Mark 10:45), glorifying God.

Practical Steps:

• Study Scripture: Examine 1 Timothy 2-3, 1 Corinthians 11, Titus 2.
• Define Roles Clearly: Teach male eldership and women’s complementary roles.
• Empower Women: Encourage mentoring (Titus 2) and service (Romans 16:1).
• Engage Egalitarians Graciously: Anchor discussions in creation (1 Timothy 2:13).
• Reflect the Gospel: Mirror Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:32).

Reflect: How can your church balance male leadership with women’s gifts? Share below.

Conclusion: Reflecting God’s Glory

Complementarianism – male elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7), deacons with godly wives (1 Timothy 3:11), and women serving vibrantly (Titus 2) – reflects Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5. Women preaching, as in our Mother’s Day debate, violates 1 Timothy 2:12; head coverings are cultural, but headship endures. Women shine in prayer and service, not leading singing or teaching men. Egalitarian pushes falter, per Articles 3-4. Our next article explores complementarianism in society, tackling women in politics. What challenges do you face in church roles? Join the conversation, praying for wisdom.