The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Comprehensive Case for Complementarianism, Part 9

Posted on 08/11/2025 at The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

Complementarianism in Society: Navigating a Secular World

In 2022, evangelical reactions to Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ gubernatorial campaign sparked debates over whether her leadership aligned with “biblical femininity.” In public discourse, some hailed her as a modern Deborah, while others, citing 1 Timothy 2:12 – “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” – argued she shouldn’t lead in such authority. Meanwhile, Christian women leading as bosses in workplaces often face pushback from those expecting male leadership, despite their wisdom and competence. These tensions – women in politics, workplaces, the military, or even living single – raise a question: How does complementarianism apply outside church and home?

This series has built a case for complementarianism: men and women, equal in worth (Genesis 1:27) but distinct in roles, with Eve as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper; Genesis 2:18), men leading in church (1 Timothy 2:12), and husbands in marriage (Ephesians 5:23). Articles 1-8 explored creation, New Testament teachings, biblical masculinity and femininity, marriage, and church roles, rejecting egalitarian role erasure and patriarchal excesses like Vision Forum’s control. Now, we tackle society – from CEOs to soldiers to single Christians. Can women lead in secular roles while honoring God’s design? Let’s test these questions against Scripture, praying for wisdom to reflect Christ in a secular world.

Why This Matters

Society shapes how we live out our faith. Culture often demands sameness, with feminism pushing women into identical roles and some patriarchal voices urging subservience. Complementarianism offers clarity: biblical roles don’t limit women’s contributions but inform priorities, reflecting God’s glory (Ephesians 5:32). Missteps – egalitarianism’s homogenization or patriarchal overreach – risk distorting this design. Whether you’re a single Christian, a woman in leadership, or a man navigating a diverse workplace, Scripture equips you to honor God in every sphere.

General Principle: Biblical Roles in Society

Complementarianism, rooted in Genesis 2, focuses on church and home: men lead as elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and husbands (Ephesians 5:23), women complement as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper; Genesis 2:18) in supportive roles (Titus 2:3-5). In society, these principles don’t preclude women’s contributions but guide priorities. Proverbs 31’s virtuous woman (אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל, eshet-chayil, woman of strength) buys fields and trades (v. 16), showing initiative in secular spheres. Biblical roles inform, not restrict, societal vocations. Men protect and provide (1 Timothy 5:8), while women’s gifts shine in diverse roles, aligned with God’s design. Let’s explore specific issues: women as bosses, in politics, in the military, and as singles.

Women as Bosses: No Biblical Prohibition

Can women lead in the workplace? Proverbs 31:16-18 portrays a virtuous woman (אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל, eshet-chayil, woman of strength) managing business with wisdom, buying fields and trading, her חַיִל (chayil, strength) complementing, not contradicting, her role. Lydia, a seller of purple (Acts 16:14), led economically while serving the church, showing women’s gifts can flourish in society. No Scripture prohibits women from being CEOs, managers, or other workplace leaders. Complementarianism, rooted in Genesis 2’s עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) design, restricts authoritative teaching and eldership to men (1 Timothy 2:12) and calls wives to prioritize home (Ephesians 5:22, Titus 2:5), but it doesn’t bar women from secular leadership. Scripture limits authoritative teaching and eldership to men, but women’s gifts flourish in society.

However, biblical priorities must remain primary for both women and men. Women must ensure workplace roles don’t eclipse their God-given callings in church and home. Titus 2:5 urges women to be “keepers at home” (οἰκουρός, oikouros, domestic stewards), prioritizing family and faith alongside any vocation. Likewise, men can falter by prioritizing work over family, spending excessive hours providing financially while neglecting their role to lead and nurture at home (Ephesians 5:23, 6:4: “Fathers, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”). I know this firsthand: as a manager, I once worked 72-80 hours a week, believing I was honoring my duty to provide (1 Timothy 5:8). Yet, I missed the greater call to be present, discipling my family, when less income would have sufficed. Both genders must prayerfully guard against letting career ambitions overshadow God’s design.

Many seek black-and-white rules – “Do this, don’t do that” – but, unlike male-only eldership (1 Timothy 3:1-7), societal roles involve variables (e.g., family needs, gifts, seasons of life). Wisdom, sought through prayer (Proverbs 3:5-6), is essential to balance these priorities rightly, ensuring neither church nor home is sidelined. A woman leading as a boss must discern how to honor Titus 2:5, just as a man must ensure his work supports, not supplants, his leadership at home (Ephesians 6:4).

What about scenarios where women work while men stay home? Scripture assigns men the primary role of provider and protector (1 Timothy 5:8: “If any provide not for his own… he hath denied the faith”), reflecting Genesis 2:15’s charge to “dress and keep” the garden. A “go-to-work woman” and “stay-at-home man” arrangement often inverts this design, suggesting a priority system gone askew. Exceptions exist – a man’s disability, for instance, may necessitate a woman’s work, as Proverbs 31’s flexibility allows. But arguments like “the woman makes more money” don’t justify reversing roles, as God’s priorities don’t hinge on bank accounts. Men are called to lead and provide, even in modest means, while women support as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper), prioritizing home and church (Titus 2:5). Couples facing such decisions must seek wisdom (Proverbs 15:22), ensuring roles align with Scripture, not cultural pressures or financial gain.

Egalitarian Objection: Egalitarian scholars argue that Galatians 3:28 – “there is neither male nor female” – erases gender-based role distinctions in all spheres, including the workplace. Ronald W. Pierce claims, “The apostle Paul paradigmatically describes the new era as one in which there will no longer be the discrimination of Jew over Gentile, free over slave or male over female—for all believers will be one in the Messiah, Jesus.” Similarly, Gordon D. Fee asserts, “The New Testament evidence is that the Holy Spirit is gender inclusive, gifting both men and women, and thus potentially setting the whole body free for all the many parts to minister and in various ways to give leadership to the others.” Egalitarians extend these texts (Galatians 3:28; Joel 2:28–29) to argue that women’s Spirit-given gifts, like leadership and teaching (1 Corinthians 11:4–5), qualify them for any workplace role without restriction. Like egalitarians, complementarians affirm women can lead as bosses, as seen in Proverbs 31:16–18 and Lydia’s economic leadership (Acts 16:14). However, we differ on method and limits. As Articles 4 and 8 showed, Galatians 3:28 addresses salvation equality, not functional roles. Unlike egalitarians, who see no gender-based limits, complementarianism maintains that Scripture reserves authoritative teaching and eldership for men (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1–7) and calls women to prioritize home and church roles (Titus 2:5). Women’s workplace leadership must harmonize with these callings, ensuring neither church nor home is sidelined, through prayerful discernment (Proverbs 3:5–6).

Patriarchal Objection: Advocates of “biblical patriarchy,” such as Vision Forum Ministries, argue that women leading men in any sphere, including the workplace, undermines God’s design for male headship. They assert, “A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres” and that “it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.).” Citing Genesis 2:18 and 1 Timothy 2:12–13, they claim women’s leadership roles challenge the created order of male authority. This overreach imposes extrabiblical restrictions, ignoring Proverbs 31’s entrepreneurial woman, who buys fields and trades with wisdom (Proverbs 31:16–18), and Lydia’s economic leadership as a seller of purple (Acts 16:14). Complementarianism affirms that secular leadership doesn’t violate Genesis 2’s design for distinct roles in church (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1–7) and home (Titus 2:5), allowing women to use their God-given gifts in the workplace while prioritizing biblical callings through discernment (Proverbs 3:5–6).

Practical Takeaway: Women can lead as bosses, using gifts (Proverbs 31:26), but must prioritize biblical roles in church and home (Titus 2:5), seeking wisdom to balance responsibilities. Men, honor women leaders as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7), rejecting patriarchal control, and pursue your calling to provide and lead (1 Timothy 5:8, Ephesians 6:4), ensuring work supports family presence. Couples, pray for discernment (Proverbs 3:5-6) to align vocations with God’s design. Reflect: How can Christians, men and women, balance workplace roles with biblical priorities, and how can men uphold their roles in unconventional scenarios?

Women in Politics: Wisdom, Not Prohibition

Can Christian women serve in political leadership or engage publicly? Deborah, a judge and prophetess in Judges 4-5, sparks debate: Was her leadership an exception or a norm? Appointed by God, she judged Israel, prophesied, and led strategically (Judges 4:4-7), delivering His people from Canaanite oppression (Judges 4:2-3). Unlike church elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7), her role was civil and prophetic, not ecclesiastical. Deborah’s judgeship, like Esther’s queenship, shows God’s sovereignty using women in extraordinary roles, not a pattern for church leadership. Politics, distinct from church (1 Timothy 2:12) or home (Ephesians 5:22), allows women to serve, guided by wisdom (Proverbs 31:26).

Deborah’s story reveals God’s design. She was God’s chosen judge (Judges 4:4: “Deborah, a prophetess… judged Israel”), not a secondary choice. Barak, tasked to lead the army against Sisera (Judges 4:6-7), hesitated, demanding Deborah’s presence (Judges 4:8). God declared Sisera’s defeat would come through Jael (Judges 4:9), who killed him (Judges 4:21), shaming Barak, not Deborah. If Deborah’s judgeship were a judgment, Jael’s role would be redundant. Deborah’s rule brought peace for forty years (Judges 5:31), marking her a God-sent savior (Judges 2:16: “the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them”). Uniquely among judges – Othniel, Gideon, Samson – she has no recorded flaws, underscoring her godly leadership.

Some patriarchal voices misinterpret Isaiah 3:12 – “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them” – to claim women’s leadership signals divine judgment. This misreads the text. Isaiah 3:1-12 describes Judah’s judgment for sins, including injustice, by removing godly male leaders (v. 2: “mighty man… judge… prophet”), leaving unqualified “children” and “women” to rule, symbolizing chaos. This partly reversed male leaders’ oppression of the vulnerable (cf. Isaiah 1:17), but it’s no prohibition on women leading. Deborah’s godly rule contradicts this view – she was a deliverer, not a disaster. No Scripture forbids women political power; Deborah, Esther (Esther 4:14), and the Proverbs 31 woman’s influence (v. 31) affirm women can lead secularly when called, if aligned with biblical priorities (Titus 2:5).

Likewise, some patriarchal circles, misapplying headship (1 Corinthians 11:3: “the head of the woman is the man”; Ephesians 5:23), bar women from debating men publicly, speaking at rallies, or protesting, claiming it usurps male authority. This overextends Scripture: headship applies to marriage (Ephesians 5:22-23) or church (1 Timothy 2:12), not public discourse. Deborah publicly prophesied (Judges 4:4), and the Proverbs 31 woman speaks with wisdom (v. 26: “in her tongue is the law of kindness”). Women may engage in debates, rallies, or public speaking, using gifts to glorify God, provided they prioritize church and home (Titus 2:5). Men should honor women’s voices as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7), not silence them with extrabiblical rules.

Egalitarian Objection: Egalitarians argue that Jesus’ affirmation of women as disciples and laborers, as seen in Deborah’s judgeship (Judges 4:4–7), authorizes their leadership in all spheres, including politics. Aída Besançon Spencer contends, “Jesus’ practice undermined this scheme [of women confined to homemaking] when he talked with women, instructed them along with men and sent them out on mission,” citing examples like the Samaritan woman’s evangelism (John 4:28–29) and Mary Magdalene’s resurrection proclamation (John 20:17). This view, rooted in Genesis 1:27–28’s shared dominion, holds that women face no gender-based restrictions in civil governance, equating their political roles with men’s. However, while Jesus’ actions affirm women’s dignity and callings, they don’t erase functional distinctions rooted in creation (1 Timothy 2:12–13). Deborah’s civil judgeship and Esther’s queenship (Esther 4:14) show God’s sovereignty in using women politically without negating church-specific prohibitions (1 Timothy 2:12) or home priorities (Titus 2:5). Complementarianism supports women’s political leadership, guided by wisdom (Proverbs 31:26), while upholding distinct roles.

Patriarchal Objection: Advocates of “biblical patriarchy,” a movement extending male authority to all spheres, argue that women in political leadership or public discourse violate God’s design for universal male headship. Vision Forum Ministries claims, “A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres,” citing 1 Timothy 3:5 to restrict women from roles like judges or governors. This misapplies headship passages (Ephesians 5:23, home; 1 Timothy 2:12, church) to civil governance and public speech, imposing extrabiblical restrictions. Deborah’s God-given judgeship (Judges 4:4–7) and Esther’s queenship (Esther 4:14) demonstrate women’s legitimate political leadership without violating Genesis 2’s design. Unlike patriarchal extremes, mainstream complementarianism supports women’s civil roles and public engagement, provided they prioritize church (1 Timothy 2:12) and home (Titus 2:5) roles.

Practical Takeaway: Christian women can serve in political roles, such as governors or public speakers like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, reflecting wisdom (Proverbs 31:26) and striving to align with biblical priorities (Titus 2:5). High-level roles may be especially challenging for mothers of young children, but women without children, with grown children, or who are single may find greater flexibility to balance public service with church and home responsibilities. This balance is a personal matter, guided by discernment between the woman, her husband (if married), and God (Proverbs 3:5–6). Men and women, vote and engage prayerfully (1 Timothy 2:1–2), honoring God’s design. Churches, equip women for public callings, ensuring church and home remain primary. Reflect: How can Christian women reflect biblical femininity while leading or speaking courageously, like Deborah?

Women in the Military: Weighing Protection and Gifting

Can women serve in the military, even in combat-related roles? Genesis 2:15 tasks men with protecting (“keep,” שָׁמַר, shamar, guard), and 1 Timothy 5:8 emphasizes men providing and protecting, reflecting Christ’s sacrifice for the church (Ephesians 5:25). Biological studies confirm men’s greater physical strength, aligning with traditional combat roles. Yet, modern warfare – fighter pilots, drone operators, intelligence – often relies on skill, not strength, prompting reevaluation. Complementarianism, restricting authoritative teaching to men in church (1 Timothy 2:12) and headship to husbands in home (Ephesians 5:22), doesn’t prohibit women’s secular roles, including military service, provided biblical priorities guide them (Titus 2:5).

Scripture offers insight. Jael, in Judges 4:21, decisively killed Sisera, a Canaanite general, with a tent peg, acting courageously in a war-like context without combat. Like Deborah’s strategic leadership (Judges 4:6-9), Jael’s role wasn’t physical fighting but impacted life and death, paralleling modern roles where women’s gifts excel – piloting, cyber warfare, or medical support. No Scripture forbids women’s military service; Proverbs 31’s woman of strength (אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל, eshet-chayil) shows initiative adaptable to such callings. However, men bear primary responsibility to protect (Genesis 2:15), as husbands sacrifice for wives (Ephesians 5:25), suggesting combat roles typically align with male duties, though women aren’t excluded where physical limitations don’t hinder.

Women in military roles must prioritize church and home, as must men (Titus 2:5, 1 Timothy 5:8). A female pilot, like a male soldier, must ensure service doesn’t eclipse family or faith, seeking wisdom (Proverbs 3:5-6). Modern technology reduces physical barriers, but the “priority system” remains: women serve as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper), men as protectors, both glorifying God. Complementarians who bar women from all combat roles risk inconsistency, applying church/home restrictions (1 Timothy 2:12) to secular spheres, unlike politics (Deborah) or business (Lydia).

Egalitarian Objection: Egalitarians argue that God’s call to women in leadership roles, including military contexts, eliminates gender restrictions in modern warfare, where skills like strategy and technology dominate. Linda Belleville contends, “Deborah’s ability as a commander-in-chief is also clear. When the tribes were incapable of standing together against their oppressors, Deborah not only united them but led them to victory.” While God initially called Barak to lead the army (Judges 4:6–7), Deborah’s strategic leadership was essential when he refused to go without her (Judges 4:8), demonstrating women’s capability in authoritative military roles. Citing Genesis 1:26–28’s shared dominion and examples like Jael’s decisive act (Judges 4:21), egalitarians see no biblical barrier to women in any military role, including combat, equating their service with men’s. However, while modern technology reduces physical barriers, Genesis 2:15 assigns men primary responsibility to protect, and Titus 2:5 calls women to prioritize home, requiring discernment to balance military service with biblical roles (Prov 3:5–6). Complementarianism affirms women’s military service, as seen in Deborah and Jael, but emphasizes male protection and distinct priorities, unlike egalitarian uniformity.

Patriarchal Objection: Some patriarchal voices argue women shouldn’t serve in the military, citing men’s duty to protect (Genesis 2:15) or claiming Deuteronomy 22:5’s “man’s equipment” (כְּלִי־גֶבֶר, keli-geber) forbids women wearing combat uniforms, suggesting it refers to items like weapons, not clothing. This misreads Deuteronomy 22:5, which bans cross-dressing. The term “keli-geber” (man’s equipment) refers to clothing, like “woman’s garment” (שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה, simlat ishshah), as both are garments in Leviticus 13:49 and Jeremiah 46:19. The BDB confirms this, stating, “†specif. of garments (one’s ‘things’): כְּלִי־גֶבֶר Dt 22:5 (|| שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה),” where “parallel to” (||) means both phrases describe clothing, not military gear. Thus, Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits gender disguise, not uniforms for military service. Proverbs 31’s capable woman, acting with strength and initiative, supports women serving in roles matching their gifts.

Practical Takeaway: Women can serve in military roles – medical, intelligence, or combat-related like piloting – where gifts align, prioritizing church/home (Titus 2:5). Men, embrace primary protective roles (Genesis 2:15), honoring women as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7). Churches, guide members to discern callings prayerfully (Proverbs 15:22). Reflect: How can Christians balance military service with biblical priorities in modern warfare?

Single Christians: Honoring God’s Design

How do single Christians live out complementarian gender roles in a society fixated on marriage? Ruth’s devotion to Naomi (Ruth 1:16) and Lydia’s hospitality and economic leadership (Acts 16:14-15) show singles glorifying God without a spouse. Complementarianism, rooted in Genesis 2’s distinct roles, applies to singles under Christ’s headship (1 Corinthians 11:3). Single men may pursue leadership in church, if called and qualified (1 Timothy 3:1-7), serving humbly (Mark 10:45: “the Son of man came… to minister”). Single women serve in non-authoritative roles, mentoring younger women (Titus 2:3-5) or using gifts in society (Proverbs 31:16), as Lydia did. Both submit to Christ, prioritizing His kingdom (Matthew 6:33).

Singleness is no lesser calling. Paul, himself single, urges believers to remain single if gifted, to serve Christ with undivided devotion (1 Corinthians 7:7-8: “I would that all men were even as I myself”; v. 32-35: “he that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord”). Marriage is good, but singleness is a God-honoring state, freeing singles to focus on ministry, not a stepping-stone to “complete” biblical roles. Cultural pressures often define femininity as housewifery or masculinity as leading a wife and children, risking idolatry of marriage. Single women aren’t deficient for lacking a husband; their femininity shines in wisdom (Proverbs 31:26), service (Titus 2:4-5), and initiative (Acts 16:14). Single men embody masculinity not by marrying but by leading humbly, providing for the church (1 Timothy 5:8, extended to spiritual family), and protecting God’s people (Genesis 2:15’s שָׁמַר, shamar, guard).

Singles face unique challenges: loneliness, societal expectations, or church neglect. Yet, Scripture equips them. Single women, like Ruth, show loyalty and courage (Ruth 1:16-17); single men, like Paul, model sacrifice (1 Corinthians 9:5). Both seek wisdom (Proverbs 15:22) to align vocations – whether teaching, missions, or secular work – with God’s design, ensuring church involvement (Hebrews 10:25).

Egalitarian Objection: Egalitarians argue that single Christians, as equal participants in the priesthood of believers, face no gender-based restrictions in their callings, whether in ministry, leadership, or society. Ronald W. Pierce notes, “Jesus treated women with dignity and respect. Women, as part of the priesthood of believers, were permitted to learn (1 Tim 2:11), teach (Acts 18:26), lead in worship (1 Cor 11:4–16) and even serve as apostles (Junia, Rom 16:7).” Citing Lydia’s leadership (Acts 16:14–15) and Paul’s singleness (1 Corinthians 7:7–8), egalitarians see no biblical basis for limiting single women to non-authoritative roles or single men to protective duties, as all serve Christ equally (Matthew 6:33). However, complementarians maintain that Genesis 2:15 and Titus 2:3–5 assign distinct roles – men to protect and lead, women to mentor and serve – ensuring singles honor God’s design through gender-specific callings, even outside marriage (Proverbs 15:22).

Patriarchal Objection: Patriarchal voices often urge single Christians to marry to fulfill gender roles, claiming men must lead families and women manage households (Eph 5:22–33). Joel Webbon asserts, “For the Christian woman, one of the primary good works that she must demonstrate is motherhood. Yes, there will always be exceptions, such as those who cannot have children. However, the intentional refusal to bear children—a woman’s intentional disdain for motherhood—serves as a chief evidence that she does not truly possess saving faith.” This view, from his X post, ties a woman’s faith to motherhood, omitting singleness as a God-ordained calling (1 Corinthians 7:7–8), and misapplies Ephesians 5:22–33 to all Christians, not just the married. It overlooks Lydia’s leadership as a single woman (Acts 16:14–15) and Paul’s affirmation of singleness for undivided devotion to Christ. Complementarians affirm singleness as a calling, with men leading humbly and women serving actively, both glorifying God without needing marriage or motherhood (Matthew 6:33).

Practical Takeaway: Singles, prioritize God’s kingdom (Matthew 6:33). Women, mentor (Titus 2:3-5), work (Proverbs 31), or serve; men, lead humbly (Mark 10:45), protect, and provide for the church (1 Timothy 5:8). Seek counsel (Proverbs 15:22) to live out complementarian roles, embracing singleness as a gift (1 Corinthians 7:7). Reflect: How can single Christians embody biblical masculinity or femininity without idolizing marriage?

Addressing Objections: Isn’t This Limiting Women’s Potential?

Objection 1: Complementarianism Limits Women’s Potential

Egalitarians like Rebecca Groothuis argue that role distinctions deny women’s potential, framing them as oppressive barriers to equality. Modern culture often amplifies this, equating gender roles with systemic patriarchy or outdated restrictions. Yet, Scripture paints a different picture: Proverbs 31’s virtuous woman (אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל, eshet-chayil, woman of strength) thrives in business, charity, and household leadership (v. 16-26), while Lydia, a seller of purple, leads economically and serves the church (Acts 16:14-15). These women flourish without negating church priorities (1 Timothy 2:12: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”) or home duties (Titus 2:5). Rather, biblical roles free women to serve God uniquely, not restrict them. Complementarianism channels gifts within God’s design – men leading in church (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and home (Ephesians 5:23), women complementing as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) – without stifling societal contributions. Women lead as bosses, in politics, or the military, guided by wisdom (Proverbs 3:5-6), proving roles enhance, not limit, potential.

Objection 2: Roles Are Culturally Outdated

William Webb’s “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic argues biblical gender roles reflect 1st-century cultural norms, suggesting modern equality should supersede them. This view posits Paul’s instructions (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:12, Titus 2:3-5) were temporary, tied to patriarchal societies. Yet, Paul grounds roles in creation, not culture: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Genesis 2’s design – men as providers/protectors (1 Timothy 5:8), women as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) – transcends time. Biblical women like Deborah (Judges 4:4) and Lydia (Acts 16:14) show timeless flexibility, leading in society while honoring God’s design. Deborah’s judgeship and Lydia’s business align with Proverbs 31’s initiative (v. 16), not cultural constraints. Complementarianism isn’t a relic; it applies creation-based roles to modern contexts, as our examples – CEOs, pilots, single mentors – demonstrate. Wisdom (Proverbs 15:22) ensures roles remain relevant, glorifying God (Ephesians 5:32).

Objection 3: Patriarchal Control

Patriarchal advocates, like those in “Biblical Patriarchy” circles, argue women’s societal roles – leading as bosses, in politics, or speaking publicly – undermine male authority, citing headship (Ephesians 5:23: “the husband is the head of the wife”). This distorts Scripture, imposing church and home roles on secular spheres. Ephesians 5:22-23 governs marriage, and 1 Timothy 2:12 restricts authoritative teaching in church, not public life. Deborah’s public leadership (Judges 4:4-7), Esther’s queenship (Esther 4:14), and the Proverbs 31 woman’s influence (v. 31) show women contributing without violating God’s design. Complementarianism rejects control, honoring women as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7: “heirs together of the grace of life”). Women debate, rally, or serve militarily, guided by wisdom (Proverbs 31:26), while men lead humbly (Mark 10:45). Patriarchal overreach, like barring women’s public speech, adds extrabiblical rules, which complementarianism rejects.

Living It Out: Jane’s Story

Meet Jane, a single Christian in her late 20s, training to become an Air Force fighter pilot. Her dream soars high, but she wonders: Can she honor God’s design as a woman in a field often seen as male? Let’s walk with Jane as she applies complementarian principles, guided by Scripture (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Jane studies Scripture to ground her calling. Proverbs 31’s woman of strength (אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל, eshet-chayil) inspires her initiative, while 1 Timothy 2:12 clarifies that piloting, a secular role, doesn’t conflict with church teaching restrictions. Acts 16:14’s Lydia emboldens her to use gifts boldly. Jane balances priorities, ensuring rigorous training doesn’t overshadow church involvement (Hebrews 10:25) or mentoring younger women while aligning with biblical priorities (Titus 2:3-5). As a single woman, she embraces 1 Corinthians 7:7-8’s call to serve Christ undividedly, free from marital duties (Ephesians 5:22, if married).

When debates arise – some egalitarians urge role erasure, others in patriarchal circles misapply headship (1 Corinthians 11:3) – Jane engages graciously, anchoring in creation’s design (1 Timothy 2:13). She seeks wisdom, praying and consulting her pastor (Proverbs 15:22), who affirms her vocation aligns with God’s glory. Jane’s life reflects the gospel, mirroring Christ’s service (Mark 10:45) as she serves others, inspiring men to lead humbly and honor her as a “joint heir” (1 Peter 3:7).

Jane’s journey shows complementarianism isn’t restrictive but freeing, channeling gifts to glorify God. Reflect: How can you, like Jane, honor God’s design in your career or singleness? Share below.

Conclusion: Glorifying God in a Secular World

Complementarianism equips us: women lead as bosses, in politics, or the military, guided by Proverbs 31’s wisdom, not egalitarian sameness or patriarchal control. Singles shine under Christ’s headship (1 Corinthians 11:3). Scripture – from Genesis 2’s עֵזֶר (ezer) to Ephesians 5 – clarifies God’s design. Join us next for objections to complementarianism, praying for wisdom.