Dr. Gordon P. Hugenberger recently wrote an article for Christianity Today entitled “Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Paul Would Approve: The Biggest New Testament Passages on Gender Roles May Have More To Do With Marriage Than Ministry” (March 18, 2024). 

Some of my students at Northern Seminary as well as also friends on social media asked me for my thoughts on Hugenberger’s article. My first impression was that (1) I deeply appreciate the irenic tone and pastoral graciousness of this article, and (2) the title is very misleading (Hugenberger doesn’t really talk about a theology of marriage in this article), and (3) Hugenberger sidesteps major theological issues in the discussion in his attempt at labeling this a “secondary issues” about which Christians should not fight or reject each other. Again, I appreciate the tone of his approach, but we are not just talking about a small secondary matter, like choosing the color of the church carpet; this issue has really core theological issues underneath is: like anthropology (what does it mean to be human? To be man? To be woman?), ecclesiology (how do we exist as the church together?), and exousiology (how do we use power in a distinctively Christian way?). 

Before I critique Hugenberger’s article, I want to give a fair summary, but it is best if you read it for yourself and feel free to correct me in the comments if I got something wrong. (CLICK HERE)

My Brief Summary

The basic argument Hugenberger makes in this article is that there are extreme views on both sides of the gender discussion in the church, but most people are reasonable and can disagree charitably. Most people want to be biblically faithful and want to respect and honor and treat women fairly. One way both sides (complementarians and egalitarians) can come together is by recognizing that not all of the controversial and debated passages are about ministry; many of them are actually about marriage. 

For example, Hugenberger argues that 1 Timothy 2 is not about “man” and “woman,” but about “husband” and “wife.” There is no specific terminology in Greek for husband and wife, you just have to understand that that is the subject matter based on context. Hugenberger compares 1 Timothy 2 to 1 Peter 3:1-7, noting some similarities. If 1 Peter 3:1-7 is about marriage, then so is 1 Timothy 2. 

When it comes to “teaching,” Hugenberger argues that this isn’t about preaching or teaching doctrine in the church, but about a wife learning not to “lecture or boss around her husband.” And when it comes to the language of “submission” (1 Tim 2:11), again Hugenberger points to the home context where the good Christian wife has a “receptive disposition, a willingness to listen and be persuaded as needed, not mindless disobedience.” Hugenberger reinforces this point by saying submission is not meant to be an ugly word, since all Christians are called to submit to the government (for example).

Hugenberger then transitions to talking about the instructions Paul gives about church leadership roles in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. He argues that “androcentric” statements are made that are geared towards men, but not to the exclusion of women; just as we see prophets described in Scripture using male language (Num 12:6-8; Deut 13), and yet there were numerous women prophets in Scripture like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna. Hugenberger concludes by calling both sides to come together and worship together despite differences of exegesis on gender issues. 

What’s At Stake Should Not Be Lost

Again, I want to reiterate that I admire and affirm Hugenberger’s reasoned ecumenism, his desire for all Christians to turn graciously towards one another. I hear that, and I appreciate that, and if we put people on a spectrum on the gender debate, Hugenberger is clearly on more of what he calls the egalitarian side. However, the terminology is important and something we need to address, because it felt to me like his big picture question was: Can’t we all just get along?, and it seems like he could be in danger of missing the point. Let’s start with the terminology.

Hugenberger defines complementarians as “those who believe there are distinct, complementary roles for men and women in marriage, church, and society”); and he defines egalitarians as “those who deny there are distinct roles for men and women”). I know in a short CT article, you can’t explain these things in detail in a short amount of space, but these definitions don’t hit the mark in my opinion. First, egalitarians don’t focus on what they deny, they emphasize equality and partnership in marriage and ministry. Thus, many (like Lucy Peppiatt) prefer to use the language of “mutualists.” That is, complementarity and interchange without hierarchy. Second, what makes “complementarians” “complementarians” (in the SBC, or TGC, or CBMW kind of way) is not that they think men and women are different—virtually all Christians hold that to be true—but rather that women/wives should be submissive or subordinate to men; men lead, women follow. Only men can teach doctrine and preach to adults, not women. Therefore, I agree with Beth Barr and others who argue that “complementarian” is a misnomer, and it is better to say “hierarchalists” or “patriarchs.” Again, it’s not whether women are created by God differently than men, it’s whether women are in some way inferior to men in the area of leadership, intelligence, or decision-making.

This is where Hugenberger sidesteps the issue. If the title of the CT article is accurate to what he thinks, he believes women should be submissive in the home, but not the church. Okay (that doesn’t make sense to me btw) but why? Is it (a) how women were created (if they need absolute male leadership in the home, then why not the church?), or (b) is it just following popular Roman culture? (And thus not an absolute and universal teaching?) What is it about women that require their submission? I think Hugenberger introduces a dualism without really explaining it theologically, which is frustrating for me and bound to lead to confusion. 

I have two additional criticisms of the article

The 21st Century Conversation

Hugenberger’s article has a sense of timelessness to it, as if he is not aware of Mark Driscoll, or Zachary Garris, or Eric Conn, or Owen Strachan (or John Piper for that matter). The tone of Hugenberger’s article is something like: reasonable Christians on both sides are not that far apart. But what we are experiencing in the 21st century—with the combination of the politics of Trump, the isolationism of the pandemic, and the combative algorithms of social media—is the emergence of super-masculine-theology, and it’s not an isolated or fringe phenomenon. I don’t think it’s enough for Hugenberger to say, let’s all just get along. There is a massive magnetic pull towards the extremes. There is a reason the SBC is the largest evangelical denomination in the US, and have the largest seminaries as well. So, this issue cannot be relegated to a “secondary” issue if influential leaders and thinkers are reading the whole Bible and understanding God himself through an absolute masculine lens. For example, the SBC move to take the title “pastor” away from women—why now? It’s a question worth asking, and I wish Hugenberger had named that elephant in the room. 

If Submissive is Humble Openness, Why Not in the Church?

I think Hugenberger tried to do something good (and right), but inadvertently put himself into a bind. He explained household wifely submission as warm receptivity of the husband’s advice and influence, and her openness to being persuaded. I think that is fitting for the household codes, but two follow-up questions: (1) shouldn’t that be the Christ-like attitude both husband and wife show one another? Husband, if your wife is an accountant and you aren’t, aren’t you going to warmly receive her advice and influence and be open to her persuasion? And (2) shouldn’t this be the spirit of leadership in the church as well? That all leaders, male and female, show humble openness to a cooperative spirit that brings the best wisdom to the table? Hugenberger no doubt agrees with this (2) point, but then how is the family different in hierarchy and operation than the church?

Let’s take a test-case. Let’s say Phoebe, the Cenchrean deacon, gets married to a man named Marcus. She is a deacon, Marcus (let’s say) is not. So, according to Hugenberger, Phoebe has a leadership role over Marcus in the church setting, but then when she is at home, they switch roles. Right? Now, what if the church meets in Phoebe’s home (which is not a far-fetched scenario, since we have Nympha, Apphia, Lydia, Prisca, etc.). You see, trying to create a dualistic “two-worlds” gender system (this way in the home, this way in the church) keeps leading back to the questions: why? What is it about woman that makes her “fit” for being submissive in the home? What is it about man that makes him “fit” for being ruler/leader in the home? And then what exactly changes when they step into the church—especially when churches mostly met in home?

“AM I NOT A HUMAN AND A SISTER?”

I titled this response, “Am I Not a Human and a Sister?” Most of you will not get the allusion. I learned from Prof John Barclay that the British Abolitionists in the 18th century took a specific tactic to combat slavery. They developed imagery (and even coins) that depicted a bound black slave with an inscription that reads, “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?” 

The reference to “man” (i.e., “human”) reminded people that every person, slave or master, is made in the image of God and deserves life, freedom, and dignity. The second term, “brother,” relates to Christian brotherhood and equality within the church; just as the William Wells Brown poem goes:

Am I not a man and a brother?

Ought I not then to be free?

Sell me not one to another

Take not thus my liberty.

Christ, our Savior

Died for me, as well as for thee.

The debates between slavery-advocates and abolitionists went back and forth quoting Scripture verses, but I think the battle for freedom could not be won until they dug beneath the surface of trading texts to talk about a theology of being and personhood; the inherent value, dignity, and contribution of anyone and everyone.

Now, I recognize that the slavery discussion and the gender discussion are not the same; but here I do think Hugenberger failed to address the key ontological, anthropological, and sociological aspects that lie at the heart of the debate—and why some of us see this as more than a secondary issue. Is she not a human and a sister? So why must she be submissive?

Coming up next…(in post #2)

I want to thank Hugenberger, again, for his article, which does a lot of good in the area of generous and pastoral encouragement to bring unity and love, rather than division and spite. When I finished the article, I was surprised how much I appreciated it (and even mostly agreed with it!), despite the misleading title. In this post I got into deeper theological concerns with Hugenberger’s article, in the next post I will zoom in and address his textual exegesis and some of the areas where I agree and disagree with his readings of New Testament texts. 

Thanks for subscribing! Stay tuned…