Male and female he made them - celebrating one humanity, equal and different
- David Runcorn
- 5 hours ago
- 7 min read
New Year Resolutions for Inclusive Faith
David Runcorn - with Paul Roberts
David and Paul are co-convenors of Inclusive Evangelicals
Inclusive Evangelicals (IEs) celebrate the full equality, mutuality and partnership of women and men, created in God’s image. Although this is the official teaching of the Church of England it has yet to embrace it unambiguously and allows discrimination against women in its employment practices. Meanwhile, within the evangelical world, a teaching called ‘complementarianism’ is widely claimed to summarise what the bible teaches about the relationship between the sexes.
Complementarianism teaches that men and women are equal in God’s image, but different in having divinely ordered roles and responsibilities. There are ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ versions of this teaching within which women may exercise some expressions of leadership alongside, but not over, men (soft) or may not at all (hard). It is a hierarchical. In this teaching the man is the ‘head’, and men lead.
'the tacit acceptance of the validity of “complementarian” or “male headship” theology creates a culture and environment within wider Evangelicalism in which women’s agency and callings are seen as less significant than men’s.'
This is the context in which Kate Massey writes in IE’s forthcoming book Evangelical and Inclusive – a future and hope. In her chapter, ‘Being a woman and an evangelical’, she tells of the impact of this teaching on women’s selfhood and calling. She observes how, ‘It is highly unlikely that you can live, learn and worship within an evangelical space without encountering beliefs and teaching that would place limits on what women can say or do based on a particular reading of scripture. This is tolerated with different groups largely agreeing to disagree’. However, ‘the tacit acceptance of the validity of “complementarian” or “male headship” theology creates a culture and environment within wider Evangelicalism in which women’s agency and callings are seen as less significant than men’s. Even so-called “soft” complementarianism, that claims men and women are equal but different, and that women may teach or exercise leadership under the oversight of a man, teaches us that women’s voices are inherently untrustworthy. The implication is that there is something harmful about women’s voices left uncontrolled; that there could be trouble if a woman’s voice was regarded as authoritative independent of male oversight’. Overall, says Massey, ‘distrust of women’s voices is hard baked into many women’s experience of evangelicalism’. This is illustrated in the present debates on sexuality where it is often claimed that women are more ‘liberal’ theologically.
Perhaps the question to ask is not ‘why are women more liberal?’, but ‘why are men more conservative?’
‘distrust of women’s voices is hard baked into many women’s experience of evangelicalism’
There are three things to note about Complementarian teaching.
Firstly, it is a very recent teaching.
It only received its definitive expression in the Danvers Statement, published in 1989 by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which stated that though men and woman were equal before God, ‘distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God and are part of the created order’ (1).
Secondly, the idea of ‘roles’ is a similarly modern one, describing behaviour in various contexts, such as teachers, lawyers, or doctors, in ways that would have been unknown in the ancient world. Roles also vary, change and evolve across cultures and contexts. The idea there are fixed, separate roles for women and men, prescribed by God, is not found in the bible.
Thirdly, there is a significant theological problem with this teaching. Complementarianism is founded on the belief that within the Holy Trinity, the Son is subordinate to the Father. This belief was debated and firmly rejected by the Council of Nicea,1500 years ago, and through church history has been regarded as heresy. Orthodox Christian belief after the Council of Nicea (325AD) was unambiguous that the Father and the Son were equally God in their very being. This is why Christianity needs the idea of the Trinity to explain how God can be One, yet comprised of three, co-equal ‘persons’. Any form of subordination, or differentiation of status or authority is absolutely ruled out in the Nicene Creed: ‘God from God, light from light, true God from true God’.
Complementarians point to passages in the Bible where Jesus submits to the Father’s will, or is described as being subject to the Father (eg. Phil 2:8 and 1 Cor 15:28). It was these passages which led Arius and his followers to the (Arian) heresy that the Council of Nicea rejected. But these passages are not describing a subservience of God the Son to God the Father, but rather the final triumph of God the Trinity over the fall of creation (see, for example, Phil 2:9-11). Through Jesus’ free choice of obedience to God, the creation he entered at the incarnation is itself brought into reconciled obedience to God. This is done by virtue of the Son being made Incarnate, not by some internal subordination in God’s essential nature. Theologians describe this paradox as the difference between the ‘immanent’ Trinity (what God is in his very essence) and the ‘economic’ Trinity (what God is in his actions in regard to creation and redemption). If they become confused (as they certainly are by complementarians) then heresy – a false belief about God – is the result.
Subordination within the Trinity isn’t just the only problem. One big difference between God and humans is that God is ONE, whereas we are many. This begins with the two-ness of Adam and Eve in the bible’s story: God makes two, not one. Before the fall, these are different and equal. After the fall, they are different and unequal, (‘he shall rule over you’, Gen 3:16). Patriarchy (the subordination of women to men) has its roots in the fall, not in the original creation, still less in the Being of the One God. So evangelical complementarianism has two theological errors when it comes to the doctrine of God: it is subordinationist, and it denies the essential One-ness of God - two heresies for the price of one, and both firmly contradicted by the Nicene Creed.
'evangelical complementarianism has two theological errors: it is subordinationist, and it denies the essential One-ness of God - two heresies for the price of one, and both firmly contradicted by the Nicene Creed.'
Furthermore heresy seldom remains just an intellectual error – it often has terrible consequences. Whilst complementarians are using a bad doctrine of God to project the sinful oppression of women into the godhead, the same works equally well for other forms of human oppression. For example, the bible talks extensively about slavery. Complementarian Trinitarian belief has been used to justify slaves being ‘equal but different’ to their masters, since both are human, but both serve different purposes. Likewise, Christians have sometimes believed some races to be ‘inferior’ or naturally subordinate to others. Complementarian Trinitarian belief can be used to justify racism by saying it is merely a reflection of subordination within the godhead. This bad theology can thus become a kind of ‘swiss-army knife’ to justify a variety of forms of fallen, sinful oppression and injustice.
Kate Massey argues persuasively that human relationships based on complementarian subordinationism are bad for women. But is it any better for men?
In recent years our male-centred and male-led evangelical world has come under scrutiny in the light of a succession of abuse scandals. Commissioned reports have detailed authoritarian, hierarchical, male-controlled approaches to leadership resulting in a culture ‘where people did not feel they could ask questions or hold differing views to the leaders, and an imbalance of power influence and control which increased the risk of abusive or poor behaviour'. It was marked by exclusivity and a lack of diversity leading to ‘a uniformity of thought, creating a risk of leaders [unlikely] to be challenged by different perspectives or diverse views [and the] increased the risk that people may be less willing to share their concerns’. A highly misogynistic and patronising approach to the place of women in the Church was also noted (2). Paul Roberts discusses this further in Evangelical and inclusive.
The IE networks are all too familiar with stories from churches where male leaders are not allowing open discussion and the validity of other viewpoints and, in places, are seeking to impose a conservative ‘party line’. Whilst we are certainly not claiming this is typical of all male leadership we believe this needs addressing and that theological reform is a core part of the task. We note that in response to the reports, the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has expressed lament and penitence and pledged a ‘culture change’ in its leadership style (3). Although excluded from its membership, IEs welcome and support this.
Rather than being equal but different, we believe women and men are equal and different.
Resolutions
*We believe in the full equality of men and women.
*We do not find complementarian teaching in the bible.
*We believe it to be a distortion of the partnership between women and men and of our understanding of God. Though it is sincerely believed, this teaching has the capacity to undermine and cause actual harm.
*We believe Subordinationism to be a flawed understanding of the Christian doctrine of God, and therefore an unreliable guide to human identity in the image of God. Rather than being equal but different we believe women and men are equal and different. These differences are creative, richly varied and not based on any supposed ordering or hierarchy.
In the light of this:
*We resolve to celebrate our full mutual partnership as created in the image of God. In particular we rejoice in the gift of woman archbishop in the Church of England and the Church of Wales.
*We resolve to confront any teaching claiming to be biblical that results in demeaning attitudes or coercive behaviour towards each other within the body of Christ.
*We resolve to play our part in the ongoing renewal and development of theological understanding that is the call to every generation, within our own tradition and beyond.
2. Quotes from the Makin Report, https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/reviews-and-reports/john-smyth-review. 9.1.9, 9.1.10
The painting of Adam and Eve is by Hugo Sinberg
Evangelical and Inclusive will be published by Canterbury Press in April 2026
