Getting the Whole Picture, Part 13: Created Order Concerns and Challenges

Created order has become a central pillar of the complementarian case for exclusive (or, for some, primary) male leadership. Genesis 1—3 is often appealed to as the basis for this understanding of God’s design.

This represents a significant shift from the dominant traditional arguments of the past two thousand years. Historically, women were often considered inferior to men and were frequently blamed for sin because Eve was deceived. Her deception was commonly understood as the primary reason women were prohibited from having authority over or teaching men, based especially on 1 Timothy 2:12–14.

Since roughly the 1980s, however, the focal point of that passage has increasingly shifted. Rather than emphasizing Eve's deception, complementarian arguments have more emphasized Paul's statement that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13). In this view, the order of creation itself becomes the primary reason men should exclusively (or primarily) lead. This is often presented as God's grand design for men and women.

As I argued in Part 11: Paul's Correction of the Created Order and Part 12: Artemis, Ephesus, Timothy, and Paul, I believe Paul is correcting a false teaching or belief about created order in 1 Timothy 2, not establishing a universal prohibition against women ever teaching or leading men. Such a prohibition often seems to trump, or even contradict, numerous biblical commands and principles emphasizing mutuality.

There is also important common ground between complementarians and egalitarians.

We agree that men and women are created equally in the image of God. We share the same dignity, honor, value, and worth. We also agree that God created men and women with differences. We are not a universal, one-size-fits-all humanity. Each of us has different strengths and weaknesses and brings different perspectives and gifts to the table. God delights in the beautiful diversity of how he created humanity, both male and female and as individuals.

But there are also significant concerns and challenges that need to be considered when the concept of created order is used to establish male authority over women.

Some concerns with the created-order argument

First, there are inconsistencies, double standards, and competing assumptions about power. At times, the argument seems to operate more through a worldview of transactional power dynamics than through the biblical vision of mutual and relational service: serving together, with and among one another.

Second, Scripture repeatedly challenges the assumption that priority in order establishes authority. There are multiple examples throughout Genesis and the rest of Scripture where God does not follow primacy or birth order: Abel rather than Cain, Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob rather than Esau, Joseph rather than his older brothers, David rather than his older brothers, and many others.

Jesus explicitly turns conventional hierarchies upside down. "Many who are first will be last, and the last first" (Matt. 19:30). He repeatedly redefines greatness not as ruling over others but as serving them. In doing so, Jesus radically reverses traditional assumptions about order, status, and power.

Third, the created-order argument sometimes depends heavily on assumptions drawn from narrative silence. This is particularly evident in arguments built around 1 Timothy 2:12–14, including the claim that the relatively rare Greek word authentein means general or ordinary authority over others. That understanding has become particularly influential in modern complementarian arguments, especially those associated with Wayne Grudem and arguments for pre-Fall male headship.

I hope eventually to address each of Grudem's arguments in more detail, perhaps in a future appendix or in the comments to this series.

Fourth, subsequent cultural assumptions and traditions can become infused into the concept of created order. Ideas about hierarchy over one another and the patriarchal subordination of women have often been read back into Genesis. These assumptions influenced traditional Christian views that women were inferior to men—and, tragically, those beliefs continue to affect billions of women today.

Fifth, there can be a disproportionate focus on a relatively small number of biblical verses that appear to support hierarchy at the expense of the much larger biblical witness to mutuality and inclusion. For example, discussions of Ephesians 5 often focus heavily on "submission" and "headship," while giving considerably less attention to Paul's repeated emphasis on agape love throughout the chapter.

Sixth, some influential complementarian arguments have relied on versions of Eternal Submission of the Son (ESS) or Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS). Figures such as George Knight III and Wayne Grudem have appealed to these ideas in different ways. There are significant theological problems with using an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity as a model for male-female hierarchy, particularly given the church's historic rejection of subordinating one person of the Trinity to another in the Nicene tradition.

Seventh, a reaction against feminism has also played an important role in the development of modern complementarianism. The history of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and the 1987 Danvers Statement illustrates how concerns about feminism and changing cultural understandings of gender helped shape the modern complementarian movement.

I am going to expand on one of these concerns now, and return to these and other challenges to the complementarian view toward the end of this series.

We're getting there!

For now, I want to focus on what I believe is a particularly serious problem with the creation-order argument: the double standard surrounding the Fall. Stay tuned for the next post, which will further explore this!