Part of a series of interactions with God’s Yes to Women: Why the Bible’s Vision of Partnership Is Good News for Us All.
In ‘Reading the Bible as God’s Over-Arching Story’, the first chapter of God’s Yes to Women, Amy J. Erickson contrasts two approaches to Scripture: treating it as “a dataset” or a “unifying story” (pp. 4–5). In her view, complementarian theological reasoning tends to take the dataset approach:
There are obvious verses that are flagged when we search for the controlling variables ‘women’ and ‘speaking’ or ‘teaching’ … You only need two data points to form a line: Our job is done. (p. 5)
By contrast, she says:
Scripture is not a dataset to be plotted. It is more like a building to inhabit. It has the architecture of a story bracing and sturdy enough for us to make a home in with our very lives. And its cornerstone is Jesus Christ. (p. 5)
Her article outlines a unifying story that undergirds egalitarianism. However, many of Erickson’s exegetical observations and theological conclusions do not stand up under scrutiny, weakening the strength of her theological building.
In fact, contrary to the dataset complementarianism Erickson takes issue with, many complementarians use a unifying story approach to arrive at, I believe, a sturdier theological home.[1] In this article I will consider just two elements of the unifying story of Scripture.
Creation
Erickson states that when God created Adam and Eve in his own image (Gen 1:27) their tasks weren’t differentiated by gender. “Male dominance” only became a feature of the fallen condition as an antithesis to God’s original design (pp. 6–7). It is true that in Genesis 1:28 God does not distinguish between Adam and Eve in his command to fill the earth and subdue it. That command is given to both with no specification as to their gendered input and no differentiation between their roles. But Erickson’s argument ignores a critical task that was given to Adam, and Adam alone, in the second creation account in Genesis 2. Before the creation of Eve, the LORD God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv. 16–18). The task of passing on this knowledge is therefore Adam’s task. He failed this task. Adam was standing with Eve when she ate of the fruit (3:6). This failure also underpins why Adam was cursed along with Eve: Eve because she ate the fruit, and Adam because he failed to teach/remind her not to, making them both equally culpable (3:16–19).[2]
Also, Paul argues in Romans 5 that sin entered the world through one man, so life comes from one man:
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! (verse 17).
It is empirically evident that while sin entered the world through one man, men and women have both expressed their gendered difference sinfully, often at the expense of the other. God’s good created order imputes no difference in value between the two sexes, despite different roles in marriage (men and women are different but equal). However, sinful humanity has attributed a value judgment to our gendered difference (women are different and inferior) where God intended none.
The Incarnation
Erickson claims that Jesus’ conception required no contribution from a man and that “this is a profound endorsement of God’s resounding trust in women to handle not just the word of Scripture, but the Word himself” (p. 7). But far from being warrant for female handling of Scripture, the lack of male involvement in Jesus’ birth is linked to his unique role as the promised Immanuel (“God with us”). Jesus’ birth by a virgin was prophesied by Isaiah (Is. 7:14), witnessed and expounded in the Gospels (Lk 1:35; Jn 1:13–14, 6:41–42) but never with an application to women’s ministry.
It is possible to extrapolate theologically beyond the explicit teaching of Scripture, if done carefully. For example, egalitarians and complementarians both recognise the special role of Mary in salvation history, as well as the distinctive role of women as witnesses of the resurrection. There are also general truths we might take from specific passages, such as 1 Corinthians 11:11–12: while the immediate context is the man–woman relationship in marriage and church, Paul declares a general truth to express the interdependence of men and women: “nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”
However, the additional meaning Erickson extracts from the incarnation is reaching too far for evidence for her proposed biblical arc that fits a pre-determined conclusion.
The Biblical Arc
Far from arguing from silence and using a few data points to plot a female-disenfranchising theology, the complementarian view is anchored in what Genesis teaches about our equality and our complementary roles in creation; the universal effects of sin, and the distinct expressions of sin and judgment for men and women. We see that thread all the way through the Bible to Jesus himself, who chose his twelve male apostles to guard the good deposit. Jesus clearly empowered women to be his disciples (Lk 10:38–42) and even be the first witnesses of his resurrection (Matt 28:8; also true during his earthly ministry: e.g. Jn 4:39). Men and women are partners together as Jesus’ disciples, and yet the formal teaching leadership was entrusted by Jesus to men. All of this underpins the New Testament letters, that pastorally apply this foundational theology.
1 Corinthians 11 gives us a specific example of the way this unifying arc functions pastorally. In this passage, Paul teaches wives to reflect their marital status, using the language of shame and honour. Some might dismiss this passage as so culturally tethered as to be no longer relevant at all. However, the reasoning is anchored in Genesis: verse 8 (“woman from man”) echoes Genesis 2:21 and verse 9 (“woman [as helper] for man”) echoes Genesis 2:18. Even if the specific sign of a head covering is culturally specific, the principle of male headship in marriage that this sign expresses is grounded in the gender differentiation seen in Genesis 2. Paul’s pastoral application affirms God’s good created order. At the same time, as we have already seen above, 1 Corinthians 11:11–12, beautifully and forcefully asserts the interdependence of men and women, and guards against those who would “take the argument further than Paul intends.”[3] This passage not only provides us with a complementarian narrative arc, but a caution in exaggerated application of this arc.
Complementarians build on these elements of the unifying biblical story (and others besides) to establish a strong commitment to shared dignity and gospel partnership, that still recognises distinct roles for men and women in marriage and the church. You might not agree with the result, but they are widely recognised conclusions that arise from approaching Scripture as one redemptive story. [4]
Far from being a theology built on a few proof-texts, complementarian theology is a unifying arc within the overall biblical narrative. It expresses the truth of God’s good created order. It recognises that humans have applied the theology in sinful ways and that we fall short of the beauty that God envisioned for our relationships. But it seeks to explore, through the unifying clarity of the biblical narrative, how we should apply the theology clearly, truthfully and with growing Christlikeness.
[1] A dataset approach is a trap that egalitarians can also fall into, for example by citing only Galatians 3:28 and Romans 16:7; or by referencing the stories of Miriam, Deborah or Huldah separately from their context and exegetical meaning.
[2] This is a point explored in depth by Claire Smith in God’s Good Design as it underpins Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2.
[3] Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2018), p. 494–5)
[4] See for example Graham Beynon & Jane Tooher’s Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture and Claire Smith’s Priscilla & Aquila Centre lecture ‘The History of Complementarianism’ (2025) .
