A WOMAN'S PLACE IS IN THE KITCHEN, NOT THE CHURCH:

brittbryan1001
Mar 5, 2023
12 min read

Updated: Dec 5, 2025

How Evangelicals have used "complementarianism" as a tool to maintain power over women.

Disclaimer: This blog is going to use the words "feminism" and "patriarchy." I am aware these can be triggering for some, but I ask that you please read the following with an open mind and heart.

I also want to be clear this blog is about gender inequalities in the Evangelical Church in America, it is in no way an exhaustive exposition of all groups of people who have been oppressed, marginalized and wronged. This is specifically about how women are viewed in the Southern Baptist branch of Evangelical Christianity.

Nearly three years ago, news broke that Saddleback Church is no longer part of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). If you follow church or religion in the news, you heard about this story. But, it's been a while, so here's a brief rundown:

Saddleback Church was started in 1980 by Rick and Kay Warren and quickly became one of the largest megachurches in the country. Today, their campuses average 30,000 people in attendance each week, with 21 different campuses and countless meeting locations and online communities.

Saddleback was part of the SBC from the day its doors opened in Lake Forest, California (it is important to note that nearly 47,000 churches belong to the SBC, with over 14 million members). Then in February 2023, Saddleback got ousted by the world's largest Baptist denomination, and the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. The story was a big deal, because lots of people were looking.

So, what did Saddleback do wrong?

They let women become pastors.

Photo Cred: Baptist Press

Like most organizations, decisions are made by appointed committees. The SBC’s “credentials committee” is the group that makes recommendations about which churches should be disfellowshipped from the Convention. A committee chairman was quoted as saying,

“As stated in the Baptist Faith and Message Article VI, the SBC holds to the belief that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” - Executive Committee chairman Jared Wellman

It is likely no mystery which biblical texts this statement is referring to, but I will get into that. Wellman further explained that Saddleback no longer aligned with the SBC’s statement of faith, “as demonstrated by the church having a female teaching pastor functioning in the office of pastor.”

Americans like to think we have come a long way regarding gender equality with respect to rights, pay, access, and representation. And we certainly have. But this story reads like it was ripped out of the headlines from the 1950's. But it just happened, and it continues to happen.

So, why am I writing about a story from 2023 now?

Well, as with any of my blogs, it's personal. I spent many of my formative years in the Southern Baptist Church. Although I have not aligned myself with the SBC for many years, I am currently a seminary student (and woman) pursuing ordination. Despite belonging to a "progressive" church congregation - where I have been leading for the past ten years - I am facing obstacles to my ordination. And I know I am not the only woman who is troubled to find herself in this position.

What I hope to accomplish with this post is to encourage Christians to view this not as a gender issue, but one that gets at the heart of what it means to be made in the image of God. I hope we will openly and directly ask the question, why, in 2025, are women still not allowed to hold the office of pastor in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination? (Again, this issue exists within many faith spaces, but this blog is focused on Evangelical Christianity).

Okay, sounds like this is a Christian dilemma. Why should anyone else care?

Even those who do not identify as Christian or religious in any way ought to be troubled by the ongoing discriminatory practices in the Evangelical Church that are based on outdated gender roles. Especially in our modern political landscape where Evangelical Christianity - by way of Christian nationalism - has become indistinguishable from the current administration, the implications for all women, regardless of your religious affiliation, are extremely harmful. (I've written about why Christian nationalism is bad for democracy AND Christianity here).

Therefore, these misogynistic and frankly misguided views impact all Americans and only serve to further the ever-increasing divide in our country.

Photo Cred: The Guardian

Saddleback being pushed out of the SBC for supporting women's ordination is just a symptom of the larger, more sinister issue, which is deep-seeded patriarchy that stems from a misunderstanding of scripture. In order to get at that core misunderstanding that excludes women from ordination in the Evangelical Church, we need to understand the justification and movitation behind the SBC's belief system about gender roles.

What does the SBC believe a woman’s role should be?

The best explanation of the SBC’s view of women is illustrated in “God’s Umbrella of Protection.”

(Note that this refers exclusively to heterosexual relationships, as the SBC also opposes homosexuality. This blog focuses only on the SBC's view of heterosexual marriages and does not reflect my personal beliefs and views on marriage.)

In this “Divine Order,” God comes first; then the husband, who leads the family. And underneath him is the wife, whose role is in managing the home and the children and serving as a helper to her husband. In the traditional, strict sense of this concept, a woman could not simply say, “I want to have a career and a family.” Her role was in the home and in service to her husband.

But, when the Second Wave of the Feminist Movement began to rise in popularity, suggesting that women could work outside the home if they wanted, some Evangelical leaders believed this could lead to the destruction of the family and society as a whole. Thus, they began preaching an increased emphasis on the "protection" element of husbands OVER their wives.

Clearly, women needed to be reminded of their rightful place.

The groundbreaking book that sent all men into a tailspin, launched Second Wave Feminism - and strengthened Evangelicalism's stance on complementarianism.

But women just wouldn't stay silent; something had to be done. So, in 1988, a group of men gathered and called themselves the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” and Complementarianism was born. Complementarianism holds that men and women have “different but complementary roles and responsibilities” within the family and religious and social structures. And this is the view held by the SBC.

John Piper and Wayne Gruden promoted this view in their 1991 book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. They wanted to “help Christians avoid the mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions.”

Basically they were saying, and this is my paraphrase, “A woman does have value, but only as it relates to her submission to male headship and authority. We believe that Scripture endorses a gender hierarchy that places the man above a woman, which means the woman must defer to the man to tell her what she can and cannot do.”

And while times have changed, the "Umbrella of Protection" and its hierarchal structure remains the same. Of course, many modern families rely on two incomes and have modified the umbrella to fit their unique situation and are much more balanced and supportive of a woman stepping outside of her ascribed role (which itself is a commentary on the important role capitalism plays in American Evangelicalism).

And the source they used as a tool of oppression used to keep women in their place? It was, big shocker, the Bible.

Except the Bible doesn't do that at all.

It really doesn't.

It is an inescapable truth that women have always been subjugated throughout history; it’s just that the Bible should never have been used in support of that.

But as with so many abuses throughout church history, the complementarian belief system stems from a misunderstanding of Scripture. Here are some of the most cited Bible verses to justify how women have been treated in some Evangelical traditions:

1 Timothy 2:12 - “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
1 Corinthians 14:34 - “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must remain in submission, as the law says.” (*Curious which law Paul's referring to? Me too. I'm assuming it's just the general law about temple behavior, which was that women and men were kept separate in social settings. See note at bottom for more on this.)
Ephesians 5:22-24 - “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church….Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Pretty compelling, huh? I mean, when I read that at its surface, it seems crystal clear that women are to be silent and submissive. End of story.

But it’s not the end. Because as some opponents to the complementarian view will point out, what do you do with Galatians 3:28?

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

This is a liberative verse not just for women or religious or ethnic minorities, but any group of oppressed and marginalized people - especially slaves. Where other areas of the Bible seem to support slavery (like Ephesians 6:5, “slaves obey your masters”), Galatians 3:28 stands in opposition.

I mean, how are we to know which verses to prioritize? The problem with proof-texting is that it leads to us picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally and which ones are metaphorical; which "instruction" we are meant to adhere to today and which laws are outdated. Most people would say that slavery is obviously sinful and we are not meant to take it literally; therefore, Ephesians 6:5 and its instruction to slaves no longer applies today.

But when it comes to Biblical views of women, just one chapter earlier in Ephesians 5, we should still take that literally and maintain its authority over women today?

Pope John Paul II didn't think so. In his 1988 apostolic letter, he suggested that using Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5 to “justify male headship and female subordination in marriage would be the equivalent of using those passages to justify slavery.” (You can read the entire letter here.)

The point is that Scripture is far too complex to approach it with nothing more than surface level reading. Context is crucial and history matters, because it can inform and shape how groups of people are viewed and treated today. Which is something Christians should care deeply about.

Historian Beth Allison Barr does an incredible job outlining that history in her book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth. It is, in my view, one of the most important books any Christian could ever read. I highly recommend her book for a comprehensive history on this subject.

Photo Cred: Beth Allison Barr wants Christians to know where ‘biblical womanhood’ comes from (it’s not the Bible)

Barr outlines how patriarchy was actually a human construct that was integrated and read into our scriptures. She is explicit that biblical womanhood is not biblical at all, and writes extensively about Paul and how he has been intentionally misrepresented to serve a very specific agenda.

“While Paul’s writings about women were known consistently throughout church history, it wasn’t until the Reformation era that they began to be used systematically to keep women out of leadership roles. Instead of scripture transforming society, society transformed how early modern Christians interpreted the Bible.” Beth Allison Barr

When we allow our own agendas to inform how we read and apply the Bible, maybe part of that is natural. But when it results in the oppression or dehumanization of a group of people, something has gone very, very wrong.

So, back to the question: how are we to know how to read the Bible and which verses to prioritize? I'd say we lean toward the ones that most align with love. And that is not soft, mushy-gushy, "everything goes liberalism." That is the Way of the Cross.

And as this nation is becoming more and more obsessed with militant hyper-masculinity and submissive "trad-wife" trends, it seems more important than ever to find our way back.

So, if we want to move towards a more truly biblical view of men and women, where should we start?

1). Look to the experts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PubAhacl8

This blog has barely scratched the surface of the issues raised by complementarian gender roles couched as "biblical" manhood and womanhood and how such a view has negatively impacted women today. There exists a dark underbelly of trauma and abuse that lurks beneath the corrupt political marriage between American Evangelicalism and Christian nationalism.

The point I hope I have made is that if we continue to ignore how patriarchal systems like complementarianism have influenced society’s view of women and have therefore shaped our religious opinions on the matter, we remain part of the problem.

But of course, I don’t think you should just take my word for it, which is why I have relied heavily on the scholarship and expertise of historian Beth Allison Barr, who has devoted her life’s work to this. But, maybe you don’t want to take Beth Allison Barr’s word for it, either.

So how about these Evangelical voices instead?

Jimmy Carter left the SBC over it’s views of women. (Why Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter left the SBC)
Beth Moore left over it’s views of women. (Why Beth Moore left the SBC)
NT Wright says there is no biblical justification for this view of women. (Hear N.T. Wright’s answer)
Scot McKnight says there is no biblical justification for this view of women. (Check out his book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible)
Andy Stanley, who grew up Southern Baptist, says women can do anything they want to do in his church - or anywhere. (Read about that here)

And if none of those people do it for you either, how about Paul?

2.) Look at what Paul really said about women.

Hear this: Paul did not want women to be silent, nor did he tell them to be.

I know what you're thinking. "Um, Paul literally did say that."

But not in the way we think he did. We do such a disservice to the relevance of the Bible when we force our modern notions backward onto the ancient text. There is too much to unpack about how Paul has been misunderstood to be included in this blog. I'll be working on a separate blog about that, so please check back in.

For now I will just say, Paul's writings have been used as a weapon to silence women, when in reality, Paul empowered and served alongside women. We ought to look what Paul did and how he lived for a better indication of what he actually thought of women. There is so much more to Paul’s writings than meets the eye in a flat reading of his letters.

3). Look for Jesus.

If you are not compelled by experts in this field or even by Paul, then do your own research. Read for yourself the stories from the gospels about how Jesus interacted with and spoke to women. And how the early church, inspired by Jesus and started by Paul, was actually very inclusive of women.

For example, did you know that more women than men are identified by their ministry in Romans 16? And that Phoebe is the only deacon of a first Century church whose name we know? When Jesus was resurrected, the first person he appeared before was Mary Magdalene. Of all the people Jesus could have approached first, all of his disciples and all the prominent and influential men, he chose to appear first to a woman.

Photo cred: How ‘complementarianism’ – the belief that God assigned specific gender roles – became part of evangelical doctrine

In the first century world Jesus lived in, very few people had much power, but women had none. Women were not educated, respected, valued or even considered in much of the law. They could not own property. They had next-to-no rights, no voice, and there was no protection for single or widowed women.

Into this world came Jesus, who not only saw and heard and valued women, but he elevated them. He had female disciples and students, like Mary Magdalene (known as the Apostle to the Apostles) and Mary of Bethany, who learned under Jesus in order to become a rabbi. (See my blog for more on that story - What's the Better Lesson from Martha and Mary?)

Why would Jesus have female disciples and students only to tell them they could never lead?

And why were women the first to see Jesus after his resurrection, where he instructed them to go tell others what they saw?

Telling people about the Resurrection of Christ IS the very heart and soul of preaching. Jesus authorized - or ordained, if you will - women to be the very first to spread the gospel.

The actual truth is that the kind of power that oppressed women had no place in Jesus’s vision for the world. Why are we allowing it to dominate our world today? In our modern context where the word "radical" is used as an insult, may we remember that Jesus started a revolution. Not only for women, but for all marginalized communities oppressed by earthly power structures.

It is our job to continue that revolution today, and we must begin by acknowledging that the outdated notions of "biblical womanhood" within Evangelical Christianity are not only harmful, but are anti-gospel. And then we must ask ourselves and others, what would be lost by acknowledging this truth?

Well, men may lose their power over women, and women would finally gain the equal status that was God's design from the very beginning. But worldly power structures don't take too kindly to being challenged. Just ask Jesus.