- by Carrie Shaw
- on July 21, 2025
This article is dedicated to two good men in my life, my father, Ken, and my husband, Luke. My father has always supported me, encouraged me, believed in me, loved me, and has never made me feel lesser. I wish there were more fathers like him. My husband’s love and support mean the world to me. He has always treated me as an equal, affirmed my value in our marriage, and rejoiced in my worth as a fellow-worker in the ministry of Christ. I am thankful for them both. “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (Proverbs 13:22)
One of the most damaging teachings that has shaped the church throughout her history and which continues to exert influence today – is the belief that God established a hierarchy of men over women at creation.
This hierarchy, it’s claimed, was either, 1. part of God’s original plan or, 2. a prescriptive punishment on women because of sin.
Proponents of this theology also argue that this structure was not only part of God’s original design but is also a continuing reality, flowing from creation into the church – which the New Testament describes as the second, or “new,” creation.
It therefore affects not only relationships between men and women in the church, but also the marital relationship between husbands and wives, and often shapes how authority, submission, and identity are understood in the home.
No one would probably claim that they believe women are lesser than men in their basic humanness, affirming that we are intrinsically equal in worth and dignity as fellow humans (all of us, individually, are still more important, if we’re grading, than animals. Interestingly – this is us acknowledging our own position or hierarchy in the classification of the kingdom: Animalia).
Nevertheless, many would still hold that God made Adam first. Eve was created as a helper for Adam, and this fact – the order of creation, together with the purpose for which each was created – proves hierarchy. Men were made first, to image God, and women were created second, to help men.
Or, that men and women were created as equals but, because of sin, authority and leadership were designated to the man, and that this divine endowment of authority continues, in perpetuity, right up unto our time.
This framework is taught, preached, and practiced in many Evangelical circles by well-known proponents such as John Piper, John McArthur, and Wayne Grudem, and you’ll often find it referenced in conversations about biblical womanhood, a topic I recently covered here.
Off To A Bad Start
It’s a little painful to hear Eve described, in vaguely apologetic tones, as perhaps not much more than an afterthought, created to gather berries, collect firewood, and generally help Adam with other mundane pre-history tasks that would prove to be too much for Adam on his own. (God had hoped one of the animals might do the trick – but alas, no joy there…)
More painful still is seeing this belief play out in the church, where women are still prevented – explicitly or implicitly – from contributing meaningfully, even when clearly gifted, under the mistaken application of a few New Testament passages and a retrospective misreading of Genesis.
Some hesitate to limit women entirely (the “soft complementarian” view, which I’ll return to shortly), allowing them to use their gifts “under the guidance of male leadership”. Others, the so-called “hard complementarians,” enforce this framework more rigidly (and perhaps more consistently, if we’re being honest), permitting little to no participation from women at all.
Firstly, What Is Meant By ‘Hierarchy’?
hierarchy
/ˈhʌɪərɑːki/
noun
1. a system where people or things are ranked by importance
2. those in the upper levels of a system who control it
3. a structure where authority is distributed by level
Inherent in hierarchy are ideas of power, importance, and authority. These concepts aren’t necessarily wrong. In organisations, it can be wise to entrust leadership to those with greater experience or training. Some items are more valuable due to rarity or function – gold, for example.
“All that sorting and ranking can be helpful if you’re a business administrator, but if you find yourself arranging all the produce in your fridge according to a hierarchy of colour, size, and expiration date, you might want to consider visiting a therapist.” – Vocabulary.com
But not all hierarchies are just. Patriarchy and colonialism, for instance, are historical hierarchies whose lingering negative effects can still be felt today. It can be argued that the conferral of power and authority to certain persons or classes of persons within these systems was often disproportionate and unjustified.
The question at hand, however, is whether a legitimate hierarchy exists by design between men and women and whether this is what Scripture teaches.
Does scripture teach that men are more important, more powerful, or have more authority simply because they are men? Was this God’s original design? Or was male authority introduced as a punishment because of Eve’s sin – and if so, does that punishment still apply?
Hierarchy + Complementarian || Egalitarian
Within Christianity, the two main frameworks that attempt to describe the relationship between men and women are known as complementarian and egalitarian.
Complementarianism teaches that men and women have different but complementary roles, especially in marriage and church leadership. These differences were marked out at Genesis, either, as mentioned above, by specific design or part of the prescriptive punishment placed upon Eve. In either respect, they are considered to be unchanging and binding for all time, regardless of cultural context.
Egalitarianism teaches that men and women are equally authorised to lead, teach, and serve – both in the home and the church. This equality is believed to have been established at creation, and while men and women bring differences to their collaborative relationship, these differences – despite the impact of sin – do not denote lesser authority or diminished worth.
Both positions acknowledge key truths. Men and women are different – biologically and psychologically. Some of those differences are shaped by environment; others are hard-wired by design. Scripture affirms the value of both sexes and depicts God’s nature through the fusion of masculine and feminine traits (Titus 2:1–5; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Timothy 3–4).
At the same time, men and women are alike – equal in worth, dignity, and relationship to God. We are the same and we are different. Both truths matter deeply in marriage, in the church, and in how we relate to one another.
Complementary Is Not Complimentary
The trouble is, complementarianism is not truly complementary. In reality, it functions as a male-dominated hierarchy, sometimes softly packaged but unmistakable in outcome.
I say true complementarianism because many Christian couples who identify with the term actually function as equals in practice. Many “complementarian” churches operate largely egalitarian day to day – limiting only senior leadership or elder roles to men.
However, some prominent complementarian voices go much further. For some, male authority and female submission aren’t limited to marriage or the church – they extend into every area of life. These teachers claim God intended a male-dominated structure from the beginning and that it applies universally, including in secular environments. They really do believe in male authority, leadership, and domination, across every sphere of human life.
Why Is Any Of This Important?
Is this a first-tier or second-tier issue? Well, it depends.
As [John] Piper said in 2012, “if people accept egalitarianism, sooner or later, they’re going to get the Gospel wrong.” (The Conversation)
I agree with John Piper in one respect: whichever framework we believe is established in Genesis will shape how we read the rest of Scripture – and, by extension, the kind of gospel we teach.
Is it a gospel that includes the liberation and reinstating of women to their rightful place alongside men? Or is it a gospel that reinforces the divine subordination and one-sided submission of women to their male counterparts?
I think this is a second-tier issue in the respect that I still hold those of a complementarian persuasion as brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t think being a complementarian means you aren’t Christian.
But I believe this is a first-tier issue, in the sense that it directly influences the way we understand and frame the gospel narrative, how that narrative plays out in the life of the church, our identity in Christ, the relationships between men and women, the dynamic within marriage, and how all these function in healthy, whole, and holy ways.
The scope of influence is broad and far-reaching.
Genesis, I believe, provides the framework. It’s foundational theology – setting out Who God is, who we are, and what the purpose of creation was. Crucially, before we even reach the New Testament, our interpretation of Genesis often predetermines how we read later passages – especially those that may seem to support gender hierarchy.
If we get the beginning wrong, we’ll likely misread what comes next.
Setting Some Framework: Why Genesis 1-3 Is Foundational Theology
To argue that hierarchy is built into God’s design for humanity – and thus into the church – many jump quickly from Genesis to Paul, usually 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of the woman is the man.”
That verse, along with 1 Timothy 2:11 – 15 and Ephesians 5:22 – 24, is often used as proof that a gendered hierarchy is God-ordained. But the reasoning often skips context, bypasses qualifiers, and then reads these interpretations back into Genesis, retrofitting hierarchy into the creation narrative.
But 1 Corinthians, for example, is a letter addressing issues of unity, conduct, worship, and resurrection. And 1 Timothy is a letter about healthy church leadership, rooted in mutual submission (see Ephesians 5:21). Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, in particular, is one of the most debated and difficult passages in the New Testament – and requires far more care than a simple proof-text allows.
Yes, the New Testament has things to say about creation, gender, and marriage. But we must read the New Testament through the lens of Genesis, not the other way around.
Genesis sets the scene. And as the text makes clear, everything that goes wrong – sin, death, brokenness – happens after the fall. The beginning shows us how things were always meant to be.
“The whole purpose of Genesis 1 is to set the ideal human community – a place in which the image of God, or the imitation of God, is actually going to be realised. That, of course, gets distorted in Genesis 3 when humans disobey God. But the first chapter is outlining the ideal. The book of Genesis is therefore a means to a theological end.” – Professor C. John Collins (emphasis mine)
So what existed before the fall was God’s original design – normative, life-giving, and intended for human flourishing. That design, marred by sin, is shown to be restored in Christ and reinstituted through the work of the Spirit in the new creation (the church). This redemptive and restorative work is intended not only for the church but, one day, for all the world, uniting heaven and earth once again in perfect harmony.
What Genesis Says
1. No Hierarchy In Our Humanity:
The crowning glory of God’s creation was humanity, and Eve was the final masterstroke. Created from Adam’s side, her status was equal to his – made in the image of God, with the same capacity to reflect His glory (Genesis 1:27).
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind (adam in Hebrew) in our image, in our likeness…’ So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:26–27)
The Hebrew words used to describe Eve’s creation are ezer kenegdo – often translated as “helper suitable for him.” But “helper” in English doesn’t capture the weight of the word. In the rest of the Bible, ezer usually refers to God as a protector or rescuer. The word kenegdo conveys the idea of someone equal and corresponding – a partner.
Eve was not beneath Adam, nor above him, but stood beside him as his equal – a woman of valour, taken from his side and worthy of him in every way (Proverbs 31:10).
Yes, Adam was created first, but this order isn’t mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus doesn’t refer to it. It comes up in two of Paul’s letters, and even there, context matters.
In this article, author Marg Mowczko takes a brief look at these two passages and at the significance that Paul places on man being created first and woman second, which she contends does not support a gendered hierarchy.)
2. No Hierarchy In Our Responsibility:
Genesis 1:28 tells us that God blesses both the man and the woman and gives them the same commission – be fruitful, multiply, and rule over the earth. Neither could do this alone. Together, they’re entrusted with caring for creation and stewarding God’s world.
This is the first place we see God’s authority exercised through His image-bearers – and it’s shared authority. We later see this commission echoed in the new creation, where both men and women disciples are entrusted with the responsibility and privilege of ‘going into all the world and making disciples’ (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19-20, 2 Corinthians 3:6).
Men and women are created equal in purpose, capacity, and calling. They were both given the same responsibility from the beginning.
3. No Hierarchy In Our Conjugality:
It’s stating the obvious here, but Adam and Eve weren’t just the first humans; they were also the first married couple. Their equality wasn’t just about identity, but also about how they related to each other in marriage.
Genesis 2:23–24 gives us a reflection on that relationship:
“The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…’ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
Marriage here is a mutual partnership. Two individuals, equal in worth and capability, choosing to leave their family of origin and form a new family together – united, cooperative, and committed.
Eve was made from Adam’s side, not the ground. She shares something unique with him – a bond the animals didn’t have. The phrases “bone of my bone” and “flesh of my flesh” show their connection and equality.
Why did God create Eve this way? Why make Adam first? Why does Adam name her? These are all fair questions – and we should explore them with care. But always through the lens of what Genesis is doing: illustrating God’s intention to dwell with His people and restore creation through partnership.
Jesus + The Church
There are beautiful theological overtones in the creation story that point to Jesus and the church. Paul writes in Ephesians that marriage wasn’t the model for the church – it was the other way around. The church came first, marriage second.
That might sound odd, since the church didn’t exist in Genesis. But when we recognise that Genesis lays the blueprint for all God intended – a partnership between God and His people to reflect His glory – it begins to make sense. The plan was never for hierarchy, but for union and restoration. The church is part of that story.
Adam’s deep sleep and Eve’s creation from his side foreshadow something greater. Jesus falls into the sleep of death, and from His sacrifice the church is born. Just as Eve was made from Adam’s body, the church is formed from Christ – his body, his life, his Spirit. She is of his essence – made of the same stuff as him.
The church exists only because of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Her identity is shaped by her source. Through his sacrifice, she becomes a living creation.
Paul calls the church Christ’s bride – the ekklesia, called out from the nations, brought into being through His suffering and love.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the supremacy.” – Colossians 1:15–18
God did it this way – creating Adam and Eve in that particular order and manner – to teach us something greater. The Genesis narrative speaks of marriage, yes, but even more, it points ahead to Christ and the church. That’s the theological foundation being laid.
Marriage in Genesis 2 is marked by mutuality – sacrifice, defence, support, commitment, faithfulness. That’s the pattern we see again in Christ’s relationship with the church. And that’s the model God intended all along.
Gendered Hierarchy: Things Go South
The first few chapters of Genesis paint a picture of how things were meant to be – perfect kingdom living and perfect human existence; what we hope to see completely restored at the end of all things (Revelation 21:1-4).
But things do go wrong. The first humans disobey God, sin enters the world, and punishment and consequences are set out.
To Adam, God says: “Because of what you have done, cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat from it all your days… By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground. For dust you are, and to dust you will return.” – Genesis 3:17–19. The consequence of Adam’s disobedience, ultimately, is connected to the ground from which he was taken, death, and how that relates to all humanity.
To Eve, God says: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe… Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” – Genesis 3:16. The consequence of Eve’s disobedience, ultimately, is connected to the man from whom she was taken, life, and how that relates to all humanity.
And this – the punishment and consequence – is where a second argument for the introduction of a gendered hierarchy might be made, but unfortunately, I believe, holds little weight.
These consequences aren’t prescriptive – they’re descriptive. God is not endorsing hierarchy or suffering. He is naming what sin has broken. The ground is cursed, not Adam. Pain and power struggle are now part of human relationship, but they are not what God originally intended.
When we read Scripture as a whole, we see the story arc pointing not to hierarchy, but to restoration – a return to the “very good” creation we saw in Eden. Revelation speaks of a renewed heaven and earth as the grand conclusion of the story.
And if God is in the business of “making all things new“, the place we would expect to see this renewal and restoration demonstrated is in the new creation – the church.
Is this what we see? The answer is clearly yes.
When looking through the lens of Genesis, we see the radical readjustment required and the challenges faced by the early Christians, where issues of race, class, social status, financial status, and gendered hierarchy are realigned and brought under the scope of what God had designed all along in Genesis. I explore this in more detail in my articles on Women In The Early Church, which you can read here.
If gendered hierarchy exists, it is not God’s ideal. It is a result of the fall – not a design for human flourishing, and certainly not a model for the church.
Where Have All The Good Men Gone?
Some say this issue isn’t central to the gospel. As I touched on earlier in this article, I both agree and disagree.
I believe it’s more than just a side topic. What we teach our sons and daughters matters. The framework we pass down has real consequences.
Many good men identify (in theory) as complementarian. They sincerely believe this is what Scripture teaches and try to live it out with gentleness and humility. But in practice, especially in healthy marriages and churches, these men often don’t live as strict complementarians. Their relationships function with mutual respect and shared responsibility – they are far more egalitarian in practice.
Then there are other men – still under the complementarian label – who are not good men. They are abusive, controlling, entitled, and demeaning. Scripture is often used as a weapon to justify dominating and authoritarian behaviour, with words like submission, headship, and roles used (and removed from their biblical context) to justify mistreatment.
As Rachel Held Evans once said, “Complementarianism doesn’t work – in marriages or church leadership – because it’s not actually complementarianism. It’s patriarchy. And patriarchy doesn’t work because God created men and women to reflect His character as equal partners with equal value.”
One of the most significant challenges Christian women face today is recognising abuse that hides behind so-called spiritual language: submission, obedience, roles, headship. And even when they do recognise it, they often feel powerless to name it, prevent it, or escape it.
Studies show that abuse within the church is far more common than we’d like to admit. A report from the Anglican Church revealed that many clergy remain in denial, despite years of evidence.
Scot McKnight, New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, and author writes:
“Complementarians teach biblical hierarchicalism and patriarchy, and say men and women are equal – not in a substantive way, but in a spiritual sense. Their ‘role’ language quickly becomes power language. This hierarchy leads to entitlement and the submission of women. All abusive men are entitled. They lash out, seek control, and demand submission. All abusive men believe women are inferior.”- Complementarianism and the Abusive Male
There is no possible way that violence or abusive, controlling behaviours are justifiable from the text of the Bible. Perhaps this is most especially true of the few passages that so many abusers craftily and deceitfully employ. As McKnight says: “Males feeling entitled is a cultural product – and complementarianism creates a culture that feeds it. To change the outcome, we have to change the culture. And we have to change the men.”
In Conclusion
The gospel is the story that runs through the whole Bible. It’s not just a message about our own personal salvation from sin, but about what God has always intended for all creation. It begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation – telling the story of God’s glory, humanity’s calling to reflect it, the fall, redemption through Jesus, and the restoration of all things.
From the beginning, God’s design for humanity was never built on gendered hierarchy. It was built on mutuality – cooperation, commitment, trust, and partnership. Men and women, different but equal, both reflecting God’s image.
That intention was damaged by sin, but it’s restored in Christ. The new creation – the church – is called to model that restoration. We’re meant to reflect God’s original design, not reinforce the brokenness of the fall.
Genesis 1 and 2 should shape how we read the rest of Scripture. If we get the beginning right, we’ll tell a gospel story that’s full of life, hope, and freedom. But if we get it wrong, we can end up down all sorts of twisted holes – telling a story that distorts God’s heart and misrepresents His design.
I don’t believe gendered hierarchy fits the biblical gospel. I don’t believe it reflects God’s intention, or what Scripture teaches about men and women – not in creation, not in the church, and not in Christ.
And more than that, I believe the power imbalance created by complementarian structures often leads to real harm. Communities that promote unequal distribution of power and authority between men and women – hallmarks of the complementarianism seen in many churches and Christian relationships – often result in cultures where abuses – emotional, spiritual, physical, sexual, psychological, and financial – can thrive and flourish beneath the surface.
Stop promoting gendered hierarchy. Stop calling it God’s design.
It’s time for the church to rediscover what it truly means to live as the body of Christ – each part honoured, each voice heard. The world is watching. Let us not reflect the brokenness of Genesis 3, but the beauty and glory of Genesis 1 and 2. Let us reflect Him.
