In Complementarity, Gregg Allison presents a work that is described by the publisher as offering “a fresh vision for understanding God’s design for men and women as image bearers.” Allison serves as professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has authored well-regarded books on Roman Catholicism, ecclesiology, and historical theology.
Allison defines “complementarity” (not to be confused with complementarianism) as “God’s design for his male and female image bearers to fill out and mutually support one another relationally, familially, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing” (28).
This framework, he argues, embraces three principles that undergird both egalitarianism and complementarianism: equal dignity, significant differentiation, and flourishing interdependence.
Despite Gregg Allison’s repeated insistence that he’s not affirming any side of the women in ministry conversation, if you take the core theological principles he lays out in Complementarity and apply them consistently, the practical result is egalitarianism. Allison attempts to focus on the Christian anthropology underpinning egalitarianism and complementarianism, but ultimately builds an engine that drives toward egalitarianism, even as he hesitates to fully engage the transmission.
Journey Through the Book
The book’s historical section (Part 2) initially seemed like extensive throat-clearing that delayed the presentation of his main thesis. However, as I read through it, I found it to be necessary background for Allison’s later arguments. Allison surveys Prudence Allen’s lifelong, multi-volume work on the history of gender in the Western world and the church.[1] This section of Complementarity models its own irenic ideals, since Allison, a Protestant male theologian, makes a Catholic woman’s scholarship accessible to audiences who might never encounter it otherwise.
The historical section serves another purpose other than being a meta-demonstration of the book’s premise. Complementarian theologian Thomas Shreiner has argued that the global church’s history supports his restrictive view of women in ministry. In Two Views on Women in Ministry, Shreiner writes that “the burden of proof is surely on those who promote a new interpretation” since restricting women from pastoral roles “has been the view throughout history of most Protestants, the various Orthodox branches of the church, and the Roman Catholic Church.”[2]
Allison’s close examination of our shared history reveals why this appeal to tradition is problematic. The historical survey unveils a pattern where theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas came to egalitarian conclusions when they focused primarily on Scripture. But when they leaned on the faulty pseudo-science of their times, or non-Christian philosophy, they often concluded men were inherently superior to women.
For example, Allison notes about Aquinas that he “echoed Aristotle in…men are more perfect reflections of the image of God and women are less perfect reflections” (79). However, when Aquinas wrestled with Scripture, he also stated that the Old Testament judge and prophet, Deborah’s “learning came through the spirit of prophecy, and the grace of the Holy Spirit does not distinguish between man and woman” (41).
Allison’s historical work shifts the burden of proof back onto those defending a “tradition” that was often corrupted by Greek philosophy rather than rooted in biblical theology.
Complementarity leaps forward in Part 3 to explain contemporary feminist movements alongside the rise of complementarianism and egalitarianism. Allison shows that complementarianism understood itself “as a corrective” movement, not traditional, while also separating from Christian patriarchy. There’s a significant weakness in the book’s approach here. Allison deals only with the scholarly ideal of complementarianism and explicitly states that he will not consider the effects of the theology. He avoids examining church scandals, faulty Trinitarian doctrines used to bolster hierarchy, or the claims of abuse from those under complementarian systems. If Allison’s complementarity aims at human flourishing, it is dangerous to decline to examine a theology’s real-world harms.
In Part 4 of Complementarity, Allison turns to several passages in the Bible about men and women. First, he explains the different complementarian and egalitarian views of the passage, then offers his own “complementarity” lens. What’s surprising here is that Allison often favors an egalitarian interpretation as a needed corrective of not just the traditional view, but current complementarian thinking. Yet he consistently seems to favor egalitarian interpretations, particularly in his treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:11–12: “God has designed his female and male image bearers to be interdependent…Even more importantly, God has designed men and women to be dependent on him, from whom are all things” (427).
The theological section, Part 5 presents the most compelling arguments in the book and is likely what most readers assume the book would be. Here, Allison affirms that “not only men may be functionally designed and equipped for teaching and leading. Women may be so functionally designed and equipped as well. Specifically, there are no gender-specific gifts” (398).
Allison’s treatment of the triplex office of prophet, priest, and king that all Christians participate in through Jesus Christ is especially compelling, even inspiring:
“Men and women alike are prophets and prophetesses. Women and men alike are priests. Men and women alike are kings…The prophethood, priesthood, and kingship of women and men have nothing to do with hierarchy” (550).
Unfortunately, this definitive statement on the anthropology and mission of all believers occurs near the end of a dense 600-page book.
The Egalitarian Verdict
Applying Allison’s arguments to the life of the church leads to an unavoidable conclusion. “Complementarity,” as he defines it, can only live within egalitarian practice.
First, he grants married couples wide latitude in determining their relationship structure. Allison concludes that how husbands and wives live out complementarity “is largely left to their wisdom-aided and Spirit-empowered discretion” and that “a wide diversity of applications exists and should be respected” (239). This freedom to design marital structure fits only with egalitarianism. Complementarianism insists that male hierarchy is the God-ordained design for marriage, not one option among many.
Second, Allison insists that spiritual gifts and the triplex office are fundamentally non-hierarchical, as quoted above. He also argues that the various descriptions of church, including the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the family of God, are metaphors that do not support hierarchical roles. This undermines any theological basis for restricting those Christians based on gender in any context.
Allison attempts to maintain space for both complementarian and egalitarian expressions through distinguishing between spiritual gifts (non-gendered) and church offices (potentially gendered). But this creates what amounts to cognitive dissonance. A woman can fully function as a prophet-priest-king using her teaching and leadership gifts everywhere except when that function is labeled “elder.” The theological foundation he builds doesn’t support the structural exceptions he wants to allow for complementarians.
This tension becomes even clearer when viewed through Lucy Peppiatt’s framework in Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women. Peppiatt argues that complementarians should more accurately be called “hierarchicalists” and egalitarians “mutualists,” since the real distinction isn’t about complementarity but about power structures. As she notes, complementarians claim reciprocal relationships, but “the conditions of this reciprocity, harmony, and interdependence are grossly imbalanced because the conditions of the relations have been established on unquestioned notions of male authority and power.” The complementarity only endures “as long as a woman agrees to renounce authority, power, and autonomy in favor of a man.”[3]
Peppiatt’s distinction illuminates why Allison’s “complementarity” naturally leads to what she calls “mutuality,” where “all interactions of men and women in church governance and the home are shared equally and expected to be for the mutual benefit of both men and women.”[4] This is precisely what Allison’s theological framework supports, even as he hesitates to embrace the label.
Allison’s complementarity, God’s design for his male and female image bearers to fill out and support one another for their flourishing, is mutuality.
Notes
[1] Prudence Allen, The Concept of Woman: A Synthesis in One Volume (Erdmans, 2024).
[2] Gundry, Stanley N., et al., Two Views on Women in Ministry, (Zondervan Academic, 2023), 339.
[3] Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, (IVP Academic, 2019), 6.
[4] Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, 8.
Related Resources
Book Review: Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy
Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part I: On Thinking Biblically
Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part II: The Narrative Texts
Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part IV: A Word of Encouragement