When Christian Nationalist firebrand and Reformed Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, provocatively stated in a 2025 interview with CNN that “Women are people that people come out of,” it commanded attention from both critics and fellow travelers.
Wilson holds steadfastly to a theology of “biblical patriarchy” – the idea that God divinely instituted the rule of male leadership in all aspects of society. A growing trend on the Christian right, Wilson’s viewpoint is also espoused by leading pastors including Reformation Seminary Founder Dale Partridge, Right Response Ministries Founder Joel Webbon, and former Mars Hill Church Senior Pastor Mark Driscoll.
Biblical patriarchy rejects both egalitarian and complementarian theologies. An egalitarian viewpoint holds that women can hold leadership roles in all spheres of society, while complementarianism supports female leadership within civic society but not in marriage or among ordained clergy (there is a spectrum of belief within this camp). Biblical patriarchy goes further by claiming that men and women are fundamentally different in being, with women not designed to be leaders in any context.
While not an ideology prevalent in the American mainstream, biblical patriarchy’s influence has grown. Notably, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth attends a Washington, D.C. sister church of Wilson’s Idaho congregation. Adherents of biblical patriarchy regularly promote viewpoints in the public square that could be regarded as extreme; Partridge advocates to repeal women’s suffrage. With that in mind, this article seeks to show biblical patriarchy as unbiblical and at odds with the witness of the church.
One reason for this belief of women’s difference in being comes from Genesis 1-3, where the first man and woman are created and fall into sin. In a video on why women should not teach theology, Partridge argues it is because the woman was made to be man’s helper. Indeed, Genesis 2:18 states that the Lord made the first woman as a “helper” for the man.
What Partridge fails to add is that the word translated helper, ezer, is almost exclusively used to refer to the Lord helping Israel, often in the context of battle. For example, Psalm 121:1-2 reads, “From where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord.” In this context, a “helper” is a warrior who champions, delivers, and rescues those under their protection. Calling women ezer therefore does not preclude a leadership position.
Nor does God’s pronouncement to Eve that Adam would “rule over” her (Genesis 3:16) remove the possibility of female leadership. In context, God is pronouncing the consequences of sin on the serpent, Adam, and Eve. Adam ruling over Eve is a consequence of the Fall, just as Adam’s sweat and labor in work are his consequence. Any reference to Adam ruling over Eve before the Fall is ambiguous at best. In short, should we as Christians want to relate to each other according to a post-Fall curse?
Another oft-cited claim is that women should not be leaders because of a fundamental weakness towards deception, seen in Eve’s sin. Webbon of Right Response Ministries claims that women have “more vulnerability towards deception.” Partridge similarly wrote that “Demons love possessing women because they are easy to manipulate” on an X post. The justification behind this claim is that women are more empathetic, but there is no connection between that and Eve’s sin in Genesis 2. The serpent appeals to Eve’s intellect, not her emotions. Empathy can lead to deception, but so too can anger – something often coded as masculine.
Other biblical arguments which proponents of biblical patriarchy use come from verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and Titus 2:3-5. This article does not have the space to address each, but understanding the passages’ literary and cultural context often results in a deeper, more intelligent reading than the superficial readings offered by these pastors. For instance, the Apostle Paul’s words that it is shameful for women to speak in church, if taken at face value, would directly contradict his instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:5, where he describes how a woman should pray and prophesy – things that would involve women speaking in church. Readers are highly encouraged to seek out scholarship addressing each of the above passages.
Beyond faulty Biblical interpretations, Wilson and his compatriots also misuse the witness of the Church. Biblical patriarchy claims that women should not teach theology to men and, sometimes, not to women either. Part of this reasoning comes from the idea that women have not historically written or taught theology in the church. Supporters of biblical patriarchy should consider the legacy of women in the Church such as Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, and Teresa of Avila who authored works of theology, advocated for clerical reform, and preached in public.
Beyond that, women have taken on many spiritual roles within the Church that biblical patriarchy would rule out. Women such as Ammia of Philadelphia and Phillip’s daughters were renowned for their prophetic abilities according to the church historian Eusebius. Female deacons were commonplace in the early church: Paul mentions Phoebe, a deacon and patroness, in Romans 16:1-2, and it is almost certain that she carried the letter to Rome herself. Olympias, a deacon in the 4th century, advised Nectarius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, on ecclesiastical matters. Marcella of Rome regularly advised men and women on theological topics, even combatting heresy in Rome.
This is to say nothing of the female martyrs, female mystics without large bodies of writings, women serving in mercy ministry, composing liturgical music, and more. Many of these women never married or had children (similar to many of their male contemporaries). The historical record is clear: very few of these women fit into the mold of Biblical patriarchy.
Further, these pastors speak often and at length on how women should submit to godly husbands and pastors. One wonders, what about the unmarried women? What about women married to ungodly men? Webbon and Wilson, in their video on patriarchy vs. complementarianism, give a passing admission that things will not always be the “ideal,” with not a single idea on how to navigate what is a reality for many – even most – women. This is especially troubling given how Wilson is well known for his pastoral mishandling of instances of sexual misconduct and abuse within his congregation. Given Christianity’s proclamation of humanity’s fallen nature, the lack of instruction in this area is a glaring omission.
Biblical patriarchy as a theology falls short in its Biblical exegesis, historicity, and practical application. As this theology’s popularity continues to grow, we must hold fast to the Scriptures and our historic Church.
Comment by David on April 17, 2026 at 7:42 am
We might also mention Hulda, who declared the word of the Lord to a priest and emissaries from King Josiah. Then there was the legend of Pope Joan, which was widely thought to be true in the Middle Ages. This was very popular during the Reformation when attacks on the papacy were common.
Comment by John on April 17, 2026 at 10:42 am
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but tend to agree with just about everything in this article, except one thing. I don’t believe there is a fundamental difference between patriarchy and complementarianism. I think complementarianism is just the more “kid friendly” or PC version of patriarchy, trying to make it sound better. No used the word complementarianism before the late 80s, which means technically I’m older than this term. Before then they just called it what it was, patriarchy.
Even churches and Christians that claim to hold complementarian beliefs only in regard to church office and marriage seem more open to wider applications of patriarchy when push comes to shove and don’t I believe have churches preaching complementarianism in any form have adequate theological tools to stop it from intersecting other areas of life.
My other issue with complementarianism is that while it calls for separate spheres within the church for women and men in a way that sounds complementary, it’s still just one-way wall of separation. Women are barred from top decision-making leadership, preaching, teaching in certain situations, but what areas are closed off to men in these churches? Would a man volunteering to serve in the nursery (which I did at my church growing up) be turned away in a congregation that preaches complementarianism? Would he barred from the kitchen? If so, the father would be trouble cause he was there flipping pancakes and frying up bacon every first Sunday of the month. Name one office or position in a non-Catholic church in which men are barred. Simply put complementarianism is just a softer form of patriarchy intend on denying opportunities to women (and only women).
Comment by Wilson R. on April 17, 2026 at 11:49 am
And we could mention Junia, whom Paul describes as an apostle who knew Jesus before he did. Some scholars suggest that Junia is a derivation of Johanna, one of the women who witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion.
And we could mention Priscilla/Prisca, who along with her husband Aquila were Paul’s co-workers and believed to have established the first house church in Rome. We know from Acts that Paul did permit women to teach men in theology, because that’s what he asked Priscilla to help do on behalf of Apollos, the evangelist from Alexandria who arrived in Corinth with an incomplete understanding of Paul’s gospel. Priscilla is always mentioned before Aquila, which in the ancient world signified she was the more important of the two.
Comment by Joe M on April 19, 2026 at 12:50 am
“understanding the passages’ literary and cultural context often results in a deeper, more intelligent reading than the superficial readings offered by these pastors.”
1/ “more intelligent” … who edited this thing?
2/ entire quote is the line used by the progressive forces that derailed United Methodism.
3/ this piece far to brief and breezy to be convincing, and hardly gives a fair shake to its opponents.
4/ would the author’s home church ever have a female lead pastor? no way.
Patriarchal advocates go too far, but so does this attempted smackdown. Should women be in authority over men? That’s the question not being answered.
Comment by Wilson R. on April 19, 2026 at 1:48 pm
In his letters, Paul insists over and over that, within the body of Christ there can be no distinctions between male and female. So why wouldn’t you have situations where a woman has authority over a man?
Comment by Tony Heine on May 1, 2026 at 2:09 am
Reading this article, where a woman explains why it’s OK for women to be leaders and teachers in the church, is like watching a woman lean out a car window and shout that women can drive just as well as men, and then see her immediately crash into a telephone pole.
Let’s examine this car wreck. Well, at least two pieces of the wreckage.
The first piece is her argument dealing with the Hebrew word for “helper” used in Gen 2:18. She rightly points out that the same Hebrew word is used in other verses to describe God or His aid to individuals or groups. This doesn’t counter the complementarian view. Eve was made to be Adam’s helper. She is the help given to Adam by God. God’s help can come in many forms. For Adam, that form was Eve. The author neglects to mention Gen 2:20, where the same word is used when God parades the animals in front of Adam, but none of them was a suitable helper. This is the only other use of the word in the book of Genesis, so this might be a better source for context than other books of the Bible that the author wants to point to.
Speaking of those other references, the author claims that Psalm 121 is an example of God’s help in battle, where “a ‘helper’ is a warrior who champions, delivers, and rescues those under their protection.” Psalm 121 is not about a battle. It is a song of ascents. It’s about a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. It is a song of the believer’s assurance in God’s traveling mercies.
The second piece of wreckage is her argument is that Genesis 3:16 does not preclude female leadership. This is a profound failure to grasp what happened at the fall, who sinned in what way, and the consequences of it all. Go back and read all of chapter 3. The serpent deceived Eve (by Eve’s own admission, Gen 3:13) and she ate. Adam was there with her and he ate. When God confronts them, He doesn’t ask Eve what happened, He asks Adam. This is how we know Adam had the leadership role prior to the fall. Leadership is a two-sided coin. On one side is authority, on the other, responsibility. The two attributes of leadership are inseparable. We know Adam was the leader, because Adam was held responsible. God goes to Adam to demand an account. Thousands of years later, Paul states that death entered the world through one man, Adam (Romans 5:12 and 1Cor. 15:21-22).
Back to Eve’s interactions with the serpent. While the serpent’s appeal to Eve starts on an intellectual level, contesting facts, it ends with emotions: desire, covetousness, and pride (Gen 3:6, and see the parallels in Luke 4 and 1John 2:15-17). Eve has done the ultimate usurping of authority, attempted to be like the ultimate authority, God. Adam is there, and he’s responsible, and he does nothing to stop her. He has turned his back on his responsibility. Later, he will blame Eve, but God is not fooled. When God pronounces the curse on Adam, He prefaces it with “because you listened to your wife…”
In the way that each sinned, they will each suffer in similar ways in their curses. Eve usurped authority, and now she will be afflicted with the desire to be against her husband, and her husband will rule over her (Gen 3:16). The construction of this verse seems strange at first, but the key to decoding it is in the parallel construction of Gen 4:7, where God warns Cain that sin’s “desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Sin desired mastery over Cain, but Cain must master it.
Adam’s sin was the forsaking of his leadership role. His curse is that his authority will be plagued with trouble, thwarted in all respects. The earth that he is supposed to have dominion over will resist him. His marriage will no longer be a harmonious relationship of loving leadership and respectful submission, but a contentious battle between domineering rule and rebellion.
This curse is what we see playing out in this article. The author claims, like the serpent did, that God really hasn’t said the things He has said. She is advocating for women to sin by usurping authority not meant for them. Simultaneously, the men at a supposedly conservative Christian organization are shirking their responsibility by letting her do this.
There is more wreckage here, like the glossing over of 1Timothy 2, but I’m out of time and patience.