Some conservatives, while vocally adhering to male/female complementarity, are in fact practicing a form of chauvinism. This particular type of chauvinism rests on a hierarchical understanding of gender that extends to all male/female relationships. It is the belief that all men are called to authority and leadership; and all women are called to submission. The practical result is that the biblical concept of male headship mutates into unilateral male rule. But this is not how the Scripture speaks of headship.

Recently, Great Britain celebrated Queen Elizabeth II as the longest ruling monarch in their history; as of 4:18 pm on September 9, 2015, she had reigned “23,226 days, 16 hours and 18 minutes – over 63 years, seven months and two days.”  Interestingly, two other queens make the list of Britain’s longest ruling monarchs: Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I, placing 2nd and 7th respectively. Apparently, there’s a great deal of truth in Abigail Adams’ observation to her husband, John, that “of the few Queens who have reigned for any length of Time as absolute Sovereigns the greatest part of them have been celebrated for excellent Governours.”

Unlike our cousins across the pond, however, the United States has never had a female head of state. (To be fair, it took England nearly 700 years for their first female leader so it may simply be a matter of time.) But with the election of the first African-American President in 2008, many people believe that a female President is not far behind. With Hillary Clinton leading in Democratic polling and Republican hopeful Carly Fiorina holding her own, many are wondering: “Will 2016 be the year that a woman becomes President of the United States of America?”

Yet, for some, the question is not whether a woman could win the White House but whether she should? The same feminist movement that nurtured Hillary Clinton’s political aspirations also created a deep divide in the American church over male and female roles. We have spent the last forty years dissecting precisely what men and women can and can’t do in the church and home. These questions have naturally spilled over into broader society so that those with a conservative understanding of gender are left somewhat befuddled by the possibility that the next US President might be a woman. Is this a good thing or not?

In order to think clearly about this question, conservatives must remember this: Male headship does not mean unilateral male rule.

Some conservatives, while vocally adhering to male/female complementarity, are in fact practicing a form of chauvinism. This particular type of chauvinism rests on a hierarchical understanding of gender that extends to all male/female relationships. It is the belief that all men are called to authority and leadership; and all women are called to submission. The practical result is that the biblical concept of male headship mutates into unilateral male rule.

But this is not how the Scripture speaks of headship. Instead, Paul calls wives to submit to their “own husbands.” And within the context of the church, both women and men submit to ordained elders. While maleness may be part of the equation for answering who can serve as an elder (or as a husband, for that matter), it is by no means the main or sole qualification. Maleness, alone, does not give a man the capacity to rule. In fact, at Creation, we see God extending the call to rule and reign to both the man and woman.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The source for this document was originally published on gospeltaboo.com – however, the original URL is no longer available.]