By Angus Harley

Refreshing candor and honesty!

For those of you who are Complementarian,[1] the best article that there is on 1 Corinthians 11:3 that defends your position is that written by Kyle Claunch.[2] It is the most detailed and honest Complementarian take I have read on 1 Corinthians 11:3, headship, and the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS). Claunch is an associate professor in theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (which is, incidentally, Progressive Covenantalism’s academic base, and where the great scholar Thomas Schreiner works). Claunch’s article does not have the same rigidness of early Complementarian readings of 1 Corinthians 11:3,[3] as he is willing to see some value in what other arguments present. He is not dismissive, but makes balanced and objective statements from his Complementarian position. Most refreshing, indeed! I definitely recommend to Complementarians that they begin with Claunch in reading 1 Corinthians 11:3, rather than starting with the older works.

For example, Claunch carefully weighs up the meaning of kephale in context, and although coming down primarily on the meaning of ‘authority’, he is able to consider, and even support, that perhaps ‘source’ is implied, too. I am not saying he is right or wrong in this, merely that he does weigh up its potential, and this is unusual for a Complementarian. The most fundamental and honest statement he makes in the entire article is when he argues, “I Corinthians 11:3 Refers to the Incarnate State Directly”.[4] Claunch goes on to argue that 1 Corinthians 11:3 is directly concerned with the ‘economic Trinity’, or Christ’s headship as Mediator between God and men, his headship over the assembly. His second most important and honest statement is, “1 Corinthians 11:3 Refers to Eternal Relations Indirectly”.[5] For it follows that, for the Complementarian, if the text and its wider context does not directly support the Complementarian’s ESS reading, then the only option left is that it indirectly supports it: that is, this reading is not on the face of the text but to be extrapolated from it theologically. This honesty and candor are most welcome, and I hope that it will pave the way for future discussion on ESS.

Confused identity

Now, as I move into critique mode, I wish to begin with the entire book itself. It evinces a bit of a confused identity. The title of the book is this, One God in Three Persons. Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life. Not only does the main title to the book present itself as a typical ‘Systematic Theology’ type of writing on the Trinity- and only on the Trinity! One God in Three Persons, the subtitle does to, Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life. Yet, the entire book is devoted to the Complementarian aim of proving ESS in the Trinity. So, the book is taken up with, 1) Complementarianism, and, 2) ESS. These should have been clearly stated in the title. Now, to the reader, this might seem like splitting hairs. I can assure you that in the world of academia, at the higher levels, titles are crucial. I saw with my own eyes a brilliant Hebrew scholar have all his PhD work refused because the title of the thesis did not match the contents of his actual work. If the student’s title clashes with his content, then the supervisor will automatically question the consistency of the thesis. If I may put matters this way, I have complained of Complementarianism’s blindness and bias when writing its theology, and how the ‘tail’ of Complementarian theology ‘wags the dog’ of Trinitarian doctrine. I can assure the reader, that traditional writings on the Trinity do not require diving into Complementarianism!

Let me illustrate the above point. When you read Complementarian writings, even Claunch’s, they are convinced that Evangelical Feminism’s (EF) great concern is to defend its view of marriage via a Trinitarian model. Complementarianism aims to show the true Trinitarian model, by contrast. But it is apparent to me that EF’s main argument is not taken from Trinitarian doctrine; EF is, rather, defending its theology over against Complementarianism’s Trinitarian-based model, and is thereby drawn into the Trinitarian debate. I am not a Complementarian, and that allows me to separate a doctrine of marriage from a doctrine of the Trinity. I respond to Complementarianism which melds both doctrines together.

Claunch’s article suffers from the same problem of confused identity, as it, rather predictably, turns out to be about the Complementarian exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and its context. Thus, ESS is tacked on to a theology of kephale that defends the meaning of ‘authority’. In that regard, Claunch repeats the same time-worn method of his Complementarian fathers: no exegesis of any substantial kind to support ESS in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and much to say on kephale’s meaning, the assembly fathers, and a theology of ESS.

Depths of confusion

The clash of the Complementarian identity with exegetical honesty is exemplified in Claunch’s comments about Bruce A. Ware, which reveals the depth of Complementarianism’s confusion. Under the sub-heading of indirect evidence, Claunch cites Ware:

“However, if male headship, as conceived by complementarians, is rooted in the very triune being of God, then it cannot be dismissed by a simple appeal to Paul’s desire to maintain social customs. Complementarian theologian Bruce Ware makes the case clearly:

“In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul writes, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Without question, the Son stands under the authority, or, if you will, the headship of the Father. In this chapter (1 Corinthians 11) where Paul is about to deal with the importance of women acknowledging the headship of men in the community of faith by wearing head coverings, he prefaces his remarks by describing authority and submission in human relations as a reflection of the authority and submission that exist in the eternal Godhead.” ”[6]

Before dealing with the main issue concerning Ware, I want to make a quick point on the above statement. I do accept Complementarianism’s critique, here, of EF that makes culture a controlling factor in exegesis. But there are those of us who are not EF and do not use the ‘culture’ argument, and yet who come to the same conclusion, contextually, about Complementarianism’s ESS theology.

Coming back to Ware. Claunch cites him positively to defend the indirect theology argument, only to undercut his own use of Ware a paragraph later:

“However, while Ware seems to see the third “head” clause of 1 Corinthians 11:3 as a direct reference to the immanent Trinity, it is preferable to see the clause as a direct reference to the economic reality of Christ’s incarnation and then to articulate carefully the relationship between the economic and immanent Trinity. It can then be shown that the statement “God is the head of Christ” does ground gender complementarity in the immanent Trinity, but it does so indirectly, by way of good and necessary inference.”[7] [emphasis is mine]

So, in defending the indirect approach to ESS, Claunch is reliant on Ware, who sees in the text a direct reference to ESS, to then say Ware is wrong for thinking of the text as a direct reference. This reveals the depth of confusion that is currently in Complementarianism’s account of ESS.

Asking hard questions

I am not going to respond to Claunch’s typical Complementarian theological arguments and extrapolations, as I have already done this. But I do want to repeat my earlier challenge to Complementarianism: when are you going to ask hard questions of your own ESS position? Let me tease this out. If, as Claunch maintains, kephale does connote ‘source’, then what does this look like as to the Trinitarian relationship between Father and Son, and between Father/Son in comparison to Spirit? In what way was the Father eternally the ‘source’ of Christ? Or the Father and Son eternally the sources of the Spirit? Are we going back to the Nicene fathers’ speculation that the Son derives divinity from the Father? Is the Spirit now doubly-derived and therefore even more dependent on the other figures in the Godhead?

If Complementarianism cannot provide the exegetical receipts for 1 Corinthians 11:3, as to ESS, then it must provide the theological ones. To that end, it must explore and answer numerous tensions in its own Trinitarian model. It cannot any longer just bypass them, if only for this reason: others see their lack of objectivity and are not inclined to their arguments due to that. If the reader should doubt this, then he or she should read EF’s critique of Complementarianism’s Trinitarian model.

[1] I am not. I am a traditionalist, like Calvin, etc., on the issue of marriage. That being said, I greatly admire much of the work of Complementarianism.

[2] Kyle Claunch, “Does 1 Corinthians 11:3 Ground Gender Complementarity in the Immanent Trinity?”, in

One God in Three Persons. Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life, eds. Bruace A. Ware and John Starke (Wheaton, Ill, Crossway, 2023), 65-94.

[3] Claunch is writing in 2023.

[4] Claunch, 79.

[5] Ibid., 81.

[6] Ibid., 81-82.

[7] Ibid., 82.