My Thoughts on Women’s Roles in the Church
WOMEN’S ROLES IN THE CHURCH
The question of women’s roles in the church is one of the most heartfelt debates within modern Christianity. I’ve never addressed this topic in our church because I’ve wrestled with it so much myself.
Several years ago, when we were a much younger church, we invited a lady to speak one Sunday, and afterward one of our male church members took me to task for allowing a woman to assume the pulpit. And I understand that objection because this is something I’ve wrestled with as well, which is why I have never talked much about it. But I felt led to finally address this subject with our church for two reasons.
First, women’s roles in the church has been in the headlines recently when the Southern Baptist Convention recently voted into their bi-laws that women are not to be pastors or teach men. And that has sparked some sharp debate online. Secondly, we as a church do allow women to preach and teach the entire congregation on occasion, and I’m hoping to shed some light on this subject for anyone who might be confused by this.
So then, what does the Bible really teach on women’s roles in the church?
I’ll lead off by saying up front that this has been a topic that has been pretty unclear to me, to be honest with you. Most of my favorite Bible teachers promote women in the ministry, and while they make some good points, none of them have been able to convincingly address some of the Bible passages that seem to handle this topic in no uncertain terms, that women are not to teach men or have authority over men. And the passages in question make this case on the created order of things. In other words, Adam was created first, and then Eve, implying a clear hierarchy in the home and the church. But there are other passages that seem to make allowances for women in ministry. And then when I look at what’s happening in the Body of Christ, it seems obvious that God is using women in pastoral and teaching roles all over the world, and using them powerfully.
So how do we sort this out?
The global Body of Christ holds three primary positions, each arguing its case directly from the Scriptures. So instead of there being a position that is universally accepted, the modern church can be divided into three camps on this particular theological debate. What I want to do here is go through those different positions briefly and explain why I have landed where I have in terms of our practices at BLF. Now, these three positions have been given different labels that sound sort of technical, and for ease of use I will go ahead and use those same labels at the risk of sounding overly formal. Hopefully I can simplify the technical-sounding jargon in a way that makes sense.
1. THE COMPLEMENTARIAN POSITION
This position is called the Complementarian view because it’s based on the belief that God created men and women with different complementary roles in the home and the church. This position sees men and women as equal in value, dignity, and spiritual standing before God, but designed with very different functions. We all recognize the reality of the different roles of men and women in the home and society. As it relates to this theological position specifically, Complementarians believe that the offices pastor and elder and the roles of teachers to the corporate church body are restricted to qualified men, and women are helpmates to those roles.
Key Scriptural Basis:
In 1 Timothy 2:11–14, the Apostle Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.”
This instruction grounds its reasoning in the Fall of mankind in the Garden, and the order of creation. In other words, Adam was formed first, then Eve, and it was Eve who initiated the first sin that plunged mankind into darkness.
Other passages that form the foundation of the Complementarian view are 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 regarding qualifications of overseers in the church, because these passages use male-oriented language. In other words, the instruction here is that an overseer in the church is to be the “husband of one wife.”
Complementarians emphasize that hierarchy and order in the church do not mean inferiority. They point out that women played vital, active roles in the New Testament, such as Phoebe as a deacon and benefactor, and Priscilla assisting in instructing Apollos. But they argue that these roles did not cross the line into holding primary governing and teaching authority over men in the gathered church.
2. Christian Egalitarianism (i.e. Equality among God’s people)
The root word of Egalitarianism is the French word egal, which means equal. The Core Position here is that Egalitarians believe that spiritual leadership and giftedness in the church are distributed by the Holy Spirit based on capability and calling rather than gender. They argue that all of Scripture should be interpreted through the lens of redemption in Jesus Christ and its historical context. Therefore, the argument here is that the New Testament removes gender barriers to any office or ministry in the church.
Key Scriptural Basis:
Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is seen as the foundational standard for human relationships in the church.
On the day of Pentecost referenced in Acts 2, the Apostle Peter declared that God’s Spirit has been poured out equally on “your sons and your daughters” who will “prophesy,” which is a quote from Joel 2:28.
In Romans 16:7, the Apostle Paul greets a woman named Junia, describing her as “outstanding among the apostles,” and goes on to name women like Priscilla as co-workers.
Egalitarians argue that passages like 1 Timothy 2 instructing women to be silent in the church were culturally conditioned instructions meant to address specific local issues of that time—such as false teachers targeting uneducated women, or disruptive worship practices—rather than being permanent, universal prohibitions for all times and places.
Some people accuse those who hold these egalitarian views of denying church history. So let me give you just a brief history lesson on that point.
As already mentioned, the New Testament names women like Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia in significant ministry roles, and some early charismatic groups like the Montanists in the second century had women prophets. But after the 2nd century, the dominant pattern in Catholic, Orthodox, and later magisterial Reformation churches was male-only ordained leadership. So even though egalitarian practice appeared to be the norm in churches in the first and second centuries, it fell silent after that and wasn’t prevalent for a long time, re-emerging again centuries later starting in the 1600s.
The writings of the Quaker Margaret Fell Fox, for example, were instrumental in this re-emergence. Quakers believed that all human beings were equal in the eyes of God, and they allowed women to speak out in church and become highly respected ministers.
That movement grew in the 1800s during what has been called the “golden era” of missions. And 19th-century evangelical leaders like A.J. Gordon advocated for women in ministry as well.
The early Pentecostal movement was also marked by its egalitarian spirit, with women such as the notable Aimee Semple McPherson occupying important leadership roles alongside men.
But the labels we use now come from the late 1980s. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was set up in 1987 to promote men-only ministry, and in 1988 Christians for Biblical Equality was begun in opposition, promoting women in ministry. As one historian puts it, since the late ’80s those two Bible-believing movements have given us a language for the current gender debate in the Body of Christ.
So then, women preaching and leading is not brand-new — you can trace it through Quakers, Methodists, Holiness, and Pentecostal movements for at least 350+ years, and even all the way back to the first and second centuries. And there are certainly New Testament examples we can point to as well.
The Egalitarian view also makes its case on the basis of the undeniable fruit and power of the Holy Spirit working through women across the global church, a view that’s been called the “Open Role” or “Practical view.” John Wesley defended women preaching in 1770 on the basis of what he called an “extraordinary call,” meaning that it seemed obvious by the gifting of certain women that they had been called by God to lead and preach. So this view argues that the primary standard for ministry should be spiritual fruit, character, and gifting rather than strict adherence to a church policy.
The Open Role or Practical view emphasizes passages focused on Spiritual Gifts, such as 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, arguing that the Holy Spirit distributes Gifts to women just as He does to men for the edification of the entire church body. It suggests that if God is anointing and empowering women to evangelize, teach, and even pastor, the church should recognize and release those gifts.
Why does this Debate Persist?
To sum up the debate, Complementarians prioritize explicit instructions given in the pastoral epistles like 1 Timothy that appear to deny women having leadership or teaching roles in the church, viewing those instructions as timeless because of the created order in the Garden of Eden. And I see merit in considering the created order.
Egalitarians, however, prioritize the redemptive trajectory of Scripture, referring to the finality of what Christ accomplished on the cross and the unity of the saints that His work accomplished. Egalitarians also point to historical context, and passages highlighting female leadership and prophecy. And I see merit in this view as well.
Ultimately, Christians on both sides of this issue are deeply committed to the authority of Scripture, but they simply differ on how to harmonize the historical contexts and instructions found in the Bible. So I’m not ready to totally reject either side, nor am I ready to fully embrace either side, because I see strengths and weaknesses in both arguments.
So where does that leave us as a church then?
Our Unofficial Position at BLF
First of all, this is one of those secondary issues that we should not break fellowship with one another over. The unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace according to Ephesians 4:3 is the primary issue.
Secondly, I should hasten to mention that there is also a MIDDLE-GROUND VIEW, sometimes called the SOFT COMPLEMENTARIAN VIEW, which is a position that affirms male leadership, but allows women to teach, preach, or lead ministries under the cover and guidance of male authority. And I guess this is sort of where I land as a pastor at the moment. Since I see merit in both the traditional complementarian view and the egalitarian view, I suppose that softer middle ground is where I would place my personal theology, although there’s still a healthy tension for me because of the created order argument vs. how God is using women around the world even as pastors.
So I’m open to be proven wrong one way or the other, since I don’t land hard on one side or the other. There are certain biblical concepts I’m still learning and growing in as well, and this would be one of them.
The Letter of the Law vs. The Spirit of the Law
I would like to add here that there is one thing about denominations that hold a rigid Complementarian position that is unsettling to me, and that’s the troubling trend toward the letter of the law versus the spirit of it.
In other words, the letter of the law concerns itself with rigid rule-keeping when rigidity isn’t always called for. But the spirit of the law allows different spirit-led applications. For example, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time were so concerned about the letter of the law that they criticized Jesus for healing someone on the Sabbath, and chastised a former cripple that Jesus healed for merely carrying the mat he had been lying on. But Jesus called those people hypocrites by saying that if someone had a donkey that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you work to get it out and rescue it? Jesus affirmed that, yes, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, even though by doing so you might actually have to do some work on a day of rest, in some cases. And I think, perhaps, we can make this spirit-of-the-law apply to women in ministry.
The Role of the Holy Spirit
Another issue that troubles me about the Christian denominations that tend to hold firmly to the traditional Complementarian view are that they are sometimes notorious for stifling any sort of movement and ministry of the Holy Spirit both in their services and in their personal lives. One such famous pastor I heard recently said he has no idea what means when people say that they’ve been touched by the Holy Spirit, and he was railing against that concept. And I thought, “What? This well-known pastor has no idea what people mean when we say we’ve been touched by the Holy Spirit?” I think that’s very telling. It’s like the Pharisees of old who could quote the scriptures with ease, yet they had no idea how to be led by the Holy Spirit, and that was obvious by them being oblivious to their Messiah standing right in front of them while they chanted for His execution. Honestly, I tend to shy away from pastors and denominations that give absolutely no room for the leading and movement of the Holy Spirit and who criticize those who do.
Having said that, I am a man of the Word, and I hold it in high regard and don’t wish to minimize it or navigate around it in any way. If something is very clear in the Word, I consider there to be no wiggle room. But the role of women in the church is one of those issues where there are some convincing differing views, all of which point to specific passages in the Bible. And since I always want to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I want to stay teachable when I don’t understand something fully.
The Bottom Line at BLF
Since I personally land more in that softer middle ground position, I do allow women to teach the entire congregation from time to time. And women also minister regularly in other ways, such as praying, prophesying, leading worship, leading in communion, etc.
Now, the discomfort I feel about disregarding the created order position is the same discomfort I feel with trying to restrict the ministry of the Holy Spirit through women in the church. So, to me, it’s still a bit of a conundrum, but God knows my heart. He knows that I desire to please Him, to honor His Word, and not restrict the work of His Spirit in any way. And if I’m wrong in how I’m approaching this, well, I know He will make it clear to me someday as I continue to seek Him. I hope you can be patient with my learning curve.
I know this presentation probably isn’t crystal clear for those who want a neatly-packaged and simple answer, but I hope this short treatment of the subject gives you some things to at least think about. I know this brief message hasn’t addressed everything that both sides would choose to base their arguments on, so if you want to take a deeper dive, I might recommend a book I read last year called, A Biblical Argument for Women in Leadership, by Ken Schenck. While it doesn’t address every question I have on the subject, it’s probably the most complete book on the topic I’ve read so far, yet it’s a short read. I will forewarn you that the author gets pretty condescending at times to the Complementarian view in the way he writes, which I don’t like very much, but the biblical arguments he makes are worth considering.
On a side note before I close, I want to say that Donna has introduced me to a couple of new Bible teachers who are women, and I’m telling you, their teachings have been bread to my soul. I don’t believe I’m wrong for allowing God’s Word to flow through a woman in order to feed me spiritually. So you might want to check out Bev Tucker and Peggy Joyce Ruth! Wow! They are great teachers and strong women of great faith.
Be blessed!