The question of women leading in church has come to the public’s attention because of Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde’s remarks in a sermon before President Trump and Vice President Vance. Women holding positions as pastors is common among theologically liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church USA, Anglicans, United Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and other less organized Protestant groups. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have held to the position that women cannot hold such an office and Protestant groups such as the Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, Christian Church and other Independent groups have as well. The pressure to conform to the current feminized, egalitarian form of secular culture is great and there have been churches that have split from these Protestant groups over this issue. The Southern Baptists have been been forced to eject some churches from their membership.
People on the liberal side of the issue will accuse the church of being patriarchal and not recognizing the gifts and talents of women. They will accuse the Bible of simply being true to its culture but argue that such a patriarchal culture has been replaced by one with a more enlightened view of women. This would be known as the egalitarian position which argues women can hold any office that a man can hold. The traditional complementarian position holds that there are different roles in the Church for men and women. As a potential third way to resolve the difference between these two positions, Brittany Rust argues for a “soft complementarian” position – call it “middle ground” – which allows women to hold the same roles as men but puts them under the authority of a man. As we shall see, that argument is not tenable either. So it is worth looking at the Scriptures to discern what they say, why, and how applicable it is to modern life.
Biblical Background
Having some basic biblical background from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) will help to understand the worldview of the New Testament and better understand the passages at issue.
In Genesis 1 and 2 we have the explanation that God created humanity, “male and female, he created them” (Gen. 1:27). In chapter 2:18 God determines “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” But before he does, he brings all of the animals to the man and he names them. At this point (v. 20 b.) it becomes clear that “no suitable helper was found” for Adam among the animals. God then acts upon his determination of v. 18 and causes the man to fall asleep and he forms a woman from one of the man’s ribs (v. 22). The man awakens and breaks into poetry, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (v. 23). This becomes the reason for marriage (v. 24).
As Genesis drifts into chapter 3, we find The Fall of Man recounted. Eve is deceived by the serpent, Adam chooses to join her by eating the fruit and human woes begin. As God inquires and pronounces the punishments on the man, woman, and serpent, he does so in an order that shows masculine leadership is assumed. First he questions Adam, then Eve. Each pass the blame to the next until it reaches the serpent. God does not inquire of the serpent. Instead he hands out punishments beginning with the serpent (the lowest position of the three), rising to Eve, and then ending with Adam. Eve’s punishment is important because it introduces a struggle into the male/female relationship that wasn’t there previously. There is now a struggle for dominance in the relationship. The woman had asserted a leadership role by offering the man the fruit and encouraging him to eat it. Henceforth, the man becomes the leader in the relationship. Furthermore, the woman was deceived by the serpent and that is seen as a trait endemic to being a woman. We will see later on that it is one of the reasons that disqualifies her from leadership.
Male leadership is assumed and practiced throughout the Old Testament. Exceptions to that rule are rare and worthy of note. During the Exodus wandering, Miriam is a prophetess who sings a song. In the period of the Judges, prior to the establishment of a kingship in Israel, Deborah becomes a judge. These stories are often cited as evidence for female leadership. When the kingdom of Israel is established, it is ruled by kings with only one exception, Athaliah, who was a usurper to the throne after the death of her son (2 Kings 11:1-20; 2 Chr. 22:10-23:15). Israel, its neighbors, and even the Roman empire were all patriarchal in nature. Roman households of the New Testament period were run by the father who had the ultimate authority in the home. Male leadership was the normal way of the world with few exceptions.
Miriam
Models like Miriam and Deborah are viewed with confusion because they seem to demonstrate female leadership and people extrapolate that to the Church age. It seems to be assumed that if at any time a woman can be shown to have a leadership role then that permits any woman to have a leadership role. But that is a flawed hermeneutic. Exceptions do not prove the rule. But is there even an exception here? A closer examination of Miriam’s case will show that it supports the traditional view of leadership. Brittany Rust reflects the common misperception that Miriam led the nation in her song. She writes, “Miriam was a prophet and led a nation in worship (Exodus 15:20).” However, that is simply not true. In the case of Miriam, Moses is the leader of Israel at the time. After the Egyptian army is destroyed in the sea, “Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord” (Exodus15:1). The song of Moses that the whole nation participated in goes on for 18 verses. Only after this song does Miriam sing. Her song is in v. 20 and it only a repeated version of the first verse of Moses’ song (v. 1b).
“Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. And Miriam sang to them, ‘Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.” (ESV)
Exodus 15:20-21
This is never construed as an act of leadership usurping Moses’ authority nor does it become normal in Israel for women to lead music or lead men. In fact, when the temple rituals are established, the song and musical duties are handled by men (Asaph 1 Chr. 15:5, 7; 2 Chr. 5:12; Heman 1 Chr. 6:33; 15:17; 25:1; Jeduthum [Ethan] 1 Chr. 16:41-42; 25:1). Even as a prophetess, Miriam did not become a leader of Israel. The Bible clearly says that Moses led the nation in song and that Miriam sang to the women as they were dancing. This actually supports the traditional roles of leadership. At no point does Miriam lead “a nation in worship”. This is simply a common misconception that has been popularized in order to support egalitarianism.
Deborah
Roughly 150 to 200 years later, the period of the Judges is upon Israel. In this time, things descended into chaos in Israel. There was no king and no one person was in charge. The so-called judges were people who rose to power in regional areas of Israel in order to bring some order to society and save Israel from its aggressive, oppressive neighbors. There are numerous illustrations of how society had gone wrong in the book of Judges. Many of the heroes are not really great heroes. Gideon is religiously flawed and weak in faith while Samson is the worst Nazarite in history and married a woman who was not an Israelite, something strictly forbidden. The religious structure in Israel had fallen apart and a lot of paganism had been brought into the country. The mixture of pagan religion and Israelite religion is called syncretism and it plagued Israel throughout the Old Testament period. Many of these flaws are not directly called out but a person familiar with the Bible would know that things are wrong. For example, a Levite priest leaving a city and taking up residence with a family to handle the household gods is wrong on multiple levels. The Levite should be in the city teaching. The people should be supporting him through offerings. There should not be household gods because idols were prohibited. No Levite should be participating in such worship (Judges 17-18). But that illustrates how confused and deranged the Judges period was. However, you only know this if you know the background and what was supposed to be taking place.
We find in Judges 4 that Deborah is the wife of Lappidoth and she is “judging” Israel at the time. We find that she “held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided” (4:5). If you will review Exodus 18, we find that Moses was the sole judge in the court system for the Israelite people. This took a toll on him and his father-in-law, Jethro, urged him to establish a system of judges comprised of men to handle the job so that he only had to deal with the toughest cases (13-27). We are not told why Deborah is handling this duty at this time but to find a woman handling these judgeship duties indicates that society is not running as it should. She is married but we know nothing about her husband apart from his name. We know that Deborah was a prophetess so perhaps that gave her some clout in the community. Or perhaps she was handling the job of judge under the oversight of her husband. We really don’t know except to say that this was an abnormal situation that does not rise again.
Deborah summons a man named Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and tells him that God wants him to gather an army and go to war against the Canaanite king, Jabin, who was oppressing them. She assures him that God has arranged a victory over the Canaanite army and that the commander, Sisera, will be defeated (4:6-7). Next we see another undefined failing. Barak does not have faith simply in the word of God through Deborah. He insists “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go” (v. 8). In ancient warfare it was often thought that taking idols of your gods or taking priests or priestesses into battle would assure you victory. Here, Barak is trying to take the prophetess with him as a means of guaranteeing victory. After all, God would not let his army be defeated if the prophetess is there and in danger, right? Clearly, this was not the correct answer for Barak to give, so he is punished in v. 9. Deborah agrees to go “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” Barak does not seem to be distressed by this at all so he gathers the army and goes to war as instructed. Deborah tells him to start the attack and the Canaanite army is routed. All of the soldiers are killed and only Sisera escapes. He finds refuge in the tent of an ally. Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, hides him. He feels safe enough because the Kenites and King Jabin have an alliance. However, when he falls asleep she drives a tent peg through his temple and kills him. The Kenites may be related to the Midianites and we know that Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, was a Kenite. The Kenites seem to have a favorable relationship with the Israelites in the Bible. But it is to be noted that it is a non-Israelite woman who kills Sisera just before Barak arrives at the tent thus depriving Barak of the glory of capturing and executing the commander. Like Miriam, after this great act of God, she and Barak break into song. While the headings often say “The Song of Deborah” it is actually “The Song of Deborah and Barak” (5:1). So it is not really accurate to say that Deborah led the army into battle. She did go along at the behest of Barak and she did tell Barak to start the battle but her presence was not intended initially and was not necessary since God had already decreed that Barak would win the battle.
Women were certainly not viewed as warriors in these times so it is noteworthy that a woman killed the male commander of an army. People often assume that Deborah is the woman who is going to receive the glory for killing Sisera but she is not. That glory goes to Jael. But no matter how we analyze the story, female leadership does not become the norm in Israel. Whether other men had abdicated their authority to judge or whether Deborah is raised up or simply used by God to accomplish this task is not entirely clear. What is clear is that this is an anomaly in a desperate time where things were not functioning as they should. It never occurs again and it is never used by any biblical writers to justify female leadership.
Esther
Esther is often held up as an example for female leadership but her case is quite different from Miriam and Deborah’s. First, she was forced to be a beauty contestant for the Persian king, Xerxes (ch. 2). She is forced into his harem to prepare for her audition. In all likelihood, she was forced to have sexual relations with the king (2:14-17) and he deemed her his favorite so he made her queen. She never led the Israelite people and she never sat on her husband’s throne. Upon the urging of her uncle Mordecai, she used the opportunity of her position as queen to intervene on behalf of the Israelite people and did save them from execution. It took bravery and courage to do so. These are heroic qualities but none of this speaks to being a leader in Israel and certainly it is not a pattern for the Church. Esther was forced into her position and once there was able to use it to her advantage on this occasion.
Women in Judaism
As a side note, it should be mentioned that the nation of Israel never had anything but male priests. There was never a priestess of any sort and the women who were prophetesses were held in high esteem but never considered to be a priestesess. The pagan religions around Israel and of the Roman time period had priestesses. Of all the syncretistic practices that Israel adopted, the priestess was not one of them. Temple worship never included women in its services. In fact, gathering at the temple was restricted in this order: gentiles had a court at the back; the women had a court next; and the men had a court closest to the temple. The family of Levi was the chosen tribe to be priests but their women were not considered priestesses. They were simply wives and not given any special religious privileges. The high priest was always a man from the line of Aaron. Nothing in the formal practice of Judaism indicates that women ever held authority over men or had any role in the official services. In the gatherings at the synagogue in local towns, the men were always in charge as well. Women were permitted into those services to hear the reading and discussion of Scripture but it was always male-led (Jairus Mark 5:22, Acts 13:15). The Sanhedrin was populated by men and the various sects such as the Pharisees and Sadducees were all led by men. Even the breakaway group in Qumran, the Essenes, maintained a male-led form of Judaism.
New Testament Texts
A number of arguments for women in leadership center around the positive roles that women had in Jesus’ life and ministry. He had female followers and the wealthy women helped financially support his ministry (Luke 8:1-3). He taught women like Mary and Martha and the Woman at the Well. Women attended to his burial and were the first ones to learn that he was resurrected (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18). Many times people assert that because the women were the “first ones to carry the gospel”, that is, they are told to tell the disciples that Jesus was resurrected, that this implies a position in church leadership. This is simply an illogical and unhistorical jump to a conclusion. Every Christian is expected to be able to share that much knowledge with others. It is the central confession of the faith. But it is not followed up in the early church by having female leaders over whole churches. Those duties fell to men while any female leadership is women over women. As we shall see, Jesus has prohibitions on women that we only learn about through Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Likewise, the Woman at the Well (John 4:4-42) is often considered an “evangelist” and that supposedly justifies women in leadership. But a closer inspection of the text shows that she believed Jesus to be a “prophet” and asked the question to her fellow townspeople, “Could he be the Messiah?” (4:29). At first the people believed because of what the woman said but Jesus stayed on with them two more days and then they said, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world” (vv. 40-42). Like other people, she was amazed at what Jesus had done for her and she told other people who then came to hear Jesus. All of these things are good and positive but they do not speak to the issue of women holding authority over men in church.
We find women hosting churches in their homes. Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11) may be a house church but it may also be her family household but Nympha (Col. 4:15) and Apphia (Philemon 1:2) both are clearly hosting churches. House churches at this time were in the homes of people wealthy enough to have a home suitable for meeting. It does not, however, imply that these churches allowed women to preach or hold authority over men. As we will see in Paul’s letters, there was a universal practice among the churches to which he calls the Corinthians to obey.
Acts and Joel
And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
Excerpted from Joel 2:28-32 (ESV)
This passage is quoted in Acts 2:17-18 with additional verses in 19-21 closely paraphrased from Joel 2:30-32. The part that is confusing to people is the reference to “all flesh” or “all people” as in the NIV and “sons and daughters shall prophesy”.
The Old Testament context of Joel is looking forward to redemption of Israel. Isaiah 32:15 and Ezekiel 39:29 both also look forward to a pouring out of the Spirit of Yahweh on the people. The Apostle Peter declares that Joel is fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended like flames of fire onto the Apostles and they spoke in tongues. It was not unheard of for people to receive an outpouring of the Spirit from God and to engage in tasks or even prophesy. See the stories of Bezalel (Exodus 31:1-5); Othniel (Judges 3:10); Gideon (Judges 6:34); Samson (Judges 13:25, 14:6, 19, 15:14); Saul (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 11:6); David (1 Samuel 16:13). In the New Testament the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus, the disciples at Pentecost, Stephen, Phillip, and the household of Cornelius. Does this passage open the doors to an egalitarian approach to women holding authority over men? The answer is simply no. It is not disputed that women prophesied in the early church. Paul will even give regulations on it in 1 Corinthians. However, all the evidence is that men were the authorities in the church and were supposed to regulate and evaluate the prophecies to assure that they were from God. The early church never developed an egalitarian leadership based on this passage.
Paul’s Epistles
First Corinthians 7:1 begins addressing questions that the Corinthian church had written about to Paul. These include Marriage and Sexual Relations (ch. 7), Food Offered to Idols (ch. 8), the Conduct of Worship (ch. 11), Spiritual Gifts (chs. 12-14), the Resurrection of the Dead (ch. 15). Paul clearly establishes the spiritual order of things in 11:3 where he says “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and the head of Christ is God.” In this section starting at v. 7 he draws upon the order of creation. Man is “in the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man (8) for man is not from woman but woman from man. (9) For indeed man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.” All this is confusing for modern readers, but the upshot of it is Genesis 1-2. God made Adam first and then Eve was formed for the man because God determined “it is not good for the man to be alone”. It affirms the male-first order of things.
Moving on to chapter 14, we find instructions on prophecy in the church. In versus 33-36, Paul states that in all the churches the women remain silent and learn at home from their husbands. It is commonly assumed that most women are married as that is the normal process in the world and especially at that time. The number of widows and unmarried young women would typically be very few. The lesson we get here that the modern church should also get is that husbands should be the first-learners in the household and become authorities for their wives. We don’t know all that we would like to know about the issues in the Corinthian church and much ink has been spilled on this topic. This passage clearly addresses having an orderly service where prophecy is concerned. It seems likely that there were at least some women who were being disruptive in the church and either the Corinthians asked Paul about it or Paul knew about it and addressed the issue. Whatever the nuance, this passage again demonstrates the male-to-female order within the church. I will note for the record that there is a question as to where vv. 34-35 should be located. I think that they are properly located here but you can read about the issue in the notes here.
To further his argument, in verse 36 Paul asks a rhetorical question, “or has the word of God gone out from you, or has it come to you only?” At the very least, Paul is challenging the Corinthians to recognize that they are part of a larger body of Christians and they don’t have the right or authority to go against the rest of Christianity on this issue. But he caps off his argument by playing his trump card – Jesus. In v. 37 he says “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he should recognize that the things which I am writing to you are of the Lord.” In other words, these things come from Jesus either directly or through Paul as Jesus’ Apostle to them. Either way it should be viewed as a command from Jesus and those who are truly in tune with God will accept it.
Other passages also teach the order of wives being subject to their husbands. See Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 2:5.
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul addresses the issue to his protégé. In 9-15 he gives some instruction about women in the church. They should be modest and do good deeds and “learn in quietness with all submission” (v. 11). Then in v. 12 he puts an absolute prohibition on female leadership of a mixed congregation, “But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” As before, he draws upon the order of creation as the reason: 13 for Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This is a pre-fall condition based on the fact that God created Adam before Eve and he had a relationship with Adam first. When we recall what he said in 1 Corinthians 11, we see the order of creation first raised there where the woman was created to be his helpmate. This means that we cannot say, “it was a cultural thing that Paul held against women”. Nor can we blame it only on the fall that women are in this struggle with men for dominance in the relationship. The created order of relationship is God – Man – Woman.
If that is not enough, then Paul also resorts to what is revealed in the fall. Eve demonstrates that she is not savvy enough to avoid temptation and deception (v. 14). This further disqualifies her from holding authority over men in church, “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” It is clear that the fall indicated that the woman was not the man’s equal in the relationship with God.
Up to this point, the evidence for the male-female order of things is relatively clear but no specific office of the church has yet been addressed. The office of Overseer, also known as Pastor, Elder, or Bishop is outlined in chapter 3 and it clearly belongs to men only. He is to be the “husband of one wife” and to run his household well. The same thing is said of deacons beginning in v. 8. This raises the question of Phoebe who is called a “deacon” in Romans 16:1-2. Whether this is an official title is not entirely clear because the word can be used to describe someone who serves the church. Even if it is an official title, it is not clear what her duties were. Deacons were people who served the church through rather mundane acts and whether there was a division of labor between men and women is not clear. Further, 1 Timothy 3:11 may leave open the possibility that women could serve as deacons since the word for “wife” and “woman” are the same in Greek. In any event, there is no reason to think that these offices violated the prohibition against women holding authority over men.
The case of Junia being called an apostle is also a case where little is known about her. Romans 16:7 is part of a list of greetings that Paul extends: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” Scholars almost all agree these days that Junia is a woman’s name and that she was likely the wife or sister of Andronicus. However it could still be a man’s name. The instances are rare both ways (See study note 6). What is meant by the term “apostles” is less clear because it has multiple meanings. In Acts 14:14 and 1 Thes. 2:7, it is used in a general sense of Barnabas, Silas and others. People who are “apostles” are people who are “sent” and it doesn’t have to be considered an office of the church in those contexts. It also could mean that the couple had a good reputation among the Apostles, that is the The Twelve and Paul. Few will argue that Junias is an Apostle on par with Paul and The Twelve. The evidence for that is weak at best but it is a straw that egalitarian advocates will cling to desperately.
Galatians
Galatians 3:28 says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This passage is used to argue that there are no longer any limits on who can do what in a church setting. What the passage teaches is that all are equal in Christ. There is no spiritual privilege to being a Jew as opposed to being a Gentile; or being a man instead of a woman. There is now an equality in Christ that did not exist previously. Paul is making an argument to try to bring the Galatian church back into theological conformity. This is a church that is trying to go back to the Law and Paul is arguing against going back. And while this passage alone may sound like there are no distinctions, we should also look at 1 Cor. 12:12-13 where Paul again talks about unity in Christ but also diversity of body parts within the church. There is unity and equality but the same Apostle wrote that there is also headship and order within the church. So however one may view Galatians 3:28, we cannot view it as being at odds with other passages from the same Apostle. It is a basic hermeneutical principle that Scripture does not contradict itself. So the Galatian passage has to be understood in its context of an argument put before a problematic congregation struggling with enslavement to the Law versus freedom in Christ and the other passages which clearly speak about sex-based limitations.
Conclusion
When the evidence is assessed, the clear passages establishing a male-headed family and church easily outweigh those speculative passages about women as deacons and “big-A” Apostles. Women were and remain a vital part of the church. They were prophetesses, they were to teach other women how to be good wives and mothers (a vital role in any society), they were missionaries, house church hosts, and they even had husband-wife teams such as Priscilla and Aquilla doing evangelism and making converts. So the role of women in the church should not be minimized or diminished. Acts of “deacon” style work are commonplace for women in most churches today. The purpose here is only to address the question of whether or not women should be leaders in authority over men in a church and the obvious answer is that Scripture does not permit it. It is not a question of “does a woman have a talent for preaching or leading” it is still prohibited for her to hold authority over men in church. She may be a stellar CEO and motivational speaker at the office but that is the work world and not the world of the Church. Church is different and should always be treated as such.
Modern feminism has attempted to remove any distinctions between men and women and yet our recent social upheaval around drag queens and transvestite or transgender males in women’s sports and spaces has impressed upon us the fact that real differences exist. Modern society cannot cloak the truth. Christian doctrine and practice are not supposed to be conditioned upon cultural trends or whims. If women are not to be the spiritual leaders by order of creation and punctuated because of The Fall then nothing we as humans can do can reshape that God-ordained order.