Fallacious Arguments for Women and Authority in the Church

Some very poor arguments are proffered in support of women holding the position of church pastor. In my previous article called Women and Authority in the Church, I addressed some of the arguments regarding notable women in the Bible being viewed as models that give support for women pastoring church congregations. The basic argument is

1. God created Adam first and had a relationship with him
2. God created Eve later for Adam but did not have the same relationship with her
3. Eve was deceived and thus is considered less reliable than Adam
4. As the “husband of one wife”, Pastors/Bishops/Overseers/Elders are supposed to be male
5. Nothing in Israel’s history or the early church broke this model of male leadership. See the article for discussions of the women and their situations.

To assert that women can pastor church congregations is to be contra 1 Timothy 2:12-13; 5:3-4 and other biblical passages and precedents (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and my original article for more). All throughout Scripture we have male leadership as the model. If and when a woman arises to lead in some fashion (Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Esther in the Hebrew Bible) it is the exception and not the rule. Even in the New Testament where we have notable characters like Mary, the women at the tomb, the daughters of Philip, Priscilla, and Junia we do not find evidence of their supplanting the men for leadership over church congregations. Nevertheless, people want to pretend that these women opened some magical doorway to egalitarianism that none of the inspired biblical authors recognized. To that end such interpreters demonstrate poor hermeneutics, undermine inspiration, and ignore church history all while they try to out “Apostle” the Apostle Paul with their new, fancy interpretations that just happen to fit modern cultural affinities. How quaint and curious.

In order to impeach the Apostle Paul’s standards, he has been slandered as misogynistic or accused of using outdated cultural standards. He has been mocked and ignored. A quick Grok search of “What reasons are given for opposing the Apostle Paul’s teaching that women are not to hold authority over men in church (1 Timothy 2)” brings up these headings as reasons that people use to reject Paul’s doctrine.

• The Rare Word Authentein (Authority) Likely Means “Domineer,” “Usurp,” or “Abuse Authority”
• Specific Local Context in Ephesus Involving False Teaching
• Inconsistency with the Broader Biblical Witness and Paul’s Own Practice
• Selective Literalism and Hermeneutics
• Grammatical and Temporary Nature

However, these do not deal with the fundamentals of Paul’s argument: the created order (God, Adam, Eve) and the Fall. People who want to think that this prohibition is restricted to the church in Ephesus fail to realize that this is Paul’s blanket approach to his churches not just a local, unique situation at Ephesus. Verse 11 sets the tone: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” While verse 12 may initially sound like Paul is giving an opinion, “I do not permit”, when we see the argument in verse 13 it is a timeless, universal argument based on God’s creating Adam first and Eve second. Either Paul was wrong or we enlightened moderns are wrong.

Bad Arguments

One set of bad arguments that recently came across my Facebook feed came from a Distinguished Professor at Cornerstone University and Cornerstone Theological Seminary.

Like many others, the good professor has fallen into a confused trap of hot-button issues, minimalism, equivocation, and fundamentally shallow exegesis. What does one mean when the word “biblical” is used? Is it authoritative or illustrative? Is it a simple fact of history or is there some endorsement of it intended? In hermeneutics we made a distinction between what is “normal” in everyday life and what is “normative” which is intended to be a rule by which we must abide. If something is “biblical” simply because it is in the Bible then that is a minimalistic error because everything in the Bible is biblical by that standard. If something is “biblical” because it was a normal thing in that time and place then it is not the same thing as some abiding doctrine that is carried on by the church. To confuse the use of the term “biblical” in that way would be an error of equivocation (using two different meanings for a word). When we say “the air is cool this morning” and then we say “the Blue Angels air show is cool” we are not using the same definition of the word “cool”. In fact, both slavery and the prohibition of women as pastors holding authority over men are both biblical – but not the the same way. The professor’s question about applying the same hermeneutic to both slavery and women being church pastors is not nuanced but it should be.

Slavery

Slavery was, in fact, the norm at that time and place in the world. We are not told who started it but it existed as early as Genesis 12 and perhaps as early as Genesis 9 where Noah curses Canaan, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.” By the time that Israel is founded as a nation, the Hebrew Bible had God-given laws regulating slavery. Slavery was divided into “foreigners” and “Israelites”. A foreigner (non-Israelite) might become a slave because they were defeated in warfare, they were purchased, or they were born to parents who were slaves. However, for an Israelite to go into slavery to another Israelite indicated an economic inability to support himself or his family at least temporarily. An Israelite might be financially devastated and so go into slavery himself as a means to survive, or to repay a debt, or even sell his children so that they may survive the economic hardship. Even then there were ways out of slavery that were provided as well. Slavery of fellow Israelites was an economic concession that was made and not a forced subjugation of fellow Israelites. Greco-Roman slavery was a little bit different but there also were potential ways out of that. So slavery is “biblical” even if it was not desirable for the individuals. The following passages were likely directed at slaves in Greco-Roman society:

• Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
• Colossians 3:22: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
• 1 Peter 2:18-19 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (NIV)

The Commandment for slaves to obey their masters is not founded in anything other than good behavior for Christian slaves so that they do not besmirch the name of Jesus. In fact, they model Jesus’ suffering by enduring their situation. It is essentially a call to be a good and honest employee even if you don’t like the boss or would rather have another job. Paul encourages slaves to achieve their freedom if they can. 1 Corinthians 7:21 “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.” Onesimus was a runaway slave who was returning to his master, Philemon, as a Christian. Paul encourages Philemon to forgive Onesimus and to free him and treat him as a brother in Christ – even as if he were Paul himself. So while slavery is “biblical” in that it is regulated and discussed in the Bible, so is “freedom from slavery” biblical and endorsed by Paul himself. So the guidance for slaves to submit to masters and for women not to teach are both “absolute” in their proper context. A slave submitting to his master is not an endorsement of the institution of slavery but a recognition that it was a widespread institution and that slaves needed guidance in their roles as new Christians up until they could attain their freedom. Women are not prohibited from participating in church and it is recognized that they may possess the gift of prophecy. However, prophetic utterances were not the same as regular teaching or leadership of a congregation.

The distinguished professor has failed to recognize that slavery was not commanded from some Universal Divine Principle. It was not a foundational institution in Genesis 1-3. The first clear acknowledgement that slavery existed is found in Genesis 12 as a passing comment. The Commandment forbidding women to teach and to hold authority over men is founded in the Apostle Paul’s rabbinical exegesis of Genesis 1-3 where the man is made by God and for God and God has the first relationship with him (Genesis 2:7). The woman is made by God from the man and for the man (Genesis 2:18-25) and does not stand in that first relationship position in the Garden of Eden even before the Fall. Then, to compound that, there is the issue of the Fall where the woman was deceived. Through the Fall, our founding parents set the paradigm for the rest of us. At first such exegesis might seem strange to us but Jesus does the same type of exegesis when he discusses divorce. He resorts back to Adam and Eve as the model for God’s intention for marriage – one man and one woman for a lifetime (see Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12).

The List of Women

As for these other women the professor casually tosses out there as if they were somehow feminist trendsetters, I’ve addressed most of them in my previous article. This is popular level nonsense not serious theological exegesis. It is guilty of the fallacy of minimalization. Simply because some women told the disciples that Jesus rose from the dead does not make them the same thing as a congregational pastor. The only overlap is that they both say, “Jesus is risen”. Beyond that there is little comparison. The fact that the women were the first ones to announce the core message of the Gospel does not make them equal to the disciples or a church pastor. It is a fact of history born from the customary action of women going to the tomb to finish preparing the body for burial. It is natural happenstance. These women were never revered or exalted for this in the early church nor did they ever lead congregations or hold authority over men. The disciples did.

The fact that there were a few females who were given to prophecy was predicted in Joel 2:30-32 “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”. Paul even lays out instructions on how such prophecy is to be evaluated by church leaders (see image below). The gift of prophecy makes these women contributors to the church but does not override Paul’s admonition to not have women hold authority over men.

Never in Israel were women intended to hold any authority over men even though on occasion – rare occasion – they were used by God for certain purposes. It did not bring about any kind of change in the normal order of things. Women were not clamoring for power in the religious hierarchy of ancient Israel. There was no position for them in the priesthood even if they were considered to be prophetesses. Women could not worship at the Temple as closely as men. They were restricted to the Court of the Women. Even in the less formal synagogue service the women and men sat separately and the women did not preside over the service. The earliest church seems to have followed the synagogue format although the Bible does not make clear if the seating was separated. See the passages below for the vagaries of the texts.

• Acts 1:13–14: The apostles, “along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers,”
• Households (including women, children, and servants) converted and hosted churches together (e.g., Lydia’s household in Acts 16:14–15, 40; Crispus in Acts 18:8)
• Women prayed and prophesied publicly in gatherings (1 Corinthians 11:5, 13),

In the Greco-Roman pagan religious services they did not segregate the men from the women. It is possible that churches influenced by the Gentile practices, such as Paul’s churches, may not have observed strict separation by gender but by the third century we have evidence of strict separation by gender.

The point is that egalitarianism was never the norm in Judaism or the early church. The women who the professor mentions are not examples of female pastors. Deborah is an Old Testament figure and it would be anachronistic to assume that she sets some kind of church model. See my extended discussion of her in my previous article. We should view these exceptional women highly for their spiritual deeds but these women were not paradigmatic models of female pastors.

The First Female Pastor

Before 1853 there were a few women preachers and evangelists such as Jarena Lee in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It is not until 1853 that we have Antoinette Brown Blackwell (1825–1921) as the first official pastor of a congregation. She was ordained by a Methodist minister (Luther Lee) with the support of the First Congregational Church in South Butler, New York (a small congregation in Wayne County) after completing theological studies at Oberlin College. She served as pastor for about ten months before resigning due to health concerns, resistance from the church congregation – especially the women – and doctrinal differences within the church. She married in 1856 and later helped found the Unitarian Society in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and served as its minister (later becoming minister emeritus). She also became a prominent suffragist. Her move to the Unitarian church was considered heretical as the Unitarian church rejected Trinitarianism and other largely Calvinist doctrines. Women pastoring churches has never been the norm. Women enrolling in seminary has increased and women holding the senior pastor positions in American churches is about 13% of all churches.¹ It has increased but it is not the norm even in mainline denominations which have fully embraced the concept.

Logic

The “logic” that this professor pushes would open the doors to other unbiblical ideas. If this was a cultural issue that can be ignored today then not only does it permit female pastors but it opens up doctrines on marriage, co-habitation, homosexuality, transgenderism and other matters. We have to be very careful when we dismiss something as non-applicable because it was the “culture of the day”. Paul expects men to be submissive to Jesus, wives to be submissive to their husbands, children be submissive to their parents, and slaves to be submissive to their masters. Why is this the proper order of things and yet women are suddenly allowed to break from that order, pass the test for “husband of one wife” and assume the leadership of a congregation as a Pastor/Bishop/Overseer/Elder?

Lots of things are “biblical” if we use a minimalistic definition of what “biblical” means. Simply being discussed in the Bible does not carry enforcement powers or indicate permanency or endorsement of that thing. Slavery is a prime example of an institution that existed, was regulated, and was to be exchanged for freedom if possible. Calling it “biblical” does not carry the same weight as calling Paul’s theological argument for the limitation of women from eldership and pastoring a congregation “biblical”. Paul is teaching doctrine which he intends for Timothy to carry on.

Women are Capable

“Women can do the job of a pastor and I’ve seen them do it.” This is an argument that I hear, particularly from people and ministers in congregations like the UMC, PCUSA, GMC, Disciples of Christ, and so forth. Once you ignore the fact that Pastors/Bishops/Overseers/Elders are supposed to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 5:3-4) then perhaps some are “capable” in some senses. However, Paul does not predicate women serving as church pastors on their “capability”. He excludes them based on creation and the Fall (which shows a level of incapability), and also the fact that women can’t be husbands (nor did women serve as Elders at the city gates). It is not that women have no place in ministry work. Older women are supposed to teach younger women to be good wives and mothers. This is the fundamental order of the family as God has designed it and of first importance to the health of a society.

• Titus 2:3-5 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”

In the modern church there are women’s groups and ministries that range from Bible studies, to fellowships, to childcare, and even include businesswomen’s groups. There is much ministry work available to a woman who desires to serve and is gifted and these do not include being an Elder in the church or holding authority over the men of the church. The church is not a meritocracy. Women do not get to be the “senior minister” of a church simply because they have risen through the ranks and are up for promotion.

Our culture pushes hard to get churches to accept what is in contradiction to the Bible. People are given to the pull of emotions because they had a godly woman in their lives (such was the case with John Wesley and his mother). It is hard to say “no” to a woman you otherwise like or admire if she desires to become an Elder or Pastor. It seems harsh. It contradicts modern feminism which attempts to say there is no difference between men and women and so people try to work around it to avoid the conflict. In the end, though, it is to thwart God’s will as expressed by his Apostle in His inspired Word. Think carefully.

1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/nml.21612
   ↩︎