Women in Church Leadership: A Brief Defense of the Evangelical Egalitarian Position

Given such passages as 1st Timothy 2:8-15, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and 1st Timothy 3 where the assumption is that candidates for the office of overseer will be men, it might seem that the complementarian position is unassailable.There are reasons to think otherwise however.

1) Passages that show examples of women exercising teaching and/or religious authority over men

Deborah - As a judge in pre-monarchical Israel she wielded considerable power, both legal and religious (Judges 4). She settled disputes, told a male leader what the will of God was, and together with Barak lead the people in a hymn of celebration (Judges 5). Some of those hymn lyrics were very flattering of Deborah. Verse 7 – “The peasantry ceased in Israel, Until I, Deborah, arose, Until I arouse, a mother in Israel.”

Some might object that Deborah’s role was allowed only because of lack of male leadership (especially on Barak’s part), but it should be noted that scripture only raises that issue concerning Deborah’s role (or more accurately, Barak’s lack of a role) as military leader, not her position as judge and prophetess. If there were anything wrong with Deborah’s role she could have judged along side her husbandLappidoth , and have him give the decisions (thus ensuring male authority).  In addition, there was another judge and military leader at the same time, Shamgar, who could have assumed Deborah’s position (and especially Barak’s military role) if a male leader was strictly necessary.

Huldah - King Josiah (one of the godly kings) sent a delegation lead by the High Priest to her in order to inquire about a scripture passage (2nd Chronicles 34:14-33). Huldah provides an authoritative application of the passage to the High Priest and thus to King Josiah. If a male leader was needed for an authoritative application of scripture, contemporaries ofHuldah, such as Jeremiah and Zephaniah could have been sought.

Priscilla - Along with her husband Aquila, she helped Paul establish a church in Ephesus, making her a co-leader in evangelism and church planting (Acts 28:18-28).They also instructed the male leader Apollos “in the way of God.”The fact that Priscilla is listed before her husband in the teaching of Apollos, when she is not in some of the other passages where she and her husband are mentioned, could imply that she was more prominent in the teaching field than her husband. In any event, there’s no doubt she had some teaching authority in religious matters over a man.

Junia - Along with Andronicus is called “outstanding among the apostles.”(Romans 16:7). It’s not certain exactly what this position meant, but it’s certainly a position of some leadership. In 1st Thessalonians 2:6 – Paul calls himself and his co-workers apostles and notes that they have “been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” and that “as apostles of Christ we might have exerted our authority.”

Phoebe - Paul (Romans 16:1) calls her “a servant” of the church of Cenchrea. Some translations render “servant” as deaconess, which might be a good translation given Phoebe’s gender. However, it’s the same word that is translated as deacon or deacons elsewhere, such as in Philippians 1. That’s a mixed signal to say the least if male leadership is required.

Women prophets – In 1st Corinthians 11rules are given for women’s dress while they are prophesying in mixed gatherings. But what is a prophet (other than one who prophecies)? It can mean someone who speaks for God, especially revealing future events. However, according to Crosswalk’s Greek Lexicon a prophet is defined as, “in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate, their hearers.” Thus, Paul here assumes a measure of authority for women.

2) Elements within the complementarian proof-texts and other passages are dismissed as cultural

Looking at 1st Timothy 2 again, it certainly seems that verses 13-15 (including the baffling statement that women will be saved through child-bearing) that the prohibition of women teaching men can be taken as a trans-cultural absolute command. However, it would also apply to verse 9′s command against braided hair. If verse 9 can be taken as applying culturally, then it’s likely verse 12 can be as well.

In 1st Corinthians 11it’s stated that “nature itself” is said to show that long hair is a disgrace for a man and that women must pray with their head covered. Paul says that “if anyone wants to be contentious about this about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God.”This is condemnation in the strongest possible terms, and the reason given “nature itself” certainly does not seem to be a culturally specific reason.

So why do most not following these commands today? Perhaps a part of the reason is examples in scripture of men having long hair, such as the prophet Samuel (something he would hardly do if long hair being a disgrace was an absolute).It seems we must take the hair commands in 1st Corinthians 11 to be cultural, or we would have a contradiction in scripture.

There are other examples of passages that everyone takes to be cultural, such as the “holy kiss” passages. Is there a reason to think that the passages that limit the role of women in church leadership are such passages? There were many practical reasons to limit women in leadership. Women at the time were less educated and in some places it’s clear that the women the N.T. letters address were quarrelsome and spoke out of place. More seriously, society largely was not ready for woman leaders, and having such would have been a hindrance to the evangelistic mission of the early church.

Given the passages about women leaders in scripture, including some that exercised teaching and religious authority over men, there arises an apparent contradiction with passages such as 1st Timothy 2. Either “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and passages that assume male leadership have to be taken as limited to situation the passage was addressing, or it has to be explained why it wasn’t wrong for women leaders in scripture to exercise the authority that they did. There is a clear cultural application for some related passages (long hair for men, head coverings for women, braided hair prohibition, etc). We also have the examples of women such asHuldah and Priscilla. The best approach then to the whole witness of scripture, is to assume that the passages limiting women’s leadership possibilities in the church are for the specific situations addressed by those passages and are not absolutes.

[They are other topics that would need to be addressed for a complete understanding of the issue, such as the effect the creation, the fall, and new creation has on leadership.They've been omitted for space reasons, but I can write about those some other time of anyone is actually interested].

You may also be interested in:

1. How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned
2. Myths: Male “Leadership”
3. Myths: “Being Something” In the Church
4. Myths: Feminism
5. In Defense of Union Rights