Whom the Spirit Wills

In Defense of Women in Church Leadership

Growing up, I was taught that women being leaders in the church was a radical, unbiblical belief that directly contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture. If a church ordained a woman to preach from the pulpit, it was clear that they were capitulating to culture and allowing feminism to destroy them. I mean, it’s obvious that women can’t be leaders, Paul clearly lays it out for us:

1 Timothy 2.12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

However, there are a lot of verses in Paul’s work that taken out of context seem to teach something strange (read 1 Corinthians 14.34 on its own as an example). Perhaps we ought to consider the fullness of the text of Scripture before deciding who is and isn’t called to be a pastor.

Typically, arguments against women leadership in the church centre around three major texts: 1 Timothy 2.11–15, 1 Timothy 3.1–13/Titus 1.6–9, and Ephesians 5.22–24. In very conservative circles, 1 Corinthians 14.34 is used as well, but this interpretation collapses under immediate scrutiny. To say that women are to be silent means 1 Corinthians 11.5 makes no sense — Paul assumes women are audibly participating in the worship service with authority as prophetesses. Additionally, I will not address any arguments centred around a Genesis 2–3 claim that women are biologically designed to be subservient to men, and hence must always be under men in the church. These arguments are typically rooted in sexism, either silently or proudly, which is very sinful. Similarly, reasoning from verses like Isaiah 3.12 that argue against women leadership in general is also rejected out of hand. Any claims that “it’s not sexist, it’s just what Scripture teaches” collapse under examination and reveal the truth behind the facade.

I will address each of three texts I presented above, and then build a positive case for why I believe in the inclusion of women in the leadership.

Starting with the weakest point in the argument, in Ephesians 5.22–24 Paul tells us that women are to submit to their husbands as they represent the church and their husbands represent Christ. The argument against women leadership is to say that a woman cannot submit to her husband in everything if she is exercising spiritual authority over him. However, this argument fails to see that authority in the context of marriage does not extend further to the greater context of the church. The preceding v. 21 tells us to submit to one another. Paul is applying this to either the marriage context or to the church context, but both ways would imply husbands submitting themselves under their wives. Second, women are expected to be exercising spiritual gifts such as prophecy in the context of the church (1 Corinthians 11.5). Prophecy is a gift with extremely strong spiritual authority that commands and edifies those who hear it, which would include the husband. The analogy simply does not extend as far the complementarian argument would like it to. Therefore, we see that women can in fact hold some form of spiritual authority in the church.

Next, in 1 Timothy 3.1–13 and Titus 1.6–9 we get a description of what qualifies bishops/overseers, elders, and deacons in the church. This point of the argument points out the usage of the masculine pronouns in reference to these leaders and how they are to be “husbands of one wife”. However, a positive affirmation in Scripture does not necessarily imply the negative. We cannot assume that if one thing is said to be true, the opposite is necessarily false. For instance, (Calvinists pay attention!) one can argue that since Jesus says in John 10.11 that He dies for His sheep, He must not have died for the unbeliever. However, 1 John 2.2 explicitly says that Christ died as an atonement not just for the sake of the believer, but also the unbeliever (and no, κόσμου does not refer to “Jews and Gentiles”, especially not in 1 John). And hence, we have to slow down and not get ahead of ourselves. 1 Timothy 3.11 is a pivotal verse in cracking this. Depending on your translation you will read one of these three things:

Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. [A more complementarian position]

Women, similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything. [A neutral position, can be understood either way]

Deaconesses, in the same way, must be sober-minded women, not slanderers, but in every way temperate and trustworthy. [A clear egalitarian position]

So what is going on in this passage? Clearly, the translational authorities are split on whether women (Γυναῖκας here) are considered in the scope of deaconship. I side with the neutral to positive translation here (and it is important to note the more complementarian approach doesn’t negate women leadership). If you agree with the more egalitarian side of the translational argument, then it’s clear that the positive affirmation of male leadership is not negating the existence of female leadership, and hence this argument does not hold weight. Therefore, we see that women can hold positions as deaconess at minimum if not bishops and elders as well by extension.

Finally, we get to the beast of 1 Timothy 2.11–15. Not to overshadow a woman teaching on this, see this series of blogs by Marg Mowczko to whom I’m heavily indebted to. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men, they must learn in all quietness, Eve was deceived not Adam, and women will be saved through childbirth! Huh? What does that last bit have to do with women teaching? Did Paul suddenly lose his train of thought, or is he showing what’s really going on in this passage? To understand this passage, it is imperative that we see Paul is addressing the issue of false teachers, not whether women can hold teaching positions in the church. Paul writes to Timothy to stay in Ephesus to safeguard against the various false teachings floating around the city (1.3–4) and to not desert the faith like others around him (1.18–20, 5.15). He continues in chapter 4 to encourage standing against false teaching, and to hold onto sound doctrine, with a final encouragement in 6.20–21. So now that we can see a theme in the letter, can we glean anything from the historical context? In Ephesus there was the temple of Artemis, the Greek goddess associated with nature, childbirth, raising children, and virginity. The Ephesian form of the goddess was understood specifically as a midwife that would reduce the agony of childbirth (see the Acts of Andrew 25 as an example). We can see in the account of Acts 19.23–41 that the Ephesians were quite devoted to her and saw Christianity as an economic threat. Additionally, the temple of Artemis was run by virgin priestesses who were known for their domination over men. Finally, the association with Artemis’ virginity may have been appealing to Christian women, and hence Paul’s words in 4.3 and 5.14. Second, it is very likely that Paul is generally addressing early gnostic heresies that syncretized Greek mythology with Christian theology to produce various heresies. Some potential identifiers that this was happening in Ephesus would be the mention of “endless genealogies” (1.4), why he includes the section on Adam over and against Eve (2.13–14) as some gnostics believed Eve was truly enlightened by eating of the fruit and prioritized her over Adam, and the condemnation of false knowledge/gnosis (6.20). The reference to Eve’s deception here has further use in exploring. This is not the only time Paul uses this idea—in 2 Corinthians 11.3, Paul makes it explicitly clear that Eve’s deception serves as an analogy for the believers in Corinth being led astray by false teaching.

Now that we have established some context for 1 Timothy, let’s consider what Paul is teaching in 2.11–15. Let us go section by section:

1 Timothy 2.11–12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

This verse should be read in light of the domineering priestesses of Artemis who would put themselves over and above the men in Ephesus. The Christian woman should not behave like the world, but to be equal to the men around her as we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3.28). Additionally, the ban on her to teach I believe to be a local phenomenon rather than a universal claim. Perhaps Paul wanted to clamp down on the false teaching targeting women by not allowing those doctrines to be taught at all. It would have been primarily women teaching the doctrines of Artemis.

1 Timothy 2.13–14: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul is doing multiple things at once with this passage. First, he is creating an allegory in the style of 2 Corinthians 11 about false teachers. Second, he is identifying specifically the false gnostic teaching about the elevation of Eve above Adam by rightly saying that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. This takes all the air out of gnostic readings of Genesis 3 that praised Eve for being the first one to eat of the fruit. Third, the passage equally serves as a condemnation against the priestesses of Artemis placing themselves above men. Centring this around false teachers makes much more sense than trying to say it is about how women are not biologically designed for leadership because they are more easily deceived (which is sexist). Additionally, such arguments unintentionally make the awkward claim that Adam who chose what is wrong intentionally is better suited for leadership.

1 Timothy 2.15: But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Now this verse makes sense in the context of the passage. Paul would be addressing the issue of women calling out to Artemis to save them in their childbirth. Instead of being a random add-on, it is a direct and specific encouragement to women who held true to the faith instead of being disuaded by false doctrine.

We can see that this passage actually flows easily once we see the greater context of Ephesus and the letter of 1 Timothy. The passage is not a condemnation of women in teaching positions, claiming that they are biologically unfit, with a strange bit about childbirth. Rather, it is the addressing false teaching that specifically was targeting women about (1) their superiority to men and (2) seeking protection under the goddess Artemis, specifically around childbirth. Therefore, there is no ban in Scripture against women teaching in the church.

Wow, that was long. But glad that we can establish on Scriptural grounds that there is no case explicitly against women. However, it is not satisfying to only negate a false theology, we also ought to construct a true one. So what case, if any, is there for women in leadership in Scripture? Let us see what we have to work with.

First, we will make a partial argument from silence. This is typically frowned upon, but I believe there is good reason to. In Revelation 2.18–29, the church in Thyatria is addressed because a prophetess is teaching false doctrines in the church. God says that He has given her time to repent of her doctrines about sexual immorality, but she has not and He will judge her for it. Now, it is strange that God does not condemn the fact that she is teaching, but that she is teaching something wrong. Simply seems like a good time to bring it up if ever, as this is the only case study we have of a woman teaching a church actively.

Second, we can turn to Judges 4 -5 with the example of Deborah. Judges 4.4 tells us that Deborah was a prophetess who was leading the nation of Israel after the death of Ehud. If we see Israel as typological of the church, she stands as an example of a woman who spiritually leads and shepherds God’s people. Some will argue that Judges 4.8–10 mean that God only raised up Deborah because Barak was unwilling to do anything, however that is not what the passage says at all. Her raising in v. 4 has nothing to do with the lack of men and she is the one who calls Barak and commands him according to the word of the Lord in v. 6–7. The woman who is raised up for the fault of Barak is Jael, not Deborah.

Third, we have Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus in Luke 10.38–42 listening to what Jesus is teaching. This is interesting imagery as in Acts 22.3 we have Paul saying similarly that he was brought up at the feet of his rabbi Gamaliel — potentially the revered Pharisee in Acts 5.34–39. The purpose of sitting at the feet of your rabbi is not just to learn what they had to teach, but to become a teacher yourself. Paul was taught by Gamaliel for the purpose of becoming a Pharisee and teacher of the law himself. This passage may be implying then that Mary likewise is sitting at the feet of her rabbi Jesus so that she may become a teacher herself.

Fourth, we have examples in the New Testament of women who are leaders in the early church. In Romans 16, Paul makes two interesting comments that are easily missed. In 16.1–2 Paul commends Phoebe, a deaconess, who was likely carrying and reading the letter we now call Romans to the churches in Rome. Then in 16.7 Paul calls the woman Junia an apostle. We have Paul referring to two different women as having high positions of authority within the church, and we have Phoebe likely being the first expositor of the letter to the Romans.

Fifth, we already have explicit teaching in the New Testament of women in leadership positions over men in 1 Corinthians 11.5. Women are assumed by Paul to be participating during the congregational worship in the role of prophecy. Prophecy is a form of teaching from the Spirit that gives direct guidance to contextual issues that binds authority over those to whom its spoken to. If women are assumed to be in this role then it is clear that they are allowed to hold a very strong position within the church. Additionally, this is not the only mention of women as prophets. In the Old Testament we have mentions in Exodus 15.20, Judges 4.4, 2 Kings 22.14, Nehemiah 6.14, and Isaiah 8.3. In the New Testament we have Luke 2.36, Acts 2.17, and Acts 21.9. It is very clear that women can hold the position of prophet. This is extremely relevant because in 1 Corinthians 12.27–31 Paul structures the church in terms of spiritual authority and places prophets above teachers.

Finally, to those who are unsure, it is the Spirit who distributes the gifts — including leadership. If you think to yourself “men are pre-disposed to leadership and women aren’t”, consider the fact that no one is pre-disposed to lead the church. Only those who are called by God and given the gift of leadership by the Spirit are to lead the church. It is imperative that we move away from a theology rooted in stereotypical and antiquated understandings of psychology and biology and move towards one rooted in the Godhead — specifically the person of the Holy Spirit.

I leave you all with the following passage from 1 Corinthians 12.

1 Corinthians 12.4–11: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

For a scholar’s take, check out this podcast!