In a previous fellowship of churches, I was often asked to speak when a pastor was away. On one occasion, I asked my daughter to read the passage I was preaching on that morning before I spoke.  To my surprise, a fellow pastor in our denomination wrote a letter questioning why we would let a woman stand behind the sacred desk and lead the congregation in the Scripture reading.  He felt this was a violation of 1 Tim. 2:12-13 and other passages (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34-36).  I thought his position was ludicrous and, I hated the message he was sending to my daughter: Be quiet.  Don’t get too near holy things.  Leave that to the men. Stay in your place.

This attitude toward girls and women seems foreign to the ministry to Jesus.  In the gospels, “women were first at the cradle and last at the cross.”[1] Jesus praised Mary for her “better choice:” sitting at his feet and learning like a disciple (Lk. 10:38-42). Not to mention, it was women that were sent out by Jesus as the first apologists of his resurrection (Matt. 28:10).

Today, those who believe the Bible is God’s Word often disagree on a woman’s role in the church. While individual applications vary from church to church, most fall into one of two camps:

• Those who believe women cannot have ruling or teaching authority over men are called complementarians.
• Those who believe women can serve in all positions of church leadership are called egalitarians.

In the larger culture, the Bible gets a bad rap on its view of women due to some ugly expressions of patriarchy, like Jephthah’s vow (Jdgs. 11:30-40), Abraham and Hagar (Gen. 16), or Lot and his daughters (Gen. 19). Regarding this last example, even the ESV Study Bible, compiled by scholars that share a complementarian perspective, notes that his actions here were “a shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act (even if he intended this only as a bluff, or expected the offer to be rejected).”[2]

But this is only part of the biblical story. In the post-disaster period of Job’s life, where he enjoys even greater blessing, there is specific mention of the beauty of his daughters and the inheritance he gave them (42:12-15). Why this is significant? Because, “by giving his daughters an inheritance with their brothers, Job demonstrates that he continued a policy of justice and equity in his life that went beyond the practice of the ancient world. In Israel, for example, a daughter could only inherit the property of her father if there was no male heir (cf. Num. 27:1-8).”[3]

Another example is the Proverbs’ 31 super woman who is extolled for many things, including being a primary financial provider (16b;18a) and decision-maker (16a) in her family.

Both Job—one of the earliest texts in the whole Bible—and the Proverbs 31 woman are crucial for cutting through horrid descriptions of patriarchy to get to God’s heart.  Why? Because Job was the most blameless and upright man in the ancient world (Job 1:1) and the Proverbs 31 is the personification of the best and wisest of all women (31:10, 29-31).

My take on the egalitarian vs. complementarian debate?

I believe that women can serve in all positions of church leadership if they carry their responsibility with the right spirit (1 Pet. 3:4) and with full respect for the whole counsel of God.  The Apostle Paul does promote strong male leadership and prohibits women from serving in positions of final ruling or teaching authority in a local church (1 Tim. 2:12-13). Is this a universal, trans-cultural imperative?  That is one of the key questions godly complementarians and egalitarians wrestle with.

Holding a high view of Scripture, I don’t think the answer is to dismiss Paul’s words,[4] but I do think they reflect first century culture.[5]  Further, I think his command in 1 Tim. 2:12  should be viewed alongside his promotion of singleness over marriage in 1 Cor. 7, a perspective influenced by his personal view (6,10) as well as a time-specific crisis (26).

Again, I do not support dismissing Paul’s apostolic authority—we do need strong male leadership in our churches and male headship is part of the creational order (more on this next week) —but positive changes in culture require a less rigid application of Paul’s words.  Women are now viewed as full persons that can vote and pursue many opportunities not afforded to them even a hundred years ago (Remember, blacks were not viewed as full persons who could vote until 1870; for women, it was 1920!).  The clip below from Little Women speaks well to these positive changes.

Few today regard it as “shameful” for a woman to speak in church or believe that women must “ask their husbands at home” (1 Cor. 14:35).[6]  Moreover, I have never met anyone (and I hope I never do) who would advocate for the continued use of “lord” as a term that wives should use in addressing their husbands (1 Pet. 3:5-6). In my ministry, I have no wish to contribute to what Dorothy Sayers, one of the first women to graduate from Oxford, called “a period when empty head and idle hands were qualities for which a man prized his woman and despised her.”[7]

Whether more complementarian or egalitarian, do your views reflect God’s heart toward women? Is your greatest desire to see His name “hallowed”—that is, made much of?

[1] Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 68.

[2] ESV Study Bible.

[3] Norman L. Habel, The Book of Job, The OT Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 585.

[4] Paul’s instruction here is both pastoral and—for his time—progressive. It is pastoral in that biblical teaching is guarded from those weak in Scripture. It is progressive in that women are encouraged to learn (1 Tim. 2:11a). See Craig Keener’s insights in the IVP Bible Background Commentary, 611.

[5] “Women were less likely to be literate than men, were trained in philosophy far less often than men, were trained in rhetoric almost never, and in Judaism were far less likely to be educated in the law…the vast majority of rabbis would never accept a woman as a disciple.” (Keener, 611)

[6] I agree with Ken Baily and NT Wright that this passage is dealing with disruptive and disorderly speaking (1 Cor. 14:40), rather than woman speaking at all in public worship (1 Cor. 11:5). My point in the paragraph above, however, is that in our culture, 2000 years later, we would never express ourselves this way and that’s a good thing.

[7] Sayers, 63.