Women in Ministry
I am as affected by our cultural climate as anyone, and thus I would prefer, when speaking with women who feel called to pastoral ministry, to say they should move ahead and that they have God’s blessing to do so. It is never pleasant to see someone’s face fall in disappointment when they hear my view on this matter. On the other hand, I must resist the temptation to please people and instead must be faithful to my understanding of Scripture. And I understand Scripture to forbid women from teaching and exercising authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12).
five primary NT passages: Matthew 10:1–4; 1 Corinthians 14:33–35; 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; and Titus 1:5–9.
Egalitarian Perspective
Gender Creation
Gender Dysfunction
a woman prophet, teacher, evangelist, and the like. The stage is already set in Judaism for a good range of female ministry roles. Israel from the start had its female prophets, judges, counselors, and worship leaders. Some, in fact, were multi-gifted women. Moses’ sister Miriam possessed instrumental, hymnic, and prophetic gifts that served Israel well during the wilderness years (Exod. 15:20; Mic. 6:4). Deborah was named a “prophet” (Judg. 4:4), a judge (vv. 4–5), and a “mother in Israel” (5:7).
Women functioned as prophets during every epoch of Israel’s history.
A ministry that was almost exclusively female was that of mourning. David in his lament for Saul calls on the daughters of Israel to weep for the king (2 Sam. 1:24). The prophet Jeremiah refers to professional female lamenters, who were paid to mourn at funerals and other sorrowful occasions (Jer. 9:17–18). The prophet Ezekiel speaks of the lament the daughters of the nations will chant for Egypt (Ezek. 32:16).
Perhaps the fault lies in equating egalitarianism and feminism. They are not at all the same. Feminists tend to minimize (if not eliminate) sexual distinction and devalue heterosexism, whereas egalitarians not only affirm distinction but see it as basic to God’s created design and essential for the kind of partnership God intended. Indeed, to be made male and female is to be created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Male and female in relationship as “two become one” is a divine creation (“what God has joined together” [Matt. 19:6]) and a profound mystery that mirrors the one-spirit relationship between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:31–32).
Egalitarians, on the other hand, see male and female as equal yet complementary, “bone of bones and flesh of flesh,” who, when in a relationship of mutual submission, function as equal to the task of co-dominion over creation and coworkers in the church.
Complementarian (Traditionalist)
Throughout most of church history, women have been prohibited from serving as pastors and priests.2 Thus, the view I support in this essay is “the historic view.”
the view that women should not be priests or pastors has transcended confessional barriers. It has been the view throughout history of most Protestants, the various Orthodox branches of the church, and the Roman Catholic Church. All of these groups could be wrong, of course; Scripture is the final arbiter on such matters. But the burden of proof is surely on those who promote a new interpretation
evangelicals believe in a God who speaks and who enables us to understand his words. The Spirit of God enables us to comprehend and embrace the truths of his word (1 Cor. 2:6–16), truths we rejected when we were unregenerate.
The Scriptures clearly teach that women functioned, at least occasionally, as prophets. In the OT, Miriam (Exod. 15:20–21), Deborah (Judg. 4:4–5), and Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14–20) are prominent. Anna in the NT also functions like an OT prophet, since she exercised her gift before Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 2:36–38). In Peter’s Pentecost sermon he emphasizes that Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled and that the Spirit has been poured out on both men and women (Acts 2:17–18). Philip’s four daughters were prophets (21:9), and women in Corinth apparently exercised the gift as well (1 Cor. 11:5). The spiritual gift of prophecy belongs to women as well as men (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; Eph. 4:11). Egalitarians often argue that prophecy is actually ranked above teaching (1 Cor. 12:28), and thus if women have the right to prophesy, they must also be able to teach and preach because they possess all the spiritual gifts.
In the OT, women served occasionally as prophets but never as priests.24 Similarly, in the NT, women served as prophets but never as pastors or overseers or apostles. Not a single NT example can be adduced that women served as pastors, elders, or overseers. When we examine 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in more detail later, we will also see that Paul instructs women to exercise their prophetic gift with a submissive demeanor and attitude, since man is the head of a woman (v. 3).
Gender Function
I shall begin with her analysis of Genesis 1–3. Linda thinks the language of Adam’s being created first simply designates sequence and nothing more. No one argues that order always signifies dominion. The basic rule of Bible study applies here, which says that each text must be interpreted in context. What is clear is that in both 1 Timothy 2:11–13 and 1 Corinthians 11:3–9, Adam’s priority in creation signifies a role differentiation between men and women. Many egalitarian interpreters of Genesis proclaim that the order of creation says nothing about role differences, but such an interpretation slights the importance of reading the Scriptures canonically, for Paul clearly understands the order of creation to signify a difference in function.
In Genesis, the naming of the animals is linked with the dominion of Adam over all of creation (1:26, 28; 2:15). Therefore, we are justified in detecting a notion of male headship in the naming of the woman.
Gender Dysfunction
All of these texts confirm the teaching of Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”15 Both women and men, slave and free, are valuable to God. Women are made in God’s image and thus possess dignity as his image bearers. The fundamental purpose of Galatians 3:28 in context is to say that both men and women have equal access to salvation in Christ.
Linda is also unhelpful in the conclusions she draws from women teaching. She rules out any idea that some teaching is informal and private over against teaching that is formal and public. By doing so, she can lift up Priscilla as a teacher because she instructed Apollos (Acts 18:24–26). Linda falls into a logical error in her presentation. She rightly says everyone in the NT was expected to teach at some level (Col. 3:16), but it does not follow that everyone exercised a public ministry as a teacher. There is a difference between the instruction and mutual teaching all believers participate in and public formal teaching. The Pastoral Epistles focus on the latter (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:7; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; 3:10; 4:2; Titus 1:9; 2:1). Linda misconstrues the biblical evidence by lumping together verses such as Colossians 3:16 with texts like 1 Timothy 2:11–15. Denying women the role of regular public teaching does not rule out the mutual teaching from the Scriptures enjoined in Colossians 3:16. On the one hand, complementarians must not fall into the error of failing to listen to wise words from women nurtured in the Scriptures. On the other hand, we should not conclude there is no distinction between the mutual instruction among all believers and a more formal teaching position.
Paul could easily have written, “I do not permit women to teach or exercise authority over a man, for they are engaged in false teaching.” Or he could have written, “I do not permit women to teach or exercise authority over a man, for they are promoting teachings from the Artemis cult.” Instead, the reason Paul gives is rooted in the created order. The reason Paul prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority over men is rooted in God’s intention from creation (v. 13). He does not appeal to the cultural argument promoted by egalitarians. Linda passes over what the text actually says and substitutes an alleged background instead.
Five Primary NT Passages
five primary NT passages: Matthew 10:1–4; 1 Corinthians 14:33–35; 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; and Titus 1:5–9.
And he states that women are to submit “as the law says,” but he does not spell out whether this is Mosaic law, church law, or the laws of the land. Paul’s brief remarks undoubtedly made sense to the Corinthians (as part of his continuing instruction).
While we must leave room for some uncertainty, enough is clear about 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 to form an intelligent reconstruction: Married women, in exercising their newly acquired freedom to learn alongside the men, were disturbing the orderly flow of things by asking questions during the worship service. Paul instructs them to ask these questions of their own husbands at home (v. 35) so that worship can progress in an orderly fashion (“Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way,” v. 40). Eugene Peterson’s The Message captures the sense with his paraphrase: “Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home.”
“Let a woman learn …, but I do not permit her to teach …” (AT). Some have suggested that the present indicative is used because it allows Paul to give a temporary restriction: “I am not permitting [at this time]” (JB). This has some merit.
On the other hand, to define a purpose or goal actually provides quite a good fit: “I do not permit a woman to teach in order to gain mastery over a man,” or “I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man.”130 It also results in a good point of contrast with the second part of 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have a quiet demeanor” (lit., “to be in calmness”)
A reasonable reconstruction would be as follows: The women at Ephesus (perhaps encouraged by false teachers) were trying to gain an advantage over the men in the congregation by teaching in a dictatorial fashion. The men in response became angry and disputed what the women were doing. This interpretation fits the broader context of 1 Timothy 2:8–15, where Paul aims to correct inappropriate behavior on the part of both men and women (vv. 8, 11).
Paul could have written, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. For she is being led astray by false teachers.” There are multiple problems with this hypothesis. First, why does Paul only mention women, since we know that at least some men were being duped by the false teachers as well? It would be insufferably sexist to prohibit only women from teaching and exercising authority when men were being led astray as well.92 Second, the theory requires that all the women in Ephesus were deluded by the false teachers. Paul gives no indication the restriction applies only to some women, but it is incredibly hard to believe that every single woman in Ephesus was beguiled by the false teaching. Third, egalitarian scholars have been busy remaking the background to the situation in verses 11–15, but their reconstructions have been highly speculative and sometimes wildly implausible.
In many respects I agree with egalitarians here. Sometimes complementarians have given the impression that women are unintelligent and that they lack any ability to teach. Such a view is clearly mistaken, for some women unquestionably have the spiritual gift of teaching. Men should be open to receiving biblical and doctrinal instruction from women. Otherwise, they are not following the humble example of Apollos, who learned from Priscilla and Aquila. Moreover, women should be encouraged to share what they have learned from the Scriptures when the church gathers. The mutual teaching recommended in 1 Corinthians 14:26 and Colossians 3:16 is not limited to men. Sometimes we men are more chauvinistic than biblical.
Nonetheless, the above Scripture texts do not indicate that women filled the pastoral office or functioned as regular teachers of the congregation. All believers are to instruct one another, both when the church gathers and when we meet in smaller groups of two or three (1 Cor. 14:26; Col. 3:16). To encourage and instruct one another is the responsibility of all believers. But such mutual encouragement and instruction is not the same thing as a woman’s being appointed to the pastoral office or functioning as the regular teacher of a gathering of men and women.
Closing
I want to affirm in closing only that the Bible also indicates that women were vitally involved in many other ministry roles in both the OT and the NT. Complementarians should celebrate and advocate women’s filling such roles. We must also constantly remind our egalitarian society that differences in function do not signify differences in worth. The world may think that way—but the church knows better.