In scripture there are two different categories of sin: sin against God and sin against man. The former is universal and absolute, independent of person, time, or place. But the latter is contextual and relative, dependent on personal issues of conscience and cultural norms which can vary between people, times, and places. These are sins not as defined by God, but rather as defined by humanity. However, God holds us to these definitions in addition to His own as they are offenses against our horizontal relationships with others which affects our vertical relationship with Him. One of the cultural sins which has been rather consistent throughout history, and therefore has often been viewed as universal rather than contextual sin, is women in leadership.
Universal vs. Contextual Sin
While say, worshipping an idol is a universal sin, condemned throughout scripture with zero exception regardless of time or situation, there are many behaviors which are contextual, defined as sin in some cases, but perfectly acceptable in others. Paul goes to great lengths to outline this distinction, including defining issues of conscience. He uses examples of food and drink sacrificed to idols and the celebration of holy days to make this point (see the article, Issues of Conscience: When Sin Seems Uncertain for more detail). But he also describes cultural sins which on the face of it, if taken as universal sin, would appear as conflicting with or contradictory to other passages.
For example, Paul instructs men in Corinth to pray without head coverings (1 Co 11:4) and for them to have short hair (1 Co 11:14), but Jewish tradition both then and now instructs men to pray with a head covering and that long hair is a sign of religious devotion. Nazirites could not cut their hair at all with Samson famously sporting long locks, and orthodox Jews to this day refrain from cutting the side curls of their hair. This is not a biblical contradiction, it’s simply a different custom by two very different cultures which scripture instructs us to honor to be a good witness within each cultural context.
Paul was acutely aware of these cultural differences as he was born and raised a Jew of Jews—a strict Pharisee—but then became an apostle to the Gentiles. It was precisely this cross-cultural exposure and experience which gave Paul both the insight and authority to speak on such matters to the early church. As he also explained in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Co 9:20-21), he became a Jew to witness to Jews, and he became a Gentile to witness to Gentiles, honoring their cultural definitions of sin while never violating God’s.
So, as we understand that men’s head coverings, clothing, or hairstyles are cultural and contextual, it should go without saying that the same goes for women’s head coverings, clothing, and hairstyles.
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved... Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. -1 Corinthians 11:4-5, 13-15 NASB
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. -1 Timothy 2:9-10 NASB
While modesty is certainly a universal biblical principle, what constitutes modesty varies from culture to culture. Wearing jewelry or fine clothes is not inherently immodest or sinful, and neither is braiding your hair. But in some cultures, those could be associated with an opulent or decadent lifestyle, which could hinder your witness as a disciple of Christ. But that is not always the case.
Remember that even Jesus had some rather wealthy friends and followers of His ministry whom He did not at all disparage for their clothing or appearance. Lazarus was a good friend of Jesus and he was quite wealthy. Joseph of Arimathea is also described as a rich man in the biblical texts who became a disciple of Jesus and laid His crucified body to rest in a rather lavish tomb. And let’s not forget Joanna, the very wealthy and politically influential wife of a steward of King Herod, who contributed to Jesus’ ministry and was one of the women present at the empty tomb. So, we have to be wise and discerning when applying cultural definitions of sin as they are not nearly as clear-cut as God’s universal definitions.
I remember leading a team to a Muslim country in Central Asia years ago with my wife who was told by our contacts there to be sure to bring modest clothing. So, my wife brought ankle-length skirts, long-sleeve blouses, and shawls for head coverings only to arrive in country and be told none of her clothing was appropriate due to the colors, which were bright and cheerful. Unfortunately, bright colors communicated in that culture that you were a prostitute, so for the entire time we were there, my small Asian wife wore a hodge-podge of borrowed clothes from much larger-framed American women to comical effect.
So, how do we recognize if a passage is describing or prescribing a cultural or contextual sin rather than a universal one? By reading it in light of the rest of scripture rather than plucking a verse out of context and reading it in isolation. If we don’t, we could quickly become guilty of one of two major theological errors: legalism or liberalism. Legalism is taking a relative and making it absolute, adhering to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it. Liberalism goes to the other extreme, taking an absolute and making it relative, ignoring both the letter and spirit of the law. With that in mind, let us examine the popular passages of scripture often interpreted as universal prohibitions against women in leadership.
Women to Keep Silent
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. -1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NASB
In isolation, this passage certainly seems absolute, but if we zoom out just a bit, the picture becomes clearer. The context of this passage is church order, not leadership, and is specifically regarding questions during a service. Just a few verses prior to this instruction that curious women should “keep silent” during a service is the instruction that those with a word in tongues should “keep silent” if there is no interpreter (v27-28), and that a prophet should “keep silent” if there is another speaking (v29-30). The exact same Greek wording is used in all three cases, but conspicuously, only the one regarding women is interpreted as being a universal prohibition for all women all the time.
This instruction by Paul of course does not mean that tongues or prophecy should universally be kept silent in the church, it simply means they should be given in an organized, orderly, and respectful manner. The passage is merely proposing rules of order for a rather unruly and chaotic church rich with zeal and immaturity. Paul was responding to a situation where people were constantly speaking over one another, interrupting each other, and disrupting the service with what they felt they should share. This included women—probably quite excited and enthusiastic to actually be permitted to participate—who allowed their excitement to get the better of them and disrupted the service with all their questions and concerns.
This is not a universal instruction for all women to keep quiet at all times in church. That should be quite clear because just a few chapters earlier, Paul gives the aforementioned instructions on head coverings in regard to what both men and women should wear while praying, prophesying, or otherwise ministering. Furthermore, just a few verses earlier (v26), Paul instructed everyone to bring a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or interpretation to the congregation. The Greek word translated as “everyone” here is hekastos, a gender-inclusive term meaning every person—not just men. It’s rather difficult for every person to bring a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation of a tongue if half of those people are to keep silent at all times.
Men are the Head of Women
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. -1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB
This verse is often interpreted as meaning that the natural order is that men rule over or lead women. While It is possible that Paul is using “head” (Greek, kephale) here to mean “leader” or “ruler,” it is not probable as that would be a very rare use of the term. The vast, vast majority of metaphoric uses of kephale in both scripture and other ancient texts employ it to mean “source” or “origin.” We don’t need to rely on statistical probability though as this meaning is clear from the context of the passage itself. A few verses later (v8) it speaks of woman originating from man, alluding to the creation account, and repeats this again in verse 12. However, Paul then brings this idea full-circle in verse 12 by stressing that man also comes from woman via birth and that all things originate from God.
If we were to interpret kephale here as meaning “ruler” or “leader,” it would raise some rather serious theological questions. Because Christ is not the ruler or leader of every man in this present age and God is a triune being, with each of the Trinity being equal in power and authority—the Father isn’t the leader or ruler of the Son. The Father was however, the source or divine origin of the incarnate Christ, which John stresses in the opening of his Gospel. This understanding of kephale to mean “origin” or “source” is not a new or novel concept, but was emphasized by the early church fathers due to its theological implications.
Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century said in De Recte Fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam, “Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was made thought Him and brought forward to birth… And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh and has him as her source. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because He is from Him according to nature.”
Likewise Athanasius, the 4th-century church father, said regarding this passage that, “’head’ must be understood as ‘source’ rather than ‘boss,’ lest one arrive at a faulty understanding of the Trinity.”
So, men are not de facto leaders over women according to their nature or divine order. They are however, the source of women according to the creation account. But that same account actually makes it quite clear that both men and women were made in the image of God and that both were given authority to rule.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." -Genesis 1:26-28 NASB
It should be noted that within the context of marriage, there are of course both some natural and cultural differences in gender roles and there are passages which obviously refer to wives submitting to their husbands. It should also be noted that within the family, the biblical principles of leadership are the same as in the church, being based on servanthood and sacrifice, not right or rule. A meek husband is a Godly husband, not a domineering one. Meek, meaning that he has the ability to exercise top-down authority, but the character to instead employ servant leadership just as Christ did.
Women Must Not Teach
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. -I Timothy 2:11-12 NASB
Here again, we see a passage which could be interpreted as a universal prohibition if taken out of context. What is quite subtle in the English, but jarring in the Greek is that this passage shifts from plural, to singular, and then back to plural. The preceding verses (9-10) refer to “women” in the plural, then verses 11 though the first part of 15 shift to the singular “a woman,” and then abruptly shifts back to plural at the end of verse 15. This may indicate that Paul was speaking of a specific woman in the middle of his address to women in general.
Other specific false teachers and prophets were also addressed in this letter, and gender-inclusive language is used of these teachers (not just male), so the context supports this reading. In this letter, Paul also specifically denounces the spreading of “old wives tales” (1 Ti 4:7) and the speech and behavior of some of the young widows (1Ti 5:11-13), so it is reasonable to read this as a rebuke of a specific unnamed woman, not all women, just like he rebuked some widows, not all widows.
If this were indeed a universal prohibition given in 1st Timothy, it would not only contradict other passages of scripture, but also other passages of Paul’s letters to Timothy. In his second letter, Paul encourages Timothy to continue in what he was taught about the faith and the scriptures, specifically from his grandmother, Lois, and mother, Eunice (2Ti 1:5, 3:14-15). Instead of taking the opportunity to rebuke Lois and Eunice for teaching a man, he encourages the man to hold fast to what he was taught by women. Also, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust Paul’s words to reliable persons who will be qualified to teach others, again using gender-inclusive language (2 Ti 2:2). The Greek word used here is anthropos (persons), not aner (men)—though several translations incorrectly insert male-specific wording here.
Furthermore, in 1st Timothy 3:1-13, Paul again uses Greek gender-inclusive wording (not male) in regards to the office of an overseer and deacon. In fact, in the middle of the list of qualifications for deacons, Paul even specifically mentions women who must be “likewise dignified.” Likewise—as in, being like the men in their qualities in this role and position. Note that a few translations use “wives” instead of “women” here and in doing so, have to insert a whole phrase in English which is not present in the Greek to render this text as referring to the male deacons' spouses.
But apart from the two letters to Timothy, we must also contend with the rest of the Bible. According to the research of scholar David Joel Hamilton, at least 886 verses of scripture came to us by women. Should men ignore these so as not to "be taught by a woman?" Proverbs 31, the famous passage about godly women, was an oracle given by a godly woman—king Lemuel’s mother. And then there is the compelling argument that Paul's disciple Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews. Should we reserve that book only for women's Bible studies just to be safe? But the mental gymnastics could be avoided if we find other passages which clearly indicate, in a positive context, a woman teaching or instructing a man. If that is the case however, then we simply cannot read 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as a universal prohibition, but rather as a contextual one.
Running Afoul of Greater Themes
Before we dive into specific cases though, let us first take a broad view of the New Testament message and overarching themes. One of the prominent ones we find is that of equality, not just between men and women, but between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, rich and poor, kings and subjects, priests and laity, and any other distinction designed to disparage, denigrate, disregard, or disqualify.
And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean." ...Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." -Acts 10:28, 34-35 NASB
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. -1 Corinthians 1:26-29 NASB
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 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. -Galatians 3:26-28 NASB
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light... -1 Peter 2:9 NASB
The New Testament texts never equivocate on this universal truth; that all of humanity is equal in Christ. Therefore, any passage which could be interpreted as drawing a distinction or a boundary between one group and another should be understood as a contextual or cultural truth which is not God’s highest ideal, but rather a reality of a fallen world which is still in the process of being discipled, transformed, and redeemed. Of course, function is not the same as value, and there are of course functional differences between people, gifts, and roles as Paul made clear when he spoke of the different parts of the body of Christ. In that analogy however, Paul also makes clear that one part of the body cannot say to another that they are not needed… Yet that is exactly what the church is communicating to women when it applies these prohibitive passages universally and legalistically.
Such explicit or implicit communication is not only theologically questionable, but missiologically detrimental as women have made up the majority of the church's membership throughout history. This unsurprising fact has been documented by researchers, historians, and missiologists so thoroughly, that missiologist Dana Robert went as far as to call Christianity a "women's movement." Author and sociologist of religion Rodney Stark's research shows that this is not a new trend—that indeed women were critical in the explosion of growth in the early church as they then—as now—made up the majority of converts. Stark also notes that researchers universally agree Christianity was so attractive to women due to the fact that, "women were accorded considerably higher status within Christian circles than in the surrounding pagan societies." Let that thought sink in for a moment.
But the numbers alone don't give the full picture; to fully understand the role of women in the church, we have to look at quality, not just quantity. Here, again women pull ahead of men in nearly every metric. Of those who do convert to Christianity, it is the women who are statistically and demonstrably more devout. Data from the Pew Research Center show that Christian women are more likely than Christian men to attend weekly church services (53% vs. 46%), pray daily (61% vs. 51%), and say religion is important in their lives (68% vs. 61%). In light of this data, and given that all the qualifications of deacons and elders in scripture are based on spiritual maturity and character rather than natural talent, personality, charisma, status, or any other such superficial quality, the default exclusion of women from church leadership seems even more egregious. For man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart (1 Sa 16:7).
Gifts and Gender
As value is not the same as function or role, the next step in our investigation must then be to search scripture to ascertain whether or not men and women are distinctly different in their gifting or calling in the context of the church and ministry. As there are three different sets or categories of gifts described in the New Testament, we must look at each of them. There are the nine supernatural gifts of the Spirit (1 Co 12-14), the seven natural gifts of grace innate to individuals (Rom 12:3-8), and the five ministerial gifts which are appointed by God and recognized by the church (Eph 4:11-12).
The first category is quite obvious and non-controversial as the gifts of the Spirit are obviously available to both men and women equally, with no gender-specific language tied to any of them. In the Old Testament, it was even foretold to be gender-inclusive by the prophet Joel, whom Peter quotes at the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2.
"It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” -Joel 2:28-29 NASB
We then turn to the gifts of grace found in Romans, often called the motivational gifts, and once again we see that there is no gender-specific language associated with any of the gifts on the list. The gender-neutral Greek word pas is used here, meaning "all" or "every" person. Unfortunately, “he/him” is often used in translations, but is not present in the Greek. The NIV translation actually does the best job of the major English translations at rendering this passage faithfully.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. -Romans 12:3-8 NIV
Again, note the gender-neutrality of this passage. There isn't a male list, and then a female list. Paul was obviously communicating that the gifts of grace were not gender-specific, just like the gifts of the Spirit aren't. Now note that teaching and leading are among the gifts said to be given by God to both men and women for the building up of the church and the edification of the saints.
Finally, we must then look at the ministry gifts found in Ephesians. If ever there was a place where Paul could have used male-specific language in order to communicate that only men should be leaders in the church, it would be here. But instead, once again we find no such thing in the Greek. Furthermore, not a single major English translation attempts to insert male-specific language, with the NASB, NIV, ESV, KJV and even older versions like the Geneva Bible (1587) and Bishops Bible (1568) rendering it as gender-neutral.
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ... -Ephesians 4:11-12 NASB
Of this list, despite most agreeing it is describing official offices, roles, or positions within the church, only some are generally controversial. Women are rarely prohibited from prophesying or evangelizing, and though the title of apostle itself can be controversial, women have rarely been prohibited from planting new ministries or works. In fact, as we'll discuss later, women have thrived in that role throughout history as they are out-of-sight and out-of-mind from the perspective of the local, highly structured church leadership.
So, it is only two gifts on this list which have been off-limits for women: the role of a teacher, and the role of a pastor. Note that these two gifts have been largely combined in the church to form a single office, which has been transmogrified into a role more akin to a CEO or a priest-king than the plurality of servant elders we see in the early church. But the role of a pastor in the church today is synonymous with both teaching and leading, being the pinnacle of authority in a local congregation. As such, women are excluded due to the application of a contextual prohibition in 1st Timothy, not because there is language present in Ephesians which would support this exclusion.
Women Leaders in Scripture?
Now, up to this point, a lot of the discussion and debate has been a bit technical, looking at Greek words, searching for clues in the context, and other such indirect lines of evidence. These are all important, but not always compelling or definitive arguments. But what should settle the debate is if there is direct evidence that the Bible itself doesn't abide by the supposed universal prohibition of women in leadership. If there is such evidence, then we would be forced to come to one of two conclusions: either the Bible violates its own universal rule, or the rule isn't universal at all, but contextual. But if such direct evidence exists, then what we cannot conclude is that scripture universally bans women from teaching, leading, or otherwise being equal participants in the church and co-heirs of the Kingdom. So, is their any evidence of women teachers or leaders in the Bible? Let's start in the Old Testament.
Micah 6:4 states that God sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to lead Israel. Scripture also recognizes Miriam as a prophetess and her words are recorded as part of inspired scripture (Ex 15:20-21). This is direct evidence that God appointed a woman to lead Israel in its formative and foundational years. Foundations typically set precedents and patterns to follow.
In Judges chapter 4 and 5, we find that Deborah was a leader of leaders, being a judge over all of Israel and highly respected and deferred to by the commander of Israel's armies at the time as he refused to go into battle without her. If that wasn't enough, Deborah was also recognized as a prophet and her words are recorded as part of inspired scripture (Jdg 5:7). This is direct evidence of God appointing a woman over men—a lot of men. This is also direct evidence that she was not resented for her role, but that her leadership qualities earned her the men's utmost respect and allegiance.
2nd Kings 22:8-20 states that Huldah was a prophetess who spoke for the Lord to the leaders of Israel and instructed them. This specifically included the high priest as well as the king, who sought her wisdom and instruction. This is direct evidence of men seeking out, and God using a woman to teach and instruct the most powerful men of Israel, both politically and religiously, in the ways of God.
There were other female prophets in scripture as well. The Talmud names a total of 48 prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel. The seven women listed are, Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. In addition to these, Paul recognizes Rebekah’s words as prophetic by quoting her in Romans 9:12. Other unnamed female prophets were Isaiah’s wife (Isa 8:3), and Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:8-9). All of these women would have led and instructed men in some way.
Moving to the New Testament within a church context, the evidence of women having a prominent role continues. But before we get to church ministry, let's take a moment to review the role women played in Jesus' ministry. Jesus was born of a woman (not a man), was first announced as the Messiah by a woman (Luk 2:36), performed His first miracle at the behest of a woman (John 2:3-5), first revealed Himself as the Messiah to a woman (John 4:4-26), was anointed by women (Matt 26:6-13, John 12:1-8), and first revealed His resurrection to women (Matt 28:1-10, John 20:11-18). Women were the last at the cross and the first at the tomb. They were entrusted with the most important message in all of history, the message that is the cornerstone of our faith: that Jesus is risen. A women's movement indeed.
Furthermore, the term diakoneo ("minister") is associated with seven women in Jesus’ ministry: Peter’s mother in law (Matt 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38-39), Mary Magdalene (Matt 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41, Luke 8:2), Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Matt 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41), Salome (Matt 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41), Joanna (Luke 8:3), Susanna (Luke 8:3), and Martha (Luke 10:40, John 12:2).
Moving beyond the Gospels, we see passages note that women were evangelists (Php 4:2-3), prophets (Acts 21:9), deacons (Rom 16:1-2), church leaders (Rom 16:3-5), and apostles (Rom 16:7). The generic term "elder" is also used in both the masculine (presbyteros) and feminine (presbyterai) forms in the New Testament (eg: 1 Ti 5:1-2) and we know from ancient inscriptions and epitaphs that women were indeed elders in both Jewish synagogues and early churches, particularly in Western Asia Minor—probably due to less restrictive cultural norms in that region. In all, of the 39 coworkers Paul mentions by name in the New Testament, just over a quarter (10) were women and were spoken of in the exact same way as the men, with no distinction between them in either role or function in the original Greek language.
For example, Romans 16:1 calls Phoebe a diakonos, translated almost universally in the New Testament as “minister” or "deacon." But here often, and rather conspicuously, it is translated as “servant.” In Romans 16:2, Paul says that she has been a “helper of many,” with the Greek word for "helper" being prostatis. This is not the Greek word typically translated as "helper" in other New Testament passages. But other historical documents of Paul’s time, such as the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, clearly show prostatis as a descriptor of those with authority, including Caesar himself who was called the "prostatis of the universe". As such, a more accurate translation of the word would be “leader,” not “helper.” Phoebe was a minister, and a leader of many according to Paul.
Another example would be Junias, who in Romans 16:7 is named as an apostle, and not just that, but noted as outstanding among the apostles by Paul. Then you have Chloe, who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:11. This passage uses the phrase, “those of Chloe” in the Greek. This exact phrase is used in Romans 16:10 and 11 of Aristobulus and Narcissus, who were both leaders of churches. There is no textual reason to think Chloe was anything other than a church leader here unless we were to preclude this as a possibility due to misapplying a contextual rule when the context gives no reason to.
However, some have argued that no women are named as "pastors" in the New Testament. And while that is true, neither are any men named in that role. We know the role exists in the five-fold ministry gifts along with the apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher, but no one is specifically given that title in the New Testament. Furthermore, the role of a pastor (Greek, poimen; meaning "shepherd") in the modern sense most often refers to the leader of a local congregation and Paul did list both Chloe and Priscilla (shortened to Prisca in Rom 16:3-5), as leaders of churches and fellow workers in Christ. Now, while Priscilla is listed with her husband Aquila, both Paul and the author of Acts (traditionally credited to Luke) always named her first (Acts 18:18, 18:26, Rom 16:3) despite this being highly unusual in both Jewish and Roman custom.
So, as women are named as apostles, prophets, and evangelists, and two women are named as leaders of local churches, and one of those women was also said to have corrected the theology of another prominent teacher named Apollos (Acts 18:26), and that same woman quite possibly authored the book of Hebrews, it requires a bit of a stretch to universally claim that women can't be "pastors" or "teachers" over men. We must conclude that the precious few verses which seem to prohibit women from such roles are contextual, not universal. They are either addressing a specific situation in a specific time and place, or simply honoring a cultural taboo.
This does not make these prohibitive passages irrelevant or unimportant, it simply changes their application. Because cultural taboos are still alive and well in the world today, and we need to be aware of them and honor them in order to maintain our witness for Christ. At the same time, the church needs to be countercultural and always keep God's highest ideals our highest ambition, teaching and discipling others in His ways, His thoughts, and His values. In doing so, eventually we disciple nations and change the cultural norms, redeeming and restoring a fallen world back to how God originally created it—with man and woman ruling together as co-heirs and complimentary reflections of God's image.
The Byproduct of Exclusion
Loren Cunningham, the late co-founder of Youth With A Mission with his wife Darlene, has written several books. But arguably his most consequential and controversial was co-authored with The University of the Nations' resident scholar, David Joel Hamilton, titled, "Why Not Women?" With over 400 books and papers cited in his master's thesis on the subject, David Joel Hamilton brings considerable academic weight to the book, helping to produce one of the most comprehensive resources available on the biblical subject of women in leadership.
It is not a coincidence that two world missions leaders wrote this work. As we shall see, the exclusion of women in the leadership of the local church created the unintended consequence of a women's exodus to the mobile church. As the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29), women didn't go home, they simply took their ball and played somewhere else. Due to that "somewhere else" literally being any ministry other than the huddle typically performed in a building on Sunday mornings, this furthered the trend of Christianity being primarily a women's movement as they were largely the ones going out and making disciples of all nations as Jesus had commanded.
But Loren Cunningham is far from the first to recognize the God-given leadership abilities and giftings of women, and he makes this clear in his book. Dr. Cho Yonggi, the pastor of the world’s largest church in South Korea—a very traditional, male-dominated culture—attributes much of the church’s growth and success on releasing women to lead and he encourages churches around the world to follow suit. It was Loren Cunningham's own mother who first broke that cultural taboo in Dr. Yonggi's church, and once the dam was breached, the floodgates were opened.
Earlier in the 20th century, Dwight (D.L.) Moody also supported women in leadership and Moody Bible Institute offered its pastor’s course to women until 1929. In the 19th century during the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney started Oberlin College, the first university in the United States to allow women to study theology alongside men. In 1853 Antoinette Brown, a student of Finney’s, became the first woman ordained in America. General William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, also used women in preaching and leadership roles, including his wife Catherine, who was said to be even better in the pulpit than he. A.B. Simpson, founder of the Christian Missionary Alliance, included women in all levels of leadership, including pastors, evangelists, teachers, and four of the Christian Missionary Alliance’s first eight vice presidents. In the 18th century, during another season of great revival, John Wesley used women to teach small group discipleship classes. This was not his natural or cultural inclination, but he found his theology challenged, saying, “Since God uses women in the conversion of sinners, who am I that I should resist God?”
But it is in world missions where women truly shined. Dr. Ralph Winter, one of the most influential missions leaders of the 20th century, marveled at the phenomena, calling it a “burst of female energy” in a 1999 Mission Frontiers article, “Women in Missions.” But it wasn't a recent development. By the beginning of the 20th century, Julia Duin noted in a 1994 Charisma article, "Women in the Pulpit," that 40 different evangelical missionary organizations were led by women. And they weren't just taking care of widows and orphans in nurturing roles either. As J. Herbert Kane noted in his 1980 book, Life and Work on the Mission Field, “The more difficult and dangerous the work, the higher the ratio of women to men.” Indeed, it is currently estimated that worldwide, women outnumber men in missions seven-to-one.
After the first few converts in any new region are made however, a local church is typically planted and regular meetings begin, typically on Sundays. But it takes years or decades before structures are implemented or strict systems of theology enforced. It is in these fledgling seasons of birthing a church, or in the frenetic chaos of seasons of revival, that women are able to work alongside men due to the relative lack of formality and structure. So it should be of no surprise that while women may not be leading many formal churches, they can be found leading innumerable house churches around the world. In fact, by 2000, of China’s estimated 50,000 unregistered house churches, a full 40,000 of them were led by women according to Dr. Winter.
A perfect example of this given by Loren Cunningham is Sophie Miller, who in the 1940’s, served as a missionary in Columbia where she faithfully and tirelessly planted at least 500 churches. However, due to the entrenched prohibition of women speaking in church, she taught her converts outside, which satisfied the letter of the law for her male detractors, but completely missed spirit as the Bible defines the church as a people, not a building... a movement, not a meeting.
As such, women have actually been leading the church more than men have throughout history, and continue to do so today—just with far less recognition and praise. They lead much more biblically; from the background and in humility, not seeking a name for themselves. This may very well be due to the nature of their position rather the nature of their disposition as given the opportunity, temptation comes for all. But regardless, it testifies of the fact that God uses the weak things of this world to shame the strong (1 Co 1:27).
Where Do We Go from Here?
What now shall we do with this information? One thing we most certainly should not do is establish and enforce quotas. Artificially-constructed parity or equity is not the goal here as that will invariably result in man—and I use that term somewhat ironically—appointing leaders of the church rather than God based on superficial qualities rather than those of character, maturity, and calling. Just because women make up roughly half the population doesn't mean they will be proportionally represented in every occupation, position, office, or calling.
Anyone who has done even a cursory study of psychology, or simply has observed men and women in daily life, knows that they have different interests, strengths, and temperaments. Many studies have shown that given total freedom, men and women largely choose different jobs, careers, and lifestyles. In general, men are typically more interested in things while women are typically more interested in people. As a result, more men choose professions like engineering, programming, construction, or science while more women choose professions like nursing, social work, human resources, and primary education. Men and women are also very different in their priorities in life, with men typically much more achievement focused while women are typically more relationships focused.
Given these natural or biological preferences, it should not be surprising that men outnumber women in certain roles and vice-versa. Parity would actually be quite forced and unnatural. What the church should be doing is affirming and recognizing the God-given abilities and calling of each individual and helping them find their place in the body of Christ, not forcing a round peg into a square hole to fulfill a quota. More men will probably be drawn to roles involving teaching theology as its focus is more on things. If that's the criterion used to define the term "pastor," then it's likely to skew male, and that's fine. However, if the more biblical criterion of shepherding or caring for people is used to define the term, then it is quite possible that actually more women would be drawn to the role, which is also perfectly fine.
What's not fine is prohibiting a woman who is gifted and called in that area from fulfilling the call of God on her life. Female political, religious, or military leaders were a minority in scripture and not necessarily because they were held back, but simply because their interests and giftings took them on a different path in life. But when a Deborah or Huldah or Priscilla rises in the church, it would be utterly foolish and an affront to God to dismiss or disqualify her from service simply because she is a woman.
Though the church has some repenting and course-correcting to do here, I can't help but marvel at God's sovereignty in it all. While I don't think it was His plan or highest ideal for women to be excluded from church leadership, He absolutely utilized it. This historical reality reminds me of a psalm usually attributed to David.
The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone. This is the LORD'S doing; It is marvelous in our eyes. -Psalms 118:22-23 NASB
David was such a stone. The son of Jesse who was overlooked by man, but anointed by God to establish a lasting dynasty and legacy. Of course this passage is quoted in the New Testament referring to Jesus as He too was rejected and despised by men. And then we have women, who despite being largely rejected from church leadership, went on to be used by God to lead the church in some of the most extraordinary ways. As someone who takes the Great Commission extremely seriously, I shudder to think of how world missions might have been negatively impacted historically had women been afforded the same opportunity to lead at home as men were. Just as persecution in Jerusalem forced the early church to actually go do what God had told them to do, the persecution of women, though less severe, has produced very similar results. Apparently nothing quite motivates one to obedience like having a lack of other options.
I do not expect the entrenched bias against women to shift anytime soon. If the boulder known as Loren Cunningham couldn't cause a large enough wave to rock church leaders' boats from their anchored position, my little pebble cast into the water has little hope. But to those with open hearts and are ready to respond, hear this:
Ladies, raging against the machine is not the biblically prescribed course of action and will rarely produce the desired results. Ephesians 4:1-3 and the principle found in 1 Peter 3:1-2 teach that we should win others over through our humility, gentleness and behavior, not protests, marches, and outrage. If there is a call of God upon your life which is not being honored, recognized, or nurtured in your Jerusalem, leave. For there is a wide, wide world out there where God can and will be faithful to lead you and release you. Furthermore, I would contend that you will be far better utilized outside of your Jerusalem anyway, as the harvest is ripe, but the workers are few. Let the men fight over the stalks picked clean at home, your field is laden. I and many other brothers around the world would be honored to work alongside you. We desperately need you. Forget a seven-to-one ratio, I'd take seventy-to-one to reach the lost.
And gentlemen, this is not a zero-sum game. You lose nothing by honoring and recognizing leadership qualities in women. If you're a leader, release them. If you're a mentor, equip them. If you're a peer, encourage them. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a competitive space, we all have our race to run and we're running it against our own flesh, not others. I also challenge you to set your eyes on the ripe harvest fields of the world and realize there is a call on your life as well, and that maybe, just maybe, God's desire isn't for women to carry the burden of world evangelization alone. God designed us to work best when we work together as two complimentary halves of His image. Maybe Christianity has been a women's movement, but it doesn't have to stay that way. Imagine what we could accomplish together if both men and women brought everything to the table but their pride.
Comments