Women in ministry: my personal perspective

September 14, 2023
Women in ministry: my personal perspective

The topic of a woman’s place in marriage and church is one that is of both intellectual and personal interest to me.

I wrote the first portion of this after reading the Counterpoints book, “Two views on women in ministry“, which included both complementarian and egalitarian essays from scholars who had given this a lot of thought.

Since then, I’ve gotten married and taken on more church leadership roles, so this has become more of a lived-out reality for me vs. purely theoretical. But both are important and I wanted to offer both perspectives, especially as this becomes a more live issue for the church.

This is by no means extensive (this has been a hotly debated issue in the history of the church), but is at least a starting point, and I provide a list of recommended books/articles at the end I’ve found to be helpful in answering this question for me.

So, to summarize all that I will say in the following paragraphs: where I landed was – complementarian in a husband-wife relationship, but more egalitarian in a wider church setting, as in I think women can be pastors, but would probably be less comfortable with women in a lead/senior pastor position, because that would mean that she is leading her husband (who is part of the congregation), which would go against the complementarianism in that relationship.

Side bar: to be clear, there is debate over what exactly is meant by “pastor” as there is no stipulation in the Bible for the position of “pastor”, only for eldership/overseer, who is in charge of a church congregation. In modern churches nowadays, though, there are usually multiple pastors fulfilling different roles in a church (e.g. worship pastor, teaching pastor, missions pastor etc.) and then a senior pastor who is responsible for the whole congregation.

Granted, this is just where I am in the journey – but here were the reasons why:

1. Examples of women leadership in the church

When I read the egalitarian essays, what I found especially convincing was the numerous ways that Paul endorsed women leadership in the church.

So Junia in Romans 16 who Paul referred to as an apostle (and among complementarians, there is actually quite a consensus about this too!)

Acts 18:26 – we see Priscilla (a woman) correcting Apollos (a man) and teaching him, but done with her husband Aquila, thus Priscila still being under the headship of her husband. 

Even in the famous head covering passage in 1 Cor 11, it says WHEN women pray and prophecy, meaning that it was normal for women to do that in services and that Paul endorses it. And prophecy has the notion of getting revelation from God and speaking it over the congregation in a way that has authority, gives vision to the church. 

There were other examples of Paul calling women his co-laborers, and it is obvious from his writings that he highly values the ministry of women and doesn’t think they are any less qualified than men to serve with him.

They have equal access to spiritual gifts and I think there is a lot of biblical evidence that women and men served alongside each other in similar roles in the early church.

2. What about the passages that prohibit women from leadership?

When it comes to the passages that call women to be silent (1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15), the egalitarian essays gave good reason to believe that Paul was giving these orders in context to correct things were happening in those churches. 

From an exegetical point of view, the Greek word for “teach/exercise authority over” in the command that women should not exercise authority over men, had a more of a violent nature – as in, exercising authority in wanting to dominate (which would be antithetical to the command of mutual submission that Paul gives in Ephesians). 

From a historical point of view, it seems like Paul was addressing the problem of women who were less educated than men asking questions that were disruptive to the service. He was emphasizing order in the church, and not that women should never ask questions. Instead, he says in 1 Cor 14:35 that women should ask their HUSBANDS at home, thus again emphasizing that complementarian relationship within the marriage.

3. Complementarianism in a marriage relationship

However, when I read the complementarian essays, what I found most convincing was them pointing to the Genesis passages (order of creation) and the passages about wives submitting to husbands (not all women submitting to all men). These were points that I felt the egalitarian essays didn’t really address. 

The Genesis order being that God created man then woman – to be clear, one should not confuse headship with superiority and submission with inferiority. Both were created to image God – both were given dominion over the earth, God talks to both man and woman etc.

Also, if this order had only been in Genesis, it should not apply to our current context. However, if we look at the Bible as a complete and coherent narrative, we see this order referenced again in various passages concerning the marital relationship (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Tim 2:11-14, 1 Peter 3:5-6). To have to argue against this order would mean having an alternate explanation for these passages – and I have not come across one yet. 

I think why we have such a knee-jerk negative reaction towards the ideas of headship/submission is because we have seen the way it has been abused.

But we should recognize that this abuse is a result of man’s sin – greed for power, not treating woman as the image of God etc. 

In fact, I believe that Satan specifically attacks things that God has made beautiful so that we reject the whole idea. For example, I think it is a beautiful thing that God created 2 different sexes and for them to be joined together in a way that is complementary – different yet unified – and I think he created heterosexual sex so that by engaging it, we have a unique insight into the extreme joy that should come when we participate in the Trinity (diversity yet unity). 

Similarly, I think God created this order as beautiful. Husbands are to give their lives to love their wives even if their natural instinct is to dominate; wives are to submit to their husbands even if their natural instinct is to be independent. 

And in such a way, the love is not independent or self-serving, but marriage is a relationship in which the husband and wife serve each other.

They seek to complement each other and become joined as one. They seek to give up their lives for each other, instead of just be partners that live together for mutual benefit,

which sometimes I see is what the secular view of marriage is (which is why people are okay with co-habiting without getting married, because what’s the difference anyways?)

Thus, if we believe that God is the Creator and He created things with purpose (he knows best how we flourish), I don’t think we should give up on trying to live out life this way just because we humans tend to mess it up with our sin tendencies. Instead, we should seek to live it out the best we can, while asking the Holy Spirit to help us, because we can’t do it any other way. 

Now, in the complementarian view, they argue that because God set this order (men leading women) in the marital relationship, thus it should also extend to the wider church, but I found that link to not be as strong. 

I think that the marriage relationship is special in that it is supposed to imitate that between Christ and the church. In Ephesians 5, it talks about how the wife should submit to the husband in the way that the church submits to Christ. And the husband loves the wife in the way Christ loves the church. And when that happens in the marriage, it is a beautiful reflection of Christ and the church. 

There is special trust between the husband/wife – when the wife submits to the husband, she trusts that the husband will have her best interests in mind. That he will able to lead her well.

On the other hand, that special relationship doesn’t exist between all the men and all the women in the church. 

On the contrary, I can see how women in the church can feel mis-represented by an all male pastorship, or that their voices are not heard. I can see how when pastorship is not open to women, women can feel less valued or like their gifts are being overlooked. Not that they can’t serve in other ways, of course, and also the church doesn’t mean to send that message. But sadly, that is the by-product.

It discourages women who are gifted in certain areas when they don’t see other women in visible areas of leadership. I also think it is a disservice to the church, when there are probably a lot of women who have untapped potential/giftings, but are not using them because there are no visible role models of leadership to encourage them to step out as so.

So, given that Paul’s prohibitions definitely could be read as addressing a contextual problem instead of giving a universal prohibition AND coupled with the fact that there are many examples of women leadership – prophecying, apostleship, teaching – in the early church, and the fact that in Jesus’ ministry, he purposely goes out of his way to include women in his ministry and validate their significance/value, I think that there is no strong motivation to prohibit women from pastorship, especially when the presence of women pastors could encourage other women in the congregation to feel valued and to step out to serve in their giftings.

That being said, I still hold to complementarianism in the marriage relationship. I think the Bible is clear on that and from experience, I have generally observed that men need to be respected and women need to be loved. And there is beauty in honoring the way God has created the male-female relationship. 

On a personal level, as someone who naturally wants to take the lead, it’s something I want to grow into. To give guys the space to grow into the role of leader/headship God has given them.

My sis and I had a lot of conversations about this during our hiking trip, as my sister sees this kind of submission as outdated or something that guys can take advantage of (in getting to boss their wives around, or get their way etc.)

So I’m still working out what that would look like practically, but in terms of theology/ideal, that is what I’m aiming towards.

What it looks like practically:

I wrote the above when I was still single and reading theoretically about the various theological points (and wanting to land on a position). Now that I’m married, I wanted to offer a few more thoughts on what this actually looks like practically lived out.

So I think the outworkings of a complementarian theology could look different for each couple, similar to how believing in the gospel could result in believers living their faith out in different way, although there should be some common fruit like an increase in love and joy, increased propensity to forgive, elevated levels of gratefulness for example.

Thus, I don’t think it necessarily has to mean strict gender roles that apply to every couple (i.e. the woman stays at home while the man goes out to work), but it does mean a desire to serve and complement the other to live in the way God has designed them.

For us, specifically, that has meant teamwork that covers where the other needs help, instead of a strictly equal division of labor.

Because Peter is taller and stronger than me, that means he carries the stroller most of the time or helps me reach Tupperware stored in high places. Even though I technically could do it myself, I enjoy letting him do those things for me.

Because my body has the ability to breastfeed, it means I spend more time with Noah as he physically needs me more. Meanwhile, I enjoy Peter’s newfound purpose and joy in the challenges of his new full time job.

It hasn’t always looked like this – when Peter first moved here and couldn’t work due to visa issues, I was the main breadwinner while he took over the majority of the house chores – so it could even look different in different seasons due to practical considerations.

But I think the underlying complementarian understanding was still there – that Peter took ownership and responsibility for our household and I gladly followed his leadership because I trusted His love and respect for me.

Perhaps that’s what I find to be the biggest difference in complementarian and egalitarian marriages: there is a greater vulnerability in a complementarian marriage, as you have to trust the other to act in your best interests.

There is more potential for abuse when done poorly, but more potential for rest when done well.

You don’t have to fight to have equal say, or to share labor equally, as the other willingly and gladly shares power and responsibility out of love, not out of coercion.

In fact, when done well, a complementarian marriage looks egalitarian from the outside, as Phylicia Masonheimer says in her podcast.

A Church21 addendum:

I currently am part of a church that believes in all-male eldership. Its structure is unique, however, in that all its pastors are technically “senior pastors” as defined above, as they are in charge of their own local congregation. As a result, the pastorship is all-male.

When I first joined the church, I felt like I didn’t 100% align on this point. However, I have come to terms with it based on the following:

  • Diversity in church is healthy. You’re not going to align 100% on all the theological points and that’s okay, because church is not about finding a reflection of yourself, but learning to live in community and love those who may be very different from you.
  • Complementarianism is a soft issue in our church, meaning where you fall on it is not core to being a Christian or even a member of the church. There are faithful, Bible-believing Christians who end up on either side of the debate.
  • Other than the local pastor role, our church does a really good job of allowing and encouraging women to be in other visible leadership positions, including worship leading, city group leading etc. In this respect, they do allow, in a way, female pastors as I have defined it above; they simply do not give those positions that title.
  • Given the current cultural and political climate regarding the fluidity of gender, I can understand why our church has chosen to take a more conservative role in relation to interpreting the Scriptures and I would rather the church take the harder, more controversial stance in the face of mounting sociopolitical pressure, than bend to what looks better or is more culturally palatable

Resources:

Leave a thought :)

Recent Posts

Archives

Copyright © 2024 Juliet
%d bloggers like this: