Women in Church Leadership

Paul tells Timothy that women are not to have authority over men in the church because of a historical/ontological situation dating back to Genesis (I Timothy 2:12-14.) He does not cite cultural reasons, rather, he seems to be implying that the reason women are not to be in authority is rooted in the God-ordained differences in the roles of men and women, citing first the creation order (Adam was formed first) and then pointing out Eve’s deception by the serpent. If Paul’s concern were cultural as some infer, mentioning the place of women in 1st century society or even their separate seating arrangement (assuming they copied the Jewish synagogue,) he would not have needed to go to Genesis for his support. Were he interested in the cultural niceties, he could have used the arguments modern critics supply.

It is also interesting to note that the word translated “have authority over” is found no where else in the New Testament. The English words author and autocrat (those who act on their own authority) derive from the Greek word Paul chose. It also had rather severe connotations in early Greek writing, including the idea of murder or suicide and possibly sexual assault. Clearly, Paul used a word which implied domination or the usurpation of proper roles. In this light, it is easy to understand why Paul did not want women behaving in such a manner in the church. If one assumes that the proper role of women does not include leadership in the church, then Paul’s choice of this unusual word makes sense.

Support for the equality of women in church leadership is often drawn from another statement by Paul found in Galatians 3:28. In Galatians 3 the Apostle is emphasizing the oneness in Christ experienced by all those who come to Him in faith. As he compares three classes of believers, let us assume that parallels may be drawn between them. The first classes are Jews and Greeks. While his point in the preceding verses is well made that faith alone is the basis for salvation, he does well to point out that although he used the father of the Jews, Abraham, as his primary teaching example, in verse 28 he expands the concept of salvation by faith to Greeks (a code word for Gentiles or non-Jews.) It was not Abraham’s Jewishness which won God’s favor, but his faith. So to, Gentiles may achieve the same adoption as children of God through faith.
Likewise, Paul asserts a second pair of classes have similar advantages: bond and free. The bond to which Paul refers is clearly the economic slave of the first century, the Greek “doulos.” The free includes those who would be slave owners or masters. His point appears to be that faith places both slaves and masters in the same relationship with God, i.e. His adopted children. Since all Christians are slaves to Christ, the earthly distinction of master and slave (or freeman and slave) is erased in our heavenly position in Christ.

Finally, the third classes compared by Paul are male and female. Plainly, both men and women are brought into relationship with God through faith in Christ and they experience no distinction as spiritual children. All are one in Christ. And yet, we must see that the case Paul is arguing refers to believers’ position in Christ, and not their position in the world. One can not infer that the Jew relinquishes the benefits of his tradition. Although Paul himself regards his Jewish heritage as refuse compared to his knowledge of Christ, he nonetheless exalts the position of the Jews as bearers of the Scripture (Romans 3:2) and as the true olive tree onto which Gentiles are grafted (Romans 11:17) Similarly the slave remains in bondage to his human master because Paul never counsels him to break free of his earthly chains. On the contrary, slaves are told to continue to work respectfully for their masters. The slave, Onesimus, is sent by Paul back to his master, Philemon, to complete his servitude. Masters are never commanded to free their slaves. The earthly condition is not annulled by being in Christ.

If we are to maintain hermeneutical integrity, we can not assume that Paul meant to equate male and female in an earthly, societal sense, much less an ecclesiastical one. Jews and Greeks continue in their different cultural settings; slaves and masters stay deferentially related; male and female believers still operate under the constrictions of their ordained positions. Husbands remain the heads of their wives; men continue as the only appropriate leaders of the church.
It is for this reason that Paul can say, “The head of every man is Christ; the head of every woman the man; the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3.) It is noteworthy that in this context Paul again uses the creation order to support his position. The woman, he says in verses eight and nine, is created both of and for the man. By verse eleven he echoes his Galatian proposition that in the Lord, they are on similar footing: co-dependent, one might say. While men and women share a dependency on one another and upon God, there remains a distinction in marriage and in matters of church polity and practice. Headship does not grow out of cultural norms, but of created order.

Another argument for placing women in authority in the church is often drawn from the multitude of women reported in ministry in the New Testament. No one can deny that women are to be found in ministry, as well they should be. Every believer is given a ministry by the Holy Spirit upon his or her initiation into the family of God. Every believer receives a spiritual gift (I Corinthians 12:11;) every gift implies a ministry. Men and women alike are to minister in the body of Christ. The fact remains that there are no clear references to women in leadership roles in the New Testament or the early church fathers. If one assumes that the Holy Spirit was giving leadership gifts to women starting in the first century, then one would expect to find countless examples of women elders and pastors in the historical church literature. Such examples do not exist. The fact that a strong push for women in leadership did not arise until after the advent of the women’s liberation movement in the 20th century leads to suspicion that it is a recent idea and a safe conclusion that few if any women were called into leadership in the early church.

It is not from a lack of respect for women that some teach that they should not hold positions of authority in the church, but from a greater respect for the teachings of Scripture. If the biblical proscription of women leaders were cultural, one could argue that modern attitudes toward women trump Paul’s concerns. In fact Paul does not argue from the cultural order, but from the creation order. God saw a need to place men and women in the roles of head and helper respectively as recorded in Genesis chapter two. Sin, making its deadly entrance in chapter three did not create the roles, although it may have distorted God’s perfect purpose for them. Whatever his reasons for the roles, whether we can fathom them or not, our Creator’s design takes precedence over His creature’s desires.