The Role of Women in Church?
1 Cor. 14
Our tough text this evening is 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 which says, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
Why is this a tough text? Well, it certainly seems obvious why this passage is among the list of tough texts. What Paul says here has not only been called hateful toward women, it is directly at odds with much of our current cultural climate…that seems ever bent on not just blurring but dismissing gender definitions and roles. Our culture’s insistence on this is so strong that it has many within the Church confused, such that many Christians at best have trouble knowing what to do with passages like this, and at worst many Christians no longer hold to traditional gender role distinctions.
While we could, from this point, launch out into an entire evening on gender, the Church, and the Church’s role in the world, we won’t. Rather, our focus tonight will be narrower, aiming more at what I think is the heart of the matter, the role of women in the Church. I want to focus on this because one’s view on women in the Church is something of an orienting position. Meaning, where you land on this issue will by and large determine where you land on many other issues regarding gender. I also want to begin here because most of the modern gender debate begins right here with women. And I’m convinced that if we begin on the right track, we’ll stay on that track. So let’s dig in.
The Reformed tradition, rooted in the Protestant Reformation, has long wrestled with the practical application of biblical principles regarding gender roles within the church. While all branches of the Reformed faith affirm the spiritual equality of men and women as co-heirs of God’s grace and view both male and female as co-image bearers, the interpretation of specific NT passages concerning church leadership and public teaching has caused much debate. This discussion is not merely academic; it shapes the structure, ministry, and daily life of many churches around the world.
The views on the role of women in the Church are most often understood in two major positions, complementarianism and egalitarianism. While the majority of believers fall in either of those camps, two more positions have emerged in our day that we need to discuss as well, soft-complementarianism and patriarchalism. Tonight I’ll speak on all four of these positions. Of course I won’t be able to say everything needed in our time, but it will serve as an introduction to the positions. We’ll begin with the major two positions, then moving on to visit the two smaller positions.
Complementarianism
If complementarianism were to have a motto, it would be this, ‘equal in worth, distinct in function.’ Complementarianism is the dominant position within many conservative denominations. The core tenet of this view is that men and women are equal in essence, worth, and dignity, but God has designed them for different, complementary roles in the home and the church.
Scriptural Foundation
Where do they get this view? Complementarians base their position on two primary themes within Scripture: the created order and explicit NT patterns.
The Created Order: the narrative of creation in Genesis 2 is interpreted as establishing a pattern of headship. The man was created first, and the woman was created as a ‘helper’, a term understood to teach us that the woman was made to be a necessary and powerful partner to the man, but made to have a distinct role from the man’s. The fall of man in Genesis 3 is seen as a distortion of this original, good order, not where the origin of the order itself. Before the fall we see harmony. Adam leading, Eve submitting as helper, and all is well. After the fall we see tension. God speaks to this in Genesis 3:16 saying the woman’s desire will be “against” her husband, but nonetheless he would rule over her. Thus, in the complementarian view, this created order in Genesis 1-2 stands till the end of the world.
New Testament Patterns: Paul’s letters are considered the clearest articulation of the gender role restriction. The key texts are: 1 Timothy 2:11-14, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Here there is evidence of Paul grounding his words in the creation order (Adam first, then Eve) and the fall, rather than in the cultural context of Timothy’s church in Ephesus. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:34 which states that women should “keep silent in the churches,” is seen, not as a blanket statement regarding women and any speech coming from them, but rather as reinforcing the principle that women should not take on the authoritative public teaching role of the church.
How is a complementarian view applied in the Church? The practical application of complementarianism centers on the ordained offices of the church of elder and deacon. While women are not restricted from the office of deacon because it is an office of service, women are restricted from holding the office of elder and pastor, because this is the office of teaching, of rule, and authority over the congregation. However, this is not a call or command for the marginalization of women. Complementarians strongly emphasize the positive and essential roles women are called to fill, which are seen as equally valuable and vital to the church's health. In a complementarian church, every role and office within that church is seen as open and available to women, except the role of elder.
Egalitarianism
If egalitarianism were to have a motto it would be, ‘full equality in all roles.’ Egalitarianism, while a minority position in most conservative churches, is a robust and growing view within mainstream evangelical churches as well as liberal churches. This position teaches that gender is irrelevant to a qualifications for any ministry role, including the office of elder and pastor.
Scriptural Foundation
Where do they get this view? Egalitarians argue that the overarching narrative of Scripture, particularly the redemptive work of Christ, supersedes any perceived gender restrictions.
They highlight Galatians 3:28 which says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Egalitarians teach that this verse ought to be interpreted as the definitive statement on the new order in Christ, which abolishes all distinctions within the Church, including those based on gender, making all roles within the Church equally eligible for both men and women.
They also point to the examples of women in ministry found in the NT. Phoebe, who is described as a diakonos (deacon or minister) of the church in Cenchreae in Romans 16:1. They believe Junia is called an apostle in Romans 16:7. They point to Priscilla and Aquila who instructed Apollos in the way of God in Acts 18:26, demonstrating an authoritative teaching role. They point to the promise of prophecy in Joel 2:28 which says, “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…” and then are eager to point out that Phillips daughters prophesied in Acts 21.
What do they do about the hard texts in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14? According to them, they do not ignore the restrictive passages but offer alternative interpretations that harmonize them with the rest of Scripture. For 1 Tim. 2 they say the restriction is contextual, addressing a local problem in Ephesus, such as women teaching heresy or usurping authority, or even just being disruptive in nature. For 1 Cor. 14 they say the passage is seen as addressing disorder in worship, disruptive questioning or cultural customs, rather than prescribing a blanket ban on all public speech from women. Some more critical egalitarian scholars also argue these passages weren’t written by Paul at all.
So in an egalitarian church it is often the case that you’ll not only find women in authoritative leadership over the church, and in teaching positions within the church, but you’ll find women pastors in the church as well.
So what have we seen so far? While the complementarian positions holds to equality in worth and a distinction in roles, the egalitarian position holds to equality in worth as well as gender roles being interchangeable between male and female. Now that these majority positions have been covered in some detail, let’s move onto to the minority positions.
Soft Complementarianism
This position, often found in the more progressive wings of complementarian churches and does have some overlap with complementarianism. This position maintains the gender restriction only for the ordained teaching role in the lead pastor. But apart from that role, these churches seek to maximize the role of women in all other areas.
A soft complementarian church will often allow women to teach mixed gender adult groups in Sunday school, various Bible studies, and on Sunday mornings as long as the woman teaching states she is not exercising ‘final, authoritative, pulpit-level teaching’ and that she is remaining under the ultimate authority of the male eldership. It will often emphasize the spiritual gifts of women and hire non-ordained leadership roles to utilize those gifts fully, usually going by other labels as opposed to the traditional ones, like ministry ‘director’ and the like, instead of pastor.
Patriarchalism
This position, often found in the far right wings of complementarian churches is the most restrictive position we’ll cover tonight. Sometimes referred to as ‘Gospel Patriarchy’, this view does have some overlap with complementarianism. But it puts forward a system that emphasizes the comprehensive nature of male headship, that extends far beyond the ordained offices of the church. While complementarianism primarily focuses on the principle of male headship for the office of elder and pastor, patriarchalism applies the principle of male headship to all spheres of life, particularly in the family and in the public square.
Because male headship is applied to all spheres of life, the role of women is generally restricted to just the home. This often leads to a strong discouragement of women pursuing careers outside the home, so that a wife can focus on her family. In the church this translates to a firm opposition to women teaching mixed adult groups, even in non-ordained capacities, and a general emphasis on female silence and visible submission in the form of a head covering in worship.
Those then, are the four main positions on the role of women within the Church.
Conclusion
This debate is a complex and highly charged discussion, driven by not only different approaches to Scripture, but different political views as well.
To me, there is only one faithful option in this list, and that is the position of complementarianism. Here are a few reasons why I think this.
I think the egalitarian position is unbiblical. It’s fueled by liberal theology and modern gender agendas within liberal politics. Yes we affirm Gal. 3:28, that in Christ there is no male or female. But we must see that verse in the context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians rather than a blanket description about gender. In context then, Paul’s point is that both “…men and women are held prisoners under the law (3:23), both are justified by faith (3:24), both are set free from the bonds of the law (3:25), both are sons of God in Christ (3:26), both are clothed in Christ (3:27), and both belong to Christ as heirs according to the promise (3:29). Paul’s point is not that maleness and femaleness are abolished in Christ, but that sexual difference neither moves one closer to God nor makes one farther from Him.”
As for soft complementarianism, I also think it is unbiblical. Because it only seeks to apply the gender restriction to the office of the senior pastor. While not as far left as the egalitarian view, soft complementarianism is too far left from the Bibles view on these things. Which, seems to give the impression to me that it is a sort of half compromise with modern cultural thought.
And as for patriarchalism, I think this too is unbiblical. Because the whole position, to me, seems to be rooted not in the Bible but in a far right response to the egalitarianism of the liberals as well as the soft complementarianism of mainstream evangelicalism.
Now, be sure to hear me. I’m not trying to be center on this issue, as if I believe being right or left are both bad. Being center is not my aim here. I want to be biblical. That’s my only concern. I do think complementarianism is the most biblical option on this topic, and that the others are merely a reaction or overreaction to it. I am a complementarian because…[1]
I believe the issue is about created order not accommodating culture or reacting to culture.
I believe the issue is about function and role, not simply ordination.
I believe the issue comes down to this: the complementarian cause would be far more successful in the family and the church today, not if women sit down, but if men actually stood up.
[1] Kevin DeYoung, 9Marks of Healthy Biblical Complementarinism, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/9-marks-of-healthy-biblical-complementarianism/
