The issue of the roles of women in the Church has become a divisive topic in recent years, one that is tied to other volatile topics such as feminism and Critical Theory. This series of blog posts is designed to address the issue and answer the common objections to biblical gender roles in the Church. This particular post answers some of the common arguments made from Church history related to women honored for their service to the Church.
Women Do Minister
Women (like men) are commanded to minister to the Church. The question is not whether women can serve in the Church, but how they are to serve.
What about passages in which women seem to have authority?
Galatians 3:28 is often used to argue for the dissolution of gender roles. However, the passage is not about the dissolution of roles, but about the unity in Christ that comes with the Gospel.
Romans 16:1-7 is used to argue for egalitarianism because the passage names multiple women and commends them for their hard work (Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis). However, there is no indication whatsoever of leadership here. It is merely a greeting.
Similarly, Phoebe is labeled a “deacon'' and Paul asks them to receive her in the Lord and to give her any help she may need. Egalitarians will say this sounds like a person who exerted some sort of authority. However, there is once again no mention of leadership here. In fact, “deaconess” is the term used. The term means “servant.”
Priscilla and Aquila lead a house church. The egalitarians will argue, “it sounds like co-lead...possibly.” Once again, there is no mention of leadership here. Priscilla and Aquila are merely called “fellow workers” as we would refer to any fellow believer.
Colossians 4:15 is used by egalitarians because it mentions giving greetings to Nympha and the church in her house. The egalitarians assume that Nympha is leading a house church. Once again, there is absolutely no reference to leadership here. The passage is a greeting to “Nympha and the church in her house.” Lydia had a church plant in her house that she did not lead. The same was the case for the Phillipian jailer. It is pure eisegesis to assume Nympha was leading a house church. Notably, within our house church network, it is common to refer to “Gladys’ house” even though the home belongs to both Gladys and her husband, Mike. The hostess is often mentioned because the home is her domain.
2 John 1:1 is used by lesser educated egalitarians to make the case for a female elder. However, there is near-universal agreement that “elect lady” refers to a church as “children” are used to refer to attendees. Notably, verse 13 mentions the “children of her elect sister” also referring to church members. On the off chance that the passage refers to a woman, then there is no reference to a church at all and it is merely a note to a woman and her kids. In this case she is in no authoritative role over a church at all. Once again, there is no reference to a woman in leadership here.
Acts 16;13-15 is sometimes used by egalitarians who assume that people getting saved in her house means she was in a leadership position. This completely ignores the fact that Paul is ministering in her home. Like previous passages, Lydia is not mentioned in a leadership role at all. Like Nympha, she is a hostess fulfilling the “person of peace” role Jesus references in Luke 10.
1 Corinthians 1:11 is sometimes used to argue that Chloe was leading a house church. There is little content here. In any case, there is no reference to Chloe in leadership.
Egalitarians will also sometimes cite Old Testament and New Testament use of women in the Redemption story as an argument for female elders (ex., Ruth, Esther, Rahab, Deborah, Mary bearing Jesus, Mary as the first witness to the resurrection, etc.). This doesn’t work for several reasons.
Notably, the title “elder” was at times used in the Old Testament, but never for women.
These instances support the complementarian view that God has uniquely called women to roles distinct from men. Each of these women functions in the roles given uniquely to women. In fact, Mary’s bearing Jesus, a uniquely female role, is a fulfillment of the “seed of woman” promised in Genesis 3. This is what makes the complementarian view so essential. If women do what men are called to do, they are not only violating God’s commands, they are missing the unique call He has for women to fulfill.
As a side note, the prophetess, Deborah is sometimes used as an argument for female authority because Scripture refers to her “judging.” However, the role of prophetess is not an authoritative role, but a role for proclaiming judgment. Once again, there is no indication that she was in a position of authority any more than Samuel was in authority over David when he pronounced judgment upon him. A judge was neither a king nor an elder.
Genesis 2:18 is sometimes used to argue that the Hebrew word for help meet is not translated in a strong enough way. Egalitarians assert that it should mean “a strength equal to. ” They argue that she should be given more authority as a result. Truly, עזר כנגדו does not imply “weaker” in this context. Rather it gives the idea of supplying strength where it is lacking. This is the complementarian position in its purest form. Man needs woman and woman needs man to complement one another.
The next posts will finish answering the arguments of the egalitarians.
