Counterarguments to Egalitarianism

“What are some of your favorite counterarguments to egalitarian theology?” a reader of my blog once asked.

It’s such a great question for a plethora of reasons. One important reason is that it’s always a hot topic that needs to be dealt with biblically in order to silence the lies and to make onlookers aware that the Bible does address this issue with the correct answer. Another reason is that, when you think through an issue via an apologetics, “point-counterpoint” framework, it really helps solidify in your mind, and give you confidence in, what the Bible has to say about the issue.

Let’s start off with some basics…

If “egalitarian” is a new term for you, let’s nail down what egalitarianism is and what complementarianism is. Both have to do with the issue of women’s roles in the church and in the home.

Egalitarianism is the anti-biblical view that women can do anything men can do in the context of the church and home. Women can be pastors, elders, heads of denominations, preach and teach the Bible whenever, wherever, and to whomever they want, and they don’t have to submit to their husbands.

Complementarianism is the biblical view that women and men are of equal value and worth in salvation and in the imago dei, but have different, yet equally important roles in marriage and the church. Complementarians embrace the Bible’s teaching that women are privileged to portray the relationship of the church to Christ by graciously and joyfully submitting to our husbands. Complementarians honor and respect the high calling and unique gifting women have to disciple other women and to raise up the next generation of godly men and women by discipling our own, and other, children. Because this is such a weighty and arduous responsibility, we consider it a blessing that God has not also burdened us with the responsibility to pastor churches, preach, teach the Scriptures to men, or exercise authority over men in the context of the gathering of the church. Rather, we encourage the men who have been given this responsibility, leaving godly women free and unfettered to carry out the ministry God has given us.

In the 20teens, there was a movement afoot to establish a formal, third-way position regarding this issue. It was called narrow or soft complementarianism – an attempt to straddle the fence, make everybody in both camps happy, and have your cake and eat it too. There are a variety of beliefs among those who choose this label, but for most, what it boils down to is the position that a woman may not hold the office of “senior pastor” (i.e. she can’t be on staff as the primary pastor of a church), but it’s perfectly OK for her to do anything and everything else in the church that men do.

She can preach the sermon to the assembled congregation on Sunday morning, whether that’s weekly or once a year on Mother’s Day. She can teach (or co-teach with her husband) co-ed adult Sunday School, Bible study classes, and small groups. She can hold any position of leadership or authority in the church, including positions such as head of the personnel committee, and make decisions about hiring, firing, evaluating, and directing the pastor. She can preach and teach the Bible to co-ed audiences at Christian conferences.

In the 2020’s, we saw a shift away from the push to make narrow/soft complementarianism an official third-way position. Those who held to this position dropped the “narrow/soft,” but kept the “complementarian”. Now the folks in this camp go about calling themselves “complementarian” – which confuses others into thinking they hold to the definition in the “Complementarianism” paragraph above – when they really hold to the narrow/soft complementarian definition. (If a real life example would help you understand this paradigm better, please see my article on Jen Wilkin.)

Let’s dispense with narrow/soft complementarianism – or the neo-complementarian iteration of it – once and for all. It is a position of compromise between the biblical and the anti-biblical. Compromising with sin has never been a biblical stance for God’s people to take. Ever. The Bible tells us “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” You don’t have to consider yourself a full-blown egalitarian to infect the church with ungodliness. Just a little compromise, a little leaven, a little dab’ll do ya. And that little dab never makes the church or individual Christians more godly, more biblical, or more Christlike. It always leads to more compromise and greater ungodliness.

Furthermore, we don’t treat other sin and rebellion this way. No one would dream of saying, “I hold to a soft view of adultery. Only actual extra-marital intercourse is off the table. Kissing, touching, dating other people – that’s all fine.”

For those who would argue that complementarianism vs. egalitarianism is a secondary theological issue, I would argue vehemently that it should not be categorized this way. It is not a secondary theological issue, nor is it a primary or tertiary theological issue. It does not belong in the “theological triage” categorization framework at all any more than any other sin does.

Yes, women “pastoring,” preaching, teaching the Bible to men, and exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body is a sin. When God commands us not to do something and we do it anyway because we want to, that’s sin. Christianity is not a religion for people who want to do whatever they feel like doing. Christianity is a religion in which we obey our God’s commands in thought, word, and deed.

Egalitarianism is sin because it is rebellion against God’s Word. And it is extremely detrimental when high profile classic complementarians unhelpfully classify it as a “secondary issue”. I know all they mean when they say that is that it is not part of the ordo salutis or a linchpin doctrine of soteriology. But when Christians hear “secondary issue” what they think is, “Oh, this is an issue where both sides have genuine biblical support like many views of eschatology and baptism. We can just agree to disagree and both sides are biblical.” Nobody thinks that about adultery, murder, gossip, lying or any other sin, and we need to be more careful in our terminology lest we give people an opening to think that way about egalitarianism.

Rebelling against God’s commands regarding the role of women is either a sin or it is not. There is no middle ground, so narrow/soft complementarianism is not a biblically legitimate position to take. If you’re a “narrow/soft complementarian,” you’re a functional egalitarian. And if you’re a Christian who’s toying with this idea, I urge and encourage you to repent, love Christ and His Word more than you love the world and its ideals, and unashamedly embrace and promote what the Bible says about the role of women.

---

Who are we addressing when we make these apologetic arguments?

There are only two kinds of people in the world: saved people and unsaved people. Which means there are only two kinds of people who hold the egalitarian view: saved people and unsaved people.

The Bible is abundantly clear that saved people have the mind of Christ. That means we think the way Jesus thinks and we view the world and the church the way Jesus views the world and the church. We deny ourselves, putting aside whatever we might want or think, and we submit, as Jesus did, to “It is written…“. Additionally, obedience (or lack thereof) to the commands of Scripture is an indicator of whether or not someone actually belongs to Him. In fact, God says if you claim to be a Christian and you habitually and unrepentantly walk in disobedience to, and rebellion of heart against His commands, you’re a liar, and you don’t know Christ.

What this means in practical terms when dealing with any biblical issue – egalitarianism, evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. – is that a sizable portion of the people on the unbiblical side of the issue are unsaved. Because a saved person has the mind of Christ, she will embrace, believe, and obey God’s Word regarding these issues and come out of these unbiblical camps, and an unsaved person will continue to fight for the unbiblical position. A new or previously poorly discipled Christian may need to be taught what Scripture says about these things, and it may take some time for her to come to grips with God’s commands, but her nature is to fight her flesh to submit to God’s Word, not to make provision for her flesh to fight against God’s Word.

Why do we need to understand this crucial foundational concept in debating this issue? Because people who are unsaved regard the things of God as foolishness and they cannot accept them no matter how much you explain Scripture to them or how much sense you make. This is a spiritual issue that requires a spiritual solution – the Holy Spirit must save the person and open her eyes to the truth of His Word. Often, what the person you’re arguing with needs most is the gospel, not an argument about a theological issue. And you will need to be careful and wise to discern when your apologetics are helpful and effective with someone who truly wants to learn and accept the biblical view, and when it’s time to gather up your pearls, step out of the pigpen, and go home until the Holy Spirit does His good work in her heart.

All of this would be my primary apologetic argument against egalitarianism (or any other position that defies Scripture): If you’re truly saved, the fruit of your new nature in Christ will be to forsake and repent of any opinions or positions you hold that conflict with Scripture and submit to, love, and obey God’s commands. If you’re not saved, your opinion doesn’t really matter when it comes to how the church is run because the church is the body of Christ – Believers – not the house of unbelief.

---

Let’s take a stroll through the Bible…

The “let’s take a stroll through the Bible” counterargument is a handy starting point, because it demonstrates the baseline position, consistent through the entirety of Scripture, regarding male headship. Additionally, it addresses so many arguments about 1 Timothy 2:12 that it’s almost a “one size fits all” argument:

But the Bible only says one time that women can’t preach to men!

God didn’t prohibit women from teaching men. That was Paul, the human being’s, idea.

That passage is about wives taking authority over their husbands, not about women preaching to or exercising authority over men in the church.

That instruction only applied to the women of the Ephesian church at that particular time in church history.

Look at the overall general pattern of male headship and leadership in Scripture.

• First human created? A man.
• The Patriarchs? As the word implies – all men.
• Priests, Levites, Scribes? Men.
• Heads of the twelve tribes of Israel? Men.
• Major and minor prophets? Men.
• All kings of Israel and Judah? Men.
• Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants? All established between God and men.
• Authors of Scripture? Men.
• The forerunner of Christ? John the Baptist – a man.
• Messiah? A man.
• All of the apostles? Men.
• All of the pastors, elders, and deacons of churches in the New Testament? Men.
• Founder and head of the church? Christ – a man.
• Leader and head of the family? Men.

Now which fits better with this pattern, women preaching to, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the church, or women not preaching to, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the church?

It’s not just one verse. The entirety of Scripture backs up 1 Timothy 2:12. Which means it wasn’t just Paul’s human idea, just for the women of Ephesus, or just about wives and husbands. Male headship and leadership in God’s foundational institutions – family and church – has been God’s idea, God’s plan since the dawn of Creation (as 1 Timothy 2:13-14 clearly explains). It’s much harder for someone claiming to be a Christian to throw out the whole Bible than to sweep one verse aside.

---

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Scripture

Another argument that often needs to be made is explaining the difference between descriptive and prescriptive passages of Scripture, because one of the most common arguments egalitarians will make is, “Look at Deborah! Look at Priscilla! Look at the women at Jesus’ tomb! Look at the women Paul commends in Romans 16! They were all in some sort of leadership or teaching position, so that means women can do anything in the church that men can do!” No. No it doesn’t.

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of Scripture: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive passages describe something that happened: Noah built an ark. Esther became queen. Paul got shipwrecked. These passages simply tell us what happened to somebody. Prescriptive passages are commands or statements to obey. Don’t lie. Share the gospel. Forgive others.

If we wanted to know how to have a godly marriage, for example, we would look at passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7, and Exodus 20:14,17. These are all passages that clearly tell us what to do and what not to do in order to have a godly marriage.

What we would not do is look at David’s and Solomon’s lives and conclude that polygamy is God’s design for marriage. We would not read about Hosea and assume that God wants Christian men to marry prostitutes or adulteresses. We would not read the story of the woman at the well and think that being married five times and then shacking up with number six is OK with Jesus.

And when looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible. Descriptive passages may support, but never trump, the clear instruction of prescriptive passages.

(Excerpted from my article Oh No She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate, and Esther Wasn’t an Egalitarian. I’ve also addressed each of the women often trotted out in defense of the sin of role-busting in this article.)

---

Under the pastor’s authority…

Some try to make the argument that it’s OK for a woman to preach or teach Scripture to men if she’s doing it “under her husband’s/pastor’s authority”. Excerpted from my article Fencing off the Forbidden Fruit Tree:

When God tells us (in context, rightly handled, correct covenant, etc., of course) not to do something and we do it anyway, that is sin, right? Only God has the authority to say what is sin and what is not. No one – not your pastor, your husband, your parents, your best friend, the Pope, nobody – has the authority to tell you that it’s OK to do something God has said is sin. That authority belongs to God alone.

Try inserting any other sin into that situation. Does your husband, pastor, etc., have the authority to tell you it’s OK to lie? Cuss? Covet? Of course not. And why would they even consider doing such a thing?

If you were to ask your husband and pastor to show you from Scripture where God says it’s OK for them to allow you to teach men, they would quickly realize that they are not basing their decision on Scripture (because there is no Scripture that allows them to do this), but on their own opinion that it’s OK.

When God says “no,” no man has the right to say, “yes.” 

---

[Word] games people play…

Recently, a couple of “word game” arguments have started popping up in this ongoing tussle:

“The Bible never says that women can’t preach!”

No, there’s not a Bible verse that says, verbatim, “Women can’t preach.”. Somehow egalitarians think this is a “gotcha,” but this is really one of their weakest and most embarrassing arguments.

First Timothy 2:12 clearly says, “I do not allow a woman to teach…”. Their argument here is that the verse says “teach,” not “preach,” so they think they’ve found a loophole. But what is preaching? Think about what’s transpiring during preaching – it’s teaching! Whoever is preaching is imparting knowledge and explaining concepts to the hearers and encouraging them to understand, believe, and act on said knowledge and concepts. Preaching is teaching.

Furthermore, the passage that governs this issue isn’t just 1 Timothy 2:12. It’s 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7, Titus 1:5-9, and 2 Timothy 4:1-2. First Timothy 2:11-15 tell us who is not qualified to pastor, preach to and teach the congregation, and exercise authority in the gathering of the church body, and why. First Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and 2 Timothy 4:1-2 tell us who is qualified to do those things, and why and how.

First Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:1-9 are the qualifications for pastors, elders, and overseers. Not only do these passages exclude women from this office (“husband of one wife,” male referents {“he,” etc.} throughout), they also exclude all men who do not meet these qualifications.

Both of these passages require that a pastor/elder/overseer be “able to teach” the congregation. This is juxtaposed against the word “teach” (teach men, so, not teaching the congregation) in 1 Timothy 2:12. The primary function of a pastor/elder/overseer is to teach the congregation. Since God prohibits women from teaching the congregation in 2:12, women are disqualified from the office of pastor in 3:1-7, because they are not able to teach (according to God’s definition of teaching in this context {i.e. instructing the whole congregation}). Conversely, since God excludes women from being pastors/elders/overseers in 3:1-7 (“husband of one wife,” male referents {“he,” etc.} throughout), women are prohibited from the primary function of that office, teaching the congregation, in 2:12.

Second Timothy 4:1-2 then steps up to the plate and specifies the primary type of teaching a pastor/elder/overseer is to do: preaching. Remember, 1-2 Timothy and Titus are the pastoral epistles. They are God’s instructions to pastors/elders/overseers about how they’re to do their jobs and how God wants His church to be structured and to operate. These three epistles are God’s “policy and procedure” manual, if you will, for pastors and the church.

I do not permit a woman to teach…
1 Timothy 2:12
Therefore an overseer must be…able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2
He must…be able to give instruction in sound doctrine
Titus 1:9
I charge you [pastors]…preach the word
2 Timothy 4:1-2

---

And the second “word game” argument is like unto the first:

“The Bible never says women can’t be pastors!”

Again, the Bible does not say, verbatim, “Women cannot be pastors.”. That’s the first alleged “loophole”. The second alleged loophole* is that the Bible uses the terms “elder” and “overseer,” rather than “pastor,” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. So – follow this carefully – even if women can’t be elders and overseers, the argument goes, women can still be pastors.

*It bears noting here that if you’re looking for “loopholes,” “technicalities,” and ways to bypass or circumvent the plain teaching of Scripture so you can indulge your fleshly desires, you’re already sinning. You never have to step behind a pulpit or preach a single word. Your heart is in rebellion against God, and you need to repent.

This is another painfully cringe-worthy “argument”. Scripture uses the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor,” synonymously and interchangeably. That’s why you often see Christians use the phraseology “pastor/elder/overseer” – because these terms mean the same thing. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000:

This particular argument that “the Bible doesn’t prohibit women from being pastors” is tantamount to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 teaching that the church fellowship hall may not contain a couch, and Titus 1:5-9 teaching that church fellowship halls are not to have davenports, and egalitarians saying, “It’s perfectly fine for church fellowship halls to contain sofas. The Bible nowhere says that church fellowship halls can’t have sofas.”.

Sometimes egalitarians will try to argue that the terms “pastor” and “shepherd” indicate a different office and function from elder/overseer. They then argue that the Bible doesn’t say women can’t be “pastors” and “shepherds”. This is an attempt to bypass the passages which clearly address the issue of women leading and preaching to the church, 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9, and instead, kidnaping and pressing into service passages which do not address this issue.

However the wheels immediately – almost comically – fall off this argument when you come to 1 Peter 5:1-2:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder …shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight…

1 Peter 5:1-2

Shepherding is the way that elders and overseers exercise oversight over the church, or “flock”. Pastors, overseers, shepherds, and elders are all the same person, position, office, and function.

If you’d like to read more, I highly recommend thes articles:

A Pastor Is an Elder Is a Bishop by Ben Robin (the KJV uses the word “bishop” rather than “overseer”)

What Is the Difference between Pastors, Elders, and Overseers? at Ligonier

---

Gift Giving…

Sometimes appended to the aforementioned “The Bible doesn’t say women can’t be pastors!” argument is the argument that pastoring and shepherding are a spiritual gift rather than an office. Even if that were true in the way egalitarians seem to mean it (it’s not – God doesn’t “gift” people to do what He has clearly forbidden.), God has every right to dictate how we may and may not use any gift He chooses to give us. What loving parent would give her child the gift of a bicycle and not tell her how she may and may not use that bicycle for her own good and safety, and the good and safety of others?

For example, if God gives someone the gift of hospitality, that person may not exercise that gift by showing hospitality to false teachers.

If God gives someone the gift of generous giving, that person may not embezzle money from his employer so that he will have more to give.

Whatever “shepherding” means to any woman who thinks she has that gift, God does not allow her to use the gift of “shepherding” to hold the office or perform the function of an elder or overseer, including preaching, teaching men the Bible, or holding authority over men in the gathering of the church.

Christians are never allowed to exercise any spiritual gift in any way that violates the clear commands of Scripture.

---

It’s all Greek to you…

And there’s the “You don’t know Greek, so you don’t know what that passage really means. I do.” fallacy.

---

Lost in translation?

Some have tried to make the argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 is mistranslated – that “woman” and “man” should be translated as “wife” and “husband” – and that this passage isn’t prohibiting women from teaching men at all, it’s really about marriage. The short answer to that is: hogwash. If you’d like to read the longer version, check out my article The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Mistranslating 1 Tim. 2:12…) (second question).

---

Bigger fish to fry?

And then, there’s the “bigger fish to fry” argument, otherwise known as pitching a hissy fit. It goes something like this:

I am so sick and tired of this argument over whether or not women can preach or be pastors! There are people starving in Africa! Christians are being killed all over the world! There are Christian wedding vendors who are being persecuted for refusing to service homosexual “weddings”! Islam is making dangerous inroads in the United States! And you people want to argue that women can’t be pastors and preach?

You’re the one arguing, my egalitarian friend. Those of us on the biblical side of things are simply stating what Scripture has always said. There wouldn’t be an argument without you egalitarians arguing against what God has plainly decreed. And by the way, what are you doing to stop the starvation in Africa, the martyrdom, the persecution, Islam, and all the other “more important” issues in the world? Why don’t you simply stop arguing that women can be pastors, preach, etc., submit to and obey Scripture, and instead devote your time to getting to work on all those other problems?

Additionally, God never presents spewing emotional vomit everywhere as any sort of spiritually mature, godly, logical way to present an argument. Nor does the fact that “There are bigger problems in the world!” ever excuse sin or ever cause God to instruct us to deal with all the “big problems” in the world first before we can ever confront, address, and correct “little” sins. Even Jesus said, “The poor, you will always have with you.”.

“There are bigger problems in the world!” is never a reason to refrain from doing the right thing. And not only that, but there are Christians all over the place addressing all of these “more important problems”. It’s not like God gave us only enough bandwidth or personnel to address one problem at a time. We’re made in His image. We can multi-task.

But let’s try to apply this “argument” to some other scenarios in order to demonstrate how silly it is:

“What, God? You’re telling them to stone me for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Don’t You know there are about a dozen pagan nations out here just waiting to attack us any day? And this is what You want to spend Your time on?”

“Are you kidding me, God? All I did was tell a little white lie about the selling price of my land and You’re going to strike me dead for that? Don’t You know the Romans are out here crucifying Christians -even Jesus!- and feeding Christians to the lions? Why aren’t You doing something about that?”

Yeah. You really don’t want to be arguing against God and His commands.

---

A “real world” warning…

And finally, if a Christian struggles with the biblical argument against egalitarianism, God has graciously given us a real-time, tangible, visible argument against it. Take a look at all the once doctrinally sound Christian churches and denominations that are now apostate – the ones that embrace homosexuality, New Apostolic Reformation heresy, preach moralism or liberal politics instead of the gospel, etc. They all followed the same pattern.

The very first step they took on the road to apostasy was “soft complementarianism”: letting women teach co-ed Sunday School classes, preach on Mother’s Day, hold committee positions that placed them in biblically improper authority over men, and so on. The next step was full blown egalitarianism: allowing women to be elders, ordaining women as pastors, placing women in unbiblical denominational leadership positions. Next came embracing homosexuality: extending church membership to unrepentant, practicing homosexuals (and now, transgender people), ordaining them, and allowing them to serve in any and every position of church and denominational leadership, including the pastorate. And the final step is abandoning the gospel and the authority and sufficiency of God’s Word altogether.

It happened to the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, scores of non-denominational churches, and now it’s happening to Southern Baptists. Not a single church or denomination that has embraced egalitarianism has become holier, truer to God’s Word, or more spiritually healthy. They have all ended up dead eventually, and the true Christians in those churches and denominations have left to form biblical churches and denominations.

Egalitarianism is anti-biblical, harmful to men, women, and the church, and dishonoring to God. We may not be able to convince every egalitarian to repent and embrace what God’s Word says about the role of women, but it’s important to think through this issue in a biblical way, and using an apologetic framework is a great way to do that.

---

Additional Resources:

Rock Your Role Series

Jill in the Pulpit

Oh No She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate, and Esther Wasn’t an Egalitarian

Women Preaching: It’s Not a Secondary Doctrinal Issue

All Things Being Equal

Rock Your Role FAQs

Fencing off the Forbidden Fruit Tree

The Mother of All Rebellions: Having a Woman Preach on Mother’s Day

Ten Things You Should Know About 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and the Relationship Between Men and Women in the Local Church at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) This is a refutation of the most common egalitarian arguments against the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

The Paul-Side Gambit: How A Proper Understanding of Apostolic Authority Defeats Women’s Ordination by Chris Rosebrough