Rock Your Role – Michelle Lesley

A reader recently left a comment containing numerous questions on my article Rock Your Role: Jill in the Pulpit (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Her individual questions are in bold type below with my answers in regular type.

If you have questions about the role of women in the church, I recommend not only that article, but all of the articles in my Rock Your Role series. Jill, Rock Your Role FAQs, and The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism seem to answer the questions I’m asked the most, so you may want to start with those.

some honest questions here…

Thanks for asking. I hope my answers will help. I’d like to preface my answers with some biblical information I hope will be helpful to all of my readers when addressing questions and issues like this:

You did not say whether or not you are a genuinely regenerated Christian, nor was I able to infer from your questions whether or not you are. This is going to be crucial to your understanding and accepting the biblical answers I’m about to give you, because Scripture makes clear to us that people who aren’t saved do not embrace the things of God. They aren’t even able to understand them in any meaningful way.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14

Scripture is also clear that those who belong to Christ will obey His written Word, while those who do not belong to Christ -even if they claim to be Christians- don’t obey His written Word.

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1 John 2:3-6

Sometimes when we read hard truths in the Bible, we initially struggle to accept them, but genuinely born again Christians are on a general trajectory of increasing in their love for, understanding of, and submission to God’s written Word. False converts (unsaved people who think they’re saved) and unsaved people are on the opposite trajectory and increasingly disdain, harden their hearts against, and rebel against God’s written Word.

If, in examining your own heart, you (or someone else reading this) find yourself on that second trajectory regarding this or any other biblical issue, let me offer you some resources that will help and that are much more urgent for you than the issue of the role of women in the church:

What must I do to be saved? (in the blue menu bar at the top of this page) You must repent and believe the biblical gospel.

Am I Really Saved? A First John Check-Up If you’re not really sure whether or not you’re saved, you may find it helpful to work through my Bible study on 1 John.

Searching for a new church? (in the blue menu bar at the top of this page) If you’re saved, you need to be a faithful, invested member of a doctrinally sound local church. Among many other things, that’s where you’ll learn the biblical answers to questions like the ones you’ve asked below.

As I said in the Jill article:

Godly women don’t look for ways to get around Scripture.
Godly women look for ways to obey Scripture.

If you already know Christ as Savior, awesome! It’s wonderful that you’re asking questions and learning more about Scripture so you can grow in Him.

Now, let’s tackle your specific questions…

—if the letter to Timothy was a letter to him and we are reading his mail, then what about the other NT letters written to the various churches? Are we also not reading their mail and what God was meaning for them to do?

I would encourage you to read that paragraph again carefully. I’ve bold-typed some of the more salient points:

First Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) is one of the pastoral epistles. It was written by Paul to young pastor Timothy as sort of a job description and operations manual for pastors, elders, and the church. So right off the bat, an important point we often miss about 1 Timothy is that it was written to a man, Timothy, a pastor, who would use this letter to train his elders (also men) and, subsequently, his congregation. That doesn’t mean that 1 Timothy doesn’t apply to women, or shouldn’t be studied by women, or that women aren’t required to obey 1 Timothy. It just means that when we open the letter of 1 Timothy, we need to understand that we, as women, are reading somebody else’s mail. Mail that pertains to us, yes, but mail that’s addressed to Timothy, and by extension, to pastors and elders today. That will help us better understand the tone and perspective of the passage.

So, you could think of it like this: the pastoral epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) have three “levels,” if you will, of who they’re addressed to: a) immediate: Timothy and Titus, b) by extension: all other / subsequent pastors and elders, c) with application to every church, Christian group, and individual Christian.

The other epistles, generally speaking, have two “levels” of who they’re addressed to: a) immediate: a specific church or people group of Christians (the church at Colossae, the church at Ephesus, etc.) b) by extension: all other / subsequent churches, groups of Christians, and Christian individuals.

There’s a sense in which, from Genesis through Revelation, we’re “reading somebody else’s mail,” because we were not alive when any of the books of the Bible were written, so we were not the original audience of any of Scripture. That being said, the Bible is still God’s word to us, through those original audiences. All of it, when correctly handled, applies to us in one or more ways, and we are required to obey God’s commands, instructions, laws, and teachings to New Testament Christians, no matter where in the Bible they are located.

—What about women who are called to preach? Like slave Sojourner Truth and 2 quaker women called to preach against slavery in the south USA civil war times. Were they wrong? sinning? going against scripture?

I don’t know who the Quaker women are that you’ve referred to, and I’m not overly familiar Sojourner Truth or any of her “sermons,” but I think you may be conflating and confusing a few things here. Let’s see if we can untangle them.

As I mentioned in my preface remarks, just because someone claims to be a Christian (or history has led us to believe they were Christians) does not mean they have actually been born again. I don’t know whether or not any of these women were truly Believers, and neither do you. Sojourner said and did some things that might cause one to wonder, and, while there could be individuals who get saved while still in Quakerism, the Quaker belief system, generally speaking, is not biblical, and therefore, not Christian.
Making civil speeches against slavery (or on any other topic) is not “preaching” even if the speech maker or others called it preaching. “Preaching” is defined by Scripture alone, not by culture or common parlance. Preaching is the proclamation of God’s rightly handled, written Word for the edification of the church.
If any of these women were actually preaching – proclaiming God’s Word or exhorting people from God’s Word – in a co-ed gathering, then yes, they were “wrong, sinning, and going against Scripture” because God’s written Word prohibits women from doing that as I explained at length in the Jill article. And when God’s written Word says not to do something and we do it anyway, that’s called sin.
God doesn’t call women to preach or pastor. God has never called a single, solitary woman to preach. Ever. First, because God doesn’t give extra-biblical revelation like that. He tells us exactly who He has called to preach (and who He hasn’t) in 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9. Second, because, even if He did give extra-biblical revelation, God is not a man that He should lie or change His mind, and He already told us in His Word that women aren’t to pastor, preach to, or teach men, or exercise authority over men in the gathering of the church body.

—Paul gives “commands” about operating under patriarchy and slavery, both part of Roman society. He does not talk against either yet today we Christians abhor slavery but still support patriarchy. Why?

Because patriarchy was God’s design and command and antebellum American slavery wasn’t. I’m not totally sure exactly what you mean by Roman “patriarchy” and the “commands” Paul gave about it, which passages you’re referring to, or what all you many have in mind about patriarchy and slavery as you asked this question, so I can only give you a very general answer.

Instructing Christians on how to behave in a godly way when they’re in the middle of ungodly circumstances is not the same thing as God condoning or approving of those ungodly circumstances. There were many Christians who obeyed Scripture’s instructions while in concentration camps during World War II. That doesn’t mean God was in favor of concentration camps.
Antebellum American slavery was “man stealing” (which was a different type of slavery than that practiced during New Testament times), and is prohibited by Scripture.
Male headship was established by God at Creation and is continually buttressed and re-established throughout the Bible:

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. – from: The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism

Anyone – including the Romans of Paul’s time – who stepped outside of God’s commands regarding patriarchy and slavery was in sin.

—-in Ephesians 5:21 and following verses Paul tells 4 different groups to submit. He uses 2 different forms. For people and spouses he uses the form that means to submit as to one another. For children/slaves he uses the form that means to submit to an authority. Why weren’t women included under the same one as children/slaves?

I’m sorry, but this question is impossible to answer because neither slaves nor children are mentioned in Ephesians 5:21-33 (or even in 5:1-20). If by “following verses” you meant elsewhere in Ephesians or in other places in the New Testament, you should have specified those passages so I could look at them, understand what you’re talking about, and explain them to you in context.

I also don’t know where you’re getting your information about “two different forms” (of the word “submit,” I’m assuming), so I have no way of knowing whether or not that’s accurate, and since I don’t read Greek, and I suspect you don’t either, I prefer to stick to reliable English translations rendered by experts in the biblical languages.

All I can say is, since I don’t know which passages you’re referring to, I don’t know why, allegedly, two different forms of the word submit were used. All I can tell you is – you know whether or not you’re a wife, and you know what the English word “submit” means, and if you’re married, Scripture’s instruction to you in Ephesians 5:22-33 (and elsewhere in Scripture) is to submit to your husband.

There is nowhere in Scripture where husbands are commanded to submit to their wives or that husbands and wives are to “mutually submit” to one another. Many egalitarians try to make Ephesians 5:21 say that, but that is a twisting of Scripture. Notice that verse 21 isn’t even a complete sentence. If you read verse 21 in context (i.e. – read verses 1-21) it should be obvious that Paul is addressing the church, not married couples, and that verse 21 is referring to being unselfish and putting others in the church first. (Check your cross-references on that verse. One of them is probably Philippians 2:3.) See why I keep harping on “rightly handled Scripture”?

—-why do churches send women who say they are called to preach to the mission field?

Because they’re in sin. Those churches are either ignorant of Scripture’s commands about women preaching, or they’re in rebellion against those commands. Both are shameful, and both are sin.

If it is wrong here in the US for a woman to preach/pastor why is it ok in a foreign land?

It isn’t. If it’s a sin in the United States, it’s a sin in Kenya, Croatia, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Australia, Antarctica, and everywhere else on the planet (and off the planet if God ever allows humans to live on the moon or something like that).

—-why did Jesus break the rules about women? He talked with them, obeyed his mom at the party, let them learn of spiritual things, defended them, the woman at the well was the first evangelist and women were the first to see the empty tomb (all these things broke rules/laws about women and their testimonies were outlawed in that time and place) What was the point of doing this if women were going to be told they could not preach/teach and their only purpose to be wife/mom/homebodies? It does not make sense to me.

Where does the Bible say any of those things, though? Most of the things you’ve listed aren’t God’s law, they were secular law, Pharisaical law, or cultural custom, not commands of God. Jesus never broke any of God’s laws that are spelled out in the Bible. That would be sin, and we know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t bound by man’s laws, and certainly not if they contradicted God’s Word. That’s why He and the Pharisees butted heads so often. They were trying to bind Him to their man-made laws (which often contradicted Scripture), which they sinfully equated to Scripture. By ignoring man-made laws and customs about women (while obeying God’s law about them) Jesus re-elevated the women He came into contact with to their rightful biblical place.

Let’s look:

“He talked with them…defended them” – There’s nothing in Scripture telling men they can’t talk to or defend women. Men talk to women all over the Bible and there are many places in Scripture where men are called upon to take up arms to defend women and children.
“Obeyed His mom at the party” – I assume you’re talking about the wedding at Cana. I just want to make sure we’re all understanding this correctly. From an earthly perspective, Jesus was obeying or acquiescing to His mother. However, Jesus, while fully man, was also fully God. He knew exactly what He was going to do next. Mary’s request was in line with His pre-ordained plan to turn the water into wine, and thus, in addition to the miracle, also gave Him an opportunity to set us an example of honoring His mother. Had she requested something that was not in line with His plan to turn the water into wine, He would have honored her in another way, but he would not have “obeyed” her request.
“Let them learn of spiritual things” – Not only does Scripture not prohibit women from learning spiritual things, women are commanded to “learn of spiritual things” from Genesis to Revelation. When Adam told Eve, “Hey, God said we can’t eat from this one tree right here,” that was a spiritual thing a woman learned. Deuteronomy 6:7 commanded the Israelites to teach God’s Word to their children, not just their sons. Ezra taught God’s law to “both men and women and all who could understand what they heard”. I also addressed this concept in the Jill article: First Timothy 2:11 (immediately before 2:12, which prohibits women from pastoring, preaching ,etc.) says “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” God (remember, Jesus is God) commanded pastors to make sure women had the opportunity to “learn of spiritual things”.
“the woman at the well was the first evangelist” – Welllll, technically, no. We don’t even know for sure if she was a Believer when she went back to town and told everyone to come see Jesus. But OK, let’s go with that for a minute. Again, Scripture doesn’t prohibit women from relaying the gospel to lost people they encounter, it commands it of all Christians. (If you’re not clear on the difference between evangelism and preaching/pastoring, listen here.)
“women were the first to see the empty tomb…their testimonies were outlawed in that time and place” – I know a woman’s testimony in court was considered unreliable, but I’m not positive it was actually “outlawed”. But even if it was, that would have been a secular law. God’s Word doesn’t outlaw it. Yes, perhaps Jesus allowed women to be the first eyewitnesses to His resurrection in part to honor these women who had followed Him so faithfully, and to demonstrate that the testimony of women isn’t unreliable just because they’re women.

What was the point of doing this if women were going to be told they could not preach/teach and their only purpose to be wife/mom/homebodies? It does not make sense to me.

Because, as I said, Jesus elevated women to their rightful biblical place. He didn’t lower them to the wrongful, unbiblical place of modern day feminism and its rebellion against Scripture.

But really listen to what you’re saying here. I hope you didn’t mean to do this, but you just dismissively swept aside God’s high, holy, good, and biblical calling on the lives of most Christian women to be godly wives and mothers and manage their households well for the glory of God.

“Their only purpose…” Seriously? I don’t mind telling you I’m personally offended that you just insulted what I’ve dedicated my heart, soul, and life to for the past 30 years. You’re saying it doesn’t matter because I wasn’t pastoring or preaching to men. Never mind that I continually poured God’s Word into the six beautiful children He blessed us with. Never mind that I’ve gotten up every day for three decades – with no pay or vacation time, mind you, 24/7/365 – and striven to be a godly example, encouragement, and helpmeet to my husband. Never mind that I’ve taught and discipled more women and children at my church than I can count. No, all of that is worthless because I wasn’t preaching to or teaching men. That women’s teaching is only valuable if they’re teaching men. You may not have meant that, but that’s the effect of what you said. I’m not trying to be unnecessarily harsh with you, I’m trying to give you just enough of a healthy, biblical sting that you’ll realize that you’ve been influenced more by what the world values for women than what God values for women.

Godly women 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 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. – from: The Mailbag: Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism

I have so many more questions and seeking lots of help to find the answers. The scripture says to study to show yourself approved. I hope this applies to women too!

It absolutely does! I’m glad you’re asking questions and seeking to learn! And you’re right, as I’ve referred to throughout this article, 2 Timothy 2:15 says:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15

As I said at the beginning, the best place to get your questions answered and to learn how to rightly handle Scripture is in a doctrinally sound local church. Ask a godly older woman in your church to disciple you. (Not sure what that’s all about? Listen here and here.) “Pester” your pastor (he’ll love it!). And study, study, study, directly from the text of Scripture (listen here, and check out the Bible studies tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page).

Thanks for any insight you can give me.

You are most welcome. It is my pleasure to serve you in Christ.

If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Throwback Thursday ~ Rock Your Role: Oh No She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate, and Esther Wasn’t an Egalitarian

August 18, 2022June 16, 2023 Michelle Lesley

Originally published November 13, 2015

Rock Your Role is a series examining the “go to” and hot button Scriptures that relate to and help us understand our role as women in the church. Don’t forget to prayerfully consider
our three key questions as you read.

How can you say women aren’t to preach to, teach, or hold authority over men in the church? What about Deborah, Esther, Huldah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and the women at Jesus’ tomb? Didn’t they all preach to men, teach them, or hold authority over them?

That’s one of the arguments often put forth by people who reject what God’s word plainly says about the biblical role of women in the church. And the short answer is very simple: Yes and no, and so what?

But maybe a longer answer would be better.

First of all, there’s a proper way and an improper way to understand Scripture. We want to make sure we understand Scripture the proper way. When we look to Scripture to find out how we should behave – what we should do and not do – we do not look first, or primarily, at the biographies of people in the Bible and what they did or didn’t do, and model ourselves after them.

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. 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.

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.
Tweet

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.

But just for funzies, let’s take a quick look at these ladies so often trotted out in defense of Christian women disobeying Scripture. (If you’re unclear as to what God’s word says about women’s role in the church, you might want to check out this article and this article before reading further.)

Deborah, Huldah, and Esther:

The very first thing we need to remember about these ladies is that they were under the old (Mosaic) covenant of the Old Testament, not the new (grace) covenant of the New Testament. There are a lot of things about the old covenant that no longer apply to Christians in the New Testament because Christ fulfilled the law of the old covenant (Bacon and poly-cotton blends, anyone?). Likewise, there are things about the new covenant that did not apply under the old covenant (The church? Evangelism? Nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.), or for which there are no reasonable precedents in the Old Testament because the church is a new covenant institution.

None of these women were pastors. None taught men the Scriptures in the church (or even temple) setting. None assumed authority over men in the church (or even the temple).

Deborah was a judge. She decided disputes between Israelites and discussed with Barak battle instructions that God had already revealed to him. When Barak refused to stand up and fight like a man, God used Deborah, a woman, to show him that another woman, Jael, would get the glory for killing Sisera. In a patriarchal society a woman in leadership and a female war hero would not have been seen by men or women as a positive thing, but rather as shaming men who were too cowardly to step up, lead, and protect their women and children.

Huldah was a prophetess. She was sent for during the reign of Josiah when the temple was being repaired and the priests hadn’t even been able to find the book of the law for years. Again, what does it say about the spiritual condition of the most important men in the country – the king and the high priest – when they, in a highly patriarchal society, have to humble themselves and seek out a woman to tell them what God says? Huldah repeated to them what God had told her, and that was it. Since we now have God’s written word and He no longer speaks through direct revelation this way, there is no parallel between Huldah and New Testament women preaching, teaching, and exercising authority.

Esther, under threat of death, couldn’t even talk to her own husband without his permission, so I’m not really sure why people seem to think she exercised any authority over men. In fact, the writer of the book of Esther several times makes a point of saying how obedient she was to Mordecai. Esther wasn’t a spiritual leader, she was a queen. The word “God” isn’t even mentioned in her book, and she certainly didn’t instruct anybody in the Scriptures. Esther is probably one of the weakest examples you could come up with as support for women preaching, teaching, or exercising authority in the church.

The Women at Jesus’ Tomb, Priscilla, and Phoebe

The women at Jesus’ tomb were sort of Old Testament-ish, too, if you think about it. The church didn’t yet exist when they saw Jesus resurrected and ran back to tell the disciples about it. Still, this was not preaching, teaching, or holding authority over the disciples even in a non-church setting. This was a) giving eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and b) carrying a message from Jesus to the disciples. There was no commentary or instruction from the women to the disciples, just a report on what they had seen and a message of where Jesus and the disciples would meet up. And, really, don’t people usually see “messenger boys” (or girls) as subservient to the people they’re carrying messages between?

Priscilla (or Prisca) might be the best known Christian woman in the church era of the New Testament. When people try to use her as an argument for female preachers, teachers, and authority, they usually go to Acts 18:26 which says that she and her husband took Apollos aside and fully explained the gospel to him. This was a private meeting among the three of them, likely in their home over a meal or other casual circumstances, not preaching or teaching in the church. Additionally, the Bible makes absolutely no mention of how much, if any, of the actual “explaining” Priscilla did. It’s quite possible she just sat by as Aquila did the majority of the explaining and contributed only here and there or when Aquila forgot something.

Phoebe is mentioned once in the New Testament, in Romans 16:1-2. Paul commends her to the church at Rome and asks them to help her out because she has been a good servant of the church at Cenchreae. That the word “servant” can also be translated as “deaconess” in no way indicates that Phoebe (or Priscilla or Junia or any of the other women mentioned in Romans 16) preached to or taught men or exercised authority over men, despite the fact that male deacons today might do such things. The Greek word diakonos simply means “servant.” Acts 6:1-6 gives us a glimpse at some of the services the early deacons likely provided- “waiting tables” and meeting the physical needs of the believers. The apostles even drew a distinction between their preaching of the word and the need for others to minister to the material needs of the people.

And one more thing about Priscilla, Phoebe, and the other women of Romans 16: Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote the book of Romans? Paul. Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Paul. Would the Holy Spirit have led Paul in Romans 16 to praise women who were rebelling against His Word in 1 Timothy 2? Have you ever known God, anywhere in Scripture, to praise people who unrepentantly break His Word? Would it make any sense, logically, for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?

Would it make any sense for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?
Tweet

God does not contradict Himself. God’s Word does not contradict itself. If He gives us an explicit command, biographical details of a Bible character’s life do not override that command, and we are to obey it.

While there are numerous, important ways God wants Christian women to serve Him in the church, the Bible is clear that we are not to preach to or teach men or exercise authority over men in the assembly of believers. We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.

We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.
Tweet

Additional Resources:

Bad Examples of Women Pastors (But Great Examples of Godly Women) by Gabe Hughes

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Throwback Thursday ~ Rock Your Role: All Things Being Equal (Galatians 3:28)

August 11, 2022August 11, 2022 Michelle Lesley

Originally published August 21, 2015

Being a church lady can be really confusing at times, am I right? There are so many questions and Scriptures to sort through and figure out. We want to serve the body of Christ in a godly way, but sometimes it’s hard to know how to go about that.

Rock Your Role is a new series I’m starting today that will examine all of the “go to” Scriptures that help us understand our role as women in the church. Some of these passages are – let’s just be honest – tough. Tough to understand. Tough to accept.

As we tackle tough passages like these, it’s important to ask ourselves a few equally tough questions, search our hearts, and answer honestly. Before reading each article in the Rock Your Role series, I’d like to ask you to prayerfully consider these questions:

1. Do I really believe God’s rightly handled, in context, written Word has the final say when it comes to what I (and the church) should believe and do?

2. If so, am I truly willing to “put my money where my mouth is” and back up that belief with action and obedience, even if I don’t initially like or fully understand a certain biblical concept or command?

3. Is this passage a tough one for me because it challenges my preconceived notions and opinions? Am I willing to put my ideas aside and hear what God’s Word has to say so I can obey it?

Ready to dive in? Let’s get started with…

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.
Galatians 3:28

For those of you who have been around the blog for a while, you might be surprised that I’m kicking things off with this verse. I’m about as complementarian as they come, and Galatians 3:28 is the rallying cry for egalitarians. But this verse is foundational to our understanding of the role of women in the church because it tells us who we are in Christ.

Before we zero in on verse 28, though, let’s zoom out and look at the book of Galatians as a whole. Galatians was written by Paul to the churches at Galatia to combat the false doctrine of the Judaizers- those who taught that the Gentiles must first become Jews (be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law) before they could become Christians. The Galatians were being seduced by this teaching, allowing it into their churches, and many were being drawn away from the truth of the gospel. Paul wrote to straighten them out and remind them – and us – that we are justified (saved and made right with God) through repentance and faith in Christ, not by keeping the law.

Galatians 3 is a perfect showcase for Paul’s theme of justification by faith. Take a moment and read the whole chapter now.

Paul reminds the Galatians that they were saved by faith, not works of the law, just like Abraham was. Paul explains that the law came with a curse attached for those who disobeyed it, but that Christ redeemed us from that curse. In fact, the whole purpose of the law was to teach us we can’t keep it and push us to faith in Christ as our only hope for salvation.

Wait a second. What’s all this talk about the law and faith and salvation and stuff? Isn’t this passage about women being equal to men and that they can serve in any capacity or office in the church that men can?

Wait a second. What’s all this talk about the law and faith and salvation and stuff? Isn’t this passage about women being equal to men and that they can serve in any capacity or office in the church that men can? Um…no. No, it’s not.
Tweet

Um…no. No, it’s not. And that’s where the wheels fall off of the egalitarian argument. The entirety of Galatians chapter three is about salvation by faith instead of works. It says nothing about women serving in the same roles in the church as men. Nada. Zip. Zero.

It tells us something better. Something far more precious to the women of that time – and to us – than we realize. Let’s look at verse 28 in its immediate context:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 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. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Do you see that? We’re no longer under the guardianship of the law. Anyone can come to Christ in repentance and faith- Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, all are welcome. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. No one is more important than anybody else. We are all equally saved, equally loved, equally forgiven of our sin, equally precious in God’s eyes. In a time when women were considered less important, less valuable, less intelligent, less everything than men, this would have been joyous news, indeed. It should be to us, as well.

But equality in salvation does not translate to equality in church roles. A king and a pauper might have worshiped side by side in the Galatian church, but when it came to the role of giving, the church would not have expected the same offering from the pauper as from the king. This didn’t make the king more important than the pauper, it just gave him a different area of responsibility because of who he was. Likewise, men and women are equally saved and forgiven in God’s eyes, but still fulfill different roles in the body of Christ because of who they are.

Equality in salvation does not translate to equality in church roles.
Tweet

Let me illustrate this another way. My husband and I have 6 children. Each and every one of us are all equally Lesleys even though I married into the family and the rest of them were born into the family. No family member is more loved or important than another. However, we all have different roles, which come with different blessings and responsibilities. My 12 year old might not be able to drive the car, but he doesn’t have to work eight hours a day and pay bills, either. I no longer have to do homework (thank you, Lord!), but I do have to do housework. Our family would not operate in a healthy way if I tried to take on my son’s role or my husband tried to take on my role.

It’s the same way in the church. God loves, forgives, and saves each one of us equally. But he also loves us each individually. And it’s because of that individual love that He gives each of us unique roles to fill in the church so that it will operate in a healthy way. As we’ll see throughout this series, the role of women in the church is precious and vital to the well being of the body of Christ. So is the role of men. They are both equally important, yet God has specially gifted women to fulfill the roles He has designed for us just as He has specially gifted men to fulfill the roles He has designed for them.

Ladies, you have a Savior who loves and values you as a woman, and your role in the church is no less important than any man’s just because it’s different from his role. There are no second class citizens in God’s kingdom.

Ladies, you have a Savior who loves and values you as a *woman,* and your role in the church is no less important than any man’s just because it’s different from his role.
Tweet

Rock Your Role

Deaconesses and Female Deacons

April 22, 2022April 22, 2022 Michelle Lesley

The role of women in the church. It can be a sticky wicket sometimes, you know? Some things are pretty clear. Like, women aren’t to pastor churches. That’s clear in Scripture. Complementarians and egalitarians disagree on this point for various reasons, but none of those reasons include disagreeing on what a pastor is. Both camps pretty much agree that the pastor is the primary undershepherd of the church.

But sometimes, the sticking point is the fact that, even within our own camp, we disagree, or have different perspectives on, the definition of a term. And that can leave doctrinally sound, complementarian, brothers and sisters in Christ in a bit of a quandary. We start off with the same orthodoxy but end up with differing orthopraxies.

Such is the case with the question of women serving as deacons or deaconesses. Different churches define these terms differently. But what does the Bible say?

We find the English word deacon in only two passages in the New Testament: in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, where God spells out the biblical qualifications for deacons, and in Philippians 1:1, Paul’s greeting to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”. Although the English word “deacon” isn’t used in this passage, a significant sector of Christian thought considers Acts 6:1-6 to be a description of the appointment of the first deacons in the New Testament church. In fact, this idea is so widely accepted that one reliable English translation titles this passage with the section heading “The First Seven Deacons Appointed”.

The Greek word διάκονος (diákonos), “deacon,” used or implied in these passages, simply means “servant” and “a waiter- at table or in other menial duties”. It comes from the root διάκω (diákō), which means “to run on errands,” and involves neither teaching nor authority. As you can see, this is a position of humility, anonymity, and servanthood, not power, influence, and rulership. We can see this from the description of the duties of the seven chosen men – presumably the first deacons – in Acts, who “waited on tables” providing food for the church’s widows.

Most churches would basically be in agreement with all of this (at least “on paper”) up to this point. Where we start to diverge is, how does this flesh itself out in practice in the local church body? Though there are undoubtedly more, I’ve run into five main perspectives on the diaconate in the church (the descriptors that follow are only general touchstones based solely on my own personal experience, they are not universally definitive / applicable. I gotta call them something, folks.) :

The traditional Southern Baptist perspective: The office of deacon exists and is restricted to men. Deacons must meet the biblical qualifications for the office, and are set apart to the diaconate by way of the ordination process (nomination, examination, voting, and the laying on of hands). There is no category of deaconess. All Christians are expected to be servants.

John MacArthur’s perspective: Because diákonos means “servant,” and all Christians are to be servants, all church members who serve in some way are deacons. There is no office, position, or official title of deacon.

The Baptistic hybrid perspective: Various blendings of the traditional Southern Baptist and John MacArthur perspectives. Some churches have the traditional, ordained male diaconate with a separate, non-ordained, less formal group of women deaconesses who see to the tangible needs of women and children when called upon by the deacons. Some churches have a group of non-ordained deacons and deaconesses a bit more set apart than the “everybody’s a deacon” perspective. The deacons generally minister to men and the deaconesses to women and children, or each deacon or deaconess is attached to a specific ministry in the church (deaconess of media, deacon of benevolence ministry, etc.)

The progressive – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in “mainstream” (i.e. theologically liberal) Protestant churches. The office of deacon does exist and is open to both men and women who undergo the same ordination process, perform the same duties, hold the same positions of authority (if any), etc. There is no need for a separate category of deaconess.

The Charismatic – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in Charismatic churches with female “pastors” or co-“pastors”. The formal office or position of both deacon and deaconess exist and may operate somewhat independently from one another. Both deacons and deaconesses seem to function as elders in some ways. Deaconesses often operate in a “ruling elders meets women’s ministry” sort of way.

The two final categories are obviously unbiblical because they are fruit of the poisonous tree (egalitarianism), but what about the first three?

The issue of deaconesses and female deacons recently placed itself in my path, so I wanted to take a fresh look at it to make sure my beliefs and position are as much in line with Scripture as possible. It never hurts to do that, right? We grow in Christ, we grow in the Word, and we strive to increasingly align with Scripture accordingly. Let me share with you where I currently am on all of this in case it might help as you think through your own beliefs.

I continue to hold to the “traditional Southern Baptist perspective” on the diaconate. I think the Bible more robustly supports this perspective than the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives for the following reasons:

I have long said on the issue of women pastors and elders that if you will take out the chapter and verse markings and look at 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 as one continuous stream of thought (as it was originally written), the passage starts off by describing who is not qualified for the office of elder (women) and why, followed by who is qualified for the office of elder (men) and how. I do not usually extend that passage to include 3:8-13, because what I’m usually asked about is women preaching and pastoring, not women being deacons. But when dealing with the topic of women serving as deacons, there is no reason not to include 3:8-13 in that continuous stream of thought (i.e. women are excluded in 2:11-15, qualified men are described in 3:1-13), and every reason to include it, as the word “likewise” in verse 8 indicates that 8-13 is part of the same thought as 2:11-3:7.

The word “likewise” in 3:8 also indicates the similarity of 3:8-13 to the form and content of 3:1-7. There’s no transition or contrast between the two passages indicating that “pastor/elder is a set apart office for qualified men only” in 1-7, but “deacon is not a set apart office for qualified men only” in 8-13. In fact, “likewise” would seem to indicate to the contrary – that they are both set apart offices of the church for qualified men only.

Chapter 3, verses 1-2 speak of deacons as husbands with wives, indicating that deacons are men. If Paul meant that women were qualified for the office of deacon, there is a way to make that clear in Greek. He differentiates between “wives” and “women in general” in other passages – why not here? And if he meant that women could be deacons, why not make that crystal clear in 3:8-13, since he just said basically the same things about elders being the husband of one wife in 3:2-5? (And we certainly use that qualification to help prove that only men can be pastors/elders, don’t we?)

I think the preponderance of evidence points to the seven men of Acts 6 being deacons, or at least the precedent for deacons, regardless of whether this was an impromptu, temporary assemblage of men or whether they served the church on a permanent basis. They were a group of men, set apart to serve. No women were appointed. This was the example later codified and explained in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

If Phoebe, or any of the other women of Romans 16, were considered “deacons” on par with the seven men in Acts 6 or the parameters of 1 Timothy 3:8-13, why would translators not simply render Romans 16:1 as “deacon” instead of servant? Choosing those two different words in those two different passages seems to draw a distinction between someone who is qualified and set apart to the office of deacon and any random Christian who serves in some way.

To say that all Christians are to serve, therefore all Christians are deacons is imprecise and confusing. All Christians are also to share the gospel. Should we therefore say that all Christians are evangelists in the Ephesians 4:11-12 sense?

Look at the widows of godly character in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. These are godly women who, in addition to having served their families well, have a history of serving the church prior to being widowed. Notice verse 11: “having a reputation for good works: if she…has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” Does this passage – just two chapters after qualifications for deacons – indicate in any way that these women were set apart as, or carried the title of “deacon” or “deaconess”? Does it indicate that women need to be set apart as deacons / deaconesses or bear the title of “deacon” or “deaconess” in order to serve in these ways? No. The women of 1 Timothy 5 took it upon themselves to fill the needs of the saints they were aware of – no office or title needed, just as most Christian women continue to do today.

Now, I say all of that to explain how I arrived at the beliefs and position I hold on this issue. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to be construed to mean that I think those who hold to the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives are wrong, unbiblical, heretical, or false teachers. Not at all.

I stand shoulder to shoulder, without a second thought about it, with many who hold the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives. I don’t think either of those perspectives, as I’ve described and understand them, are unbiblical. Personally, I would have no problem joining a church that held to either of those perspectives. My main point of divergence with those two perspectives is that calling women who serve “deacons” or “deaconesses” – because of the wide array of definitions that can be attached to those two terms – is confusing and could lead someone to think a church is doing something unbiblical when it actually is not.

Certainly, it is biblically right and good for women – individually or as a set aside group, titled or untitled – to act as servants, care for widows, run errands, wait tables, and carry out menial tasks in service to their brothers and sisters in Christ. We see Paul commending Phoebe and the other women of Romans 16 for doing these very sorts of things. In fact, most Christian women who are faithful church members are already doing things like that. The Bible says “serve one another,” so every Christian ought to be serving the church in some way.

But because of the current confusion and different perspectives in the church over what deacons actually are and who may or may not serve as a deacon, if a church wishes to set aside a group of women as servants, the pastor and other leadership might want to consider call them something other than deacons or deaconesses. Just a thought.

In the end, whatever our position on the finer points of deacons, female deacons, and deaconesses, I think we can all agree that, as brothers and sisters, we are all to serve one another in love and humility.

In the end, whatever our position on the finer points of deacons, female deacons, and deaconesses, I think we can all agree that, as brothers and sisters, we are all to serve one another in love and humility.
Tweet

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
1 Peter 4:11, Mark 10:45, Philippians 2:3-4

Postscript:

The issue of women serving as deacons or deaconesses arose for me after my most recent request for recommendations of doctrinally sound churches to add to my list of Reader Recommended Churches. I noticed that a significant number of the recommended churches listed female deacons or deaconesses on their websites, and that these churches also seemed to be doctrinally sound, usually Reformed or Calvinistic churches, often pastored by graduates of The Master’s Seminary – churches I would normally add to the list in a heartbeat.

In the past, I’ve received a handful of recommendations for churches with female deacons, but they were all of the “progressive-” or “Charismatic- egalitarian perspectives,” and were excluded from the list for that reason. Therefore, my initial inclination upon seeing women listed as “deacons” or “deaconesses” on a church website was to exclude these churches from the list.

But because there is such a dearth of doctrinally sound churches available out there, I didn’t want to exclude any church that didn’t, biblically speaking, have to be excluded. So I revisited the issue of deaconesses and female deacons.

Going forward, I’ll be including these doctrinally sound churches with deaconesses / female deacons (as long as they appear to hold to the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives). I’ve made a note on the list that some of the churches listed have deaconesses / female deacons, and that if a searcher is uncomfortable with that idea, or has questions about the church’s position, she should ask the pastor about it.

Additional Resources:

Can women serve as deacons in the church? at GotQuestions

Was Phoebe a Deaconess? at Grace to You

Can Women Serve as Deacons? at WWUTT

The Office of Deacon by New Beginnings Church

Qualified Servants for the Church–Deacons, Part 1 by John MacArthur

“No. Women May NOT be Pastors.” But Can They be Deacons? at Truth+Fire

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Are Female Bloggers Violating Scripture by “Teaching” Men?

February 25, 2022March 1, 2024 Michelle Lesley

“You say that women shouldn’t teach men (1 Timothy 2:12), but what about men who read your blog or listen to your podcast? Aren’t you teaching them?”

It’s the canard that will not die. Complementarian women bloggers, authors, podcasters, and content creators are frequently asked this question, often by dissenters looking for a “gotcha” moment. Other times it’s a genuine concern from Christian women who want to write, speak, or create, but still be in obedience to God’s Word as it speaks to the role of women. But, whatever the motivation for asking, it’s a great question that needs to be answered. Biblically.

It is true that God has ordained different roles for Christian men and women. Both roles are needed and important, but different. Part of the role for women is outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Women are not to preach to or teach men in the gathering of the church or hold other positions of authority over men in the church body.

But notice that key phrase “in the church.” The context of all of the passages dealing with women refraining from teaching men refers to the teaching of God’s Word in the gathering together of the body of believers.

That’s not the same thing as writing or speaking in the public square. The gathering of the church body might take place within the four walls of a church building, at a park for a Resurrection Day sunrise service, at a Christian conference, at a chapel service at a Christian college or seminary, at a Bible study in someone’s home, or a myriad of other venues, but it’s just that – a physical gathering together of the body of Christ for the purpose of worship, studying the Word, sitting under the preaching of the Word, observing the ordinances, prayer, practicing the “one anothers,” and other “churchy” things.

You’re reading this blog right now. Are you practicing the “one anothers” with anyone? Is anyone standing in front of you preaching the Word? Are you actively worshiping? Do you see an offering being taken up? Baptism? Communion? Prayer? Do you consider yourself to be attending church right now? Of course not. You’re staring at a screen reading an article. This is a blog. Not the gathering of the church.

The Greek word for “church” in the New Testament is ἐκκλησία, or ekklesia. It literally means a gathering or assembly. No gathering, no church.¹ And because of that, women bloggers and other content creators aren’t violating the Scriptures that prohibit them from teaching men in the gathering of the church. (And, by the way, this all applies to women on social media, too. That’s not the gathering of the church either, praise the Lord.)

When I explain this biblical distinction to the “gotcha” folks, the pushback (that’s a polite word for it) I often get is, “You’re just hypocritically splitting hairs and doing hermeneutical gymnastics to justify yourself!”. No, you’re just conflating things the Bible clearly distinguishes from one another.

Think of it this way: If I say that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, but I joyfully fulfill my marital duty to my husband, am I a hypocrite? Am I splitting hairs or doing hermeneutical gymnastics? No. Because there are right and wrong contexts for sexual activity just like there are right and wrong contexts for women teaching the Bible, writing on biblical topics, and so on. The Bible has defined categories and contexts. The Bible draws lines of distinction. Conflating a biblical “do” with a biblical “don’t”? That’s what’s unbiblical.

But let’s consider something else, too. Even though Scripture doesn’t require it, most godly, doctrinally sound women bloggers and online content creators – including me – aim our content primarily at Christian women. I have set up parameters for my blog (and my book, when it was in print) and for my ministry to do everything I can to place myself under the umbrella of 1 Timothy 2:12. Look at the title of this page and my Facebook page. It specifically says “Discipleship for Christian Women“. My book was always labeled and marketed as a women’s Bible study. If you’ll take a look at the “Welcome” tab at the top of this page, you’ll see I explicitly say that this blog is for Christian women and that I’m a complementarian. When I address the readers of this blog I nearly always address them as “ladies,” both because my target audience is women, and also to remind the handful of men who follow me that they are not my audience; they are, in a sense, “eavesdropping” on what I’m saying to women. My speaking engagements are for women only. I ask men not to use my Bible studies. I’m not really sure what more I need to do to make it clear that my blog and my ministry are for women, not men.

Don’t men bear any responsibility here? Why should the entire burden for women not “teaching” men fall on the shoulders of women bloggers and content creators? Why don’t the Christian men who are ostensibly so concerned about men consuming content from women address the men who are reading our blogs and following our platforms?

But sometimes these “gotcha guys” – who often have ulterior motives of undermining complementarianism – will visit my blog, claim to have learned something, and then turn around and attack me as a hypocrite for “teaching” them. This is akin to a man listening at the door of a women’s Sunday school class, then bursting in and saying, “Aha! You taught a man.” To those men, I would ask a simple question- If a female blogger puts a fence around her blog and you jump over it and trespass on her property, how is she the one at fault?²

Along with Christian women, Christian men ought also to be obedient to 1 Timothy 2:12 by not seeking out female content creators for biblical instruction for themselves. While I welcome male readers – especially those who are vetting me for their wives and daughters or the women of their church, or to gain a better understanding of the issues affecting Christian women in order to lead and shepherd them better – I do not want men seeking me out for personal biblical instruction. All of my readers should look to the doctrinally sound teaching of their pastors and elders for biblical instruction. For women, my blog should only be a leisure time supplement to their sermons and classes at church.

Being a godly female blogger or content creator can be a tightrope walk. All of us have fallen off from time to time, and in those cases we ask that you extend us grace and forgiveness, knowing that we didn’t do it intentionally or rebelliously. Praise God for the “net” of God’s mercy and cleansing that catches us and puts us right back up on that tightrope so we can encourage and build up the lovely Christian ladies in our audience. You mean so much to each of us. We love you and want you to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s why we do what we do.

¹This is why it is impossible to “attend church” by watching an online church service. You are not “attending church” online, you are watching other people attend church.

²Brothers, this “trespassing” metaphor is addressed to the aforementioned “gotcha guys,” not solid, complementarian brothers who have stopped by the blog to read something to help them minister to the women in their lives and churches. You are welcome here!

This article is an updated and revamped version of the original article by the same title, published on October 23, 2015.