Tag: biblical role of women

Discernment

Jen Wilkin

Michelle Lesley

If you are considering commenting or sending me an e-mail objecting to the fact that I warn against certain teachers, please click here and read this article first. Your objection is most likely answered here. I won’t be publishing comments or answering emails that are answered by this article.

This article is kept continuously updated as needed.

I get lots of questions about particular authors, pastors, and Bible teachers, and whether or not I recommend them. Some of the best known can be found above at my Popular False Teachers tab. The teacher below is someone I’ve been asked about recently, so I’ve done a quick check (this is brief research, not exhaustive) on her.

Generally speaking, in order for me to recommend a teacher, speaker, or author, he or she has to meet three criteria:

a) A female teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly preach to or teach men in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. A male teacher or pastor cannot allow women to carry out this violation of Scripture in his ministry. The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be living in any other sin (for example, cohabiting with her boyfriend or living as a homosexual).

b) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be partnering with or frequently appearing with false teachers. This is a violation of Scripture.

c) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be teaching false doctrine.

I am not very familiar with most of the teachers I’m asked about (there are so many out there!) and have not had the opportunity to examine their writings or hear them speak, so most of the “quick checking” I do involves items a and b (although in order to partner with false teachers (b) it is reasonable to assume their doctrine is acceptable to the false teacher and that they are not teaching anything that would conflict with the false teacher’s doctrine). Partnering with false teachers and women preaching to men are each sufficient biblical reasons not to follow a pastor, teacher, or author, or use his/her materials.

Just to be clear, “not recommended” is a spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are people like Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth and Kay Arthur. These are people I would not label as false teachers because their doctrine is generally sound, but because of some red flags I’m seeing with them, you won’t find me proactively endorsing them or suggesting them as a good resource, either. There are better people you could be listening to. On the other end of the spectrum are people like Joyce Meyer and Rachel Held Evans- complete heretics whose teachings, if believed, might lead you to an eternity in Hell. Most of the teachers I review fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum (leaning toward the latter).

If you’d like to check out some pastors and teachers I heartily recommend, click the Recommended Bible Teachers tab at the top of this page.

Jen Wilkin
Not Recommended

Jen is a women’s Bible study author, blogger, and conference speaker, and until 2023, when she left to focus on her own ministry, was on staff at The Village Church as the Executive Director of Next Gen Ministries (TVC’s ministry to “children and students ages 0–18”).

Link / Screenshot

Jen’s older books and Bible study materials have a reputation for being generally doctrinally sound. I’ve published a review of Jen’s book, Women of the Word, and here is one reader’s take on her book 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ:

“…in the foreword Jen wrote, ‘a paraphrase, such as the NLT or The Message,* can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.’ However, aside from that, I have found no other problems with the book at all. It is an eight week long study of 1 Peter based on the method of Bible study that she writes about in Women of the Word. My favorite thing about this study is that it causes us to focus on what the text is telling us about God. I love how Jen Wilkin is teaching women to study the Bible properly. I wish she would be more discerning about who and what she endorses though. There are so few women who bring us solid teaching and discernment.”

*Please see “February 2026 Update” at the end of this article. Jen Wilkin herself brought to my attention that in later editions of this book, she removed her reference to the NLT from this sentence. She did not explain why, but my guess would be (and she has thus far not corrected me) that she removed “the NLT” because The New Living Translation is considered to be a translation, and Jen mistakenly referred to it as a “paraphrase”.

The reader’s concern (and mine, too) in mentioning this quote, however, is not that Jen mistakenly called the NLT a paraphrase, but that Jen recommended The Message as an acceptable paraphrase. You need only to click on the link above to see why this is concerning.

Also in the past, Jen limited her speaking engagements and teaching to audiences of women, which is the biblical parameter for Christian women teachers. And although her website speaking engagement request form says she is a “teacher who helps women…” she has been increasingly preaching to and instructing men in recent years.

For example, Jen’s former staff position as TVC’s “Executive Director” of children’s and student ministries, depending on the exact nature of her job responsibilities, probably (I am making a reasonable inference, as TVC’s website does not explicitly say) required her to teach Scripture to, or exercise improper authority over young men in the student ministry (which includes students through age 18) and men who teach or volunteer in the student ministry. The title “Executive Director” makes it sound as though she was over the entire ministry and everyone in that ministry was under her purview.

A more recent example demonstrating Jen’s increasing rebellion against Scripture regarding the role of women in the church is the Gospel Centered Discipleship “Preaching Cohort” in which Jen is a “Coach”. She (along with the other coaches) is described as a “seasoned Bible preacher and teacher,” and will be coaching pastors “on the calling and craft of preaching”.

In the past, there have also been questions about exactly where Jen stood on the biblical role of women in the church. She presented herself -and still does- as a complementarian, stating clearly that women are not to hold the office of pastor. What she did not make clear in the past, but what has become abundantly clear in recent years, is that she is (or has developed into) what’s often called a “soft” or “narrow” complementarian. This is the belief that women can do anything men can do in the gathering of the church body except hold the office of “senior pastor” – women can preach the Sunday sermon, hold any other office in the church (for many that includes the office of elder, “associate pastor,” etc.), exercise authority over men in the church, and so on. This is unbiblical. And what’s dangerous here is that Jen doesn’t call herself a “soft/narrow” complementarian, she just calls herself a complementarian, leading Christians who haven’t kept up with her to think she holds a biblical position and practice of the role of women, when she, in fact, does not.

As an example of Jen’s murkiness on the role of women, in the video* below (~32:05), she says:

“We need [women’s] visible leadership. How visible? As visible as your church’s complementarianism allows.”

This remark is at best, unhelpful, and at worst, opens the door for women and pastors to rebel against Scripture. The biblical answer to this question (aside from the fact that the church should be far more focused on servanthood than leadership) is: Women may serve in any position in the church that does not require them to preach to, teach Scripture to, or exercise authority over men, and which does not violate any other principles of Scripture.

Whatever position on the role of women Jen may have held in the past, she is now a “soft/narrow complementarian,” which is, in reality, a functional egalitarian.

In addition to the aforementioned preaching cohort in which Jen instructs pastors, she has spoken at several co-ed conferences in recent years. Give the first 15 minutes of the video below a listen*. Despite the fact that Jen’s very first remark is that she is not teaching the Bible in this session for pastors and church planters, she almost immediately goes on to quote and allude to the opening chapters of Genesis (and later in the video, other passages) and teach on them. I would challenge you to listen to what she says and ask yourself, “If I heard a pastor give this type of instruction, would I consider it a sermon/Bible lesson?” I think most of us could easily answer, “yes”. *(Unfortunately, the full length video of Jen’s complete teaching session has been removed from the internet. The video below is an excerpt of the full length video.)

(This is also the teaching session in which Jen made her infamous remarks about menstruation helping women to understand the gospel differently from men, which is not only a private and potentially uncomfortable subject to address in public – especially for an audience of men – it’s a patently ridiculous teaching. Menstruation teaches us nothing about the gospel. The two subjects are completely unrelated. Also, aside from Jen, I’ve never heard a single woman say her period helped her better understand the shedding of Christ’s blood.)

In another instance of preaching to a co-ed audience, Jen has been featured as a speaker multiple times at The Gospel Coalition’s national conference* at least as far back as 2017. (In the opening seconds of this 2017 TGC conference session, Why It’s Good that God Is Different from Us, Jen acknowledges and welcomes the men in her audience.) TGC, as many have noted, has been on a woke / social justice trajectory for years. Jen has been featured on TGC’s site numerous times.

*Jen has also been a featured speaker at TGC’s women’s conference (TGCW), not to be confused with TGC’s national conference, which is co-ed.

Again, one of the reasons it’s especially problematic for Jen to be teaching men, or to even to seem to be teaching men, is that she openly and unashamedly wears the label of complementarian. Boldly proclaiming complementarianism while teaching men muddies the waters and confuses the women who follow her as to what the Bible truly teaches about the role of women in the church. Are there times when it is technically not a violation of Scripture for a woman to speak with men in the audience? Yes (see #7 here). But weigh the impact Jen has on the church by speaking to men against the counter-evangelicultural impact someone of her stature could have by flagrantly refusing to teach men. Which would cause more people to sit up and take notice, set a better example for Christian women, and have a more biblical influence on the church?

Another concern about Jen is that she seems to be increasingly associating and appearing with false or problematic teachers.

In 2013, Jen wrote a blog post entitled, The Next Beth Moore in which she spoke glowingly of Beth Moore, her teaching, and one of her books. She has also had several friendly and/or affirming interactions with Beth on X, and has pointed women to Beth’s writing. Jen has appeared on the IF: Gathering podcast with Jennie Allen (to discuss and promote Women of the Word), and has written a devotional for Lysa TerKeurst’s Proverbs 31 blog.

(Screenshots: 1, 2, 3 {page 1}, 4 {page 2})

During LifeWay’s 2018 Abundance conferences, Jen appeared alongside Lisa Harper, Raechel Myers, Amanda Bible Williams, Christine Caine, Jennie Allen, Kelly Minter, Whitney Capps (of Lysa TerKeurst’s Proverbs 31 Ministries), and others.

L-R: Christine Caine, Lisa Harper, Raechel Myers, Whitney Capps, Amanda Bible Williams, Jen Wilkin, Jamie Ivey

In August 2020, Jen appeared at LifeWay Women Live with Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Jackie Hill Perry, Kelly Minter, Angie Smith, Jennifer Rothschild and Kristi McLelland.

LifeWay Women Live 2020 Speakers

Several years ago, Jen was added to LifeWay Women’s stable of Women’s “Bible” study authors including many of the aforementioned teachers and others. In addition to my normal concerns about someone yoking with false teachers (i.e. the Bible says not to, and disobeying God’s Word is a sin), I’m guessing LifeWay Women may have initially signed Jen in order to use her – that is, her reputation for being a doctrinally sound teacher and a complementarian – to lend credibility to the false teachers they promote. And, of course, Jen’s previously perceived good reputation has suffered by being associated with these false teachers.

In March 2021, when Beth Moore cut ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, Jen offered this glowing farewell…

In a strange irony, in the midst of unbiblically partnering with these false teachers, in her session, The Gospel and The Future of Bible-Centered Discipleship at the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention Pre-Conference (also to a co-ed audience), Jen teaches the following…

[Biblical literacy] guards against false teaching…Basic comprehension-level mastery of the text guards against false teaching. (~30:12)

You know what our [discipleship] formula has been for the last 20 years? [We’ve said], ‘We’re going to keep making [the level of biblical teaching] lower and lower’…It is our high calling, in the face of a biblical literacy crisis, to raise the bar in an age of low expectations. (~43:40…44:39)

And yet, Jen’s level of “mastery of the text” – to the point that she is instructing people in the text and teaching them how to improve discipleship – has not sufficiently guarded her against partnering with women who are largely responsible for the bulk of false teaching aimed at women today, who don’t teach “basic comprehension-level mastery of the text,” and who have continued to lower the bar and perpetuate low expectations for biblical literacy. Jen has associated with, talked to, and listened to the teaching of these women far more than I have, I’m certain. How does she not see this?

(February 2026 UPDATE- I’ve removed a small section of this article {unrelated to the paragraph above or below} that previously appeared here. Please scroll down for an explanation, and for additional extra information.)

Finally, in the same way that the influence Steven Furtick has on Lysa TerKeurst as her pastor is worrisome, I’ve seen some things over the years with Jen’s pastor, Matt Chandler, and his wife, Lauren Chandler (with whom Jen has appeared at conferences; screenshot), that have given me pause.

As a member of The Village Church, Jen is pastored by Matt, and as a ministry leader there (though no longer a staff member), she works under his direction and influence. Over the past few years, Matt has publicly praised or affirmed false teachers like Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, and Jesus Culture. He has raised some questions about the extent of his continuationism with His notorious “pirate ship prophecy“. He allows Bethel and Israel Houghton (Joel Osteen’s former worship leader) music to be used for worship at his church. Matt allows his wife, a worship leader at TVC, to select this music, and to yoke with and be influenced by numerous false teachers. Matt and Lauren and their associations with false teachers have undoubtedly influenced Jen. Additionally, Matt’s character and personal integrity were sullied in 2022 when he had to take a leave of absence after admitting to an “inappropriate” texting relationship with another woman.

(Screenshots: 1, 2, 3. 4)

In addition to the issues of Jen’s unbiblical views and teachings on the role of women in the church, and the fact that she yokes with false teachers, more information is beginning to come to light about the content of Jen’s books, her poor handling of Scripture, and some of her teachings that conflict with Scripture:

Two of my followers who have participated in Jen’s studies (which included her teaching videos) have informed me that if you only use her books, and not the videos, you may not have encountered some of her troubling teachings.

One follower said: “A few months ago I asked my Facebook friends if they have noticed any recent changes in Jen Wilkin’s teaching. Many of them are Christians.

My church’s Women’s Bible Study group recently finished 3 of her latest Lifeway publications. After this last study of “Joshua” I have firmly decided I will never again do one of her studies. While the workbooks are apparently edited, her videos are not. It is in her videos (over the last few studies) where she gives false teachings and LOTS of conjecture and assumptions.

Perhaps you’ve heard about her “mythological backstory” of Rahab. In Jen’s drama style presentation, Rahab is displeased with the Israelites because she has been waiting for so long for them to come to save her from her vocation. It was like she was forced into prostitution because the Israelites were disobedient and thus were made to wander in the wilderness for all those years while she was made to live in sin.

I asked my class “Were the Israelites LATE getting to Jericho? Was God late in getting to Jericho? I rejoice at God’s mercy to Rahab and her family. Her testimony about Him is stunning!!! There’s sooo much more that is less dramatic but equally fictitious…bordering on heresy. They really need to take a hard look at her videos.”

Another follower agreed: “If you are only doing her workbooks you are not getting a full picture. My first red flag for Jen was in her 1 Peter study which was many years ago when I was a young mom. (2016) The workbooks were fine but the videos was where she offered every single excuse in the book as to why women should not submit to their husbands. And her Genesis study leaves the welcome mat out for evolution and not upholding the authority of Scripture.”

(More info still coming in on this. I’ll update this section as I receive it.)

In summary, I would urge you not to follow Jen Wilkin, attend her conferences, or use her materials due to her trajectory of increasingly unbiblical teaching and behavior.

February 2026 UPDATE

Prior to February 14, 2026, this small section appeared in the above indicated area of this article:

On February 13-14 Jen Wilkin and I had an exchange on X in which she said, “I have never said the Bible whispers about sexual sin.” (see image 2 below)

I looked into it, and Jen appears to be correct. Here’s what J.D. said:

The first part of J.D.’s statement, “We ought to whisper about what the Bible whispers about and we ought to shout about what it shouts about,” was a quote of Jen. J.D. then added his own opinion, “…and the Bible appears more to whisper when it comes to sexual sin…” to the end of the quote of Jen, making it sound like the entire quote was something she said.

I apologize – to Jen and to my readers – for making this mistake, and ask your forgiveness. I hope my character speaks for itself when I assure you that this was simply a misunderstanding of an unclear statement. It was not a fabrication, nor was it done maliciously. But I am still sorry for making the mistake and for any negative consequences it resulted in for Jen or anyone else.

This point, however, was not the only thing Jen took issue with about this article, as you can see from the images in the slideshow above. Here is the original exchange. My response to Jen’s allegations is below in article format for ease of reading:

Hi Jen- I’m the author of the article, and I’m happy to correct any factual or biblical mistakes. For others reading this who’d like to follow along, Jen is saying my article on her contains “basic factual errors in it … To say nothing of something that misrepresents a fellow believer’s character and actions”.

I apologize for the length of this answer, but I wanted to address all of your concerns clearly, accurately, biblically, and citing sources:

“Comment re: the NLT is inaccurate. I have said that in ref to earlier versions (pre-2004), but haven’t said it in years.”

First, this is a quote from an email I received from a reader commenting on your book 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ. I introduced the quote by saying, “Jen’s older books and Bible study materials have a reputation for being generally doctrinally sound.” (I also linked to a positive review on my blog of your book Women of the Word in which I actually recommended [at that time] that my readers buy themselves a copy of it. The reader’s quote begins:

“…in the foreword Jen wrote, ‘a paraphrase, such as the NLT or The Message, can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.’…”

I checked the most recent version of your book (2024 edition; sample on Amazon), of 1 Peter: A Living Hope in Christ, and you’re correct, you’ve removed the part about the NLT. The quote now says, “a paraphrase, such as The Message, can be useful but should be regarded as a commentary rather than a translation.”. 

My guess is that you removed “the NLT [New Living Translation]” because it’s considered a translation, not a paraphrase. Is that correct? If not, please feel free to explain. I’m glad to add a note to the article saying that you’ve removed the phrase “the NLT” from that sentence in later editions, and if you have a link to an article or other material that explains why you removed it, I’ll be happy to add that link as well.

So just to clarify here, the quote from your book (in which you mistakenly called the NLT a “paraphrase”) actually is accurate. You are the one who changed it in later editions, presumably to correct your error. So this is not, in fact, a “factual error”. The reader’s quote was accurate.

However, the primary concern here is not that you mistakenly called the NLT a “paraphrase” instead of a translation (if that’s why you removed the part about the NLT), or even that you recommended the NLT. The primary concern is that you recommended – and, apparently, STILL recommend- The Message, one of the worst, most grossly inaccurate “paraphrases” out there, written by Eugene Peterson, who, along with mangling the text of Scripture, wrote a cover endorsement for the heresy-laden book, “The Shack,” and said he would officiate a same sex wedding.

But you still cite The Message as an acceptable paraphrase to use. So that part is factually correct.

Your next concern was: “I am not described as a preacher on the GCD website.”

Here, you’re misquoting me and either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the article actually says (so you’re the one guilty of a “basic factual error” in this case).

The article contains a screenshot of the GCD (Gospel Centered Discipleship) web page picturing you and describing the event, and quotes directly from that web page. This is the actual quote from my article:

“…the Gospel Centered Discipleship “Preaching Cohort” in which Jen is a “Coach”. She (along with the other coaches) is described as a “seasoned Bible preacher and teacher,” and will be coaching pastors “on the calling and craft of preaching”.

The point of these two sentences is that you will be instructing pastors on how to be better pastors/preachers, when this is unbiblical and you have no place doing so. Neither of these sentences says that GCD called you, specifically, a “preacher”. (Additionally, albeit tangentially: just from a logical perspective, why would GCD engage someone who isn’t a pastor and isn’t qualified to be a pastor to instruct pastors about being better pastors? That’s like a hospital hiring someone who isn’t a doctor and isn’t qualified to be a doctor to instruct doctors about being better doctors.)

Finally, you said, “I have never said the Bible whispers about sexual sin.”

In this instance, you’re correct. Here’s what I said in the article: “And remember when J.D. Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, got himself into all kinds of hot water for saying in a sermon, “The Bible whispers about sexual sin.“? He was quoting Jen Wilkin…” 

My statement was based on a misunderstanding of JD’s quote in the video of his sermon. He was quoting you when he said, “We ought to whisper about what the Bible whispers about and we ought to shout about what it shouts about,” but then added HIS OWN thought to the end of that quote, and HE stated his opinion that “the Bible appears more to whisper when it comes to sexual sin compared to it shouts about materialism and religious Pride”.

I apologize for getting that wrong. I’ll be glad to remove that small section entirely. I’ll make a note in the article, and explain publicly on social media, how I got that wrong, along with a public apology to you, both in the article and on my other social media platforms. I’m very sorry for my mistake there.

“I’ve also been clear about my complementarianism on more podcasts than I can count.”

Yes, you’ve said you’re a complementarian, but as I accurately explained in the article, you’re not using the original definition of “complementarian”. You’re using the current, twisted definition of complementarian, i.e. women can do anything in the church that men can do except hold the office of pastor. That’s what used to be called “soft complementarianism” or “narrow complementarianism” and it is functional egalitarianism. I’m not the one in “factual error” here.

Calling yourself a “complementarian” and using that twisted definition is -whether you intend it to be or not, and I’m assuming “not”- deceptive and misleading. It’s similar (I’m using this strictly as an analogy, not accusing you of heresy) to Mormons saying, “We believe in Jesus,” when the Mormon version of Jesus is very different from what Scripture says about Jesus.

Furthermore, as a Southern Baptist, I’m sure you’ve heard (as have I), our leadership say regarding women preaching to men, “The function IS the office,” meaning that a woman functioning in the role of pastor -i.e. preaching- is usurping the office of pastor, as Dr. Albert Molher explains here in refutation of the definition of “complementarianism” you espouse, namely, that “a woman ought to be able to do…or authorized to do everything a non-ordained man can do.”

“There’s an assumption of motive in several places, a tendency to sensationalize…”

This is your personal, subjective opinion, not a “factual error”. 

You’ll need to specifically quote at least one of these “several places”. And I would remind you that what you characterize as “assumption of motive” the Bible would likely characterize as, “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45) and/or “You will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16, 20). But until you cite a specific “assumption of motive/tendency to sensationalize” we can’t know for sure, I can’t apologize if something is, in fact, an unbiblical “assumption of motive,” or “sensationalism,” and this is an unsubstantiated accusation. 

“an extremely broad use of the term “preach”

No broader than the Bible’s definition. The actual prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, as I’m sure you know, is against women “teaching” men. Preaching is just one form of teaching. 

“I don’t expect that we would agree on the definition of preaching, but I do have one that falls well within comp boundaries.”

As evidenced by the fact that you preach to men, your definition of preaching falls well within the aforementioned current twisting of “complementarian” boundaries: functional egalitarianism, which unbiblically allows women to preach to men. 

There is no definition of women preaching to men that falls within traditional complementarian boundaries because traditional complementarianism – which simply describes what the Bible says about the role of women in the church- does not allow women to preach to men.

“Rather than engage with those differing definitions,”

I did “engage with those differing definitions”. I compared your so-called “complementarian” definition of preaching to men – i.e. “it’s OK for women to preach to men” – to Scripture. Scripture forbids this. Engagement over.

“she simply characterizes me as ‘preaching to men’” 

I didn’t “characterize” you as preaching to men, I flat out stated a fact: You preach to men. There’s plenty of evidence of it in the article. If you’re going to preach to men why not just proudly and unashamedly say so and clearly enumerate your reasons for doing so, rather than preaching to men and then going around and saying, “I’m not really preaching to men, I’m really a complementarian.”? If it’s OK for you to preach to men, you should be able to easily back up that assertion with clear, rightly handled (2 Timothy 2:15), in context Scripture.

“and a ‘functional egalitarian’” 

You are. When you function like an egalitarian by preaching to men, you’re a functional egalitarian.

“in an effort to discredit my ministry to women.”

Your “ministry to women” should be discredited because you’re teaching them to disobey Scripture. Every time you stand up and preach to men, your behavior is teaching women (and men) that if they come to a command of Scripture they don’t like (like 1 Timothy 2:12), they’re free to ignore it and disobey it. That teaching is false doctrine and a defiance of Scripture, and should, therefore, be discredited (and that’s only one of the points in the article – I’ve cited many other reasons why your ministry should be discredited).

“This is, at best, a shallow engagement with my position.”

No it isn’t. Your position is in direct conflict with the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. Concisely demonstrating that (and linking to two other articles refuting your position and explaining at length what the Bible says about the role of women in the church) is not “shallow engagement”.

“Preaching is done by a particular person in a particular context, that is, by the pastor/elder/qualified man in the Sunday gathering.”

Where does the Bible specifically say that, rightly handled and in context? Chapter and verse, please.

“My perspective is that I should be in glad submission to my elders. Here is the position paper that informs their approach:”

Christians are first and foremost to be in glad submission to Scripture, because Scripture is infallible and perfect, and elders – as your pastor, Matt Chandler, has amply demonstrated over the last several years – are not.

So if your elders are not upholding what Scripture teaches, and you are submitting to them, both you and your elders are in disobedience to Scripture, which is the standard for Christians.

Nevertheless, in the document you cited, your own elders say this:

So your own elders say that publicly preaching the Word to the gathering of the church is restricted to men.

We often have to clarify to Believers and unbelievers alike that the “church” is not the building we meet in, it’s the people – Christians. So whenever Christians are gathered for the purpose of worship, instruction in the Scriptures, etc., it is a gathering of the church, and the prohibition of women teaching men applies.

But, in any event, the document makes clear on p. 55 that this is the position of “the role of women at The Village Church.” My article doesn’t deal with you preaching at TVC, but at other gatherings of the church outside TVC, so TVC’s policy for TVC is irrelevant to those events.

“The short version [of the TVC document] is that any gathering that is not the Sunday gathering does not require to be taught by an elder.”

I didn’t see that statement or any statement similar to that in the document, but I may have missed it. What page is that on? 

“That being said, my ministry is primarily to women, so mixed gatherings are pretty rare.”

1. “Rare” does not equal “not sinful”. You still need to repent of preaching to men and stop doing it.

2. It doesn’t look “rare” considering all of the instances I’ve cited in the article (and including any instances I may have missed and haven’t included).

3. It isn’t “rare,” as though you used to preach to men and no longer do. This is something you’re continuing to do and currently doing. The GCD Cohort in which you’ll be unbiblically instructing pastors started less than three weeks ago.

So, to summarize, you found one actual error of fact in this entire, lengthy article (which I apologized for and will gladly delete and explain to my audience). The remainder of the article – dealing with far more than you’ve brought up here – is correct and is not “basic factual errors” or a “misrepresentation” of your “character and actions”.

And by implying that the article, overall, consists of “basic factual errors” and “misrepresents [your] character and actions,” you have actually misrepresented my character and actions.

But all of that aside, what’s more important here is you. I care about you, and I hate to see you going down the same road that so many of your Lifeway Women compatriots – like Beth Moore, Lysa TerKeurst, Priscilla Shirer, etc. – have gone. 

I have taken a moment to pray for you, and, in love, I urge you to repent of the sins of preaching to men, yoking with false teachers, and the other things I’ve cited in the article, for the glory of God, for the good of your own soul before Christ, and for the biblical discipleship of your followers.

Additional Resources:

The Troubling Trajectory of Jen Wilkin at Center for Baptist Leadership

Talk Back: Jen Wilkin and The Gospel Coalition at A Word Fitly Spoken

TGCW24- Mark and Avoid

Articles on Jen Wilkin by Elizabeth Prata

Lifeway Women

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Husbands, pastors, and mentors- Which roles do they play in a Christian woman’s life?

Michelle Lesley

 

I have three questions that are kind of related to each other:

1 Corinthians 14:35 says women should ask their husbands questions at home; how does this fit with women mentoring other women in Titus 2?

Where does a husband’s role end and where does the role of a godly older woman begin in terms of teaching younger women?

Are there areas where a pastor’s authority trumps a husband’s authority?

Thank you for your help.

These are really awesome questions. I love it when women ask questions that demonstrate that they’re digging into Scripture and thinking deeply about the things of God. It’s so exciting to me!

(Before I begin answering, let me just stipulate, as I usually do in articles about marriage, that the following statements assume a normal, relatively healthy, average marriage, not abusive marriages, extremely aberrant marriages, etc. Also, it’s not my intent to leave out my single sisters, but the reader asked specifically about married women, so that’s how I’m answering the questions.)

So let’s take each question separately…

1 Corinthians 14:35 says women should ask their husbands questions at home; how does this fit with women mentoring other women in Titus 2:3-5?

The first thing we need to do when we’re addressing questions like this is to look at each of these passages in context. This is a very simple study skill that will clear up nearly all instances of supposed contradictions in Scripture.

Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. What is the venue for Paul’s instructions in this passage? In other words, is he telling people how to behave at home? At work? At the movies? Look at the key phrases in verses 26 (“when you come together”) and 28,33b-35 (“in church”). Paul is giving instructions for how an orderly worship service is to be conducted. He is not making a blanket statement that any time any woman wants to know anything about Scripture or God or life in general that the only person she can ever ask questions of is her husband. What he’s saying is that in order to avoid chaos in the worship service, women are to sit down and be quiet during the preaching and teaching, rather than interrupting to comment or ask questions (one of the reasons Paul says this is that the women in the Corinthian church were doing just that – interrupting the preaching and teaching with questions and comments). If you read further in chapter 14, you’ll notice he places similar restrictions on prophesying and speaking in other languages to prevent chaos and confusion during the worship service. I’ve discussed this passage in further detail in my article Rock Your Role ~ Order in His Courts: Silencing Women?

Now read Titus 2. What’s the main idea of this chapter? Is it the same as the main idea of 1 Corinthians 14 – instructions for an orderly worship service? No. Verse 12 gives a nice summary of chapter 2: “renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.” That’s what this chapter is about. “Titus, here’s what your church members (and you) are to do and how they’re to conduct themselves as they go about the business of living as Christians in this world and in community with one another.” The older women teaching and training the younger women in verses 3-5 is not taking place during the worship service, but as these women go about daily life with one another. Today, this kind of teaching and training takes place in women’s Bible study classes, women’s fellowship groups, and in one on one discipleship, not in, nor instead of, the gathering of the whole church for worship.

So as we can see when we examine the context of both passages, 1 Corinthians 14:35 and Titus 2:3-5 are not in conflict, they’re actually in harmony, addressing two distinct ways women are to conduct themselves in two completely different venues.

 

Where does a husband’s role end and where does the role of a godly older woman begin in terms of teaching younger women?

I don’t think it’s really that discrete and linear, i.e. the husband teaches this list of topics the wife needs to be taught about and the godly older woman teaches that list of topics she needs to be taught about, and never the twain shall meet. It’s a much more informal and “whatever is needful at the moment” type of thing. Additionally, it’s going to vary from marriage to marriage. Some women have unsaved husbands. Some women are newly saved with husbands who have been saved for decades. Some husbands and wives are very private about everything, some are very open to others. So the balance between who (husband or older woman mentor) teaches what, and how much, and when, is going to look different in every marriage.

I would just offer a few guidelines:

• After your relationship with Christ, if you’re married, your highest allegiance is to your husband. He should be your best friend and first confidant, not a woman who’s mentoring you (or even your mother, sister, or female best friend). He should never feel like he’s in competition for your time, interest, or affinity with the woman who’s mentoring you, or that you esteem her on the same (or, perish the thought, higher) level of loyalty or emotional intimacy with him. If you’ve gotten that close to your mentor, you’re too close. Turn your attention toward your husband.

• Along those same lines, always keep in mind that God instructs you to submit to your husband, not your mentor. The only time you should ever follow your mentor’s advice over your husband’s desires is if your husband is asking you to do something the Bible clearly calls sin and your mentor is advising you to obey Scripture instead. (But even in that case, you’re not really choosing your mentor over your husband, you’re choosing to obey God rather than to sin.)

• There are some things that are private between a husband and wife that shouldn’t be shared with anyone, including a mentor. Which things? Again, that’s going to vary from marriage to marriage, but a few no no’s might include the private details of your sex life, your finances, and anything your husband would be embarrassed for someone else to know. Talk with your husband and ask if there’s anything he would rather you didn’t share with your mentor.

 

Are there areas where a pastor’s authority trumps a husband’s authority?

It really depends on what you have in mind when you ask that question.

If you’re talking about personal decisions made between a husband and wife, let’s say, for instance, whether or not to move to a certain part of town or whether or not the wife should take a part time job, it is not the pastor’s place to step in and overrule the husband’s decision, nor should the pastor have any expectation that the couple would obey any edicts he issues. If the couple goes to him for counseling or asks for his advice, he can certainly give it, but we never see any place in Scripture where a pastor has authority over another family’s decisions. The husband is responsible before God for leading his family, not the pastor.

But if you’re talking about a situation in the church, then yes, a pastor’s (or the elders’) authority – assuming he’s abiding by Scripture – trumps a husband’s authority, and pretty much every other church member’s authority as well. For example, a husband does not have the authority to walk up to the pastor and say, “I’m going to let my wife preach the sermon next Sunday,” or “My wife is going to take over this Sunday School classroom and use it as her personal office.”. If a husband were to say something like that, the pastor is well within his authority as shepherd of the church to say, “Oh no she’s not.”. The buck stops with the pastor when it comes to how the church runs, and he is responsible before God for making godly decisions for the church.

I’m aware that there are aberrant, fringe “churches” (many of them are some stripe of New Apostolic Reformation or extreme legalism/fundamentalism) out there in which the “pastor” has ultimate authority over every decision a family makes: where they live, how many children they have, what to name their children, whether and where each spouse should work, etc. If you’re in a so-called church like that, leave immediately and find a doctrinally sound church to join. A church doesn’t plunge to that depth of spiritual abuse without succumbing to other dangerous false doctrines along the way.

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

Mythbusting Complementarianism: 4 Truths Egalitarians Need to Know About Complementarian Women

Michelle Lesley

I am often frustrated in my role as a complementarian¹ woman. I am not frustrated by what God teaches in the Bible about my roles in the home and the church. I am not frustrated in carrying out those roles. I am not frustrated by complementarian men.

I am frustrated by egalitarians – most of the ones who have crossed my path, anyway – because of the incorrect assumptions they make about me and other complementarian women².

And it’s not just that the assumptions are wrong, it’s that the assumptions are often hypocritically, “log in the eye,” wrong. Then, they turn around and use these false assumptions as reasons to fight against complementarianism. But the reasons don’t exist. They’re shadow boxing. Fighting against a ghost. If you’re going to fight for something, your fight should at least be based on legitimate reasons.

I’m under no delusions that this article will change the hearts and minds of egalitarians, but if I could, here’s what I’d try to help them understand…

1.
It’s a spiritual issue.

I know this isn’t going to be popular. I know I’m going to be called judgmental and harsh and any number of other printable and unprintable names, but I’m going to say this anyway because this is the crucial element on which this entire complementarian vs. egalitarian argument rests.

This is a spiritual issue. It’s not an oppressors versus victims issue, it’s not about power or position or circumstances or legalism or casting off shackles. It’s not about any of those visible, tangible, surface level things we think it’s about. This goes beyond the earthly realm and has its foundation in the invisible, spiritual realm. The reason you hold the positions and opinions you hold as an individual is based on one thing – your relationship with God. This is a me versus God issue. Do you love and obey God as a genuinely regenerated Christian, or do you reject Him and rebel against His commands as someone who is still lost?

The Bible makes crystal clear from Genesis to Revelation that people who genuinely know and love God obey Him, and that if you don’t obey Him, you don’t know Him or love Him. Over and over and over again we see this through Israel’s countless cycles of idolatry and the prophets calling them to repentance in the Old Testament, to John’s near broken-record repetition of the theme in the New Testament. Scripture is clear. Love of God and obedience to God are inextricably and irreducibly intertwined.

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

Additionally, if you’re not saved – a “natural man” – the things of God are folly to you. It’s not that you’re smarter or enlightened or have a different opinion than those who obey Scripture. It’s that you’re spiritually incapable of accepting, embracing, and obeying what God has told you to do. That’s why you see those of us who do as fools.

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

Let me say it plainly. If your general trajectory in life is to consistently find yourself angered by, indifferent to, or unable to accept the plain meaning of Scripture, and your heart persists in fighting back against God’s Word even if you’ve been biblically corrected, you are almost certainly not saved.³ That’s not me saying that. That’s a whole lot of Scripture saying that. Regardless of how saved you feel. Despite what you may claim to be. No matter what people have told you about your salvation. God says loving Him equals walking with Him toward embracing, loving, and obeying His commands. And that includes His commands about the roles of men and women.

This is the fundamental reason most egalitarians disagree with most complementarians. It’s usually not that either side doesn’t understand what the other side stands for. It’s that both sides generally do understand what the other side stands for and they reject the other side’s view because of where they are, spiritually.

(Addendum: After I published this article, a few people responded who seemed to misunderstand what I’ve said in this paragraph. Let me see if I can clarify:

1) You’ll notice I’ve used words/phrases (“most egalitarians,” “general trajectory,” “almost certainly,” etc.) indicating that this is a broad, general principle, not something that is universally deterministic about every single individual who has ever had an egalitarian-esque thought cross her mind.

2) I am not saying that holding to an egalitarian viewpoint is what makes someone unsaved. Rejecting the gospel is what makes someone unsaved. What I am saying is that most people who are already false converts gravitate toward the egalitarian viewpoint as a fruit of the pre-existing condition of being unsaved. It is a logical fallacy to turn that statement around and assume I mean the converse to be true.

3) I certainly believe it is possible for genuinely regenerated Christians to have good faith, incorrect interpretations or understandings of Scripture – starting with me. When my husband and I picked out wedding vows 26 years ago, I flatly refused to use any set of vows that said I would “obey” him and only grudgingly agreed to a set that used the word “submit” instead. Embarrassingly, in our wedding video, you can clearly hear me hesitate before repeating that part of the vows. About 10-15 years ago I held a position of local denominational leadership that I’m only now beginning to see I probably, in some respects, shouldn’t have held. One reason for that is that on two or three occasions the position required me to speak to local congregations during their midweek services on a biblical topic which could not be properly addressed without explaining Scripture. Do I think I was unsaved because I thought those things were OK at the time? Of course not. But I’ll tell you this – over time, the Holy Spirit convicted me of those things and I repented. And as I’ve grown in Christ my rebellious attitudes and misunderstandings of those Scriptures and others have increasingly come under submission to God’s Word.

That’s the kind of thing we’re talking about here – the general biblical principle that saved people are on a trajectory of increasing holiness and Christlikeness. Lost people are on a trajectory of increasing disobedience and rebellion (and not strictly with regard to egalitarian ideas). It is possible to be a saved, simul justus et peccator, growing in holiness, desiring to please the Lord, Christian and get some non-soteriological things wrong along the way, in good faith, in the process of growing. What is not possible is for someone to be genuinely regenerated and live in a general attitude of heart-rebellion against God, His Word, and His ways (His ways in general, not strictly egalitarianism) in favor of doing life on her own terms. I don’t know how to make that more clear. That is what the Bible teaches.

4) I clearly made the statement that this article pertains to “most of the [egalitarians] who have crossed my path”. I guess what I did not make clear is that most of the egalitarians who have crossed my path have not been the small minority of genuinely regenerated Christians who have made a good faith error about Scripture’s teaching on the role of women as they’re growing in Christ. That might be your experience, but it has not been mine. Most of the egalitarians who have crossed my path have clearly been of the vast majority of egalitarians who have come to that position, as I explained above, as a result of being false converts. And it shows in their demeanor as they mock the authority of God’s Word in general, lash out in rage, blaspheme, swear, and slander, and generally display the opposite of the Fruit of the Spirit.

5) As I’ve stated many, many times in my articles, the Bible is our authority as Christians, not a pastor or Christian leader who holds a particular position, not your loved ones who are in error but you’re certain they love Jesus, not any church or denominational structure or position that conflicts with Scripture – the Bible. If you are going to argue against a biblical principle, you need to support your argument with rightly handled, in context Scripture, not examples of fallible human beings – however godly or well-intentioned they might be. Scripture is our standard, not people.)

2.
Complementarian women don’t feel
oppressed and downtrodden.

Obviously I can’t speak for every complementarian woman out there, but I can say that of the dozens of women I know personally and the thousands who have followed me online for the last eleven years, and speaking for myself, I have never met a single, genuinely regenerated, complementarian woman who felt diminished, held back, chained up, or walked all over by the role God lays out for us in Scripture.

Do we sometimes sin by thinking and acting selfishly? Yep. Have there been husbands, pastors, and other men who have sinned against us? Of course. Do we have a bad day from time to time? Naturally. But none of that changes our delight in our role itself. Even people who have their dream jobs have nightmare moments, but there’s still nothing on the planet they’d rather do. Nothing that makes them feel more alive and fulfilled. And that’s generally how complementarian women feel about our job – maybe even more so, because it’s not just a job, it’s a calling from God Himself. And nobody has a better Boss than we do.

We don’t need your pity, egalitarians, any more than a kid in a candy store needs to be pitied. And we don’t need to be rescued, just like you wouldn’t think of trying to rescue a child from Disneyland. We’re not sitting around saying, “Woe is me,” and feeling like we’re losing out on life. For us, keeping God’s commands about our role is a delight and a joy, because we love Him:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:3

for I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. Psalm 119:47

No one is happier, more fulfilled, or more content in life than the Christian who is living in the will of God by obeying Him. No one is more miserable than a false convert who is trying to obey God through sheer force of will, or a genuine Christian living in disobedience to God’s commands.

And if all of that seems foreign or ridiculous, folly or foolishness to you, unfortunately, you’re bearing out the biblical truth I explained in section 1 of this article.

3.
Complementarian women aren’t brainwashed.

Probably the most hypocritical sexist viewpoint of egalitarians is that they assume that Christian women couldn’t possibly have come to the complementarian worldview via our own study, intellect, will, and choice. We must have been brainwashed into it by sexist, misogynistic, abusive complementarian men. But if we could somehow manage to understand the viewpoint delivered by our egalitarian saviors, we’d see the light, cast off the shackles, and be set free from all that’s holding us back.

I’m not making that up. That’s essentially the diatribe I received from one of Beth Moore’s followers recently (and I’ve heard it plenty of times before). Beth had said on Twitter that the reason she was receiving so much pushback from Christians following her announcement that she would be preaching the Sunday morning service at a local church was because sexist men were just trying to protect their positions and power. To which I responded, “What about the pushback you’re receiving from complementarian women? Are we sexist and trying to protect positions and power, too?” No, her follower angrily replied, you’ve just be brainwashed by those men.

If egalitarians can’t see how arrogant, hypocritical, and sexist it is to stand on a pedestal and declare that they’re the ones who will empower women, ensure that women are heard and valued for their independent ideas and unique contributions, and then turn around and condescendingly assume that women who have used those very independent minds they themselves tout to reach a non-egalitarian conclusion are brainwashed, I’m at a loss as to how to explain it. It’s like trying to prove water exists to someone who’s sitting in a lake while drinking a glass of ice water.

Complementarian women are not brainwashed into our worldview. We are convinced by the study of Scripture and our love for God that His plan for men and women is best, beneficial, and a blessing.

4.
Complementarian women aren’t
limited or lesser, we’re specialists.

Oh, that poor cardiologist! He’s so limited in his profession. If only he could be a General Practitioner!

I just feel terrible for that guy – he only practices civil law! He doesn’t know what he’s missing by not also practicing criminal, personal injury, estate, real estate, corporate, family, and malpractice law!

If you ever had the misfortune of hearing someone say something so ridiculous, you’d probably think she was a little off her nut. In the professional world, we normally regard specialty positions as more prestigious than more generalized positions (not that that’s right – general medicine, law, etc. are equally important). Specialists usually go to school longer and have a unique skill set for a unique segment of the population. General practitioners don’t have the luxury of focusing on a more narrow field of study. They have to be a jack of all trades – all things to all people.

But somehow, for egalitarians, that concept doesn’t translate to complementarianism. In the complementarian church, male pastors, elders, and teachers are the general practitioners. Women are the specialists. We specialize in discipling women and children, because we have a unique, God-given skill set for ministering to that unique segment of the population. God has given us the luxury and freedom to concentrate on this population He has called us to serve without the added burden of also having to teach, disciple, and oversee men.

It’s much the same in the complementarian home. The husband is like the CEO of the family. The buck stops with him. Every. single. buck. The house. The wife. The kids. The car. The yard. The bills. Everybody’s health. The extended family. The spiritual leadership. Church involvement. Provision. Decisions. Everything is ultimately on his shoulders. This leaves the wife free to specialize in being the COO of the family – day to day, boots on the ground operation of the household – an equally important position, which, again, she has a unique, God-given skill set for carrying out. While she and her husband certainly work together, God has given her the freedom and the luxury of passing everything that’s not under her purview up the chain of command for someone else to deal with. If she needs something in order to do her job, she has someone to turn to to provide it.

The egalitarian worldview looks down on women who specialize in discipling women and children in the church and being the chief operating officer in the home. Our teaching only has value if there are men in the audience, which reeks of sexism. As if men are the standard, the high bar to be set, the only ones whose mere bodily presence can validate a woman’s teaching and suddenly make it worthwhile. Who cares about teaching women and children? Men are the important ones. Our role at home is only a worthy and important one if we’re the ones calling all the shots at the macro level. Never mind that things actually have to get done and be overseen at the micro level in order for every member of the household, including the CEO, to live, grow, and flourish.

Specialties aren’t limiting or lesser. There’s an equally prestigious and necessary place for GPs and specialized medicine. For general law and specialty law. For CEOs and COOs. For complementarian men and complementarian women.

 

The egalitarian view does not value women as women. It only values women who are cheap knock-offs of men. Complementarians are the ones who value women as a separate, and equally significant, unique creation of God – not measured by how well we can imitate a man, but measured by how well we live up to all God created us to be as women. And we’re supposed to feel oppressed, limited, and lesser by that? We’d have to be brainwashed to love a worldview that values us for what we are, not for clawing and scraping toward some impossible standard and state of being God never created us to reach?

When you set men up as the standard and tell women they have to measure up to men to have any value, what you are is not egalitarian. What you are is sexist.

No thanks. I’ll take the complement.

¹Thanks to the advent of everything-but-the-pastoral-office “soft complementarianism” I should probably add an adjective, like “biblical complementarian,” but I’m not ready to concede the term yet. Complementarian means you embrace the full biblical teaching of the roles of women and men. If you compromise on that, you’re a functional egalitarian. We only need two terms.
²Egalitarians make incorrect assumptions about complementarian men, too, the main one being that they’re sexist, misogynistic, even abusive. Please. I’ll let complementarian men speak to that themselves, or this article will be way too long.
³Sometimes people who are genuinely saved worry that they’re not. If you’re concerned about your salvation, I encourage you to work through my study AM I REALLY SAVED?: A 1 JOHN CHECK-UP, and make an appointment with your pastor if you need counsel.
Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Counterarguments to Egalitarianism

Michelle Lesley

“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