Complementarianism

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

I am often frustrated in my role as a complementarianยน 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 womenยฒ.

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 โ€œI know himโ€ 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.ยณ 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 doย 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 amย 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,ย 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.ย Most of the egalitarians who have crossedย my path have clearly been of the vast majority of egalitarians who have come to that position, as I explained above, as aย 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, theย 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 – theย Bible. If you are going to argue against a biblical principle, you need to support your argument with rightly handled, in contextย Scripture, not examples of fallible human beings – however godly or well-intentioned they might be. Scripture is our standard, not people.)


2.
Complementarianย 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 ourย role itself.ย 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 ourย 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.


ยนThanks 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.
ยฒEgalitarians 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.
ยณSometimes people who are genuinely saved worry that they’re not. If you’re concerned about your salvation, I encourage you to work through my studyย AM I REALLY SAVED?: A 1 JOHN CHECK-UP,ย and make an appointment with your pastor if you need counsel.
Podcast Appearances

Voice of Reason Radio Podcast Guest Appearance

Voice of Reason Radio

 

It was such a pleasure to be a recent guest on the Voice of Reason Radio podcast. Chris Honholz, Rich Story, and I chatted about biblical womanhood, women’s ministry, Beth Moore, and more!

Voice of Reason Radio

Click here to listen in…

subscribe to the Voice of Reason Radio podcast, and don’t forget to follow VOR on Facebook and Twitter!


Got a podcast of your own or have a podcasting friend who needs a guest? Need a speaker for a womenโ€™s conference or church event? Click the โ€œSpeaking Engagementsโ€ tab at the top of this page, drop me an e-mail, and letโ€™s chat!

Complementarianism, Movies

Movie Tuesday: Battle for the Minds

Ladies- did you read yesterday’s Mailbag article, Counter Arguments to Egalitarianism? If not, I would encourage you to read it before watching today’s movie. And if you’re new to the complementarian vs. egalitarian kerfuffle, I would encourage you to read, not only that article, but all of the articles in the “Additional Resources” section of that article as well.

Why?

Because today’s Movie Tuesday movie, Battle for the Minds, approaches the issue from the egalitarian perspective, and you need to be sure you’re firmly grounded in the biblical perspective so that “no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Also, today’s movie is kind of like a homework assignment. How would you apply the complementarian apologetics you learned in yesterday’s article as well as your knowledge of Scripture to the egalitarian arguments and pronouncements being made in this movie?

Battle for the Minds was released on PBS in 1997. It presents the egalitarian viewpoint on the stage of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s transition from theological liberalism to biblical theological conservatism under the then-new leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler, and delves into a bit of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention around that time as well. (As an aside, I am not familiar with any of the people in the film presented as being on the egalitarian side except for Ann Graham Lotz. I’m only familiar with a few of those on the complementarian side: Albert Mohler, David Miller, and Paige Patterson.)

If you are Southern Baptist, I strongly encourage you to watch and carefully consider these events from our history in light of the battle we are now facing in the SBC concerning the role of women in the church and in the Convention. Because what Nancy Ammerman says at the 37:04 mark is correct. Since all SBC churches are autonomous, many Southern Baptists only concern themselves with their own churches and don’t trouble themselves to worry about what’s going on at the national level. But when you do this, you fail to take into consideration that what’s going on at the national level trickles down to your local church in the form of what’s being taught to your next pastor or staff member at our seminaries; the authors, musicians, and other content creators being sold (and not being sold) at LifeWay; the theology in the Sunday School and VBS curriculum your church uses, etc. It also affects the theology and ecclesiology our IMB and NAMB missionaries and church planters use and teach. And finally, the leadership and issues at the national level are the face the Southern Baptist Convention presents to the world.

But even if you’re not Southern Baptist, you will probably still find this movie informative to the way your own church or denomination is responding to the issue of the biblical role of women in the church.

A couple of things to be on the lookout for, and give consideration to, as you watch Battle for the Minds:

โ€ขNotice the amount of Scripture presented in the movie. Is any Scripture presented that backs up the egalitarian view? Is egalitarianism vs. complementarianism presented as a biblical and spiritual issue or an “our position vs. their position” issue?

โ€ขNote the sex of each person on the egalitarian side and the sex of each person on the complementarian side. Are any complementarian women presented? Do you think there were absolutely no women on the complementarian side of the issue when these events were transpiring? Do you see how the exclusion of complementarian women in this film gives the subtle illusion that a) all women are egalitarian, and b) the reason men are complementarian is because they’re sexist and trying to protect their power and position – the same argument people like Beth Moore are attempting to make today?* Do you think it was sexist to exclude women from the complementarian side?

*(Screenshot 1, 2)

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Counterarguments to Egalitarianism

“What are some of your favorite counterarguments to egalitarian theology?”ย 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.

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 orย 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 theย 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 sinย 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.


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.


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 โ€“ 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 โ€“ 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 โ€“ 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.


Another argument that often needs to be made is explaining the difference betweenย descriptive andย 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. Donโ€™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 Davidโ€™s and Solomonโ€™s lives and conclude that polygamy is Godโ€™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 Didnโ€™t Preach, Deborah Didnโ€™t Dominate, and Esther Wasnโ€™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.)


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 โ€“ not your pastor, your husband, your parents, your best friend, the Pope, nobody โ€“ has the authority to tell you that itโ€™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 itโ€™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 itโ€™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 itโ€™s OK.

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


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 eldershepherd 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


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.


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


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).


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.


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 Didnโ€™t Preach, Deborah Didnโ€™t Dominate, and Esther Wasnโ€™t an Egalitarian

Women Preaching: Itโ€™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 Womenโ€™s Ordination by Chris Rosebrough

Biblical Womanhood Bible Study

Imperishable Beauty: Lesson 14- A Beautiful Position in the Church

Previous Lessons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Read These Selected Scriptures

For the past few lessons, we’ve looked at biblical womanhood in the family. Today, we’ll begin looking at biblical womanhood in the church setting, examining the beautiful position God has given women in the gathering of the Body.

Questions to Consider

1. Read Galatians 3:28 (if you have a moment, read all of chapter 3 for a fuller view of the context). What does this verse, especially in light of the remainder of chapter 3, mean? What does it mean to be “one in Christ Jesus”? How does this verse speak to the concept of unity in the church? How does this verse speak to the equal value of every person in the eyes of God? When it comes to a soul being saved, is there any difference between a woman or man, slave or freeman, Jew or Greek? Do Greeks have to repent more than Jews? Does Jesus have to work harder to save women than men?

2.ย Briefly review the topics of lessons 4-9 (links above). Are any of these concepts (identity in Christ, being created by God, etc.) specific to one sex, or do they apply to all people? Make two lists: “Things Christians Are” and “Things Christians Do”. List about 5-10 things Christians are (ex: forgiven, ambassadors for Christ) and things Christians do (ex: pray, show mercy). Are any of the things you listed specific to men only or women only? Considering all the things the Bible says Christians are and Christians do, what would you estimate is the percentage of thingsย all Christians are to be and do versus the percentage of things that are only for men or only for women?

3. Examine the 1 Corinthians passage. Verse 33 is kind of the “theme verse” of 1 Corinthians 14. What is the main subject of this chapter? (Hint: See section heading here). What is the venue (home, church, marketplace, etc.) in which the instructions of chapter 14 apply? (33b) Briefly skim over the rest of chapter 14. What was the overall, “for the greater good,”ย reason for the instruction to women in v. 34-35? What were some other activities and people the Holy Spirit, via Paul, placed restrictions on in chapter 14? Why? What is the main priority of chapter 14? Does the instruction in 34-35 mean that women may never utter a word once they step through the doors of the church? How do you know that? Whatย do these instructions mean, and how do they apply to women in the church today? What do these instructions teach us about our responsibility to pay attention to the preaching and teaching of the Word and learn from it? How can this passage help us to see the value and edification in discussing the Scriptures at home with our husbands?

4. Go to the 1 Timothy and Titus passages by clicking on the “Read These Selected Scriptures” link at the top of today’s lesson. Recall that when the Bible was written, there were no chapter and verse numbers. (Those were added much later.) First Timothy and Titus would have read like one long, continuous letter or e-mail. Click on the “options” icon and uncheck the box next to “verse numbers”.

Now read the 1 Timothy passage, noting the flow of thought and how the end of chapter 2 is interconnected with chapter 3. What is the main idea of this passage? (OK, now click the verse numbers back on. :0)

What is the first word of verse 11? Think about women’s social status and value in Paul and Timothy’s culture, and in many cultures since that time, even today. Why does the Holy Spirit instruct pastors to “let” women learn? What does this teach us about the responsibility God places on us as women to learn His Word? Would you categorize verse 11 as a “do this” or “don’t do this” verse?

Examine verse 12. Is this mainly a “do this” or “don’t do this” verse? What two things does the Holy Spirit say women are not to do in the gathering of the church body? What does He say womenย are to do? Think about God’s nature and character. Does He ever give instructions arbitrarily or just to spoil our fun?ย Whyย does God give us commands and instructions, generally speaking? Are the instructions in verse 12 good for women and for the church?

Does God haveย to give us the reasons behind His instructions, or is “because I said so” sufficient reason for us to obey Him? Take a look at 13-14. God kindly gives not one, but two reasons for His instructions in verses 11-12. What are those two reasons? How do they fall in line with God’s design for male headship and leadership across biblical history in the hierarchical structures He has set up?

The 11-15 passage starts with a “do this” verse (11), followed by a “don’t do this” (12) “and here’s why” (13-14) section, then finishes up with another “do this” verse (15).

Verse 15 can be a little cryptic to us today because we equate the word “saved” with salvation. Does verse 15 mean that women gain salvation by having children? How do we know it doesn’t? The NASB helpfully, and more accurately, renders this word as “preserved“. We don’t feel it much today, but think about the stigma women (particularly Jewish women) carried at the time this was written simply because they were daughters of Eve. Paradise was lost and the curse of sin entered the world because of aย woman, many men thought, and they viewed and treated women accordingly. Yet who was chosen to bring the Messiah into the world? And following in her footsteps, a major way godly women can “save” or “preserve” the reputation, esteem, and value of womankind is to “continue in” what 3 godly character traits? (15) Because if they continue in those three godly character traits, they will be raising up a godly seedย to the Lord (even if the children they bear aren’t perfect like Mary’s child was :0)

So we’ve seen the position womenย are to occupy in the church, followed by the positions womenย aren’t to occupy, and that’s followed, in the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 passages by the p_____s m__ are to o____.

According to the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 passages, which positions are men to occupy in the church? What is an overseer? (Use your cross-references if necessary.) Go through these two passages circling any words or phrases that indicate that pastors, elders, and deacons are to be men. Are these positions open to all men in the church?

Examine each of the three sections (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 3:8-13, and Titus 1:5-9) individually. How could the wife of a pastor, elder, or deacon help him, or make things easier for him, to meet the biblical requirements for his office? (Ex: How could a pastor’s wife make it easier for him to be hospitable?)


Homework

If you’d like to dig deeper on some of these passages, you may enjoy reading the following articles from myย Rock Your Role series:

All Things Being Equal (Galatians 3:28)

Order in His Courts: Silencing Women? (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35)

Jill in the Pulpit (1 Timothy 2:11-12)


Suggested Memory Verse

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