Men, Women, and the Bible

Our studies in 1 Corinthians have prompted us to revisit the Bible’s teaching on man and woman in the life of the church.  Chapter 11 addressed gender-specific actions in worship:  women were to wear head-coverings when praying and prophesying; not doing so in the social setting of the time would have dishonored a married woman’s “head,” her husband (11:5).  Then ch. 14 indicated that women should “be silent” (14:34)—and yet we know this is not an absolute prohibition; it must be with respect to a certain type of speaking.  After all, 11:5 affirms women “praying and prophesying” in church (see also Acts 2:17, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”).  In all likelihood, “silence” in 14:34 is with reference to the “weigh­ing” of the prophets’ words (14:29):  the task of exam­ining and evaluating messages being shared in the church is one that falls ultimately to duly recognized leaders, ideally to male elders.

And where is it said that elders should be men?  We need to look at a couple of New Testament texts to address that question.  In 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.”  And this prohibition is grounded not in culturally relative factors (e.g., poor education for women, or patri­archal traditions) but in the pre-fall order of creation:  “Adam was formed first, not Eve” (v 13—so too 1 Cor 11:8-9, the fact that the woman was made from and for the man forms a basis for the man’s headship; it is not a matter of cultural customs, nor is male headship some regrettable result of the human fall into sin).

1 Timothy 3 then goes on to say that “overseers” (i.e., elders) must be “able to teach”:  teaching God’s Word is a primary responsibility of elders (3:2; cf. Titus 1:9).  And in 5:17 it is noted that elders are called upon to “rule” or govern well in their churches.  These duties are assigned not to deacons (see 3:8-13), but to elders.  As noted above, 1 Timothy 2:12 indicates that teaching and exercising author­ity over men in the church are roles restricted to (spiritually qualified) men, and 1 Timothy 3:2 and 5:17 show that precisely those two lead­ership actions set elders apart from deacons and other church members.  Thus the office of church elder is to be filled by (qualified, godly) men.

Here are two inferences NOT to draw from this line of reason­ing.  First, if a man is the “head” of his wife (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23), does that make him “king of the castle”?  No—completely wrong inter­pre­tation.  Ephesians 5:25 sets us straight:  “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”  In other words, biblical male headship means loving, serving, self-giving lead­ership that is ready to do anything—even die—for the good of the beloved.  Male chauvinism has no basis in Scrip­ture.

And second, do the unique roles the Lord assigns to men (as head in marriage, and for those men who are elders in the church) imply any kind of spiritual advantage or special status or “inside track” with the Lord?  Are women “second class citizens” in the church?  No—again, completely wrong interpretation.  Galatians 3:28 teaches plainly that, with respect to our spiritual need as lost sinners and our spiritual deliverance as those justified by God’s grace through faith, men and women are on an absolutely equal footing.  In this sense, “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.”

Now I am aware that in our day any viewpoint that questions the prevailing culturally “correct” ideology of lock-step egalitarianism will be rejected out of hand by many people.  And I also know that, for various reasons (some of them the fault of Christians), a lot of people will wrongly assume that the non-egalitarian roles for women and men I have described are “unfair,” “primitive,” and “barbaric” (to list of few of the popular accusations).

But who said that being the church was a popularity contest?  We should expect opposition when we seek to follow Scripture in areas where the world is going in a different direction.  The real question for us, and for any genuine church, is whether or not we accept the lordship of Christ and the authority of his Word.  Are we out to please social critics who always have their finger in the air to see which way the wind of trending thought is blowing, or to honor the Lord who loves us and to live by his timeless, truthful, inspired, life-giving Word?  I trust we would all choose the latter option.

One more question and a final caution.  First the question.  What might God be “up to” by establish­ing complementary and not strictly egalitarian roles for men and women in the church and in marriage?  Here’s my perspective:  It’s like a dance.  The dance of a man and a woman is beautiful because they do not have exactly the same steps.  The Christian “dance” of men and women allows men to display the self-giving love of Christ through kind-and-strong leadership for the good of the beloved, all to the honor of the Lord.  And the Christian “dance” of men and women allows women to display the self-giving love of Christ through kind-and-strong actions of support and affirmation toward men exercising godly leadership, all to the honor of the Lord.  The world around us expects everyone to demand their own rights and never to loosen their grip on self-interest.  But the way of Jesus means men and women dying to self-serving impulses and trusting the Lord as they love and bless one another.  And when the world sees the humble joy shining out from these Christian relationships, they will, by God’s grace, see a reflection of the Gospel:  it will call attention to the true love of Christ (Eph 5:25, 32).

Now a word of caution.  Even though the Bible indicates that men and women have complementary and not fully identical roles in the church and in marriage (i.e., roles that overlap a great deal but which are not strictly co-extensive), and even though the Lord sees fit to set certain limits for women in church leadership, we are not at liberty to generate additional rules or restrictions.  If God sets boundaries for us (whether gender-related or any other kind), we understand that God is wise and good, so we accept his design—and we make it our aim to honor him by implementing that design in our church life.  But we would go beyond our calling, and we would in fact be acting in defiance of the Lord, if we were to create additional prohibitions for women.  1 Corinthians 11:5 and Acts 2:17 teach that women should and do speak out in the context of the gathered church—to pray, to prophesy, to share how God is at work in their lives.  So even if final doctrinal guardianship is the duty of male elders, we must make sure to open the door of ministry to women as widely as it is opened by Scripture.  That is, as much as we are to apply God’s limits in relation to women in church leader­ship, we are also to apply God’s liberty given to women to speak and serve and bless the church body.

If you want to explore “complementarianism” (i.e., the view that men’s and women’s roles complement each other but are not identical), visit thegospelcoalition.org, 9marks.org, or desiringgod.org, and search on terms like “men,” “women,” “male,” and “female,” and follow the links that come up (see also cbmw.org).  Or, by contrast, for resources favoring “egalitarianism,” see cbeinternational.org.