On Women in Church Leadership

Recently pastor John MacArthur, known for lambasting those outside his particular stream of tradition, stirred controversy afresh over the question of women in leadership. At a conference to commemorate his 50 years in ministry, MacArthur was asked to participate in an exercise, to respond with whatever pops into his head when given two words (sketchy ground for anyone, but especially an influential figure!) The first two words given to MacArthur–– “Beth Moore.” To which MacArthur responded, “Go home” (his fans erupted in laughter). This followed on the heels of his denouncement of the Southern Baptist Convention for allowing women to teach men at the group’s 2019 annual meeting. MacArthur stated: “When you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority.”

Irrespective of where you land on whether women may hold positions of leadership in the church over men, I’d like to suggest three things: (1) we have a primary calling to be biblically faithful, not culturally relevant nor irrevocably bound to tradition for tradition’s sake; (2) we are called to exude a posture of love and humility, not contemptuousness and arrogance; and (3) answering this question from Scripture is not as simple as it may seem.

Every discussion on this question either begins or ends with a debate over Paul’s words to Timothy prohibiting women from “teach[ing] or exercise[ing] authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12). My aim here is not to argue for a specific position but to draw awareness to the interpretive challenges of this text. Pulling on the threads of this text is not an attempt to undermine the ‘authority of Scripture,’ even if it challenges our traditional views and leads us to nuance or completely change our position. Neither is appealing to exegetical research and discoveries in historical and socio-cultural background studies dismissive of tradition, but it’s part of what it means to be ‘biblical,’ in doing our best to understand the author’s words in its original context as we move toward how it remains the inspired word of God for us today.

First, we must acknowledge that this is the only occasion in the New Testament where women are explicitly prohibited from operating in a position of leadership over men. Outside of the priesthood of Israel in the Old Testament, there is no indication that women were excluded from general leadership roles. In fact, there are many places where women are represented in such roles (Exodus 15:20-21; Judges 4:1-7; 2 Samuel 14; 2 Kings 11; 2 Kings 22:11-20; John 4:28-29, 39-42; Mark 16:1-8; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Romans 16:1-2 [Phoebe, a deacon, who delivered the letter. Historically, the one who delivered the letter was entrusted with the responsibility of reading and responding to any questions arising concerning the contents of the letter]; Romans 16:7). One question that arises here is that, if Paul’s instruction to Timothy applies to all women, for all time, irrespective of cultural context–– then what do we do with such examples where women led, taught, and exercised authority over men? Any attempt to qualify such cases would require going beyond the ‘plain reading’ of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and these other texts, right?

Secondly, we must acknowledge that where one lands on this issue, whether on the strongly prohibitive or generally permissive ends of the spectrum, does not necessarily make their position more or less ‘biblical,’ much less heretical. Simply put, we do not ground substantial doctrines (beliefs essential to salvation) in a single text. Period. No matter how hard this pill might be to swallow, we must allow for a healthy degree of tension on such matters in elevating our unity in Christ over and above our interpretive and theological disagreement. In short, one’s view on this matter DOES NOT determine whether they are ‘in’ or ‘out.’

Thirdly, the text of 1 Timothy 2:12 is subject to several interpretive challenges, both on its own and further, as you begin evaluating the text from the top-down (from the broader context of the letter down to the immediate context of the passage). We must take into consideration the issues influencing Paul’s writing to Timothy here, the purpose(s) and general tone of the letter, the cultural-historical context of Ephesus, the structure of these early house-churches, and so on–– all basic questions of interpretation.

Exegetically, the translation of the Greek word for “authority” (authentein) has been heavily debated, as this is the only place in the NT the word is used. Up until Paul, throughout Classical Greek literature, the word carried a negative connotation: ‘to take control;’ ‘dominate;’ or ‘gain the upper hand over another.’ If this is how Paul is using it (which may be the case, being that he is addressing false teaching and misconduct throughout the letter), this adds a contextual layer to Paul’s statement. There are other Greek words Paul regularly used to express the ordinary exercise of authority. For example, just before this in 2:2 he uses hyperochē, in urging prayer “for kings and all those in authority”; or more commonly, Paul used the word exousia, in Romans 13:1; 1 Corinthians 7:4; 2 Corinthians 10:8; and Titus 3:1, to refer to the general exercise of authority. So, what compelled Paul to depart from his typical manner of speaking and use authentein on this occasion?

Could it be possible that Paul uses authentein intentionally as strong corrective for a specific set of circumstances, rather than a universal principle applying to all women, everywhere, for all time? Some have suggested that Paul had specific women in mind in Ephesus, who were forcefully undermining or taking authority from men. This wouldn’t be far off from his corrective in 2:9-10, the specifics of which we have no problem dismissing as culturally bound (thus, not for us today).

In addition, some argue that it’s grammatically possible that Paul may not be prohibiting two distinct activities (teaching and exercising authority) but a specific function or role (“authoritative-teaching” as a role of principal authority), such as taken up by the role of ‘Elder’ that Paul describes in the next chapter. “Elders” (aka “overseers”; “stewards”) were called to govern the affairs of the local house-churches, as the principal authority over the affairs of that community. This difference could mean that it is possible for women to lead and teach over men, permitting that they do so under a type of principal authority (e.g., lead pastor; Elder-board; or within trans-local authority structures), or even outside of an organizational authority structure (such as Beth Moore is known for as an author and conference speaker).

In the next post, we will consider the influence of culture on translation, whether Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve unequivocally establishes Paul’s prohibition as a timeless truth, and to what degree gender roles are assigned in the creation narrative.