I was too many years old when I realized that our contemporary understanding of pastoral roles wasn’t functionally operative in early church. That really does change the whole conversation. Or at least it should. Unfortunately, for all the talk of a commitment to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic among my hard-core complementarian friends, there’s very little regard for the “historical” part.
I’m so very glad to see younger women learning this now. I’m in my late 50’s and just now understanding the freedom we have in Christ as women to serve. I’m starting seminary this fall.
God bless you! I started at 47 and graduated 7 years later. And after I graduated two of my professors invited me to be a teaching assistant. One of the best times in my life, and I had classmates male and female my age. It wasn’t always easy but having had so much more life experience helped me enjoy it all the more.
Excellent overview here. I love your approach. I think you and I have some overlap in our evangelical upbringing (spent 2 years at a Foursquare Christian school where women were in leadership and the rest of the time in churches/schools on the complementarian spectrum).
One of the most overlooked pieces of "evidence" for women in all levels of church leadership is exactly how you came at it: look at what they are doing, not just what is said. It's very easy to pull categorical theology from Paul's letter to support pet arguments, but it's harder to ignore Paul's relationships with women--how he treats/interacts with/talks about individual women like Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe, Junia, etc.
Also, I think there is some merit in extending your argument from silence (yeah, I know they can be weak) to discussions on women elders. The position of elders is really the only leadership office discussed in much detail. (Obviously, there are apostles and church hosts but it's not completely clear from scripture alone what duties were involved). It seems Paul's two discourses on elders (1 Timothy and Titus) assume male elders but do not expressly prohibit women elders. If female elders were anathema or a practice utterly disgusting to God, I would have expected to see prohibition language (as we do with other behaviors/practices) --especially in the 1 Timothy passage which follows the Paul's exhortation for not letting a woman teach abusively, which addresses the manner not the practice. Context matters and if Paul was going to say women shouldn't hold positions of church leadership anywhere, it would be in Ephesus.
On that note, have you read Sandra Glahn's new book on Artemis?? :)
YES to all of this (except the Artemis book - I haven't read it yet)! BUT I was in my mid-40s, post Bible college, post Christian uni, post seminary, before I learned that Titus 2:3 actually has πρεσβῦτις (female of root presbyter) translated "older women" when just a few verses earlier in the same section 1:5 πρεσβύτερος is translated "elders."
!!!!!!!!!! Not enough exclamation points. I am with you - I think that if this was a first order universal doctrine we would have more than a handful of verses to specific contexts. I also find it so fascinating that ppl insistent on this ignore other kind of similar single verse distinctions (baptism for the dead anyone?) or even parts of what we do get in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council (meat strangled and from blood).
Have you read any of Philip Payne's work on this? It was SO helpful for me.
Oh yes! Thank you for reminding me about that! I'd forgotten that part. Of course, it gets dismissed (the same way deaconess does even though it's not a leadership position, sigh) by saying it's just referring to elder's wives.
On a related note, 1 Timothy 3 opens with τις (anyone/someone) not ἀνήρ or ἀνδρός (man). It's a shame that some English translators let their bias on this issue lead to mistranslation.
I believe Glahn addresses some of this in her book. It's really worth the read--very short for an academic read (about 150 pages), but packs a real punch. Highly recommend it. I got to take a class with her when I was in seminary. She had us read ALL the books (ok, the most impactful) from across the spectrum, but my Payne reading is limited to his essay(s) in the CBE book. From what I recall it did have helpful explanations.
And good point on the single verse distinctions. No one talks about those verses. Especially the baptisms for the dead. (I have no idea what that's all about.)
Well, ok, I have heard a compelling argument made by a Messianic Jewish believer for why James/the Holy Spirit/The Council laid out those specific guidelines. Basically, came down to community cleanliness standards. These were the bare minimum guidelines that Gentile believers should follow out of love of their Jewish brethren in order to ensure the observant believers in their midst didn't become ritually unclean through their interactions with the Gentile Christians. It wasn't about making them "halfway Jewish" or anything like that. It was meeting people where they were and trying to figure out how to enable two different cultures to interact in harmony.
I’m coming to this post late, but I wanted to ask you: you mention appreciating being in a church tradition that charitably makes space for both views. What are your thoughts on someone who shares your egalitarian views being at peace in “soft” complementarian church? My church has visible women in leadership in every role except elder. I disagree with the restriction, but see women valued and heard overall (praying over the congregation, leading communion, teaching men and women at bible studies etc.) Is it possible to worship charitably together? Some egalitarians seem to think we cannot be in church with complementarians as they see it as a justice issue. I’m just wondering your take on this?
Hi Sterling! Thanks for asking. I am in a tradition that accepts the fact that people have differing convictions on this and tries to make room for them, so I am comfortable with it—in fact, the parish I belong to is in a diocese that only ordains women to the diaconate. I don’t agree with that stance personally, but because I do see a posture that sees women as gifted and necessary members to the body and makes room for them to teach and preach and serve in various ways, that matters to me. For instance, there are dioceses in our tradition that do not ordain women to the threefold office but have created a separate office of “deaconess.” I don’t agree with this framework but I can respect the intention here - it seems to have integrity to me.
I would have a much harder time if the ideology of complementarianism was upheld and preached in a church and then there was no effort to embrace gifted women in what roles were available to them. I have no patience for people who talk a lot about the necessary complementary roles and then basically erase women. The church has never had that luxury! And to be honest this seems to be a very real problem in many churches. It’s not good for anyone.
But I am ecumenical at heart and am probably more comfortable worshipping in a community with a whole host of things that people might disagree about. I tend to think we all are a little bit heretical and heterodox no matter our best and worthwhile efforts, so any kind of purity litmus tests give me pause as it veers into legalism, hubris, and a kind of fundamentalism or “right beliefs” righteousness.
So all that to say…it depends - haha - and perhaps the trajectory of a church and the humility with which a position is held is important here, too. Is there openness to consider other perspectives or a kind of rigidity that prioritizes principles over people? That sort of thing.
I also sometimes find it helpful to think of this question in contexts outside of my own, because that can be a help. I am always encouraged by the example of the persecuted church - they often don’t have the luxury to choose regarding these matters, and their witness reminds me that there are always opportunities to minister and colabor, whatever we call the titles. Anyway, curious to know your thoughts as well!
I really appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoughtfully to me.
It encourages me deeply to hear a perspective like this as it's not often something I encounter. I think, in my church, there is the kind of humility, openness, and posture of listening that you describe. I see people of all walks of life included and valued (including disabled people, which is very important to me).
It's interesting that you bring up the persecuted church, which is far from my reality here in Canada. I have also thought of the persecuted church and considered, would I really refuse to worship with these other believers if I were in a different context where we didn't have the luxury of choice? Not that I refuse to now, but as a thought experiment.
I'm grateful for your perspective on ecumenism as I share it too. I personally feel fairly comfortable worshipping with people who think differently from me, but sometimes wonder if I should be taking a greater stand with certain issues. In my context, it's more of a vague anxiety about doing the right thing than a conviction that people are not being heard or valued in diverse roles. Because, I do see women using their gifts and being upheld as you describe. Hearing from others who balance different views and serve and worship in settings like yours with love and charity are so helpful for me.
This is an outstanding and thorough article - I’m so glad you shared it! “The big question is not whether any woman in the New Testament was called a "pastor" but whether or not women performed pastoral functions and were recognized as such by the early church” YES.
And I’m so glad you noted the presbytidas of Titus 2! I think the translation choices (in English at least!) really veil the connection here. I wrote about it here and intend to crosspost on substack soon because it’s so astonishing how easily we read right over that: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/lost-in-translation-female-elders-in-titus-1-2/
Love the survey of women you include in your article too - so refreshing!
“…most of Scripture comes to us as narrative, as stories rather than diagrammable propositions. So we must also consider what women were actually doing in the early church as described in the narrative portions.”
This point really resonated with me. I don’t think I’ve consciously thought about how important this is. Thanks for helping me think more deeply! Excellent article.
My heart cries in sad agreement with all that I've missed out on..and with all I've put up with in "submission" to previous husbands..
..and recently was asked to be on Womens Ministry at an evangelical non.denomationa fellowship I attend Bible Study (not my home church)....I was thrilled and so excited...until it was noticed my husband didn't attend with me (he goes to a different church) so " For the sake of 'unity' in the marriage and The Church" I was no longer a candidate. Still processing
Thank you, Thankyou Marissa - going through the journey of this article with you was joyous! I have referred it to my pastor in the LCA in Australia where our Synod will vote on the issue (again) in October. I pray that our church develops ‘a tradition that makes space for both views’ too!
THANK YOU!! I feel like we have a tendency toward anachronistic thinking about what the early church looked like - imaging our conception of churchgoing onto it.
This puts forward many of my own reasons for maintaining women aren’t meant for church leadership. The scripture is pretty clear about this actually, there are offices within the church described that are clearly for men, and women were prohibited from preaching or having authority over men. That doesn’t exclude any of the work mentioned here remotely, and as you say in small churches you see the natural prominence of the church’s women working and carrying on the function of the church. I go to a small church with a male pastor and associate pastor and he and his wife are one flesh. It mattered that early church leaders were married and had their household in good order because a man’s wife matters significantly to his ministry and makes up a huge portion of it. A church mirrors the household. A house church is a household that hosts the church. Of course women were involved everywhere because no household or community is complete without women in it, just like the creation. My contention with ordaining women is the presence of a church’s women and their uniquely feminine ministry and mere existence is every bit as valuable as preaching or leading a church. Let he who is least among you be a servant. It is not an achievement to lead a church, it’s a duty and a responsibility that we never ought to regard as something a woman should be able to achieve to prove her equal worth to men (you haven’t made this argument here, I know, but ordaining women has no doubt been linked by some to “women’s equality.”)
There are many reasons thoughtful and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions on this. I've outlined here why I believe the biblical narrative does not restrict the work of women in the church, though I understand people hold different views. A few thoughts on your comments here:
For me, as I studied the verses used to prohibit women, I found that they weren't necessarily as clear as is often presented. For instance, in Titus 2, our English translations translate the masculine form of a Greek word (transliteration is presbyter from which we get priest) as "elder" in Titus 1 and the feminine form *of the same word* to be "older woman" a few verses later in Titus 2. There are numerous things like this (Philip Payne has done excellent exegetical work if you'd like to read more), but I continue to find Jesus' intentional commission women to be the first to proclaim His resurrection to be the most compelling thing, because isn't proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection the heart of preaching?
I agree with you that it's never been about jockeying for power or who can be the greatest, and for the most part I see many women quietly teaching and leading and pastoring without the title. In fact I have rough posts taking a closer look at both of these things coming up soon, so these things are on my mind as well!
One final thought: I am with you on the importance of men and women together showing forth the image of God, and I also wonder if defaulting to women's leadership roles being primarily for pastor's spouses (I am one, so no shade intended here) has some unintended problematic outcomes. First of all, it seems to me to ignore 1 Cor 7 where Paul expressly says that single people have more energy and time to devote to the things of God. Giving leadership roles to married people & spouses sidelines single people and can cause difficulties in clergy families.
Secondly, it's an enormous pressure on ministry families & expects a spouse to offer unpaid labor for the church. Ofc most people aren't in ministry for the money, but it is worth asking why in this one vocation we would expect spouses to contribute in this way to their husband's work without formal education, job description or compensation. It's an unboundaried kind of approach that can consume families and also in many cases is unwise. Pastoral training and the Spirit's gifting matters. Also I think defaulting to this displaces other women who perhaps are gifted for specific work.
While there may be women who seek pastoral office for the position itself or to make a point (as there are men who do so), I know many women who simply feel called by God & equipped by Him to serve the church.
In my ideal world, there would be a male and female pastor - called, equipped, and trained - for each congregation.
Sorry I’m just picking out a few things to reply to, really appreciate your taking the time to share all of your thoughts though! And yes I did appreciate the purpose of the post which I think was an excellent one.
1 Timothy 3 outlines the roles of bishop and deacons and that they must be the husband of one wife and have their households in good order. As you mentioned we see early church work done by a couple. It seems like a lot of conflating simply doing work for the Lord with holding an official position in organized church leadership, which are two different things (and as we agree, no more or less important than one another).
My biggest problem with this take (and I hear it a lot in my denomination re: Holy Orders) is that I don't see official positions that clearly outlined in Scripture. I think we read back into the few passages we have what we want to see (esp as Protestants with the reclamation of marriage we inherited from Luther) and maybe this is most evident by how different denominations claim these verses for their preferred style of leadership. Re: elder qualifications we have two letters written to specific churches that were organizationally chaotic - Titus was on Crete where family life was in shambles and Timothy was likely in Ephesus, a church riven by controversies and quarrels as well as the temple of Artemis & those implications. The qualifications make so much sense for the needs of those communities.
It's not to say we can't and shouldn't examine those principles re: leadership, but I think we must weigh it with what Paul says to Corinth where he applauds single ppl in vocational ministry as most likely he himself was. It's also worth noting that grammatically speaking, the text is actually "one woman man" rather than "husband of one wife." There are good reasons translators opted for the latter, but there's a good case to be made that the point here is monogamous marital fidelity.
Anyway, what this says to me is that in the context of the early church, where disparate small groups of people were popping up in all sorts of context, is that the Spirit was leading people and the church was counting on that.
I love your last sentence there. This is a really interesting and good conversation, thank you! I am actually a nondenominational evangelical (although I am a member of an Anabaptist church, I’m new to the denomination) so I’m always curious to learn more about high church theology and tradition. I love the Anglican liturgy and have often wondered where the reasoning comes in to ordain women. Do you believe (out of curiosity) that although it is a more modern conception, it is nonetheless still consistent with scripture? I think the one compelling argument I find for women pastors and why it’s not exactly a huge deal breaking issue for me is as you have mentioned in many cases where there is simply a need. What I love the most about what’s coming out of this discussion is the wonderful ways women serve the church of God 🥹 I think whatever one’s position on ordination may be, we need so much more recognition for the robust role women do and always have played in the church.
I meant to elaborate about my own church; our pastor’s wife and elder’s wives and older women are major figures in our church’s functioning simply by being wonderful women of God who pray for members, arrange our community dinners and meal trains, are good friends with and reach out to and spend time with virtually all the active members. We have a tight knit church because our women are all just being sisters in Christ to the other church members. So if you talk about our church to someone else, you’ll talk about the women. I think the value of this ministry alone is every bit as weighty as being a pastor.
Thank you for offering this perspective! I'm not very familiar with the orthodox tradition, and it's interesting to see a different way of thinking about these matters.
If you'd like to speak to it, I am curious to know what evidence is offered for this framework, though. Is it a traditional EO position?
I was too many years old when I realized that our contemporary understanding of pastoral roles wasn’t functionally operative in early church. That really does change the whole conversation. Or at least it should. Unfortunately, for all the talk of a commitment to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic among my hard-core complementarian friends, there’s very little regard for the “historical” part.
YES. It's a very costly form of "chronological snobbery."
I’m so very glad to see younger women learning this now. I’m in my late 50’s and just now understanding the freedom we have in Christ as women to serve. I’m starting seminary this fall.
Love this and amen, Suanne! Best wishes for your seminary studies!
God bless you! I started at 47 and graduated 7 years later. And after I graduated two of my professors invited me to be a teaching assistant. One of the best times in my life, and I had classmates male and female my age. It wasn’t always easy but having had so much more life experience helped me enjoy it all the more.
Excellent overview here. I love your approach. I think you and I have some overlap in our evangelical upbringing (spent 2 years at a Foursquare Christian school where women were in leadership and the rest of the time in churches/schools on the complementarian spectrum).
One of the most overlooked pieces of "evidence" for women in all levels of church leadership is exactly how you came at it: look at what they are doing, not just what is said. It's very easy to pull categorical theology from Paul's letter to support pet arguments, but it's harder to ignore Paul's relationships with women--how he treats/interacts with/talks about individual women like Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe, Junia, etc.
Also, I think there is some merit in extending your argument from silence (yeah, I know they can be weak) to discussions on women elders. The position of elders is really the only leadership office discussed in much detail. (Obviously, there are apostles and church hosts but it's not completely clear from scripture alone what duties were involved). It seems Paul's two discourses on elders (1 Timothy and Titus) assume male elders but do not expressly prohibit women elders. If female elders were anathema or a practice utterly disgusting to God, I would have expected to see prohibition language (as we do with other behaviors/practices) --especially in the 1 Timothy passage which follows the Paul's exhortation for not letting a woman teach abusively, which addresses the manner not the practice. Context matters and if Paul was going to say women shouldn't hold positions of church leadership anywhere, it would be in Ephesus.
On that note, have you read Sandra Glahn's new book on Artemis?? :)
YES to all of this (except the Artemis book - I haven't read it yet)! BUT I was in my mid-40s, post Bible college, post Christian uni, post seminary, before I learned that Titus 2:3 actually has πρεσβῦτις (female of root presbyter) translated "older women" when just a few verses earlier in the same section 1:5 πρεσβύτερος is translated "elders."
!!!!!!!!!! Not enough exclamation points. I am with you - I think that if this was a first order universal doctrine we would have more than a handful of verses to specific contexts. I also find it so fascinating that ppl insistent on this ignore other kind of similar single verse distinctions (baptism for the dead anyone?) or even parts of what we do get in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council (meat strangled and from blood).
Have you read any of Philip Payne's work on this? It was SO helpful for me.
Oh yes! Thank you for reminding me about that! I'd forgotten that part. Of course, it gets dismissed (the same way deaconess does even though it's not a leadership position, sigh) by saying it's just referring to elder's wives.
On a related note, 1 Timothy 3 opens with τις (anyone/someone) not ἀνήρ or ἀνδρός (man). It's a shame that some English translators let their bias on this issue lead to mistranslation.
I believe Glahn addresses some of this in her book. It's really worth the read--very short for an academic read (about 150 pages), but packs a real punch. Highly recommend it. I got to take a class with her when I was in seminary. She had us read ALL the books (ok, the most impactful) from across the spectrum, but my Payne reading is limited to his essay(s) in the CBE book. From what I recall it did have helpful explanations.
And good point on the single verse distinctions. No one talks about those verses. Especially the baptisms for the dead. (I have no idea what that's all about.)
Well, ok, I have heard a compelling argument made by a Messianic Jewish believer for why James/the Holy Spirit/The Council laid out those specific guidelines. Basically, came down to community cleanliness standards. These were the bare minimum guidelines that Gentile believers should follow out of love of their Jewish brethren in order to ensure the observant believers in their midst didn't become ritually unclean through their interactions with the Gentile Christians. It wasn't about making them "halfway Jewish" or anything like that. It was meeting people where they were and trying to figure out how to enable two different cultures to interact in harmony.
Hi Marissa,
I’m coming to this post late, but I wanted to ask you: you mention appreciating being in a church tradition that charitably makes space for both views. What are your thoughts on someone who shares your egalitarian views being at peace in “soft” complementarian church? My church has visible women in leadership in every role except elder. I disagree with the restriction, but see women valued and heard overall (praying over the congregation, leading communion, teaching men and women at bible studies etc.) Is it possible to worship charitably together? Some egalitarians seem to think we cannot be in church with complementarians as they see it as a justice issue. I’m just wondering your take on this?
Hi Sterling! Thanks for asking. I am in a tradition that accepts the fact that people have differing convictions on this and tries to make room for them, so I am comfortable with it—in fact, the parish I belong to is in a diocese that only ordains women to the diaconate. I don’t agree with that stance personally, but because I do see a posture that sees women as gifted and necessary members to the body and makes room for them to teach and preach and serve in various ways, that matters to me. For instance, there are dioceses in our tradition that do not ordain women to the threefold office but have created a separate office of “deaconess.” I don’t agree with this framework but I can respect the intention here - it seems to have integrity to me.
I would have a much harder time if the ideology of complementarianism was upheld and preached in a church and then there was no effort to embrace gifted women in what roles were available to them. I have no patience for people who talk a lot about the necessary complementary roles and then basically erase women. The church has never had that luxury! And to be honest this seems to be a very real problem in many churches. It’s not good for anyone.
But I am ecumenical at heart and am probably more comfortable worshipping in a community with a whole host of things that people might disagree about. I tend to think we all are a little bit heretical and heterodox no matter our best and worthwhile efforts, so any kind of purity litmus tests give me pause as it veers into legalism, hubris, and a kind of fundamentalism or “right beliefs” righteousness.
So all that to say…it depends - haha - and perhaps the trajectory of a church and the humility with which a position is held is important here, too. Is there openness to consider other perspectives or a kind of rigidity that prioritizes principles over people? That sort of thing.
I also sometimes find it helpful to think of this question in contexts outside of my own, because that can be a help. I am always encouraged by the example of the persecuted church - they often don’t have the luxury to choose regarding these matters, and their witness reminds me that there are always opportunities to minister and colabor, whatever we call the titles. Anyway, curious to know your thoughts as well!
Hi Marissa,
I really appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoughtfully to me.
It encourages me deeply to hear a perspective like this as it's not often something I encounter. I think, in my church, there is the kind of humility, openness, and posture of listening that you describe. I see people of all walks of life included and valued (including disabled people, which is very important to me).
It's interesting that you bring up the persecuted church, which is far from my reality here in Canada. I have also thought of the persecuted church and considered, would I really refuse to worship with these other believers if I were in a different context where we didn't have the luxury of choice? Not that I refuse to now, but as a thought experiment.
I'm grateful for your perspective on ecumenism as I share it too. I personally feel fairly comfortable worshipping with people who think differently from me, but sometimes wonder if I should be taking a greater stand with certain issues. In my context, it's more of a vague anxiety about doing the right thing than a conviction that people are not being heard or valued in diverse roles. Because, I do see women using their gifts and being upheld as you describe. Hearing from others who balance different views and serve and worship in settings like yours with love and charity are so helpful for me.
Thank you again for your response!
If I may, I share here an article I wrote about the claim that there are no female pastors in the New Testament: https://vidaemabundancia.blogspot.com/2025/03/nao-ha-pastoras-no-novo-testamento.html?m=0 (The article is in portuguese, but you may activate the automatic translation at the right top menu.)
This is an outstanding and thorough article - I’m so glad you shared it! “The big question is not whether any woman in the New Testament was called a "pastor" but whether or not women performed pastoral functions and were recognized as such by the early church” YES.
And I’m so glad you noted the presbytidas of Titus 2! I think the translation choices (in English at least!) really veil the connection here. I wrote about it here and intend to crosspost on substack soon because it’s so astonishing how easily we read right over that: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/lost-in-translation-female-elders-in-titus-1-2/
Love the survey of women you include in your article too - so refreshing!
“…most of Scripture comes to us as narrative, as stories rather than diagrammable propositions. So we must also consider what women were actually doing in the early church as described in the narrative portions.”
This point really resonated with me. I don’t think I’ve consciously thought about how important this is. Thanks for helping me think more deeply! Excellent article.
Thank you so much for reading! I’m glad it resonated with you!
This ..yes...thank you
My heart cries in sad agreement with all that I've missed out on..and with all I've put up with in "submission" to previous husbands..
..and recently was asked to be on Womens Ministry at an evangelical non.denomationa fellowship I attend Bible Study (not my home church)....I was thrilled and so excited...until it was noticed my husband didn't attend with me (he goes to a different church) so " For the sake of 'unity' in the marriage and The Church" I was no longer a candidate. Still processing
Your words are wise and true
You are so very welcome, Jakki. I'm so sorry you've had to negotiate this painful reality. ❤️🩹
Thank you, Thankyou Marissa - going through the journey of this article with you was joyous! I have referred it to my pastor in the LCA in Australia where our Synod will vote on the issue (again) in October. I pray that our church develops ‘a tradition that makes space for both views’ too!
You are so very welcome, Karyn! Thank you for reading!
Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.
There’s clarification, perspective, & hope in these wise words.
https://mburtwrites.substack.com/p/the-women-of-the-new-testament
Thank you for reading!
'Is the Spirit moving?'
Now THAT'S the question. Thank you for this important piece Marissa. You've offered us clarification, perspective, and hope. Bless you.
You are very welcome!
THANK YOU!! I feel like we have a tendency toward anachronistic thinking about what the early church looked like - imaging our conception of churchgoing onto it.
You are so welcome! Yes! I think they could've never imagined our experience or the millennia (!!!) of church practices in between - and vice versa!
🙌🏻
This puts forward many of my own reasons for maintaining women aren’t meant for church leadership. The scripture is pretty clear about this actually, there are offices within the church described that are clearly for men, and women were prohibited from preaching or having authority over men. That doesn’t exclude any of the work mentioned here remotely, and as you say in small churches you see the natural prominence of the church’s women working and carrying on the function of the church. I go to a small church with a male pastor and associate pastor and he and his wife are one flesh. It mattered that early church leaders were married and had their household in good order because a man’s wife matters significantly to his ministry and makes up a huge portion of it. A church mirrors the household. A house church is a household that hosts the church. Of course women were involved everywhere because no household or community is complete without women in it, just like the creation. My contention with ordaining women is the presence of a church’s women and their uniquely feminine ministry and mere existence is every bit as valuable as preaching or leading a church. Let he who is least among you be a servant. It is not an achievement to lead a church, it’s a duty and a responsibility that we never ought to regard as something a woman should be able to achieve to prove her equal worth to men (you haven’t made this argument here, I know, but ordaining women has no doubt been linked by some to “women’s equality.”)
There are many reasons thoughtful and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions on this. I've outlined here why I believe the biblical narrative does not restrict the work of women in the church, though I understand people hold different views. A few thoughts on your comments here:
For me, as I studied the verses used to prohibit women, I found that they weren't necessarily as clear as is often presented. For instance, in Titus 2, our English translations translate the masculine form of a Greek word (transliteration is presbyter from which we get priest) as "elder" in Titus 1 and the feminine form *of the same word* to be "older woman" a few verses later in Titus 2. There are numerous things like this (Philip Payne has done excellent exegetical work if you'd like to read more), but I continue to find Jesus' intentional commission women to be the first to proclaim His resurrection to be the most compelling thing, because isn't proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection the heart of preaching?
I agree with you that it's never been about jockeying for power or who can be the greatest, and for the most part I see many women quietly teaching and leading and pastoring without the title. In fact I have rough posts taking a closer look at both of these things coming up soon, so these things are on my mind as well!
One final thought: I am with you on the importance of men and women together showing forth the image of God, and I also wonder if defaulting to women's leadership roles being primarily for pastor's spouses (I am one, so no shade intended here) has some unintended problematic outcomes. First of all, it seems to me to ignore 1 Cor 7 where Paul expressly says that single people have more energy and time to devote to the things of God. Giving leadership roles to married people & spouses sidelines single people and can cause difficulties in clergy families.
Secondly, it's an enormous pressure on ministry families & expects a spouse to offer unpaid labor for the church. Ofc most people aren't in ministry for the money, but it is worth asking why in this one vocation we would expect spouses to contribute in this way to their husband's work without formal education, job description or compensation. It's an unboundaried kind of approach that can consume families and also in many cases is unwise. Pastoral training and the Spirit's gifting matters. Also I think defaulting to this displaces other women who perhaps are gifted for specific work.
While there may be women who seek pastoral office for the position itself or to make a point (as there are men who do so), I know many women who simply feel called by God & equipped by Him to serve the church.
In my ideal world, there would be a male and female pastor - called, equipped, and trained - for each congregation.
Sorry I’m just picking out a few things to reply to, really appreciate your taking the time to share all of your thoughts though! And yes I did appreciate the purpose of the post which I think was an excellent one.
1 Timothy 3 outlines the roles of bishop and deacons and that they must be the husband of one wife and have their households in good order. As you mentioned we see early church work done by a couple. It seems like a lot of conflating simply doing work for the Lord with holding an official position in organized church leadership, which are two different things (and as we agree, no more or less important than one another).
Sure! Always happy to engage.
My biggest problem with this take (and I hear it a lot in my denomination re: Holy Orders) is that I don't see official positions that clearly outlined in Scripture. I think we read back into the few passages we have what we want to see (esp as Protestants with the reclamation of marriage we inherited from Luther) and maybe this is most evident by how different denominations claim these verses for their preferred style of leadership. Re: elder qualifications we have two letters written to specific churches that were organizationally chaotic - Titus was on Crete where family life was in shambles and Timothy was likely in Ephesus, a church riven by controversies and quarrels as well as the temple of Artemis & those implications. The qualifications make so much sense for the needs of those communities.
It's not to say we can't and shouldn't examine those principles re: leadership, but I think we must weigh it with what Paul says to Corinth where he applauds single ppl in vocational ministry as most likely he himself was. It's also worth noting that grammatically speaking, the text is actually "one woman man" rather than "husband of one wife." There are good reasons translators opted for the latter, but there's a good case to be made that the point here is monogamous marital fidelity.
Anyway, what this says to me is that in the context of the early church, where disparate small groups of people were popping up in all sorts of context, is that the Spirit was leading people and the church was counting on that.
I love your last sentence there. This is a really interesting and good conversation, thank you! I am actually a nondenominational evangelical (although I am a member of an Anabaptist church, I’m new to the denomination) so I’m always curious to learn more about high church theology and tradition. I love the Anglican liturgy and have often wondered where the reasoning comes in to ordain women. Do you believe (out of curiosity) that although it is a more modern conception, it is nonetheless still consistent with scripture? I think the one compelling argument I find for women pastors and why it’s not exactly a huge deal breaking issue for me is as you have mentioned in many cases where there is simply a need. What I love the most about what’s coming out of this discussion is the wonderful ways women serve the church of God 🥹 I think whatever one’s position on ordination may be, we need so much more recognition for the robust role women do and always have played in the church.
I meant to elaborate about my own church; our pastor’s wife and elder’s wives and older women are major figures in our church’s functioning simply by being wonderful women of God who pray for members, arrange our community dinners and meal trains, are good friends with and reach out to and spend time with virtually all the active members. We have a tight knit church because our women are all just being sisters in Christ to the other church members. So if you talk about our church to someone else, you’ll talk about the women. I think the value of this ministry alone is every bit as weighty as being a pastor.
Thank you for offering this perspective! I'm not very familiar with the orthodox tradition, and it's interesting to see a different way of thinking about these matters.
If you'd like to speak to it, I am curious to know what evidence is offered for this framework, though. Is it a traditional EO position?