Few debates split evangelical churches faster than this one. Some say Scripture is crystal clear: male-only eldership, period. Others say those passages are culturally limited and the Spirit gifts without gender. Pick a side — and actually defend it.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentIf you think the line between 'she ran to tell Peter' and 'she could preach on Sunday' is this obvious and this clean, you have probably never sat down and really wrestled with these texts. Both sides need more humility. This is one of the hardest hermeneutical questions in the New Testament and anyone who acts like it isn't is either not paying attention or not being honest.
This question honestly keeps me up at night. I went to seminary. I graduated near the top of my class. I know more Greek and Hebrew than most of the pastors in my denomination. And I'm not allowed to preach because I'm a woman. I love my church. I believe the Bible. I'm not angry — I'm genuinely, deeply confused about what God wants from me.
If you're a man who is absolutely certain complementarianism is correct, I want you to genuinely ask yourself: how much of your certainty is exegesis and how much of it is the fact that this interpretation personally benefits you? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm asking you to be honest about the filters on your reading.
1 Timothy 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man. I don't know what's complicated about that. This isn't my opinion. It's in the Bible. In plain English. End of discussion.
i just want to know what mary magdalene would have thought about all of this. first witness to the resurrection. sent by jesus himself to tell the apostles. apparently good enough to be the apostle to the apostles but not good enough to give the morning homily. make it make sense.
So your argument is that God used Deborah because men were failing. Great. Look around at your church. Look at who shows up, who leads small groups, who does the actual ministry. God is apparently still working around male failure. Maybe the takeaway isn't what you think it is.
^ This comment. This is the one everyone should sit with before firing off a hot take. Whatever your theology, a person describing this kind of confusion and faithfulness deserves a real answer, not a proof text fired from a safe distance.
I'm genuinely undecided on this and I feel like I can't say that out loud in ANY church I've been part of because both sides treat uncertainty as moral failure. Complementarians think I'm a closet feminist. Egalitarians think I'm a closet misogynist. Can a person just be doing the hard work of figuring this out?
I spent 15 years in a strictly complementarian denomination. I watched gifted women sit silently while theologically illiterate men led their congregations into heresy because those men had the right anatomy. I'm not being hyperbolic. I watched it happen. Tell me again how that system honored Scripture.
I'm a complementarian and I'll be honest: the head covering question is genuinely difficult and I don't have a totally clean answer. I think there's a distinction in the text between timeless principle and cultural expression of that principle. But I acknowledge that distinction requires interpretive work that could theoretically be applied to other passages. This is not simple.
The 'plain English' argument falls apart the moment you realize that verse was written in Greek, addressed to a specific church in Ephesus that had a documented problem with false teachers who happened to be women in that congregation. Context isn't liberal revisionism. It's basic hermeneutics.
That cuts both ways. If you're a woman who is absolutely certain egalitarianism is correct, ask yourself the same question in reverse. Our experiences shape our readings. Everyone in this conversation has a stake in the answer.
wow the 'maybe YOU'RE the problem for wanting to teach' response. classic. because men who want to preach never have to examine that desire, right? it's only women whose calling needs to be suspected.
Deborah. Judged all of Israel. Prophetess. Military leader. God appointed. Somebody explain to me how that fits into your neat little complementarian box without doing ten pages of gymnastics.
Because Paul grounds lots of things in creation that we don't apply universally. Head coverings. Long hair. Does your church require women to cover their heads? Because that's in the same chapter and he roots it in creation and angels and the nature of things. Pick a lane.
can we talk about how many COMPLEMENTARIAN churches would fall apart without their women? the women run the nurseries, organize the food banks, lead every committee, do the visitation ministry, write the curriculum — but they can't preach a sermon. the theology says one thing, the organizational chart says another.
Finally. A complementarian who's being honest about the complexity instead of acting like this is all neon signs and no-brainers. I respect that more than the 'just read the Bible' crowd who have secretly made a dozen interpretive choices they refuse to examine.
I grew up in a church that would not let women even read Scripture aloud from the pulpit. Then I moved, and my new church has a female lead pastor. Honestly? She preaches better than any man I've sat under. God clearly called her. Are you really going to look at that fruit and say the Spirit got it wrong?
If that's true then why does Paul ground his argument in creation — Adam was formed first, then Eve — not in cultural custom? He explicitly goes ABOVE culture to the creation order. You don't get to wave that away with 'honor culture.'
Junia. Romans 16:7. Paul calls her 'outstanding among the apostles.' A woman. An apostle. If that doesn't at least give you pause then you're not reading carefully — you're reading defensively.
The fact that we're arguing about this while the Southern Baptist Convention literally just removed churches for having female pastors tells you everything. This isn't abstract theology. It has real consequences for real congregations right now.
You're describing a functional contradiction that exists in a lot of places. I've seen it. Women essentially running churches administratively while a male figurehead who shows up twice a week gets the title of 'pastor.' At some point the gap between the theology and the reality has to be addressed honestly.
Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9. Peter quotes Joel on Pentecost: 'your sons AND daughters will prophesy.' If prophecy in the New Testament sense is essentially speaking forth God's word to the church — and most theologians say it is — then women doing it publicly is right there in your Bible from the very beginning of the church age.
fine but who decides where that line is? because in practice the 'governing teaching office' seems to expand or contract based on whatever's convenient for the people already in power. some churches say women can't even lead a mixed-gender Bible study. thats not a biblical line. thats a power line.
Fruit doesn't determine doctrine. Mormons produce good fruit too. Jehovah's Witnesses are some of the nicest people I've ever met. 'She preaches well' is not a theological argument.
My denomination has ordained women for 60 years. We've had female bishops, female theologians, female missionaries who planted dozens of churches. The sky has not fallen. The gospel has not been corrupted. The church is still standing. At some point 'this is a dangerous experiment' stops being a reasonable warning.
I mean... if we're all equal heirs, equally indwelt by the Spirit, equally called to ministry... at what point does a permanent structural hierarchy based purely on sex start to look less like a creation ordinance and more like a social arrangement we're retroactively theologizing?
hot take: the whole argument would collapse if people actually studied how Greek households worked in the first century. Paul was writing to people embedded in Greco-Roman honor culture where a woman publicly teaching men would have brought shame on the entire church community and torpedoed any chance of the gospel spreading. He wasn't issuing a creation ordinance. He was doing missiology.
Deborah is always the go-to and it's always a bad argument. Deborah judged Israel during a period when God's people were in a cycle of sin and failure — her leadership is descriptive, not prescriptive. The narrative doesn't commend it as the ideal; Barak's refusal to go without her is literally presented as a failure of male leadership. That's the point of the text.
Or it means the order itself needs examining. The reformers felt constrained by Rome. They didn't call that discipleship. They called it faithfulness to a better reading of Scripture. Don't deploy 'submission' as a conversation-stopper.
Church growth is not a theological trump card. Prosperity gospel churches are growing too. Megachurches with no theological depth are enormous. If numerical success validated doctrine we'd all be Word of Faith by now.
There's a meaningful distinction between the gift of prophecy and the office of elder/pastor. Egalitarians keep conflating these to score points. Even in a complementarian framework, women can have spiritual gifts, pray publicly, lead ministries, teach other women and children. The question is about the governing teaching office specifically. Stop strawmanning.
Yes. And honestly you're probably reading the text more carefully than half the people shouting on both sides. Sit with the discomfort. The Spirit works in that.
Sure. And the women-led churches can go find a denomination that agrees with them. Which is exactly what's happening. And we'll see in thirty years which reading of Scripture produced more fruit, more conversions, more disciples. I know which way I'm betting.
The translation of that verse is genuinely disputed. 'Outstanding among the apostles' vs. 'well known to the apostles' is a real textual debate among scholars, not an invention of conservatives. Presenting one reading as obvious is intellectually dishonest.
Ugh. The slippery slope. The last refuge when the direct arguments run out. 'I can't prove women preaching is wrong so I'll imply it leads to everything else that is.' No.
The head covering argument is one of the strongest egalitarian points and complementarians usually just get really quiet about it or give answers they would never accept if someone applied them to 1 Timothy. I notice this every single time.
ok so if fruit doesnt matter then what was jesus doing when he said 'by their fruits ye shall know them'? asking for a friend
Complementarianism done right is beautiful. My husband leads our family with sacrifice and love. I lead our women's ministry and have more influence than I could ever want. I'm not oppressed. I'm not silenced. I'm fulfilling a design that actually works. The feminist framework being imported into this debate is the real problem.
i will never understand why this is the hill some Christians choose to die on when people are going to hell. we're arguing about who holds the microphone while the building is on fire
The whole Galatians 3:28 thing — 'neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' — gets used so much in this debate that it's lost all meaning. Paul is talking about salvation status, not church offices. Everyone gets justified the same way. That text says absolutely nothing about who preaches on Sunday morning.
Nobody said you're oppressed. The question isn't whether some women are happy in complementarian systems. Some people are happy in all kinds of arrangements. The question is whether those arrangements reflect what Scripture actually teaches for all churches in all times.
And the SBC had every right to enforce their doctrinal standards. If you join a convention with a statement of faith, and then violate it, they can remove you. That's not oppression. That's how covenantal accountability works.
Doctrine IS evangelism. What you believe about authority structures shapes everything downstream — marriage, family, church, society. Saying 'focus on the gospel instead' is a false dichotomy. The gospel includes how the church orders itself.
My answer to her, with respect: the fact that your gifts feel constrained doesn't mean your theology is wrong. Paul felt constrained. Jeremiah felt constrained. Faithfulness sometimes means submitting to an order we don't fully understand. That's not dismissal — it's the hardest kind of discipleship.
Your experience is valid and I'm sorry that happened. But bad examples of a system don't invalidate the system. I could find you plenty of egalitarian churches with disastrous leadership too. We don't build doctrine on anecdotes.
Both men and women should examine their motives for wanting authority or influence. That's not a gendered critique — it's basic pastoral wisdom. James 3:1 applies to everyone: not many of you should presume to be teachers.
She was sent to carry news to a specific group of known individuals in a private setting. That's a massive stretch from a commissioned, authoritative, ongoing public teaching office in an established local church. I appreciate the devotion to Mary Magdalene but this is apples and oranges.
Your denomination has also seen significant theological drift in other areas over those same 60 years, and I'd gently suggest those things might be connected. Hermeneutical approaches don't stay in their lane.
Or those women understand their calling doesn't require a title or a pulpit. Service isn't second-class. The desire for the platform might be worth examining rather than celebrated.
Should Christians pray to saints — or is asking Mary and the dead for help straight-up idolatry?
56 comments
Does God choose who gets saved, or do you choose God — and is Calvinism secretly making God into a monster?
55 comments
Is hell really eternal conscious torment forever, or does God eventually just snuff the wicked out of existence?
54 comments
Is the 'Sinner's Prayer' actually in the Bible, or did we invent a shortcut to salvation and call it the gospel?
54 comments