Pastoral Complementarianism: A Biblical Argument for a Middle Way
The following is my reasoning as to why I believe that women have the biblical precedent of filling all ministerial roles other than the pastoral position. I am arguing both things simultaneously. I do still advocate for the ordination of women because it offers a denominations stamp of approval for them as they minister in the ways in which Scripture encourages.
Complementarianism is the theological view that men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, and created in a manner purposed towards complementing the others natural gender based giftings with God ordained roles reflective of that. That said, it is important to elaborate on what those roles are. In the ecclesiological context, the role of a pastor is exclusive to men. Further, any other role within the Church is open to them as well. This is where a lot of the more practical dialogue ends with complementarians that I have discussed this with. In asking what then the roles for women are, the answers seem to vary depending on who I’m talking to. In his popular systematic, Basic Theology, Charles Ryrie lists the roles of women in the Church as they are expressed in a third century writing called the Didascalia, which lists their roles as “assisting in the baptism of women, visiting the sick, (and) ministering to the needy and to those recovering from illness” (Ryrie). I have often heard, based on the Scripture in Titus 2:3-5 that teaching other women, specifically younger women, is also a role of women in the church. Unlike in the context of the home, it isn’t apparent to me what is complementary about these roles. If the role is open to men as well, the gender of the person filling the role is arbitrary. At that point what’s described is merely the idea of Christians complementing one another in the giftings they gain or lack. I believe this is a fine thing to believe, as it is fully consistent with what Scripture teaches about the Church as the body of Christ in Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-26, as well as elsewhere. The only difference comes though in the withholding of the pastoral role from women. The larger problem by my estimation though isn’t in regards to the reasoning for it because God can very well order the world in whatever way He pleases. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense to me or not, my job is just to faithfully submit to His Word. Rather, my issue with the majority who hold to the complementarian position is that they most often argue the point by proof texting 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, as well as 1 Timothy 2:11-12. My aim instead is to show why that is ultimately unhelpful, and unnecessary in order to be complementarian in terms of the pastoral role specifically.
Beyond that, it is occasionally brought up that Jesus only chose men as the twelve. This is of course true; however, it says nothing at all about whether or not women can be pastors, just that women couldn’t be of the twelve apostles. Apostles aside, what of deacons? “While the word diakonos appears twenty nine times in the New Testament, only in Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim.3:8-13, and Rom.16:1, does it clearly refer to a designated church office” (Richardson). Of those three, in Rom 16:1 Paul uses it in reference to Phoebe. So even though women were excluded from the Messianic Apostolate, there is Biblical precedent for women being deacons, which says more in favor of the egalitarian position. However, still, a deacon is not a pastor. So the fact that women were deacons, does not mean they were pastors. Perhaps to this note also, the complementarian can say that Phoebe is an exception, as they do when egalitarians bring up female prophets in the Old Testament. Scriptural testimony indicates the contrary, as G.M Burge emphasizes in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology regarding the role of a deacon; “It is certain that women served actively as deacons. This is clear not only in Rom. 16:1, where the deaconess Phoebe of Cenchrae is commended by Paul, but in 1 Tim. 3:11. Here, the best exegesis would view the reference to women as meaning another order of deacons, namely women deacons.” (Elwell/Burge).
Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are equal before God in their personhood and that they ought to have equal opportunity in fulfilling any given role. It should be noted here that egalitarians may disagree on whether this is true in only the context of the church, or both the church and the home. Much of the egalitarian position is rooted in the idea that the fulfilment of certain roles is based on individual gifting rather than God ordained gender-based limitations. So if one sees God given and ordained gender based limitations in the home, but church roles being fulfilled based on individual gifting regardless of gender, then they may hold to a complementarian view in the context of marriage/family, while maintaining an egalitarian ecclesiology.
One doesn’t need to go through the eisegetical gymnastics of reframing their Biblical hermeneutic into a feminist liberation theology in order to have an ecclesiology that affirms women in ministry roles outside of the pastoral position. There’s a two-step process to bringing forth a Biblical argument for this. First, examine the precedents set by women in Scripture. What sort of roles does one find women fulfilling in Scripture? Are they God ordained? Second, give context to the common prooftexts. Are the instructions from Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 transcultural?
As for the many Biblical arguments that are often brought to the table to support their position, a common place egalitarians begin is at an enumeration of female prophets. There are five female prophets listed in the Old Testament, including “Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), and “the prophetess” (Isa. 8:3)” (DelHousaye). These were women in the highest God-ordained position of their time, speaking God’s truth. The New Testament understanding of a prophet was of one who would “speak forth Gods message by His inspiration” (Keener). Also, in Luke 2:36 Anna is mentioned as a prophet, although this would more so just be in reference to preaching. However, the role of a prophet in the Old Testament was particularly unique because they served as the mouthpiece of Gods special revelation in the way that our Bibles serve today. This is why, “although prophet refers to anyone who prophecies, most Jewish people reserved this title for God’s spokespeople of the distant past” (Keener).
Phoebe is introduced in Romans 16:1 as a sister in Christ, and a servant/deacon of the Church. Priscilla is mentioned in the book of Romans as well and is referred to by Paul as a co-worker in ministry. The early church father Chrysostom once wrote regarding these two women, “These were noble women, hindered in no way by their sex…and this is as might be expected, ‘For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female’” (Bristow). Paul specifies Phoebe as a sister in Christ and it is in Christ that Galatians 3:28 makes this point Chrysostom is echoing, that we are one in Christ Jesus. Things like gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are arbitrary distinctions in light of our oneness in Jesus Christ. This is one of the reasons it never ceases to amaze me when I hear fellow Christians playing the identity politics game when it comes to things like gender or race related conversations. Its neo-Marxist tribalism and nothing less, separating people into group identities that have no eternal difference. Then we wonder why the Church seems so particularly uncivil these days, as if any tribal community has ever been categorized as civil. Christian identity by definition is found in Christ. Our reconciliation with one another is found therefore first and foremost in our reconciliation to Him.
Unlike in the context of the home, for functioning servants of the Church there is no submission listed to each other, but instead solely to Jesus Christ our head. Ephesians 5:23-24 makes clear, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church… Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything”. We are one in our identity as the body and bride of Christ submitting to its head.
In his book, Paul and the Christian Woman, Fr. Brenden Byrne points out the plea for reconciliation that Paul makes to two prominent women, Evodia and Syntyche, in Philippians 4:2-3. These are women who labored side by side with Paul in the gospel. Paul mentions them in connection to Clement and the rest of his fellow workers whose names are in the book of life. The aim is for them to “agree in the Lord” (Phil.4:2). Byrne points out that though we don’t know the name of the “true companion” that Paul asks to help in the reconciliation of these two women, it can be gathered from the context that the reason it was such a problem for these two women to not be getting along is that they were prominent members of the Philippian community of believers, and it would hinder the spread of the gospel there. “Paul’s subsequent tribute to both in the appeal to the ‘yokefellow’ suggests a wider role…they have engaged alongside Paul and his apostolic band in the missionary propagation of the gospel” (Byrne). It was normative for women to minister alongside men, even men of Paul and Clements caliber. Women were deacons, missionaries, evangelists, and house church homeowners in the New Testament. In many ways, it was “all hands on deck” for Christians in the early Church.
Junia appears on the scene in Romans 16:7 and is listed alongside Andronicus as a prominent apostle. Many people throughout history have gone to great lengths to attempt to explain why Junia may actually have been a male. “Interpreters and translators since Jerome in the fifth century have masculinized her name, reading it Junias, struggling to work around the eventuality of naming a woman an apostle” (Getty). Though there has been a great deal of debate in the past about the gender of Junia, it has become increasingly clear that evidence contrary to her being female fails to hold up. In his book, Paul Women, & Wives, Dr. Craig Keener comments on the debate, “Although the name as it occurs here could be a contraction for the masculine Junianus, there is no evidence for this in extant Roman inscriptions, and the most natural way to read the name is ‘Junia’, a common enough woman’s name” (Keener). Junia being a woman, also helps understand her pairing with Andronicus. Dr. Keener continues on to make the point that for them to have been apostles traveling together, there would certainly be a scandal if they weren’t either brother and sister, or husband and wife. Either way, this duo was imprisoned with Paul and worked closely alongside him in the spread of the gospel.
Also greeted in Romans 16 were women including Mary, Tryphaena, and Tryphosa. In 16:6 Paul says Mary “worked hard among you”, and in 16:12 Tryphaena and Tryphosa were “workers in the Lord”. Fr. Brendan Byrne makes the observation concerning these points that, the term Paul uses in reference to the women “working”, is the exact same verb he uses in describing his own apostolic endeavors in 1 Corinthians 15:10 (Byrne). Through all these examples of women in the New Testament it should be gathered that the reason Paul never explicitly initiates women’s ability to fulfill roles in ministry is because it was already happening. He accepted it and considered it normative, otherwise he wouldn’t have worked alongside them or ever equated their work with his own. There is one more New Testament example of women in ministry that I would be remiss if I didn’t mention as well as an example.
When asked in an interview why women should be church leaders and preachers, before discussing Paul’s greeting to prominent church leaders in Romans 16, NT Wright brings up the point that in all four gospels it is recorded that women were the first to see the risen Jesus and spread the good news. “All Christian ministry flows from the announcement that the crucified Jesus has been raised from the dead” (Wright). It is such a countercultural thing to even suggest that women would be the ones bearing this message at this time that it is historically unlikely that anyone would have ever made it up. It is so starkly countercultural that it speaks to the credibility of the New Testament. Mary Magdeline and the others serve as an example of the countercultural nature of the Church. This serves to why immediately post-easter they are the ones we read of seeing our risen Lord, and sharing the good news of that resurrection before anyone else.
In Acts 2:17 one reads that in the last days God will pour out His Spirit upon all people, and that, “Your sons and daughters will prophecy”. Depending on who one is talking to, there will be different answers that arise as to what is meant here by “prophecy”. According to the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Prophecy can be defined as human utterance believed to be inspired by a divine or transcendent source” (Richardson). Whether this is meant just in terms of preaching and teaching as one who is inspired and boldened by the Holy Spirit, or one who receives special revelation from God to tell other believers, it is specified as open to both men and women. This is often brought up in arguments related to the subject, however the new testament phrasing is well equated with preaching generally, specifically of what is to come in the end times. This passage is congruent with that indicated by, “in the last days”. However, preaching generally and being in the role of a pastor are not the same. Plenty of people preach in ministry settings beyond the pastoral role.
It is vitally important to give context to two common complementarian prooftexts. It is important to show that these two texts are not sufficient for arguing against women being given the office of pastor. The first of these passages is in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 where Paul says,
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
Beyond preaching or teaching, the instruction here is to remain silent entirely. For those who treat this as transcultural, still applying today, in order to be consistent, they can’t let women teach younger women or children, despite that being a role specifically opened to them in Titus 2:3-8. Furthermore, women shouldn’t be allowed to sing in worship or fellowship with other believers. So, no Fanny Crosby or Helen Lemmel hymns for them!
In, Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space, Dr. Jorunn Økland mentions the way that some make the distinction between the church (ekklesia), and the home (oikos) as a way to justify this seemingly odd hiccup in Paul’s otherwise egalitarian track record. This repeated distinction may be reason to assume the two spaces have different rules for what sort of, if any, female talk is allowed. Dr. Økland makes the point however that it isn’t so much what the building was made for, but what the building is used for that designates it as a church. He uses the phrase, “Space as Sanctuary” often throughout the book to describe the functional definition of a church building. Such a temporal distinction of the church and the home, as the one mentioned prior, makes no sense in light of the fact that some churches met in the houses of women such as Lydia (Acts 16:15), and Nympha (Col. 4:15). Were they to be silent in their own homes? It makes much more sense to have a spatial understanding of the distinction between house and home such as the one Økland makes. He brings to light that Paul “constructs the ekklesia as a separate space of representation within the walls of the house” (Økland ). It is still necessary though to explain why Paul gives the instruction that he does in this passage. Within this space there is a particular pattern of action that hinders its function as sanctuary, that involves women needing to be silent, and therefore needs to be addressed.
This is consistent with the context of the passage. Paul is discussing the sign gifts and clarifying that it is better to be silent than to sow confusion. Whether it be speaking in tongues or prophesying, Paul makes it clear that discord and excess are a hindrance rather than a help. But why the sudden shift from the subject of the sign gifts to the behavior of women? Fr. Byrne’s answer to this was that Paul didn’t actually write this section because it isn’t consistent with his egalitarian leanings expressed in Romans 16 and that it was inserted later by multiple translators with a shared misogynist bias. I’m not going to give such a low view of Scripture much thought here other than to say that if we come to a point of disagreement with Scripture, it is we who are wrong. It would’ve been much better for him to yield to complementarianism than to retreat in pride. Besides, further exegesis provides two explanations for this. One explanation is that the women of the church in Corinth had been misusing the gifts, specifically prophesying, and speaking in tongues. The problem that I see in this explanation though is that women were permitted to pray and prophecy in public (1 Cor. 11). I think there’s still a better exegetical route to take.
Richard and Joyce Boldrey make note in their book, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul’s View of Women, that “In verse 34, women’s silence is set in opposition to their wanting to learn” (Boldrey). And unlike the speaking mentioned prior in the surrounding segment, which is consistently tied to prophesying or speaking in tongues, the idea of speaking is attached to that desire to learn. Therefore, it can be gathered that the thought being continued through the shift from discussion of the sign gifts to the instruction of women to be silent is not regarding the misuse of the gifts, but the general idea of disorder and confusion in the church.
The question now is, in what way was the women’s desire to learn leading to disorder and confusion? When it comes to public lectures and the way they were conducted by teachers in the Greco- Roman world, Dr. Keener delineates that it was common for people to ask questions. Certain questions however would be rude to ask. Some of these types of questions include, “questions irrelevant to their discipline…challenging the speaker without yet understanding his point…those who nitpick too much…questioning extraneous points”, and others (Keener). The reason this applies to women specifically is because women were generally much less educated than men at this time. This considered, it makes perfect sense that if this were a reoccurring problem, it would be best for them to ask their husbands at home, instead of constantly interrupting the exposition of Scripture. Dr. Keener concludes that Paul gave both a short range and a long-range antidote to the problem at hand. “The short-range solution was that women were to stop interrupting the service; the long-range solution was that they were to learn the knowledge they had been lacking” (Keener). It still remains true today that it is better for members of the church to keep silent rather than to stir confusion and discord with uninformed interruptions, and challenging those that God has put in leadership over them without first seeking understanding. This would be the application of a passage such as this.
As for the latter of the two complementarian prooftexts, Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12,
“11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet”.
The context surrounding it is an instruction for women to adorn themselves in respectable apparel, practicing modesty and self-control. Specifics listed are for them to not wear their hair in braids, wear gold pearls, or costly attire. Afterward is an allusion to the creation narrative, reminding the listener, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 13-14). The question that needs answered is whether or not this instruction from Paul to the women in Ephesus was delivered as a transcultural or ad hoc institution.
I have yet to observe any fellow complementarian consistently treat this as a transcultural instruction. To do so, one would not only have to hold that women are to remain quiet in the church today, but also that they mustn’t ever wear gold pearls, costly attire, or her hair in braids. It is a disservice to the text and to the church when one plucks verses from their context and treats them in a way that they aren’t willing to treat the Scripture surrounding it. If it is a transcultural instruction, it ought to be treated as such. But if it is an ad hoc instruction, rightly understood for the context which it was written, then it needs to be treated that way consistently.
As for the allusion to the creation account, complementarians often bring this up when prodded for context as a defense because of the reminder of Eves subordination to Adam, and that unlike Adam, Eve was deceived and became the transgressor. With this as the substantiation for the instruction of women to remain quiet, complementarians see this as an airtight defense. It doesn’t seem to me though that a proper takeaway from Paul’s mention of the creation account is a sort of stereotype affirming female gullibility. For instance, the conclusion that Dr. Gillian Beattie arrives at is that “Eve comes to stand for all women. If the pastor’s female readers want to avoid Eve’s fate and keep themselves from her state of transgression, they must renounce their desire to teach, just as Eve should have renounced the serpent” (Beattie).
If what is taken away from this passage is that Eve represents women, Eve was deceived, and therefore women are more susceptible to deception than men and shouldn’t teach, than why does Paul instruct older women to teach younger women, and to be models of good works in their teaching in Titus 2:3-8? The ones that are by nature easily deceived are allowed to teach younger women who are also by nature easily deceived? Instead of this transcultural takeaway of the text resulting in what is essentially the blind leading the blind, the ad hoc argument proves to be much more Scripturally consistent. Eve represents one who is easily deceived, the women in Ephesus are easily deceived, therefore those women shouldn’t teach. The only loose end this leaves is, why are the women in Ephesus easily deceived?
Dr. Craig Keener points out that an important reason Paul may have not wanted these women to teach is because a lot of the false teaching that was going around was being spread through women in the congregation because in being uneducated, they were more susceptible to deception (Keener). Beyond that point, unlike the direction for the women in 1 Corinthians 14, a lot of these women were widows who could not learn from their husbands at home. This made them even more susceptible to deception. This why widows are mentioned specifically in the instructions for the church in 1 Timothy 5.
All in all, there are many ministry roles that are given to women such as preaching, teaching, missions, evangelism, and more, but the role of a pastor is not granted to them by Scripture. The best egalitarian argument is to walk someone through all of the ways in which women are ministering in unprecedented and counter-cultural ways in Scripture, ask “Why not?”, and point out that although there aren’t any women specifically mentioned in Scripture, they aren’t prohibited either. The problem for them then becomes, they’re half right. Scripture is indeed counterculturally pro-woman. It seems to go out of the way even at times to point out the women ministering in a context where their ministry would otherwise be unheard of. It is so out of place that it speaks to the integrity of the text. If someone was making up claims like the resurrection of Christ, and they wanted people to believe it, they certainly wouldn’t in that time period do so by asserting that women were the eyewitnesses of Him. That would be foolish, and yet it is recorded anyway because it is the truth. So the fact that time and time again there is a clear indication of a given role being filled by women, and then there isn’t for the role of a pastor, is a pretty significant note to make. This is especially the case given Paul’s qualifications for elders in Titus 1:5-9 where he expresses an explicitly masculine norm for this role. It is for this reason, not proof-texting or pedaling some agenda either way into the text, that I believe women are given the wonderful privilege of ministering to people via many various roles, with the exclusion of the office of pastor. My prayer for those who desire this role anyway is that they be reminded of James 3:1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness”. In this sense, especially, it is worth noting that although the pastoral role is exclusive to men, it is surely not for all men. None of us are entitled to just any role we want or “feel” drawn towards, but rather are to accept the callings God has placed on us in accordance with His Word. I also pray they be reminded of Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things…”. It is the pride that comes with our sin nature that draws us towards the one fruit in the garden God prohibits us from. Desiring it further in entitlement and envy is proof of a heart deceived.
Citations:
Beattie, Gillian. Women and Marriage in Paul and His Early Interpreters. T & T Clark International, 2005.
Boldrey, Richard, and Joyce Boldrey. Chauvinist or Feminist?: Paul's View of Women. Baker Book House, 1976.
Bristow, John T. What Paul Really Said about Women: An Apostle's Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love ; with Study Questions. HarperSan Francisco, 2004.
Byrne, Brendan. Paul and the Christian Woman. Liturgical Press, 1989.
DelHousaye, John. “Who Are the Women Prophets in the Bible?” CBE International, 5 June 2009, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/who-are-women-prophets-bible.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker, 1984.
Getty, Mary Ann. Women in the New Testament. Liturgical Press, 2017.
Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women & Wives. Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. IVP Academic, 2014.
Økland, Jorunn. Women in Their Place. T & T Clark, 2005.
Richardson, Alan, and John Bowden. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Westminster Press, 2005.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Moody Press, 1999.
The Holy Bible ESV: English Standard Version: Containing the Old and New Testaments. Crossway Bibles, 2007.
Wright, NT. “Why Women Should Be Church Leaders and Preachers.” YouTube, 25 Sept. 2019, https://youtu.be/os8M9ln2cM0. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021.
