One of the deepest divisions in today’s church has to do with the issue of the role of women in the Church. A number of theological propositions have been made as to whether women should be allowed to be ordained as elders in a local church or not. The egalitarian will say that they can and the complementarian will say that they cannot. The Bible teaches about a seemingly paradoxical dualism where we are, on the one hand male and female,[1 and on the other, neither male nor female.[2] Yet, church eldership is rightly limited to men as the Church—though a manifestation of the eschatological Kingdom of God—is a temporal institution and mission based on the precepts of God’s original design for the male and female.
Based on Original Design
The complementarian view says that women should not be ordained as elders, because the church structure and authority is based on family structure and authority,[3] and the family structure is based on God’s original design of Adam and Eve who were given separate and distinct roles as father and mother.[4] The egalitarian view typically holds that it is ok for women to be ordained as elders because church structure is based on the future, eschatological kingdom of God in which we are brothers and sisters, and not on the temporal Adam and Eve design as fathers and mothers. Harper and Metzger write, “Our thesis is that if we view the church as a community that is fundamentally eschatological…we will necessarily move to a more egalitarian philosophy of leadership in the church…” (Harper and Metzger 2009, 202) So the question is what do we look to for the answer, our past or our future? Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to look to the teachings of Jesus and Paul who undoubtedly looked to the future themselves. Interestingly, even though Jesus’ and Paul’s lives were Kingdom-oriented we don’t find a sense of this egalitarianism in their ministry. Jesus’ choices for the leaders of his new Church were—all twelve of them—men. It may be stating the obvious but we need to watch out that we don’t strain gnats and swallow camels. If Jesus was making a way for both men and women to be leaders of his flock, surely the selection of his twelve disciples was the perfect opportunity to do so. Mark Driscoll notes,
During his life and ministry, Jesus treated women with great dignity and maintained the creation pattern of male leadership that permeated the Old Testament. Jesus clearly believed in Genesis 1:27, because he quoted it in Matthew 19:4 when he said, “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” (Driscoll 2008, 37)
Jesus’ choices were not swayed by the dictates of the cultural norms. Lest we forget, Jesus was later killed for going against them. Alexander Strauch further remarks,
Jesus’ choice of male leadership was an affirmation of the creation order as presented in Genesis 2:18-25. Before choosing the Twelve, Luke informs us that Jesus spent the entire night in prayer with His Father (Luke 6:12). As the perfect Son, in complete obedience and submission to His Father’s will, Jesus chose twelve males to be His apostles. Thus these men were God the Father’s choice. Jesus’ choice of male apostles was based on divine principles and guidance. (Strauch 1995, 53)
Paul himself taught very plainly that women have a distinct role as women in the Church along the lines of subordination. It should be noted that Paul does not base his prescriptive instruction on eschatological truths. Instead he, like Jesus, goes back to the original creation account.[5] Not only is Paul’s instruction based on the original creation but it is also based on the differences in the way in which Adam and Eve both fell. This was important to Paul as he saw it as relevant to church practice and leadership. Paul’s explanation of submission (hupotagē) and authority (authenteō) is directly intrinsic to the reasons for Adam being created first and Eve second, and Eve being deceived while Adam was not deceived. .
The egalitarian invariably points to Galatians 3:28 which says, “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” The statement of faith for one large egalitarian church denies that God designed the male and female for different roles and that “human oneness was shattered after the fall.”[6] This “oneness” is equated with the same oneness between the Father and the Son. But what are we to make of the examples of Jesus submitting to the Father?[7] And are not father and son distinct roles in themselves? This is not explained. It goes on to claim that “old divisions and hierarchies between genders and races are not to be tolerated in the Church where all are ‘one in Christ Jesus’.” This is agreeable but what about roles? Again, no mention is made. (Beach 2008, 201-202) Taking the context into account, Galatians 3:28 clearly speaks of being equally united to Christ by the Spirit and not the absence of a male and female distinction. Indeed, it is not hard for anyone to see that after being baptized into Christ, we still remain every bit as male or female as we were before. In fact, in Christ, we undergo redemptive work by the Holy Spirit toward our masculinity and femininity. The distinction is meant to be restored and not abolished![8]
We don’t regard anyone according the flesh any longer
What does it mean when Paul says that we don’t regard anyone according to the flesh now that we are all united in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection?[9] Does it mean that we should not regard each other as men and women, or mothers and fathers in the Church? Harper and Metzger write, “in the church, a wife’s primary and eschatological relationship to her husband is one of brother/sister, taking priority over the temporal husband/wife relationship.” (Harper and Metzger 2009, 205) But Paul, in writing to Timothy, is giving instructions specifically for church practice and government. The categories of slave and free, black and white, and rich and poor merely describe surface level appearances or one’s status. Maleness and femaleness go beyond the surface level to the root of our design. John Piper asserts that manhood and womanhood go beyond the physical aspects to the very root of our personhood. (Piper, et al. 1991, 32) We cannot make the presumptuous mistake of thinking that masculinity and femininity are abolished in the Kingdom of God. It would be foolish and going too far to say that this is what Paul was teaching. In fact, as a side note, there is still a male and female distinction in the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven—we are brothers and sisters of one another, and sons and daughters of our Father God.[10] We will, most assuredly, be every bit as male and female in the eschatological Kingdom of God as we are male and female now. The difference will be that our masculinity and femininity will be fully restored.[11] Therefore, contrary to the egalitarian interpretation, we do have to regard one another according to our original design. In Ephesians 6:1-4 Paul teaches about submission and authority according to the order of the original creation in the context of the relationship between parents and children even though in the Kingdom of God they are not regarded as parents and children, but as siblings. The same would follow with instructions about submission and authority for husbands and wives. If such roles are defined for the family, then such roles in church leadership would naturally follow. While the New Testament makes no distinction between race, class, or ethnicity as prerequisites for church eldership, it does make a distinction along the lines of gender.
When we are told by Paul to no longer regard one another according to the flesh we are compelled to think about our new spiritual identity. We don’t regard each other as sons and daughters of Adam anymore; we now regard each other as sons and daughters of God. Paul gives some important insights to the relationship between our natural designs and our heavenly design:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:44-49)
The tension is how to be two different things at the same time. On the one hand, we are still of the natural as men and women with our respective roles as dictated by God’s design. On the other hand, we are re-created from a heavenly source with a new image. However we must keep in mind that we do not “bear the image of the man of heaven” just yet. We await this eagerly when our family structures and our church leadership structures are no longer necessary.[12] Nonetheless, there is a sense of egalitarianism that we can all experience because of our newness in the Spirit. We all have equal authority from God to heal the sick, cast out demons, and proclaim his Word as his ambassadors to the world.[13] We also have the same source of wisdom within us, even if we are young.[14] Men, women, and children alike, are equally enabled by the one Holy Spirit to express gifts, preach the gospel, rebuke spirits, teach sinners, utter words of eternal wisdom, prophesy, use the name of Jesus in authority, and make requests of God.[15] To be clear, all who are in Christ obtain equal authority over the kingdom of Satan and the world itself.[16] In a time to come, all saints, male and female will judge the world and as well as the angels.[17] And yet, though we have an authority over the nations, we are still taught to follow the rule of submission to earthly authorities even though we are not under them. This is how we should look at the issue of submission and authority within the family and in the Church as Christians. Women are not anymore inferior to men than Jesus was to Pontius Pilate to whose rule he submitted. [18] But God has given a purpose for us to follow and obey for the sake of his own glory. God does all things for his own glory.[19]
The Curse of the Fall
The egalitarian typically sees that the subordination is a result of the sin and fallenness of Adam and Eve. Alvera Mickelsen argues that the creation order is irrelevant and that there was no subordination in the marriage of Adam and Eve before the fall but it appeared afterward as a result of sin. She writes, “Male dominance appears in Genesis 3:16 as part of the result of sin.” (Culver, et al. 1989, 184) However with a perspective like this one has great difficulty in reconciling Paul’s teachings on subordination being, as they were, based on the situation before the fall. Raymond C. Ortlund explains the paradox of Adam and Eve being created equal but different:
The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the woman was made from the man (her equality) and for the man (her inequality). God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear.
Another indication of the paradox is that Adam welcomes Eve as his equal (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”), yet he also names her (“she shall be called Woman”). God charged the man with naming the creatures and gave him the freedom to exercise his own judgment in each case. In doing so, Adam brought the earthly creation under his dominion. This royal prerogative extended to Adam’s naming of his helper. Nevertheless, the name he gives her, “Woman,” springs from his instantaneous recognition of her as the counterpart to “Man.”
Let us note this carefully. In designating her “Woman” the man interprets her identity in relation to himself. Out of his own intuitive comprehension of who she is, he interprets her as feminine, unlike himself, and yet as his counterpart and equal. Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh. And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding. God did not explain to the woman who she was in relation to the man, although He could have done so. He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship. Adam’s sovereign act not only arose out of his own sense of headship, it also made his headship clear to Eve. She found her own identity in relation to the man as his equal and helper by the man’s definition. Both Adam and Eve understood the paradox of their relationship from the start. (Piper, et al. 1991, 92)
In light of the creation, male headship and leadership did not appear as a result of sin. If this were the case, there would surely be instructions in the New Testament to the effect that such distinctions and roles are not to be tolerated. We find Paul very emphatic about ridding the Church of racism but at the same time we find Paul affirming gender distinctions and roles in marriage and Church practice.[20]
Living in light of what will be
As a church we are to live in light of what will be. We manifest the Kingdom reality on earth in the here and now in part, even as we wait for its complete fulfillment. However, the fact that there needs to be elders, deacons, prophets, evangelists, pastors, preachers, structure, authority, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the like, testifies to the truth that although the Church has a mandate to live in light of what will be, it also has a mandate to live in light of what is. In the future kingdom there are no local church congregations with pastors, elders, deacons, or prophets. Those roles themselves are only temporal, and not eternal. Likewise, there will be no more baptisms or breaking bread. Hence, to completely live in light of what will be would mean to have no pastors, preachers, or church leaders; in fact, you would have no local church at all! Because we are fallen sinners, we need the local church and its specific elements. Likewise, because we are male and female, we need to hold to our respective roles as such in the Church body so that we can fulfill God’s purpose for creating us the way he did.
Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Timothy 2:13
[1] Genesis 1:27; Mark 10:6
[3] Ephesians 5:24-25 – “But even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything.” [Emphasis added]
[4] Adam as Guardian, shâmar (Genesis 2:15), Eve as Mother of all living, ‘êm (Genesis 3:20). It is of no small consequence that Eve was identified as a mother even before they had any children.
[5] 1 Timothy 2:11-14 – Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
[6] Different roles as seen in Genesis 2:15, 2:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
[7] Luke 22:42; John 14:10; 14:24,28; 5:19; 6:38; 7:16; Matthew 20:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28; Philippians 2:5-8;
[8] 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Peter 3:1-6
[10] Matthew 12:50, 19:29; 2 Corinthians 6:18
[11] Acts 3:21; Revelation 21:1-5
[12] Romans 8:19-23; Mark 12:25
[13] Mark 3:15; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Corinthians 12:8-11
[14] James 1:5, 3:5; 1 Timothy 4:12; esp. Job 32:7-9
[16] Matthew 5:5; John 1:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4; Revelation 2:26; 1 Peter 2:9
[18] Consider Jesus’ words before Pilate in John 19:11 – “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.”
Works Cited
Beach, Nancy. Gifted to Lead: The Art of Leading as a Woman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Culver, Robert D., Susan Foh, Walter Liefeld, and Alvera Mickelsen. Women in Ministry. Edited by Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Driscoll, Mark. On Church Leadership. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008.
Harper, Brad, and Paul Metzger. Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009.
Piper, et al. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991.
Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership. Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995.