An Egalitarian Friendly Complementarian View of Women in Ministry

I was recently asked by a friend (who is also a pastor) about my view of women in ministry. He has a vested interest in this topic because he has daughters who could eventually become quite involved in ministry, as he is. I don’t have daughters, but I do have a very smart and able wife who can do just about anything. Are there limits to the types of ministry that she can be involved in? Could she be a Pastor? A deaconess? An elder? An evangelist? The list goes on and on. Well, this is an area of debate in contemporary theology, and the Middle Ground is here to tackle it!

There are two dominant views regarding the role of women in ministry – the Complementarian and Egalitarian views. The Complementarian view advocates that certain teaching and leadership roles in the church are open to men only, while the Egalitarian view teaches that men and women are free to serve in any capacity for which they are gifted and qualified. Both views argue from scripture for their position, presenting different interpretations and applications. In this article, we will review each of these positions and then suggest a middle ground view.

The Complementarian View

The Complementarian view has served as the orthodox position for much of church history. In this view, the male and female were created equally in God’s image with dignity and value, but with distinct roles and responsibilities. The male was granted loving authority over the female, and the female was to be a willing, submissive “helper” to the male (Gen 2:20).

Sin’s Distortion of God’s Intended Hierarchy

Shortly after their creation, the first human couple sinned. This first sin shattered the divinely prescribed relational harmony, and instead ushered in relational chaos. God told Eve,

“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

This is the same language God uses a chapter later in an exhortation to Cain:

“Its [sin’s] desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it” (Gen 4:7b)

This later exhortation gives an interpretational framework for Genesis 3:16. Just as sin (in a personified way) sought to dominate Cain, so the fallen woman would unnaturally attempt to usurp the role of the man. Just as Cain, in a retaliatory fashion, was to dominate over sin, so the fallen man would subjugate the woman, oftentimes with ungodly over-correction.

Redemption of the Husband-Wife Relationship in Christ

Thankfully, in Christ, a harmonious, spirit-filled hierarchy is re-established. There is no male or female in Christ (Gal 3:28), as they are both equally “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). Nevertheless, there is still a natural hierarchy affirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12; analogous to Christ’s headship over His bride, the church (Eph 5:23). Accordingly, wives are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ (Eph 5:24), and they are not to serve in authoritative teaching roles over men in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35, 1 Tim 2:11-15).

Complementarians believe that the differentiation in male and female roles is evidenced throughout the Bible:

The man was created first (1 Tim 2:13), and given vocational and moral responsibility for the garden (Gen 2:17).

The woman was created for the man, as his helper (Gen 2:20, 1 Cor 11:9-10).

Adam named Eve, both before and after she sinned. This was evidence of his authority over her, just as his naming of the animals was evidence of his authority over them.

Although Eve sinned first and gave the fruit to Adam, God approached Adam first, as he was morally responsible for the garden. His sin, not Eve’s, was imputed to humanity (Rom 5:12ff, 1 Cor 15:22).

Paul’s teaching regarding the male and female hierarchy is not based on cultural (patriarchal) accomodation. It is tied directly to events in the creation account (1 Tim 2:13-14)

While the second half of 1 Peter 3:7 stresses equal salvific inheritance accorded to the wife along with the husband, the first half demonstrates a constitutional difference between them. She is the “weaker vessel” and needs to be treated with gentleness as such. The husband bears the God-sanctioned responsibility to care for her, indicating his leadership in the relationship and responsibility for it. Just as Christ will present the glorious church to the Father, without blemish or spot, so also the husband must present his bride to God, Who gave him the responsibility of discipling and sanctifying her (Eph 5:27-28).

Complementarians offer several examples of ministerial differentiation between men and women in Old Testament Israel, in the ministry of Jesus, and in the ministry of the church.

Throughout covenantal history, God called men and held them responsible for religious leadership in Israel. This includes the patriarchs of the faith, the prophets, the priests, and the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Even though Jesus customarily challenged the traditions of men, and accordingly took women with him during his itinerant ministry, He never chose any women to be among the twelve disciples. His choice of twelve men continued the pattern observed in the Old Testament, of distinguishing a certain level of spiritual leadership as gender-restrictive.

Paul restricts women from a certain level of spiritual leadership and instruction in the Church. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:34-36, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15 consistently require that the church’s highest spiritual leadership be gender-restrictive. This is reinforced by qualifications for the position of eldership which requires that one be “the husband of one wife” (see 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6), obviously indicating that only qualified men may serve as elders.

Those who oppose the Complementarian view often claim that it devalues and subjugates women. Complementarians counter-argue that such an accusation is entirely unfounded. They believe that attacks against their position are rooted in a secular understanding of the nature of leadership and authority. Jesus advocated a radical servant leadership model, nothing like the secular world of His day (See Luke 22:25-26). When husbands sacrificially love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25), and wives naturally reciprocate with loving submission (v22), the sinful distortion of the male-female relationship (Gen 3:16) is replaced with the domestic harmony that God intended before the fall. This beautiful and orderly display of sacrifice and submission actually makes the Gospel more attractive (Tit 2:5,9-11), not less attractive.

Submission in Modern Culture

Complementarians argue that submission is commonplace in modern culture. It is normal to submit to those who exceed our wisdom and experience in a given area of expertise. Teams submit to their coaches; Karate students to their “masters”; Apprentices to their mentors. In a like manner, less mature Christians are expected to submit to the more mature elders in the church (1 Pet 5:5).

Submission is also expected in the workplace. Individual contributors submit to Managers; Managers to Directors; Directors to Vice Presidents; Vice Presidents to the President/CEO. In the case of a Christian employer, the leader is commanded to rule as a servant, not “lording over” employees (Mt 20:25, Eph 6:9). This same command especially applies to those in church leadership. The elders are to gently lead the flock by example, without compulsion or domineering (1 Pet 5:2-3).

Single-Person Responsibility

Complementarians argue that giving equal responsibility to two people for the same task is untenable. There are not two CEOs of the same company, or two managers of the same team within a company. Imagine if such were the case. There would be mixed communications, mixed directives, competing priorities. It would be functionally counterproductive. Ultimately, one person – a point person – needs to answer for a specific task; one project manager needs to answer for the project; one product owner to answer for the product; One team leader to answer for the team. I always tell coworkers – if you give an action item to a group of people, you give it to no one. Only when you attach a responsible person to that action does it get completed with accountability. God knew this when He gave Adam the responsibility for the Garden. When the fall occurred, God went to Adam first (Gen 3:9), even though Eve had sinned first (Gen 3:6, 1 Tim 2:14).

Was God’s selection of Adam arbitrary? According to Complementarians, God does nothing arbitrarily. His choice was multi-faceted. First, it had to do with sequence. Adam was given a unique status simply because he was formed “first” (1 Tim 2:13); not unlike the unique status given to the firstborn (Deut 21:17), or the unique status given to the first-fruits of the land (Lev 23:9-14). Second, His choice was punitive. The woman was “deceived” first (1 Tim 2:14), and thereby secured consequences for all females, not unlike other federally propagated consequences throughout Biblical history (Num 14:18, Deut 23:3-4, 2 Sam 21:1). Third, His choice was based on inherent distinctions between men and women.

Functional Distinction Between Genders

There are inherent distinctions between people that may make one group more suited to a task than another. In sports competitions, there are weight classes because we see inequity in putting the weak against the strong. This includes male and female divisions, because the man is typically stronger than the woman, who is “the weaker vessel” (1 Pet 3:7). Men, on average, have twenty times more testosterone than women! Of course, a trained woman can often outperform an untrained man, but a man with an equal level of training as the woman, will typically exceed her physical strength. Therefore, in ancient societies women submitted to their husbands’ leadership in the areas of security and defense. Of course, today we have guns and tasers, which can be wielded equally by women and men. Nevertheless, the notion that the man is the household protector remains a societal norm, and able-bodied men are expected to “man up” and take responsibility in this area.

There have been many studies performed to compartmentalize other gender differences. Books have been written to persuade each gender to be mindful of the unique characteristics of the other gender. One that comes to mind is Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus by John Gray. Such studies and books do not represent every single male and female, as the fall of humanity has created genetic and hormonal imbalances in nature. Nevertheless, Complementarians believe that there normally are differences, and that God has the most comprehensive knowledge of them, having designed them. He alone, being All Wise and All Knowing, is the most qualified Person to assign gender specific responsibilities as He sees fit for His glory and human sanctification.

Delegation and Secondary Submission

Complementarians also argue that, although God has ordained a hierarchical organizational structure in the home, it does not translate into a strict set of functions that each gender has to perform. Complementarians stress the importance of deploying “complementary” gifts, while maintaining gender based responsibilities. Though the husband is responsible to bring up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:1), if his wife is more gifted in that area, it is wise for him to delegate that function to her and to secondarily submit to her methods. In the end, he has to answer to God for the discipleship of his children, but such a delegation may be the most effective way to accomplish it. Likewise, although the woman is charged with keeping the home (Tit 2:5), if the man is more gifted and available in that area, it is wise for her to delegate that function to him and to secondarily submit to his methods. In the end, she has to answer to God for the keeping of her home, but such a delegation may be her most effective way to accomplish it.

No matter what the outworking of specific domestic “functions” looks like, the man has to be aware that he is not the “Master” of his wife in any way shape or form. Jesus reserved the role of “Master” for Himself alone:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Mt 23:8-10 KJV)

The Egalitarian View

Now let us turn our attention to the other major view in this debate — The Egalitarian view. Egalitarians insist that the man and woman were created equal, in the image of God, sharing equally the divine mandate to rule over creation, without a functional hierarchy (Gen 1:26-27). In Genesis 3, they sinned and fell short of God’s mandate for humanity. As a result, creation was cursed and the husband-wife relationship was henceforth characterized by domination and subordination (Gen 3:16), having no semblance of the original God-ordained harmony.

Nevertheless, God began to counteract this fallen condition by appointing women to equally authoritative roles as men. Egalitarians stress the following key roles that women played in Old Testament history and in the early church:

Miriam, a prophetess, helped Moses lead the people out of Egypt and through the wilderness.

Deborah ruled over Israel as a judge (Judges 4).

Huldah, another prophetess, inspired King Josiah to renew the Covenant (2 Kings 22).

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit fell on both men and women (Acts 1-2).

Lydia helped plant the church in Philippi (Acts 16).

Priscilla and her husband taught the ways of God to a preacher named Apollos (Acts 18).

Phoebe was a “deaconess” of the church and delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 16:1).

Egalitarians also stress key redemptive truths that are applied to both men and women:

Men and women share equally in the spiritual blessings that come through faith in Jesus Christ. “There is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28)

The gifts of the Spirit are given to both men and women without distinction. “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it” (Ephesians 4:7).

In the eternal state, there will be no more curse – no more male domination over women or women usurping men. The church is to be pointing the way toward that new and better day.

Cultural Reading of Paul’s Texts

Egalitarians tend to interpret Paul’s “Complementarian” texts within a narrow cultural context. They claim that many culturally steeped commands are no longer relevant, such as the church praying for “kings” (1 Tim 2:1-2), women not wearing braided hair or jewelry (v9-10), or men greeting one another with a holy kiss (1 Thess 5:26). They instead apply the timeless principles embedded in those commands, i.e., praying for governing authorities, women and men dressing modestly and appropriately, and men and women greeting one another warmly, according to the custom of the day.

With this interpretive principle, Egalitarians claim that texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reflect local circumstances and cultural contexts in which women were not qualified to be involved in teaching, and had the potential to mislead or disrupt the church. Both Old and New Testaments were written in overtly patriarchal cultures. Women did not have the same legal status as men, were not educated, and were treated as though they were the property of their fathers or their husbands. They were not considered worthy of a rabbi’s instruction, nor were they granted any religious leadership opportunities. Because of their lack of spiritual instruction, and their limited leadership experiences, the vast majority of women were not qualified to be teachers or leaders.

Egalitarian spotlight on 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

Egalitarians emphasize that Ephesus was highly feminized and sexualized, and served as the home of the Temple of Diana. It was a cesspool of false teachings, influenced by the Diana cult, which promoted female sexuality and superiority.

1 Tim 2:11 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Egalitarians argue that, while Paul had no problem with women teaching and leading in certain contexts, something must have been going on in Ephesus that compelled Paul to make this statement – potentially false teaching propagated by women; uneducated, inexperienced, women who had been influenced by the feminized, sexualized Diana cult.

Egalitarians argue that, in the contemporary world, the cultural factors that once excluded women from such authoritative and leading roles are no longer relevant. Women have equal education, equal status, equal rights, and increasingly equal opportunities in every sector of society. Therefore, the restrictions placed on women are now irrelevant, and arguably detrimental to the church.

Hesitation with Egalitarian arguments

Though I agree with much of what Egalitarians argue regarding the leadership roles of women throughout redemptive history, I think it is risky to employ a cultural argument (e.g. the Diana Cult) to qualify Paul’s literal statement in 1 Timothy 2. While the cultural background can add color to a text, it should never be given the license to reinterpret a text. In fact, such a license has been used to attempt major revisions of long held Biblical truths. For example, cultural arguments have been used to undermine the literal nature of the creation account. Liberal scholars claim that “Ancient Near Eastern” literature spoke of creation in ways that Genesis does. Therefore Genesis is purportedly symbolic and mythological. Similarly, many liberal theologians claim that all of the demon possessions in the Gospels can now be explained as mental health issues, and therefore should be interpreted naturalistically. These “cultural” arguments are used by the world to undermine nearly every doctrine Christians uphold. Literal statements made about things that have not changed – e.g. gender, ecclesiastical functions, etc – should always have precedent over cultural background that has changed – e.g. kings, greeting with kisses, etc.

I am also leery of arguments that make specific claims from general principles (e.g. claiming that Adam and Eve’s dominion mandate makes them functionally egalitarian). There are more specific texts describing functional submission in specific relationships, such as Ephesians 5-6, which gives details on how we collectively submit to “one another” (5:21) — wives to husbands (5:22), children to parents (6:1), servants to masters (6:5). Although all these humans have “dominion” over creation (Gen 1:26), they do so collectively, not identically. Each relationship has a polarity with regard to headship and submission. While the dominion mandate includes my children as part of the whole of humanity, they do not have dominion over creation in the exact same way that I do as their parent (at least not yet).

A Middle Ground Position

I would like to propose a position that is “Ministry Egalitarian” but “Domestic Complementarian”. I recently came across a chapter on women in ministry by Dr. Kirk MacGregor, a philosopher and scholar of religion with McPherson College [1]. What I like about his exegesis is that he refrains from cultural arguments, and instead employs a straightforward literal, grammatical, contextual approach to tackle the two primary passages in the debate:

First, he shows that Corinthians 14:34-37 is a Quotation Refutation Device (QRD). Accordingly, Paul is quoting a Corinthian misconception about women and then immediately refuting it [2]:

Passage in 1 Cor.	Quotation	Refutation
14:34-37	‘Women should keep silent… They are not permitted to speak… As the Law also says‘	was it from you [men] that the word of God came? Or are you [men] the only ones it has reached?…

MacGregor supports this theory with several evidences, as outlined below:

i. Paul’s earlier assertion that women can prophesy publicly with their head covered (1 Cor 11:3-16).

Prophesying is an authoritative, divinely inspired public speech, directed at a group of men and women for the purpose of edification, exhortation, and comfort (1 Cor 14:3).

ii. Dominant themes running throughout the entire Pauline corpus, stressing freedom from the Law

The law Paul alludes must be the Jewish oral Torah, not the written Torah, as no Old Testament text precludes women from speaking or demands their submission in assemblies. The oral Torah does.

iii. The undisputed presence of this QRD device five other times in 1 Corinthians.

Passage in 1 Cor.	Quotation	Refutation
6:12-13	‘All things are lawful for me’	but not all things are helpful…
7:1-2	‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman‘	But because of temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife
8:1	‘All of us possess knowledge‘	This knowledge puffs up
8:8	We are no worse off if we do not eat [food], and no better off if we do	But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block
10:23	‘All things are lawful‘	but not all things are helpful…build up

iv. The logical flow of thought following the quotation.

14:36–38 stands as a condemnation of 14:33b–35 and the Corinthian men who proposed women should not speak in accordance with oral law. He is basically telling the men, “Who do you think you are? Do you think the word of God only came through men?“

v. Paul’s introduction of the rhetorical questions in v36 with “or” (ἢ), which follows his consistent pattern to argue against the Corinthians’ position:

“or (ἢ) were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1:13)

“or (ἢ) is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain working for a living?” (9:6)

“or (ἢ) does not the Law say the same?” (9:8)

“or (ἢ) saith he it altogether for our sakes?” (9:10, KJV)

“or (ἢ) do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (11:22)

Second, MacGregor shows that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is addressing the domestic husband-wife relationship, not ecclesiastical responsibilities or polity [3]. His argument is substantiated by the following two points:

All 54 times outside of this text where γυνή and ἀνήρ are paired together without ἄνθρωπος, it is always interpreted as “wife” and “husband”

Paul immediately refers to the husband/wife relationship of Adam and Eve (v13-14) and the marital act of childbearing (v15), after making his statement about γυνή and ἀνήρ in verse 12

If these observations are correct, and I believe they are, then these two texts can be excluded from the debate concerning women in ministry. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to embrace ministry egalitarianism at the expense of domestic complementarianism. Let me explain.

Limited Ministry Authority for Married Women

Although this view, in alignment with Old and New Testament history, permits women to instruct men in various ecclesiastical settings, it has practical limitations. Appointing a married woman to a pastoral role which places her in an authoritative teaching position over her husband contradicts the domestic discipleship order described in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, as well as the domestic hierarchy outlined in Ephesians 5:22-24 (cf Col 3:18) and 1 Peter 3:1. This restriction extends to any elder role, since the New Testament consistently equates (to varying degrees) the responsibilities of the elder-shepherd-overseer offices. These are all authoritative offices over the church. The spouse of the elder-shepherd-overseer is part of the church, and thereby under that office’s authority. Therefore, the appointment of a married woman to a lead pastoral position should be avoided so as to avoid marital disorder, strife, and confusion. God is not anti-woman! He is pro-marriage! He wants our ministries and our marriages to succeed. Perhaps a better name for this position is “Practical Complementarianism”.

Are there any circumstances in which a woman can serve as a pastor? I suppose there are two circumstances which can be considered:

1) A celibate woman who is not married, nor intends to ever be married, appointed to a lead pastoral role. Though Paul speaks of the rarity of the gift of celibacy (1 Cor 7:7), the need to marry to avoid sexual temptation (1 Cor 7:9), and the normal expectation for a pastor to be married (1 Tim 3:2), I suppose this rare scenario might not violate the domestic order. However, this would inevitably cause a stumbling block in the church. Even Deborah’s leadership as a judge and prophetess over all of Israel is portrayed as a situation where female leadership arose due to the apparent lack of male leaders stepping up (Jdgs 4:8-9).

2) A husband and wife pastoral team, where the husband is the lead pastor and the wife serves in a lesser pastoral position – such as a Connections Pastor, Youth Pastor, or Worship Pastor. However, a model like this would hinge upon there being a hierarchy of elder-pastors in a church; a phenomenon I don’t personally observe in the New Testament. All elders have an equal voice in a truly Presbyterian system.

A Safer Bet — Non-ordained “servants”!

Rather than advocating for women to serve as pastors, a more biblically fitting alternative may be the recognition of women in a distinct, non-ordained role of care and service—perhaps akin to a “board of women” or ministry of mercy. In the New Testament, the office of deacon is formally instituted in Acts 6:1–6, where qualified men are appointed to assist the elders and care for the congregation’s practical needs. These deacons, such as Stephen and Philip, are noted not only for their service but also for their public ministry and gospel proclamation (Acts 7; Acts 8:4–40). While 1 Timothy 3:8–13 outlines qualifications for deacons using masculine language, Romans 16:1 refers to Phoebe as a diakonos—a term that can simply mean “servant” and does not necessarily imply formal ordination. Scripture does not clearly establish a separate office of deaconess, nor does it prescribe a rite of ordination for women in this capacity. Nevertheless, Phoebe’s commendation suggests that women played vital roles in the life of the early church. A Biblically faithful model may be to affirm women in structured, recognized ministries of care and service—distinct from the ordained diaconate—while honoring the general use of diakonos as descriptive of Christian service.

Though this position does not solve every problem of the debate, I believe it upholds a high view of scripture, respects the biblical allowance of women in leadership roles within the church, while limiting those roles to those which protect her relationship to her husband.

Footnotes

[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2007), Chapter 8 — Women in Ministry, A New Proposal, Page 231-264.

[2] MacGregor Pages 235-244

[3] MacGregor Pages 244-251