Why Women SHOULD Hold Leadership Positions in Their Local Church
a thoughtful rebuttal to misogyny
For many dogmatic Christians, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 serve as irrefutable proof that women should not be allowed to teach men or hold leadership positions within their local church. But were these passages intended to be universal prohibitions against female leadership? A more thorough analysis of the Bible suggests otherwise.
Earlier this month, this essay popped up on my Notes feed:
My immediate reaction was incredulity. I clicked on the thumbnail thinking “This has to be satire, right? RIGHT??”
Unfortunately . . . no.
In this essay, writer Paul Imanuelsen dogmatically insists:
“Many evangelical churches today ignore one of the most important commandments God gave to the church–namely that a woman shouldn’t teach or hold leading positions in the church.”
Woah, woah, woah.
“One of the most important commandments?”
Last I checked, our most important commandments were as follows:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength . . . [and] love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31 NIV)
“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)
I’m not usually one to jump headfirst into a debate—especially on the internet—but since I’ve started writing lessons and devotionals about the women of the Bible, I thought it would be advantageous for me to pen a thoughtful rebuttal to this nauseating essay.
There’s more to Imanuelsen’s faulty argumentation than I can tackle in a single post, so we’ll systematically dissect his logical fallacies in three separate essays:
Part 1: Are women universally prohibited from serving in positions of church leadership?
Part 2: What was God’s original design for male-female relationships, and how should that be reflected in marriage and the church?
Part 3: Are there sex-specific spiritual gifts?
PART 1: Are women universally prohibited from serving in positions of church leadership?
Contrary to what Imanuelsen (and many other dogmatists I grew up with) believe, the Bible does not prohibit female leadership within the church. Paul encourages both men and women to serve their local churches—but he wants ministry to be conducted in an orderly and edifying way.
Let’s dissect Imanuelsen’s first two arguments, shall we?
Argument #1: “Women should be silent in church.”
Based on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 & 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Imanuelsen argues that women are universally prohibited from serving in positions of church leadership or exercising authority over men.
But the real question is, “Were these passages intended to be applied to all women in all churches in all contexts?”
Plenty of scholars would argue, “No.”
Counterargument #1: 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Theologian has written several excellent essays dissecting 1 Timothy 2:11-15, so I’ll refer you to his Substack instead of regurgitating his arguments:
More Than Preaching is at Stake for Women in the 1 Timothy 2 Battleground
What if 1 Timothy 2 is About Marriage, Not Preaching?
Questions You Must Answer if You Don't Let Women Teach Men
Counterargument #2: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
This passage—like any other nuanced or confusing portion of Scripture—needs to be understood within both its cultural context and literary structure.
Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton have co-authored an insightful book called Why Not Women?: A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership. In it, they tackle some of the toughest controversies regarding women in ministry.
In his chapter “Should Women Keep Silent?”, David Hamilton explains that an accurate understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 hinges upon the historical backdrop of the Corinthian church as well as the chiastic structure of the surrounding text (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).
Cultural Context: Corinth—A City of Chaos
Scholar Mark Allan Powell describes the city of Corinth as follows:
Corinth was proud of its reputation as a city that was open to new ideas and tolerant of diversity. By New Testament times, the city of Corinth had come to be associated with lavish lifestyles and consipicuous consumption. It was also famous for its amusement: theaters, temples, casinos, and brothels. Throughout the empire, the expression "to act like a Corinthian” came to be Roman slang for engaging in sexual promiscuity. (Crinagoras, Greek Anthology, 9.284)1
As for religion, the Corinthians had temples dedicated to a variety of pagan deities including Dionysus and Aphrodite, and their worship style was rambunctuous.
“Many pagan worshipers worked themselves into an absolute uproar of noise and confusion. For them, spirituality was measured in decibel levels: the more noise, the greater the pleasure of the gods.”2
This chaotic style of worship had infiltrated Paul’s fledgling church, and—as you can imagine—things were quickly descending into chaos.
Literary Context: “Good Order in Worship”
If you look closely at the chiastic structure3 of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, you’ll see that Paul is systematically addressing three issues of disorderly worship:
too many people speaking in tongues (v. 26-28)
multiple people prophecying simultaneously (v. 29-32)
women disrupting the services (v. 34-35)
And if you examine the text, you’ll see that Paul gives all three the same conditional command:
“27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.”
“ 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.”
“ 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.”
Paul was not prohibiting anyone (male or female) from speaking in tongues or sharing prophecies. He simply wanted church services to be conducted in an orderly fashion, “for God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (v. 33).
But why would Paul need to specifically address the women?
As David Hamilton explains, there are a couple of possible explanations:
since “women were uneducated, they may have been interrupting the service by asking questions inappropriately.”4
“some of the women may have been reverting to the model of pagan worship, disrupting the service with their loud noises.”5
In pagan religions, the only way women were allowed to participate was by wailing and making high-pitched cries called ‘ululations’ . . . Among pagans, the men ministered and offered sacrifices while the women provided sound effects.6
As with prophecies and tongues, Paul was not universally prohibiting women from ministering within the church—he simply wanted them to do so “without the chaos of their pagan past.”7
We’ll discuss 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 further in Part 3, but for now, I want to move on to the second argument in Imanuelsen’s essay.
Argument #2: “Paul’s qualifications for church leaders only address men.”
Based solely on Titus 1:5-9, Imanuelsen argues that “it should be impossible for anyone to defend female pastors, teachers, or preachers as it’s “completely against God’s word and contrary to what God has created the woman for.”
According to Imanuelsen, there is no biblical evidence to support female teachers and church leaders. But if you read Imanuelsen’s essay in full, you may notice a biting irony:
Imanuelsen also writes that “[some] people try to find ways to interpret Bible verses to fit their own opinions and ideology.”
And that’s exactly how he builds his arguments. Imanuelsen cherry-picks specific passages that support his personal views rather than examining the whole of Scripture.
Imanuelsen further incriminates himself when he writes, “If someone really wants to do God’s will and not their own, they will not invalidate parts of the Bible because they think they know better than God how it should apply today.”
I couldn’t agree more, which is why I think we should take a closer look at the biblical precedents of female leadership.
As the New Testament (when read in its entirety) demonstrates, God has been appointing women to positions of church leadership since the resurrection. Here are just a few examples:
Priscilla
In March, I published an essay on Priscilla and Apollos, highlighting the key role that Priscilla played in mentoring Apollos.
(This essay is part of my paid subscription plan, but if you would like to read it in its entirety, please DM me and I’d be happy to provide you with a one-month complimentary subscription!)
Phoebe
I’ve been wanting to study this amazing church figure for a while now, but Bobby Gilles beat me to it, so I’ll refer you to his essay on Phoebe.
Junia
Bobby Gilles also published a three-part series on the character of Junia, which I highly recommend:
Patriarchy Could Not Erase Apostle Junia
Junia The Woman Apostle, pt 2: Really "Among" the Apostles
The Bottom Line on Junia in Romans 16:7 - "Apostle" Means "Apostle"
As I hope you’ll see from the stories of these remarkable women, God has always valued female leaders—and no amount of legalism could ever change that.
Coming Up:
Q2: What was God’s original design for male-female relationships, and how should this be reflected in marriage and the church?
Next week, we’ll respond to Imanuelsen’s arguments regarding “what God created women for” and what role they are supposed to play within a marriage—and the church. We’ll examine Genesis 1-3 and Ephesians 5 as we explore the topics of equality and mutual submission.
Thank you for reading Daughter of the King! If you would like more in-depth Bible study lessons like this one, subscribe here:
Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 292.
Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rogers, Why Not Women?: A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), 192.
A chiasm is a literary pattern wherein the 2nd half of an argument mirrors the 1st half: e.g., “Idea A” —> “Idea B” —> “Idea C” —> “Idea C”—> “Idea B” —>“Idea A”
David Hamilton, Why Not Women?, 197.
Ibid., 197.
Ibid., 197.
Ibid., 197.
Allana, I am so honored that you found my articles helpful. I agree that the guys' article is a mess. You've done a great job rebutting it!
I’m excited to read the rest of your essays! Thank you for tackling this topic! 😊