Why I Believe the SBC Is Getting This Wrong

Women, Ministry, and the Cost of Selective Literalism (Part 2A)

Women in Pastoral Ministry Series

Moving from Interpretation to Application

In Part 1, we examined the biblical texts most often cited to prohibit women from serving as pastors and considered whether those passages should be understood as universal commands or contextual instructions. We explored the historical setting of Ephesus, the challenges surrounding 1 Corinthians 14, the debate over the Greek word authentein, and the examples of women exercising significant ministry influence throughout Scripture. My argument was not that Scripture lacks authority or that these passages should be dismissed. Rather, my argument was that faithful Christians should be willing to ask whether these texts have been interpreted according to their intended purpose and historical context.

If those passages are contextual rather than universal, then important implications follow. The question is no longer simply whether women can serve as pastors. The question becomes whether the church has built restrictions upon a particular interpretation of Scripture that may not be as certain as many assume. This is where the conversation moves from exegesis to application.

Before proceeding, I want to be clear about something. I do not believe those who disagree with me are acting in bad faith. Many complementarians are deeply committed to Scripture and sincerely desire to honor God's design for the church. My concern is not with their motives but with the conclusions they draw from the biblical evidence. The issue is not whether Scripture should be obeyed. The issue is what Scripture actually teaches.

The Strongest Complementarian Arguments Deserve a Fair Hearing

One of the weaknesses of many discussions surrounding women in ministry is that each side often caricatures the other. Egalitarians sometimes portray complementarians as misogynistic traditionalists, while complementarians sometimes portray egalitarians as capitulating to modern culture. Neither approach is helpful.

The strongest complementarian arguments deserve to be taken seriously.

Scholars such as Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, Andreas Köstenberger, and others have spent decades defending the position that the office of pastor or elder is reserved for qualified men. They argue that Scripture consistently establishes a pattern of male leadership in both the home and the church. Their position is not based upon a single verse but upon what they see as the cumulative witness of Scripture.

They point to Paul's prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, his appeal to Adam and Eve in verses 13–14, the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and the relationship between teaching authority and church governance. Together, they believe these texts establish a permanent distinction between the ministry roles available to men and women.

Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, it is important to acknowledge that it represents a serious attempt to interpret Scripture faithfully.

The question is whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion being drawn.

Does Creation Establish a Permanent Restriction?

Perhaps the strongest complementarian argument centers on Paul's appeal to creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–14.

After instructing women not to teach or exercise authority over men, Paul writes:

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

For complementarians, this is the decisive point.

If Paul were merely addressing a local problem in Ephesus, why would he appeal to events that occurred long before Ephesus existed? Why would he reach all the way back to creation itself?

The logic is understandable. If Paul's argument is rooted in creation, then many conclude it must transcend culture.

However, that conclusion may move too quickly.

Appealing to creation does not automatically establish universal application. Throughout the New Testament, biblical authors frequently draw upon Old Testament narratives to address contemporary concerns. The question is not whether Paul references creation. The question is why he references creation.

If the primary problem in Ephesus involved false teaching and deception, then Eve may function as an illustrative example rather than the basis for a universal hierarchy. Just as Eve was deceived, certain individuals in Ephesus had become vulnerable to false teaching. Paul's appeal to Genesis may therefore explain why he was issuing a temporary restriction rather than establishing a permanent prohibition.

Even among scholars who affirm biblical authority, there remains significant disagreement over whether Paul's appeal to creation establishes an eternal role distinction or a contextual application of a broader principle.

The principle itself is not difficult to identify: the church must protect sound doctrine and ensure that those who teach are properly instructed.

The debate concerns whether that principle necessarily requires the permanent exclusion of women from pastoral ministry.

But What About the Lead Pastor?

At this point, many complementarians would readily agree that women can serve in ministry. They may acknowledge women as missionaries, ministry directors, professors, counselors, worship leaders, theologians, and teachers. Their objection is not to women serving. Their objection is specifically to women serving as pastors or elders.

This distinction has become increasingly common in complementarian churches.

Women are encouraged to exercise many gifts and serve in numerous leadership capacities. The line is drawn specifically at the office of pastor.

Yet this raises an important question: Does Scripture actually distinguish between ministry leadership and pastoral leadership in the way complementarians claim?

One challenge is that the New Testament never describes the modern office of a "lead pastor" as it exists in many churches today.

The early church was generally led by a plurality of elders rather than a single senior pastor. Acts 14:23 speaks of elders being appointed in every church. Titus 1:5 refers to elders being established in every town. Acts 20 describes the elders of Ephesus collectively.

The modern concept of a lead pastor functioning as the chief authority figure within a congregation developed much later in church history.

This observation does not settle the debate, but it does complicate the claim that Scripture explicitly prohibits women from occupying a role the New Testament itself never clearly defines.

Furthermore, if women are permitted to perform nearly every pastoral function, the distinction becomes increasingly difficult to explain.

In many complementarian churches, women teach theology, disciple believers, counsel individuals, lead ministries, direct mission organizations, and exercise significant spiritual influence. They may oversee large staffs, lead complex ministries, and shepherd people effectively.

If a woman can perform nearly every function associated with pastoral ministry, why is the office itself prohibited?

What biblical principle is actually being protected?

This is where many egalitarians begin to question whether the restriction is rooted more in tradition than in the explicit teaching of Scripture.

The Spiritual Gifts Question

Perhaps the most challenging issue for complementarianism is the doctrine of spiritual gifts.

The New Testament consistently teaches that ministry flows from God's calling and gifting.

Romans 12 describes gifts distributed among believers for the edification of the church.

First Corinthians 12 teaches that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts "to each one individually as He wills."

Ephesians 4 identifies pastor-teachers as gifts Christ gives to the church.

Nowhere in these discussions does Scripture explicitly teach that teaching, leadership, shepherding, exhortation, wisdom, or pastoral gifting are distributed exclusively to men.

Instead, the emphasis consistently falls upon the sovereign work of God.

The Spirit gives gifts.

Christ equips His church.

Believers steward what they have received.

This creates an important theological question.

If Christ gives a woman the gifts necessary to teach, shepherd, lead, disciple, and care for a congregation, does the church possess the authority to permanently prohibit her from exercising those gifts?

This question does not automatically resolve the debate. However, it shifts the burden of proof.

Rather than asking whether women can demonstrate pastoral gifting, the question becomes whether Scripture clearly and universally prohibits women from exercising gifts God Himself appears to have bestowed.

For many egalitarians, this question lies at the very heart of the issue.

The Problem of Selective Literalism

The discussion surrounding women in ministry ultimately raises a larger hermeneutical concern.

Why are some biblical commands treated as culturally conditioned while others are treated as universally binding?

This question is especially important when reading 1 Timothy 2.

Within the same chapter, Paul instructs men to pray while lifting holy hands. He instructs women not to adorn themselves with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing. He speaks about modesty, learning, authority, and worship practices.

Most churches recognize that at least some of these instructions are culturally expressed applications of broader principles. Few churches insist that every man must physically raise his hands whenever he prays. Few prohibit women from wearing jewelry or braiding their hair.

Instead, churches seek to apply the underlying principles rather than the exact cultural expression.

Yet when the discussion reaches verses 11 and 12, many interpreters suddenly insist that these verses alone must be treated as timeless and universally binding.

Why?

What objective hermeneutical principle allows some instructions within the chapter to be contextual while elevating others to universal status?

That question forms the heart of the discussion we will continue in Part 2B, where we will examine the problem of universalizing contextual commands, why I believe the SBC's position ultimately disenfranchises women whom God has gifted and called, and what the church stands to lose when spiritual gifts are restricted on the basis of gender alone.