The essay below was written in 1986, and published in The Baptist Waymark periodical in August of that year. If I were to write it today, it would sound different, but my instructions would still be the same. I am publishing it here substantially as written nearly 30 years ago, with some minor corrections for (hopefully) easier reading, and the inclusion of some related links.
INTRODUCTION
After the women’s liberation movement gained popularity, pulpits became increasingly silent about the role of women in our churches. This lack of teaching has allowed confusion to reign. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). His Word will settle the matter. Both men and women are seeking scriptural answers about the woman’s place in our churches. Should they preach? Should they teach? Should they vote? Should they lead singing? Should they lead in prayer? Let us go to the Holy Bible to find the answers to these questions.
SHOULD WOMEN PREACH?
No. The Bible has no command for or inspired example of women preachers. The Lord chose twelve apostles — all men. The seventy sent out by the Lord to preach were all men. All the preachers in the book of Acts were men. There is no Bible example of God calling a woman to preach. Therefore, a woman has no scriptural basis for claiming to be called of God to preach.
The biblical qualifications for bishops (elders) leave no room for women. “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work,” 1 Tim. 3:1. The preacher must be the husband of one wife — no woman can claim to be a husband (modern same-sex marriage advocates notwithstanding). Verses 4-7 mention “his” three times, “a man” once, and “he” four times — all terms referring to men, not women. The qualifications are given again in Titus 1:6-9 and those verses also show that the only biblically qualified preacher is a man. The very terminology used — bishop and elder — are masculine words.
Women should not be preachers or deacons. In Acts 6:1-7, the deacons were men. In 1 Tim. 3:8-13, the qualifications could only be fulfilled by a man. If there is any such thing as a deaconess, she is a deacon’s wife, not a woman who is a deacon, 1 Tim. 3:11.
SHOULD WOMEN TEACH?
Yes, under the proper circumstances, women should teach. They are to be “teachers of good things,” Titus 2:3. The aged women are to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-5). Therefore, the Bible shows that women are to teach women. They are also to teach children (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). But the Bible says women are not to teach over or exercise authority over the men (1 Tim. 2:12). They should be silent as far as teaching the whole church, men, or mixed groups of men and women.
SHOULD WOMEN VOTE?
Yes. It is not hastily that I make this statement. I have given much study and thought to this issue. The biblical examples of congregational decisions illustrate that the women took part. Acts 1:12-26 records the selection of one to fill Judas’ office. The assembly was made up of about 120 people (v.15), which included women (v.14). They, the 120, appointed two men, and they, the 120, gave forth their lots and chose Matthias. Therefore, this selection process included the women.
Acts 6:1-7 tells of the selection of the first seven deacons. The seven were chosen by “they” — which refers to the multitude of the disciples (vs.1,2,5), and this included widows (who are always women).
In the council meeting of Acts chapter 15, the final decision was made by the whole church (v.22), which included women as well as men. We concur from these three examples that the women should vote.
Notice in all three instances that, although the women did vote, it was the men who discussed the business, made the suggestions, and provided the leadership. The women were silent. Although the women should vote on church matters, they should not lead in the business; rather, let the men do the leading.
Some see a problem that voting could allow the women to exercise authority over the men in the church (when allowed to vote). For example:
Last Baptist Church of Anytown, Texas, has 55 members. 30 are women and 25 are men. If the women vote they will run the business because they are in the majority.
But this contains no added problem. If the church is in scriptural order, the women will follow the leadership of the men and not wrest authority to themselves — even though they are in the majority. If the church is not in scriptural order, there will be problems regardless of their policy concerning women voting. If not allowed to vote, the domineering wife can simply tell her husband how to vote!
SHOULD WOMEN LEAD SINGING?
No. This would be usurping authority over the men. A woman should not be a director or leader. The leader, whether in the business or the music, should be the men (1 Tim. 2:12). All the members of the churches at Ephesus and Colosse are commanded to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). This means that the women should take part in the singing but it does not allow them to move into a leadership capacity.
SHOULD WOMEN LEAD IN PRAYER?
No. This too would involve moving into a leadership role (1 Tim. 2:12). Women have as much right and as much duty to pray as men, but should not lead prayer in church when men are present to lead the congregation to the throne of grace. If for some reason only women are present we believe it would be permissible to lead in prayer, since it would not involve taking a man’s place.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:34
This does not mean absolute silence under all circumstances. If you say it does, then why do you allow women to sing in church? This silence has to do with tongues (v. 23), confusion (v. 33), speaking (vs. 34-35), and asking (v. 35). This excludes women from speaking in any public way in a mixed assembly.
1 TIMOTHY 2:12
This verse excludes women from any activity that would put them in authority over rather than in submission to men. If men and women would search the Bible to find the sphere and work that the Lord has for each of them, the Lord’s churches would prosper and be in better health.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9
The Baptist Waymark, August 1986
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.
...meet Katie McKown.
In 1873 Lottie Moon was appointed by the SBC's Foreign Mission Board as a missionary to China. She remained a foreign missionary in China for 39 years, until her death in 1912. The Baptist Standard reports that Lottie Moon’s home church is now led by a woman pastor,* a concept opposed to the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message statement: "...the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
This turn of events seems to be wryly reported by SBC opponents such as the BGCTexas and the CBF, and un/under-reported by Convention media.
* This church is not now affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
In a discussion about complementarianism – the position that men and women are equal but different and that God has assigned different roles to men and women – and the ordination of women, Bart Barber posted the following well-made comments:
...the larger and underlying problem is the erosion of the biblical office of pastor/elder/overseer that becomes so evident when we consider the practices of many of our churches on topics like this one.
1. When precisely the same roles are entitled “Pastor” in some cases and with other terminology (“Director” or “Minister”) in others, not because of any actual difference in the role, but simply because one occupant is ordained while another is not, we’re missing something.
2. When we write qualifications and job description documents for offices like “Pastor,” for which qualifications and at least some concept of a job description are given in the Bible, and yet in those documents little or no mention is made of the relevant biblical materials (as though we are authorized to redefine what God has defined in scripture), we’re missing something.
3. When we make the key differentiation in theological discussions to be the question of whether one serves in a role (“Senior Pastor”) which, if it appears at all in the New Testament, certainly does not come with its own set of biblical qualifications and responsibilities, we’re missing something.
Bart finished by saying that he was not opposed to having all sorts of other people working at church (a point where we might differ slightly) and concluding: “Have all that you pragmatically require IN ADDITION TO the biblical offices of pastor and deacon, and I’ve got no problem with it. I simply don’t want us to do so at the cost of either (a) weakening the office of pastor/elder/overseer by applying it to a whole host of people who really do not serve in that biblical role, or (b) losing sight of the office of pastor/elder/overseer by failing to set apart specifically as pastors those who serve in that role.”
* Bart is pastor of First Baptist Church, Farmersville, Texas
On Wednesday outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta fired a parting shot at the United States generally, and its women in particular. He removed a ban on women serving in the front lines of combat. The front lines of combat are not a place for women, job promotions and certainly not for experimenting.
Christians in previous ages and most nations historically have held that combat is a responsibility for its men.* Evangelical historian Harold O. J. Brown wrote, “Within both Judaism and Christianity, indeed almost universally in all human culture, the military profession has been reserved for males.”The very idea of sending sisters, mothers, daughters and granddaughters would have been shameful thought. Not so in enlightened 21st century America.
Being a soldier is not a constitutional right. Questions of physical strength and the thrusting of men & women together in close combat situations are concerns that have been raised, and rightly so. But what about from a biblical standpoint? Is it a violation of scriptural principle for us to send our women into combat, or are we merely succumbing to our emotions and traditions?
Whether or how much Christians should engage in military service is a valid question that deserves serious answers. But I will not deal with that here. For now I wish to engage the coming issue -- American women will be serving on the front lines of the battlefield.
My views arise from within the general context of Christian complementarianism -- the biblical idea that men and women have "different but complementary roles and responsibilities," whether it be in marriage, family or religion.
One biblical case can be shown where an Israelite woman led men into battle, recorded in Judges chapter 4 (It cannot be shown that Deborah physically engaged in the battle.) Nevertheless, this was clearly outside the norm of Jewish life and predicated on men being reluctant to rise to the occasion. Under the law given by God to Moses able men above 20 years of age filled the normal and expected role of soldier (Numbers 1:2-3 ...every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. Cf. verses 20, 22, et al.). Deuteronomy 20:1-9 gives God’s rules for exemptions and exclusions of certain men as well. Certain family considerations had priority over the military (Deut. 24:5), and the fearful were considered incapable of serving. Verses 13-14 of that same chapter indicate that even among enemies, it was the men who were considered combatants. In Joshua 1:14 we read that the men of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were continue with the other tribes over the west side of the Jordan. The army did not include their wives or their little ones. The women and children stayed at home while the men fought. (Cf. also Deut. 3:18-19; Josh. 23:10; 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Chron. 11:10-47; Neh. 4:13-14.)
The New Testament emphasis is not on a physical seed of Abraham which might at times wage war on its physical enemies. It emphasizes rather a spiritual seed of Abraham in a spiritual battle whose weapons are not carnal, but wielded through the gospel, the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless principles within its pages would certainly frown on men sacrificing their women on the altar of emotions, experiment and expediency. Rather, the sacrificial love of Christ is our example: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...” (Ephesians 5:25).
As a whole even Christians in the United States seem to have lost the sense that men are to protect and provide for women, and that women own a special place of love and respect as wives and mothers -- a place far from the front lines of combat.
* Some believe no Christians, whether male or female, should engage in combat.
Among my random links post on Monday there was one to a Today show interview with Rachel Held Evans, who has lived and written about a year of “biblical womanhood.” Whenever I post up random links, I put a disclaimer with it. But I just can’t help commenting about this one.
There are many things that could be said. So have already said more, and better.
Rachel Held Evans wants people to think that she made a serious attempt at living a year of “biblical womanhood” and that it just won’t work. Her entire point is to ridicule and set up shop against conservative ideas of biblical womanhood. Many may fall for it. But in the end, a close examination shows that she is the one who looks silly. Pulling Bible out of context for her own ends -- who can believe this was a biblically serious event? See her perched up on a gable roof like a squirrel doing penitence? Because she found some verse about someone -- she couldn’t figure out whom -- dwelling in the corner of a housetop. Puh-leeze!
And the computerized baby was a really neat trick. Bible says something about young women bearing children? Just run on down to Toys R Us get you a “Real Care Baby.” Why not get twins?
Here are two responses by other women, one a book review and the other a musing of her year of womanhood. Also a few thoughts from Doug Wilson.
A Year of Biblical Womanhood Review by Kathy Keller
My year of biblical womanhood by Kim Shay
Rachel on the roof by Douglas Wilson
