"What about Deborah? What about Queen Esther? What about the prophetesses like Hulda and Anna? What about Priscilla?" These are the responses I am hearing right now from all over the place. Well, what about them? They were women used mightily of God in the Bible, a biblical basis that God does call and use women for His glory and ministry of reconciling a lost world to Himself!
Why are these biblical women being mentioned in memes, blogs, and podcasts all of a sudden? Therein lies the tale. This summer, two prominent denominations made it clear that in their by-laws, the role of a pastor would be reserved for qualified men. This has made Christendom blow up in outrage.
Last month (June 2026) both the Southern Baptist Convention (my denomination, and for which my husband is a pastor) and the Presbyterian Church in America (which I deeply respect) took clear stands that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is restricted to qualified men. I agree with them. What has surprised me is not the decisions themselves—both denominations have long held this view—but the intensity of the reaction. Some have treated the reaffirmation of a historic, biblical practice as if it were a fresh assault on human dignity.
It is not.
In context (reacting to these denominations' position about pastors being male), bringing up these biblical women to protest is a fallacy, because none of these women mentioned in scripture were pastors of a New Testament church. Citing them is not a case in favor of women pastors--though it is an excellent case for women serving in various ministry roles. If someone reading scripture believes women are permitted by God to be pastors, they should prove it logically and biblically, rather than throwing around women who aren't in the role in question.
Also, these people making these claims online are dealing with a strawman that says these denominations won't allow women to serve the Lord in any capacity, and are using the phrase "women in ministry" to mean women pastors, totally ignoring the MULTIPLE ways women can be in ministry without being the pastor of a church. To put it simply, the Southern Baptist Convection and the Presbyterian Church in America absolutely affirm women in various ministries. Just not elders/overseers/pastors. The outraged folks are misrepresenting the stand these churches have taken simply because they don't like it. It is anyone's prerogative to disagree, but not to misrepresent the truth. Sadly this is happening.
The details in a nutshell (links to more in-depth articles at the end of this blog post): In June 2026 the SBC messengers adopted the Truth and Unity Amendment, requiring cooperating churches not to “affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” They also passed a resolution explicitly reaffirming that “the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” and that pastoral oversight, preaching, and teaching of the gathered church are inseparable from that office. The PCA, meeting the same month, rejected proposals to open the diaconate to women, reaffirmed that its ordained offices remain open only to men, and formally declared the Danvers Statement a biblically faithful declaration. These were not innovations. They were clarifications and reaffirmations of convictions already present in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the PCA’s Book of Church Order.
I agree with the SBC and PCA, but I know many goldy Christians who do not. You know what? That's okay. Some honestly believe the passages we use to support our position are being used incorrectly. If they have integrity in their position, I respect that, even if I have drawn a different conclusion about what I believe scripture teaches on this issue. My husband and I are local missionaries for Child Evangelism Fellowship (in addition to him being a Southern Baptist pastor), and we partner with a wide variety of Bible-believing churches with many different positions about many different things. The only requirement for us to be able to partner with them is that they sign our statement of faith and ministry compliance agreement (and individuals complete background checks, of course). We are used to all kinds of godly people who don't necessarily share our beliefs on all issues. We have gotten so much richness in our own lives from knowing these valuable believers. One of my very dearest friends and ministry colleagues here is a female pastor, and one of our most treasured board members is a female pastor. So I do not say any of what I'm saying here to villainize those who hold different views about female pastors.
The reason we hold the view we do is because of the pastoral epistles, such as First 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. Or the qualifications of a pastor in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (which are clearly men--IE husband of one wife, etc.). It is true that First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 do not expressly say, "No women allowed." But the implication is that the position is for a man. Some also look at the broader pattern of male headship rooted in creation. That is definitely something many have debated and discussed.
Many who are ranting online about this are using faulty logic, as I've already pointed out. I have read comments such as, "Well God can call women to pastor anyway, so what do you say about THAT?" Okay, lets look at that. Assume for a moment that the SBC and PCA are correct (which I believe they are, but you may not, so just bear with me). If the Bible does in fact affirm that the pastor/elder role is for a male, and the passages in First Timothy and Titus are not just cultural or in a different context, God will not work against His authoritative word. So throwing out "Well I'm called to be a woman pastor!" is not the logical way to win this. We would shoot that down with the scriptures that refute the claim. Instead, if you honestly believe women are called by God to pastor, the burden of proof rests on you to biblically prove that. Show me from the Bible (without mentioning Deborah, Esther, etc.) that God sanctions women being pastors (or elders, since that is the biblical term). You are not proving God uses women--we all believe He does. You are not proving women can be called into minsitry--we all believe they can. Show me that scripturally why you believe a woman can be a pastor, and why we are mistaken in taking what First Timothy and Titus say as our rule in this. Go deep. I'm honestly open to that. I'm not being sarcastic or nasty, but I am logically refuting the emotionally-charged responses I'm seeing.
I get concerned with some of the arguments being used. They are actually similar to the ones used by advocates of the LGBT (etc) position. People who want to claim homosexual relationships are God's will and plan will say, "Well Jesus never spoke against homosexuality!" And yet He did. In Matthew 19:1-9, Jesus affirmed God's perfect design for marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. There is no allowance made there or anywhere else in the entire Bible for homosexual relationships--not to mention the many passages that make it abundantly and explicitly clear it is not God's will (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, etc.). They take what they see as an absence (because they're not reading the entire Bible) and build a case on it being acceptable. People arguing against the SBC and PCA are doing the same thing. They're claiming "The Bible doesn't say a woman can't be a pastor!" The words A woman can't be a pastor aren't there, but I have already pointed out First Timohty 2:11-14, which many take as a pretty strong case. But even without that, the passages about pastoral qualifications refer to men. There is nowhere it expressly allows women pastors.
Another concern is this. Both the SBC and PCA have many godly, influential women serving the Lord. Women are not muzzled. There is one position they are restricted from. And that's the one thing everyone is crying foul over. It reminds me a lot of Adam and Eve eating from the one tree God told them not to eat out of, instead of enjoying all the ones they could. The focus here is all wrong. Maybe women can do things men can do--but that doesn't mean they're called to. The same is true for men and women's callings.
I have had people have emotional meltdowns at me about this issues. I have had some disgruntled people tell me that the SBC (which we are part of) will force me to step down from my position with Child Evangelism Fellowship. That is weird! That is out of proportion of the situation. CEF has no relation to the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC just wants their churches run biblically. They aren't forcing their members out of positions outside their scope. People are taking things to the extreme on this.
I do not like the terms egalitarian and complementarian, because they are loaded, but they are realities we deal with. Both are positions within Christianity. The egalitarian position would say that men and women are 100% equal in capability and roles, and nothing is off-limits for either. The complementarian position would say that men and women are equal in value, but have distinct God-given roles. Both can be taken to the extreme degree, and the lines can also be blurred between the two positions, depending on the context. My concern in anything is that one's view be informed by scripture. I lean toward believing the complementarian view is more scriptural myself. But because these positions themselves are not directly in the Bible, context matters, and situations matter.
One thing that concerns me with the hostility I have been shown as a Southern Baptist who agrees with the vote is that people are ignoring our religious liberty. That is our First Amendment Right. If one doesn't agree with us, they are free to find fellowship at a church they do agree with. But they really need to leave people to their convictions. That is freedom. This isn't a human rights issue. How we structure our churches is not the concern of those on the outside. No one is held hostage. No one is forced to stay. No laws are being broken in the choice to relegate the position of pastor to a male. And most of these complainers are professing Christians. If they are really Christians, they need to respect other believers' integrity, even if they believe we are wrong. Romans 14 is so clear about that. Trying to force us to adopt something outside our convictions is wrong. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23). If they believe we are in error, they should address us as beloved brothers and sisters in Christ. Let all that you do be done in love. (First Corinthians 6:14). I'm not seeing a lot of love from my egalitarian friends on this issue.
Empowerment doesn't come from being allowed to do whatever you want and hold any role you want. It comes from love. The most empowered I ever felt was at a Fundamental Baptist church I was part of in high school and early adulthood. That pastor was KJV-preferred (strongly, but not quite KJV only), and had strong views of women's roles, even more than the SBC and PCA. He would not allow women to teach males over 6th grade. He felt that in junior high, males were men, and he believed that violated scripture. Our high school Sunday school teachers were a husband and wife who taught together. One day, the husband woke up sick so only the wife came to church. The pastor wouldn't let the high school boys go to Sunday school, but let the girls, since it was a woman teacher without a man. He wouldn't let a woman talk on the platform for more than five minutes. He believed if it crossed that line, it would be preaching, thus violating scripture. Do I agree with the extremity of this? No. I think it seems legalistic and a bit arbitrary (such as, why five minutes? Why junior high up being men? etc.). But this man had convictions. He did what he believed was right. He did not hold a lesser view of women. He treated the women in our church with great respect. As a teenager and young adult, I was empowered by this man. He took our youth group out to do evangelism, and told us he was proud of us. He would teach us God's word, and pray with us. He was kind, and thought the world of us. When I did a mission trip, he told me in front of the whole church that I was his hero. That has stayed with me forever. I had been rejected by a more "cool" church prior to attending this one (see my last post about being too nerdy!), but this pastor loved, affirmed and praised me for my heart to serve the Lord. He genuinely loved us. I would never have gone into missions or ministry without him in my life. I remember during one of the hardest tests I faced, where I was in trouble at work for my Christian witness, this pastor encouraged me, and kept me in the Word so I could fight like Paul and Peter did in Acts. As I said, empowerment comes from that kind of love. We don't have to agree with someone's convictions to be profoundly impacted by them and love them.
Women in our churches are not second-class citizens. They are co-heirs of the grace of life, gifted by the Spirit, and essential to the health of the body. The restriction on the eldership does not erase that reality. It simply orders the church according to the pattern God has revealed. Those who find that pattern offensive may leave for other fellowships. What they should not do is demand that confessional denominations rewrite their own confessions to match the spirit of the age.
No comments:
Post a Comment