Regarding the issue of women in church leadership, both the complementarian and the egalitarian view can be supported by Scripture.
It’s only possible for one of these views to be correct, though—either women should be barred from at least some leadership roles in the church, or they should not be excluded from any.
While the debate between evangelical scholars on this issue continues, real people are affected by the theological positions held by those whose voices they trust.
What happens if we get this wrong?
If egalitarians are incorrect in their view that women may serve the church in leadership at every level, then they are guilty of allowing some of the wrong people to preach and teach, thus breaking the rules set by God in Scripture.
On the other hand, if complementarians are wrong, then excluding called and gifted women from leadership responsibilities hamstrings half the Body of Christ, hinders the gospel mission, and hurts the whole Church.
In weighing this matter, consider this: the apostle Paul was unbothered by the “wrong” people preaching.
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” – Philippians 1:18
Further, when scholars who share a high view of Scripture disagree on a theological issue, a good rule of thumb is to look to the example and words of Jesus.
Jesus came alongside the oppressed and marginalized while challenging those in power. He broke social barriers for women in his interactions with them. He invited women as disciples and dignified them everywhere he went.
Jesus reserved his harshest rebukes for religious leaders who kept the letter of the law, but failed to understand the spirit behind it.
Scrupulous men often pointed out how Jesus failed to uphold various religious laws. He replied with a scathing rebuke for their spiritual blindness and hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13-36; Luke 11:37-52).
Jesus didn’t get upset about broken rules; he broke them himself (Matthew 12:1-8). What raised his ire was the poor treatment of fellow human beings—especially the vulnerable.
The powerful religious men of Jesus’ day ignored, disdained, and condemned women, but Jesus engaged, affirmed, and uplifted them.
As one example of many, when a “sinful” woman anoints Jesus’ feet and a pious man in power condemns her, Jesus responds by commending her and correcting him (Luke 7:36-50).
Jesus embodied and modeled the gospel perfectly. Since he consistently honored, elevated, and empowered women, complementarians’ certainty about restricting their sisters merits honest reflection and humble reconsideration.
If more evidence is needed, relatively recent history offers chilling examples of wildly missing the point of the gospel.
Americans who upheld the notion of enslaving kidnapped Africans believed the Bible was “clear” about slavery as a legitimate practice. 1
South Africans who upheld apartheid believed they held an airtight understanding of Scripture on the issue.
When a biblically-based belief system offers privilege to one people group and subjugates another—when it allows equality only in spiritual, but not social, status—that’s a huge red flag.
Those who upheld slavery and apartheid may have relied on “biblical” arguments, but they were wrong.
If only they had asked themselves, “When it comes to black image-bearers, would I rather stand before God and give an account for treating them as equals, or for enslaving and segregating them?”
When it comes to female image-bearers, would you rather stand before God and have to answer for treating them as equals, or for restricting and excluding them?
In the words of my friend Jamie Beeson,
“I’d rather be wrong in an effort to equip and affirm gifting in others used to further the gospel than the alternative…restricting gifts and the Great Commission in an effort to protect doctrine and perceived design.”
Spot on, sister.
Kevin Giles, What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women. This book articulates the problems with complementarian doctrine, including the lack of proper engagement with egalitarian arguments by complementarian scholars.