Over the last year, I have been on a quest to discover what the Bible actually says about the role of women in ministry. As I have been diving into this subject, the topic of head coverings has surfaced over and over again. I have spent countless hours combing through research trying to answer the questions surrounding this topic:
Was Paul commanding the women to wear head coverings as a reaction to the culture around the church in Corinth?
Is this a command for the Corinthians then and for us now?
If this is a command for us now, what are the parameters? Is it for while we pray? While we worship? Only at church, or also at home?
The passage addressing head coverings is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Some would argue that because this is the only passage in Scripture that mentions this topic, we shouldn’t put much weight on it. On this issue, I agree with Partridge when he points out that the number of times something is mentioned in the Bible doesn’t negate its truth. There are many commands in Scripture that appear only once, and we don’t question their authority (11). So we should treat this passage as we treat any passage in Scripture and study it to answer the questions it raises.
I have listened to both men and women discuss this topic, most in favor, yet have not been convinced by their arguments. I’m not trying to be obstinate; I have truly wanted to be convinced. I even wore wide headbands to church for a while wanting to err on the side of caution until I fully studied the topic. Yet no argument has proven to me definitively that Scripture commands head coverings for women today. I also watched a seven-hour-long YouTube video from Mike Winger in which he concludes that head coverings are not mandatory but an issue of Christian liberty and potentially church or location specific.
When I saw that Dale Partridge, a pastor I have admired and respected for some time*, published a book on the topic, A Cover for Glory, with the subheading, “A Biblical Defense for Headcoverings,” I was excited to get my hands on it and dive in. I was not disappointed by the amount of research he put into the book. He cites many Bible scholars throughout church history, discusses the topic of submission in depth, and honestly, seems to come at the topic from every possible angle. Yet I find myself unconvinced that I should be wearing a head covering during my church’s worship service. While he includes all of the research, he fails to prove biblically that all women in all times and in all places should wear head coverings in church.
I am certainly not dismissing this book as poorly written or lacking in content. Partridge includes a lot of great information about the history of head coverings in the church, the definition of submission, and the meaning of glory. He simply fails to prove the point his book is intended to prove.
The Role of Feminism
One thing that has bothered me for a long time, and honestly one reason I have wanted to be convinced on this topic, is that women stopped wearing head coverings in church due to the feminist movement. As feminism grew, many of the symbols of submission in our society began to fall out of practice, including the wearing of head coverings during worship. I, like many other Christian women, do not subscribe to the feminist ideals and would have relished a way to react against it, even in some small rebellion like wearing head coverings.
Partridge dives into this issue and points out the influence feminism has had on the church. In fact, he goes so far as to accuse pastors who don’t encourage head coverings in their church of bowing to feminism because they don’t want to “poke the bear” (115-18). There is no doubt that feminism has affected the American church, but this raises another question for me. Did women understand the reason they wore head coverings in the first place? If there had been a biblical reason for it, would they have been so quick to toss it aside?
As a child, I remember watching the movie Easter Parade in which the focus of Easter, a religious holiday with so much meaning, was the hat or bonnet on each woman’s head. If the concern is what our hat looks like instead of what it is supposed to represent, we are wearing it for the wrong reason, potentially even sinning in doing so. So while it is true that the practice of head coverings diminished due to feminism, I have to wonder how many women even understood the meaning behind wearing a hat (or bonnet) to church. The purpose fell away long before the practice.
The Definition of Submission
Partridge does a good job of explaining biblical submission in the book. He spends multiple chapters talking about biblical authority and gender roles, and he returns to the topic again and again throughout the book. Overall, I was impressed with his ability to explain this complicated and nuanced topic. However, I will add that many times he left the statements incomplete, leaving the impression that women are to submit to men in general while Scripture says that a woman is to submit to her own husband. This is an important distinction.
The dilemma I had with this topic is that, while he goes to great lengths to define and describe biblical submission, he does not successfully tie it back to the practice of head coverings. Yes, the passage talks about headship but it is unclear if this discussion about head coverings was specific to the Corinthians due to their culture or if it is for all believers in all time periods and cultures.
Errors and Inconsistencies
One major concern for me in this book is the misrepresentation of Scripture. In chapter 2, Partridge introduces Tamar. While he says she disguises herself as a prostitute in one paragraph, in the next, he refers to her as a harlot as an introduction into the topic of punishment for harlotry in the Old Testament. This is misleading because the account of Tamar is not about prostitution but about a woman who is mistreated by the men in her life and how God vindicates her (in spite of her tactics) and allows her to be included in the lineage of the Messiah.
In another instance (chapter 10), he begins to tell the story of Haman and Mordecai. The book of Esther makes it clear that in God’s sovereignty and providence the king innocently made Haman honor Mordecai in the way Haman himself hoped to be honored. Yet Partridge tells the account differently: “For those of you who know the story of Esther, Haman had planned to sabotage Esther’s uncle Mordecai, but the king had become aware of his scheme, and Haman is now forced to honor Mordecai in public” (145). It made me question if he knew the story.
Finally, Partridge discusses Naaman, the military commander who was stricken with leprosy. When he visits the prophet Elisha and is told to dunk in the Jordan seven times, he is offended and refuses. Partridge ends the story here, using it as an argument that pride keeps us from blessing (so women should not be too proud to cover their heads during worship). But the story goes on, and Naaman does what he is told, thus healing his leprosy. So he didn’t miss out on the blessing.
At best, Partridge simply doesn’t know these stories. At worst, he is twisting Scripture to support his argument. In either case, this is not proper handling of the Word of God.
Adding to the Book
But worse yet is when Partridge adds to God’s Word. This is most notable when he claims “Eve’s purpose was never to rule but to ornament and help her husband” (emphasis mine) (92). Scripture never says that a woman is an ornament to her husband. Yes, the Proverbs 31 woman does make her husband look good, and wives should always strive to be a positive reflection on their husbands, but there are times in a woman’s life when the last thing on her mind is to be an ornament to her husband because she is concerned with her duties as a wife and/or mother. Scripture never commands that a woman must ornament her husband but that she honors God in all she does. (I would also argue that the command to have dominion over the earth was given to both Adam and Eve, so in some sense, Eve’s purpose was to rule, just not over her husband.)
More subtly in the same chapter, he presents the argument that women are not to have authority over men in any arena of life. Scripture only addresses this in the realms of church and home. The Bible does not forbid women to participate in leadership positions in their communities, education, business, etc. You could certainly make an argument for this being your preference, but it is not discussed in Scripture.
Honestly, this chapter (chapter 7) was the most problematic for me. Partridge quotes a Dr. McFall in a way that leaves one thinking a woman must go through a man to reach God (though he denies this in other sections of the book). At one point, I even wrote a question in the margin: “Can a woman lead a man to the Lord?,” and I wonder how Partridge would answer this question.
But this chapter was also the most interesting because he presented an idea that was new to me. He described Adam as a representation of Christ and Eve as a representation of the church–a new Adam and a new Eve. Since he quotes Tertullian and Augustine in this section, it is obviously not a new idea, but it was one I had never encountered, and it caused me to ponder.
In chapter 10, Partridge brings up the topic of a woman’s long hair being attractive to men and baldness being unattractive to them. This leads to the implication that women should cover their hair during worship so as not to become a distraction to men. While it may be true that some men are sexually aroused by a woman’s long hair, the only passage in Scripture about head coverings does not point to this as a reason for wearing them. Since this would be an easy position to defend and would certainly make this passage clearer to modern readers, one would think Paul would have included it if it was pertinent, yet he didn’t.
“Universal” Examples of Head Coverings
Partridge includes several examples from our culture to reinforce his points, but he fails to see that these examples are unique to our culture. For example, he claims that women demonstrate submission by laying down their last names at the altar. I grew up in a culture where this was not the practice. He claims that there is gender-specific attire for special occasions (weddings, the opera, etc.), yet women refuse to wear the appropriate attire for worship. Again, this is very culture-specific, and honestly seems to be changing in modern times.
He uses the example of men removing their hats during prayer at a Nascar event as evidence that men don’t struggle to practice the command to them to not wear a head covering during worship. Yet when you walk into a worship service at many churches in our country, you will see many men wearing hats because this is not something they have been taught. And when it is taught, men are to remove their hats inside any building, not just the church.
“Spiritual Transgenderism”
At the beginning of the book, Partridge states that our culture’s current confusion about gender is a result of women no longer wearing head coverings (14). His argument is that removing this symbol of truth has caused the truth of gender distinctions to be forgotten. But at the end of the book, he brings this argument full circle when he says, “To God, a man worshiping with his head covered and a woman worshiping with her head uncovered is a sight of spiritual transgenderism, and it is shameful” (158). This is a bold claim!
What I Learned about Head Coverings
While Partridge claims this book is a biblical defense for head coverings, I felt it was a better defense of the cultural argument for head coverings. Chapter 5 discusses the Corinthian culture at the time this letter was written. After going through several descriptions of religious practices in Rome during this time period, he says, “In sum, Paul’s teaching here in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not simply affirming the religious customs of Corinth; it was instructing a new Christian practice that was the exact opposite of the religious customs of Corinth” (61).
Paul was giving the Corinthians a new practice to set them apart from the religious customs of their culture at that time. It even set them apart from Jews whose Rabbis wore prayer shawls during religious events. To this day, Jewish men wear yamakas during their worship. This argument seems to fit the best with this passage based on my study.
Where I Land on Head Coverings
As believers under the New Covenant, we do not follow all of the laws given to the Old Testament Jews. The laws that still apply to us are those that are repeated or reinforced in the New Testament. This is why we don’t worry about eating pork and why we no longer offer birds or livestock as sacrifices. This practice of head coverings was not even a law for the Old Testament Jews, so this mention in the letter to the Corinthians is the first time any Jew would have heard the law, yet it is vague as if it is given to people who would understand and have a reason to practice it.
Another concern I have with the practice of head coverings is that it adds to the to do’s of the Christian life while Christ and the authors of the New Testament were continually removing things from the lengthy to-do list. This goes so far as circumcision, the symbol of being one of God’s chosen people. Paul goes to great lengths in the book of Romans to establish that circumcision is no longer necessary and to reinforce that God is more concerned about the heart of the person than any outward symbol.
I am not saying that women should not wear head coverings if they feel led to do so. There are countries where a head covering is culturally necessary. And there are churches here in America that teach head coverings, so wearing one is a sign of submission to the leaders of the church. You may attend a church that does not practice head coverings but you feel a conviction to do so. By all means, submit to the guidance and conviction of the Holy Spirit in your life.
I am saying that I am still waiting to be convinced that this command is meant for all people at all times in all places, and thus far, I remain unconvinced. And I want to be convinced! If this is truly what God would have all women do, I want to be obedient. But until such a time as that happens or the Holy Spirit convicts me personally, I will continue to worship from the heart knowing that is what God sees.
*Recently, Dale Partridge, along with Joel Webbon, the author of the foreword in the book, have made some public statements about the role of women that add to the standards set in Scripture. As a result, I have ceased to follow or listen to Dale Partridge, relearnhq, and Right Response Ministries.
If you would like to learn more about how to study the Bible, I invite you to download my FREE Bible study workbook, 6 Steps to Study the Bible on Your Own at the button below.
If you would like to join a group of like-minded women who are pursuing godliness together, check out the Bible Study Academy by clicking the button below.
When discussing the role of women in the church, there are some terms that need defining. Not only do these terms need to be defined, but we need to recognize that they are on a sliding scale. This means that not all of those who would classify themselves with the same title believe the same thing. The two main terms associated with this topic are egalitarian and complementarian. So let’s begin there.
The term egalitarian means “asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life” (dictionary.com). When we look at this word in the context of this discussion, an egalitarian believes there are no differences in role or authority between men and women in the church. Therefore, a woman is just as capable and has just as much right as a man to be a pastor, deacon, elder, or janitor. It is important to note that an egalitarian believes that men and women are different in biology, but they are equal in role and authority in the church and possibly in the home.
The other main term associated with this discussion is complementarian. This term revolves around the idea that men and women were created to complement one another. They are equal in importance, dignity, and worth (value), but they have distinct roles and levels of authority in different situations, roles that work in tandem with one another. So for the purposes of this discussion of the role of women in the church, a complementarian believes there are specific roles in the church that only a man can fill according to the Scriptures. While there are roles that are traditionally filled by women, a complementarian would not argue that, biblically, men are banned from any position in the church (though they may argue for the prudence of it).
The positions regarding the role of women in the church are on a sliding scale.
However, we must recognize that this is a sliding scale. Some complementarians, on the “softer” side, would limit the number of positions forbidden to women, while “stronger” complementarians may ban women from any position with any level of authority even over children. If you slide too far to the stronger edge of complementarianism, you’ll land in the territory of patriarchal tyranny where men rule and women obey. While I don’t believe the patriarchy itself is a negative thing as our society tries to convey, patriarchal tyranny creates a controlling and abusive atmosphere. There is pretty solid biblical evidence against this position of abusive patriarchalism, so complementarians must be careful not to cross that line.
Likewise, if an egalitarian slides too close to the permissive edge, he will land squarely in “Christian” feminism (an oxymoron in my opinion) where gender is seen as a social construct and nothing is off limits to women or men, including blurring the gender lines. This is an idea clearly contrary to Scripture (see Genesis 1:27). So the egalitarian must watch that he does not cross into that sinful territory.
While a discussion of the biblical merits of both “Christian” feminism and patriarchal tyranny is probably superfluous, the debate between egalitarian and complementarian ideas rages on. As we approach this discussion in upcoming posts, there are a few things to keep in mind:
1. This discussion in Scripture is limited to the church. Nowhere does Scripture elicit a debate about the role of women in politics, business, education, etc. If you are delving into that territory, you are wading into tyrannical waters. In fact, I believe I can make a pretty clear case for women in those arenas with Scriptural support. One only needs to look at the Proverbs 31 woman to begin the discussion.
2. The conflict is only about the authority a woman has over men, not children or other women, in the church. Scripture encourages women to teach other women and to teach children, though it is important to decide when a boy becomes a man if you fall into the complementarian camp.
3. Scripture addresses the topic of the submission of women in only two arenas: the home and the church. It does not teach that all women are to submit to all men. It does not teach that all women are subject to all men in the church. And it is important to point out that Scripture clearly teaches that we are all to submit to one another, the husband and wife and the priesthood of believers. We must tread lightly so we do not take this further than Scripture does.
Note: We will not be broaching the subject of the wife’s submission to her husband because each home can look different while adhering to God’s standards, so we will limit our discussion to the church arena where Scripture gives guidelines for all believers to follow.
Let me begin by reiterating that the role of women in ministry is not a primary issue. Where you land on it does not determine whether or not you are a Christian. While I believe I can fully support and defend my position biblically, I have beloved friends who disagree with me and would say they can biblically defend their positions, too.
As I have been diving into the topic of women in ministry, one of the arguments that has come up is that women should not be submitting, even to their husbands, because submission is part of the consequences of the fall, and we should not be perpetuating “the curse” in light of Christ’s redemption. Earlier in this series, I shared my belief that the fall is responsible for our desire not to submit (you can read that post here), but is submission in general part of “the curse,” or was it part of God’s plan all along? (I put the words “the curse” in quotes because, while we call the consequences of the fall a curse, God cursed only the serpent and the ground; He didn’t curse Adam and Eve.)
Since we only have two chapters of the Bible before we learn about the fall, it shouldn’t take too long to dive in and see if there is evidence of submission on Eve’s part or authority on Adam’s part before sin entered the world. The first mention of man is in Genesis 1:26. The word translated man can also be translated mankind. This becomes clear when, later, the pronoun them is used to refer back to this antecedent. So when Scripture says God created man in His own image, it can be translated as mankind or man AND woman.
So from chapter 1 of Genesis we learn that both men and women are created in the image of God, both men and women have been tasked with replenishing the earth (which makes sense since both are needed to accomplish this), and both men and women are given dominion over the earth and its creatures. At creation, men and women are completely equal in personhood, task, and dominion. Their relationship to God and God’s creation is equal. Women have the same call as men to subdue the earth.
In chapter 2, we begin to see how they relate to each other. Let’s begin with what seems to be the most problematic part. In Genesis 2:18, God declares that He is going to make a helper for Adam because it is not good for him to be alone. And in verses 21 and 22, Eve is made from Adam’s rib while he is in a deep sleep. And her purpose is explicitly stated as that of “a helper fit for him.”
This is typically where I’ve seen women speak up in disgust. The reason for this offense is we have made the word helper mean something it doesn’t. To us, the word helper implies inferior. He is the protagonist, and she is just there to help him shine. We can look back at the original Hebrew to try and calm women down, but honestly, the translation helper is pretty accurate. The Hebrew word is עֵזֶר [ʿēzer], and it simply means “one who helps.” But what can make a difference in how we interpret this word ʿēzer is looking at where else Scripture uses it.
Repeatedly in Scripture, the word ʿēzer is used of God and the Holy Spirit. In fact, only twice out of the twenty one times it is used in the Old Testament is it used to describe the woman. Sixteen of those twenty-one times it is used of God as a helper to His people. A couple of examples are Psalm 33:20 and Hosea 13:9. If God can be described as a “helper,” why do we get so put off by being described as helpers? He is obviously not inferior nor is He only there to help us shine.
Something else we seem to overlook in this verse is that the man needed a helper “fit for him.” The helper is not stronger or weaker, but is complementary to the man. In any case, it is clear that one only needs a helper when he cannot do the task alone. It is safe to conclude that calling the woman a helper carries no sense of inferiority or subordination. Thus far, there is nothing to indicate submission prior to the fall, but let’s continue.
In verse 7, we are told that God created man from the dust. It is interesting to see in verse 19 that all of the beasts were created from the ground. While God spoke everything into being, He used the ground to create not only man, but also all of the animals. Not so with the woman; she was made from Adam’s side.
I’ve heard many speculations about this throughout the years. Most center around the idea that Adam would instinctively protect his side and that is why God chose to make woman out of his rib. I’ve heard many preachers assert that she was not made from his feet so he couldn’t walk all over her, and she was not made from his head so she wouldn’t rule over him, but she was made from his side where he would embrace and protect her. Scripture doesn’t really explain this, but it is interesting that only she was made from man’s rib.
We also see in verse 16 that God gave Adam the instructions about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If He gave Eve these same instructions, it is not recorded for us. So we can infer that God gave Adam the directive, and Adam in turn passed it along to Eve. In verse 19, Adam, and only Adam, is tasked with naming all of the animals. In fact, Eve had not been created yet as God used this exercise to show Adam his need of her.
Once Eve had arrived, Adam named her woman (2:23) and Eve (3:20). God could have named the woman, or He could have waited and let the man and woman name each other, but He chose to name Adam and allowed Adam to name Eve. Consistently in Scripture, the one who does the naming has the authority.
There is also the idea of the first born. While both Adam and Eve were created, not born, Moses’ Jewish audience would have understood that some authority came with being first. Throughout Scripture there is an emphasis placed on the inheritance, power, and influence of the first born. Many kingdoms have fallen as a result of family infighting because of the rights given to the first born over other children.
When we get into chapter 3 of Genesis, we find more evidence of Adam’s authority. First, when God walks in the garden after the fall, He calls Adam out first. He doesn’t address Eve until Adam has blamed her. And while Eve’s consequences for her sin affect all women, Adam’s consequences of the fall affect all of mankind. He bears greater responsibility. We see this reiterated in Romans 5:12.
In summary, it is clear that men and women are equal as image bearers, in the task of replenishing the earth, and in dominion over creation. The woman was created to help the man because he was not capable of doing the job alone. None of this points to the idea of submission.
But there does seem to be authority of Adam over Eve in the method of creation, God giving Adam the instructions meant for both of them, Adam naming Eve, Adam being created first, Adam answering to God for the sin, and the difference between their consequences after the fall.
Many have pointed to the phrase in Eve’s consequences “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” as the beginning of submission. If we take the passage in its entirety and look at childbirth, relationships, and the work of man’s hands, we can see that all of this was designed to be good. As always, sin distorts God’s perfect design. Because of sin, childbirth is painful, relationships have conflict, and work is difficult. These things were already part of life, but sin made them hard.
**After doing the research and coming to my own conclusions about what the Bible says about the role of women in ministry, I am settling in to hear and read what others have to say about the topic. One resource I have been enjoying is Mike Winger’s looooong series on this topic. You can access it here.
While society has historically gone along with the Christian position on the role of women in the church, there is an increase in rebellion.
Last week I discussed how we need to handle the information we glean from Scripture on the topic of the role of women in ministry. If you have not read that post yet, please do so first, as it sets the stage for some of the things I will be touching on in this post.
The second thing I want to address before we dive into the topic of the role of women in ministry is why this has become such an issue. For a long time, it seems that culture has gone along with the historical Christian positions, but now that our society seems to be rebelling against biblical truth, we are seeing more an more debate about this topic, we are seeing more women carrying the title of pastor, and even within the church, we are seeing feminism take root.
Personally, I believe there are two main reasons for the rebellion against historical position of the church. The first one is that we have done it wrong. I will be spending the bulk of this series breaking down this point, but I believe churches have taken it too far. They have set up guardrails in order not to cross God’s line, but in so doing, they have removed women from roles the Bible doesn’t forbid. So the current rebellion is a reaction to mismanagement of this issue in many churches. There is more to come on this topic, but let me quickly mention the second reason I believe we are facing this issue.
The second reason this topic is so controversial is because men are not stepping up. As women, we see a job that needs done, and we are quick to take care of it. Even when it is a role we are not meant to fill, we think it’s better for us to do it than for it to go undone. This thinking is actually a result of the fall. This is one of the consequences faced by Eve for the part she played in bringing sin into the world.
In Genesis 3:16b God tells Eve that,
“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (NIV).
I don’t usually use the NIV, but I want to demonstrate how the translation can cause us to misinterpret this verse. As we read through the book of Genesis and we come upon this verse, it seems almost sweet. We think Eve will desire her husband. Isn’t that what a wife is supposed to do? The crux of the problem lies with that little preposition “for” (sorry for the grammar lesson, but I promise I’m going somewhere).
In this case, looking up the definition of that little word ‘ēl doesn’t help much. When we look in Strong’s Concordance for some direction on this word, we get this:
It is clear that it is a preposition, but it is not clear which English preposition should translate it. So the next step is to find another place in Scripture where it is used in the same word combination. Fortunately, we don’t have to go far.
In Genesis 4:7, God is speaking to Cain about his sacrifice when He says,
“If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (NIV) (emphasis mine).
The phrase “it desires to have you” includes that same little preposition ‘ēl in the original language.
If sin desires you the same way a wife desires her husband, it is easy to see what is meant in this passage. Your desire is to come against your husband, to subdue him, to cause him to submit to you just like sin desires that for all of humanity. If we take the time to read the passage in other translations, the meaning might become a little more clear:
ESV: “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
NET: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”
God established the husband in authority over the wife, and sin disrupted God’s design as it always does. Because of our sin nature, we women do not like to submit to authority. While this is also true of men, they do not have the same biblical responsibility of submission that women have. We could talk about this in more depth, but ultimately, this series is about the role of women in ministry, not the role of men.
While this passage is specifically discussing the role of women in marriage and the difficulties that arise because of sin, the family is where all of the enemy’s tactics begin. If he can destroy the family, that destruction naturally carries out into society. Our sin natures don’t stop at the thresholds of our homes. When we begin to rebel against our husbands’ authority, we will inevitably carry that out to any place where men have been given headship by God. What we practice in our homes carries over to all areas of our lives.
Please do not take this to mean that I am saying women should submit to men. That is not what the Bible teaches. Each woman is to submit to her own husband (Ephesians 5:22). This will become part of the bigger discussion of this topic. But it is important to realize that our issues with submitting are not God-given; they are a result of sin. This is why our hackles come up when we read things in Scripture that tell us it isn’t our place to fill the position that has gone unfilled by the men around us.
Ultimately, our reaction to jump in when it isn’t our job is a lack of trust in God to fulfill His purposes. We cannot please God by our actions when those actions are in direct opposition to what He tells us in Scripture. Men and women are different, not in value but in design and responsibility. Our goal should always be to do the things He has placed in front of us. He will not bless the work of our hands when our hands are doing work meant for others.
Often we are so concerned about doing the job and filling the gap that we forget our greatest tool of all: prayer. If there is a job that needs done, but it is not your place to do it, don’t take over. Instead, hand it over to God. While it can be especially difficult to sit back and wait for God to work, prayer allows you to be part of that process, and when the job gets done in His timing, the blessings are so much sweeter than when we try to do it in our own strength outside of His will.
There is so much controversy about what Scripture says women are allowed to do in ministry. But what does the Bible actually say?
For a while, I have been working through what the Bible teaches about the role of women in ministry. While I’ve struggled with the best way to communicate what I’m learning, I think it is best to just jump in.
Perhaps the best place to start is to answer how we should handle the information we find. The truth is there are countless scholars who have traveled this road before me, but there are almost as many interpretations. Because it isn’t clear cut, I wanted to simply study what Scripture says about it instead of going straight to a preacher I trust.
I started my study with a look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17,
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Why is this the place to begin a study on the role of women in ministry? Because undoubtedly, I am going to come across passages of Scripture that rub me the wrong way. But if I truly believe all Scripture is inspired and is profitable, I must set my feelings aside and objectively look at what the Bible says on the topic.
I’ve been spending this month reading and rereading the book of James, and there are a few passages that have also convicted me of this truth. James 1:19 says,
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”
While this passage can be used to address our human relationships, when taken in context, James is talking about being slow to anger when we hear God’s Word. James understood that, because of our sin natures, we would struggle with some of the things God tells us, and he encourages us to be quick to hear and slow to anger.
But James doesn’t stop there. He also tells us in verse 22 of the same chapter,
“But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”
It isn’t good enough to read the Word and learn the truth God has for us; we are also called to act upon that truth. So if the Bible teaches me something that rubs me the wrong way, it is still my responsibility to follow through on that lesson according to the Word of God. And we must not forget what James says in chapter 4, verse 17,
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
So as I begin to unpack this controversial topic, I need to continually remind myself that Scripture is inspired and profitable, I need to be slow to anger when I don’t like what I find, I should put into practice the things I learn, and it is a sin to know the right thing to do and refuse to do it. Wow! I haven’t even gotten to the main topic, and I am already so convicted!
This approach is not limited to this topic. If we truly believe Scripture is sufficient to teach us how to live, then there will be many lessons we come across in the Bible that may step on our toes a bit. But the Bible isn’t just any book where we can “chew the meat and spit out the bones.” It is our authority and must be approached as such. Truthfully, if we are not going to hold this view of Scripture, there’s no reason to study it. If it is not authoritative and complete, what difference does it make what it teaches?
No matter what topic you are studying, be slow to anger when you don’t like what you’re reading, and hold yourself accountable to act on your new knowledge even if you don’t like it.
