Does the Word of God forbid women to pastor churches?

I have a friend who recently started a church. Normally that would be considered a good thing. But this friend of mine received many phone calls from Christians who discouraged the venture. The reason…my friend is a woman. Many Christians believe that women should not pastor churches. I’ve looked into this issue considerably and cannot find any concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to become pastors. However, some would vehemently disagree with me.

The main point of debate has to do with how some interpret the passage of scripture found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It reads, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” (NIV)

The term “overseer” is synonymous with “pastor.” Since the scripture identifies an overseer by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of but one wife, managing the family) many theologians argue that this in itself is enough to prove that the role of pastor is not for women. However, if this is the case, then we should see no place in scripture where a woman has held a position that is identified by roles that apply to men. But on the contrary, we do. Phoebe, a woman, is identified as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, yet the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men. Romans 16:1-2 (NLT) reads, “Our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church in Cenchrea will be coming to see you soon.” It should be noted that the NIV, NASB, and King James versions use the word “servant” instead of “deacon” while the NLT uses the word “deacon” and the Amplified version uses the word “deaconess.” Clearly this is a point of contention among biblical scholars. However, the same Greek word (“diakonos”) that is used for “servant” in Romans 16:1 when identifying Phoebe is the exact same Greek word that is used for the “deacon” in the passage of scripture that defines the role of a deacon, which is found in the following passage of scripture: “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife, and must manage his children and his household well.” (1 Timothy 3:8-12 NIV)

There is no doubt that the scripture identifies the office of deacon by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of one wife, manage household well) just as the scripture identifies the office of pastor by roles that apply to men. If then a woman can be a deacon despite the fact that the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men, then it follows that a woman can be a pastor despite the fact that the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men.. Therefore the argument that says a woman cannot be a pastor because the office of pastor is identified by the roles of men is made void since there is a woman (Phoebe) identified in scripture that served in a position in the church that is identified by the roles of men.

To take the point further, if the conservative view says that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men and therefore women cannot hold position in that office, then the conservative view should also say that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to married men then single men cannot hold position in that office. If we are to look at the passage of scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 conservatively then there should be no double standards in interpretation when it comes to gender. The passage says that a pastor should be the husband of but one wife and should be able to manage his family. This therefore defines the office of pastor, not just generally by roles that apply to men, but more specifically by roles that apply to married men. If we apply the same conservative view to men as some do to women when looking at the passage, then we would have to conclude that single men should not pastor. However, even though some in the church might agree with this conclusion, most of us in the church would find this conclusion erroneous and a misinterpretation of scripture, even those who use the same reasoning to forbid women to pastor. This is where the double standard lies.

The unsettling part to all of this is that the church will put up with a man serving in the office of pastor who does not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 before it puts up with a woman serving in the office of pastor, who does. Not only should a pastor have no more than one wife and be able to manage his family but he must be above reproach (not be guilty of disgrace), he must have control of his temper, he must be self-controlled (not prone to fall into temptations of the flesh), he should be respectable, he should be hospitable, he should be able to teach, he should not be a drunkard, he should not be quarrelsome, he should not be violent, he should not be a recent convert, and he should not be a lover of money. It is safe to say that if a pastor fails at meeting even one of these qualifications, he is, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, not qualified to serve in the office of pastor. However, there are many male pastors in the church who do not meet these qualifications and the church merely winks at them.

Those who argue against women serving as pastors also use 1 Timothy 2:11-12, to support their position. It reads, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This was part of Paul’s instructions to Timothy as to how Timothy was to care for the church at Ephesus during the time that Paul would be in Macedonia. Those who argue that women should not pastor emphasize the part in which Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. If a woman is not to have authority over a man, then it follows that she is not to pastor a church, since undoubtedly to do so would put her in a position in which she would have authority over men. However, many theologians see Paul’s instructions to Timothy as specifically applying to how Paul thought it best for the church at Ephesus to function due to the customs of that time and they emphasize the fact that Paul personalized his instructions by using first person. In other words, he was saying to Timothy something like, “this is how I do things in the church at Ephesus and I suggest that you follow my lead on this.” If indeed Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding the church of Ephesus applies to all churches today then not only should women not serve as pastors, but women should not teach Sunday school, women should not teach Bible study, women should not be choir leaders or choir directors, and women should always sit still in Bible study and Sunday school never saying a word or asking a question. But the church today doesn’t exercise such restrictions on women because it realizes that, the way that Paul was instructing Timothy had a direct correlation to the culture of Ephesus at the time.

There are just a couple of other things that must be looked at regarding this issue. The first has to do with the fact that serving as a pastor is listed as a spiritual gift, as attested to in the following passage of scripture: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-13).

The scripture says that Christ has given “some to be pastors.” The word “some” is not gender specific. In other words, “some” applies to human beings as a whole, which of course includes women. There are those who might like to argue that where the scripture says, “and gave gifts to men,” designates gender specification of men only. But when looking at the Greek it is clear that “men” in this context is simply an English translation for “mankind” or “human beings.” Therefore women are not excluded from receiving the gift of pastor. Logically then, if God has given women the gift of pastor then it stands to reason that there are women that he would call to the office of pastor as well. The definition of the word “pastor” is not diminished when it is applied to women.

Finally, there is an example in scripture whereby it appears that a woman actually functioned in the role of a pastor. The entire letter of 2 John is a letter from John the Apostle to whom the New International Version and New Living Translation translates as the “chosen” lady and her children. The King James Version translation reads the “elect” lady. Verses 9-10 (NIV) reads, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” Verse 10 in the New Living Translation reads a little differently. It says, “if someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth…” The operative word here is “meeting.” All would agree that during the times of the early church many church meetings were held in houses. If indeed this chosen lady held a church meeting in her home and was directly instructed not to let anyone into the meeting who taught opposite the teachings of Christ, then it is not a stretch to presume that it is quite possible she was the primary leader of a church assembly, which, in essence is the function of a pastor.

There are opposing interpretations that attempt to nullify any possibility that this chosen lady could have been a pastor. The main opposing interpretation is that this “chosen lady” was not really a woman but was instead a local church and that her children were the members of that local church. In other words the term “chosen lady” was just a figure of speech, a metaphor used to refer to the saints of a local church and its members. The problem with this interpretation is that, nowhere else in scripture is the word “lady” used as a metaphor for the church. Furthermore, John closes his letter by saying to this chosen lady “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (v.12). This is the exact same closing that John used in his letter that he wrote to his male friend, Gaius (third letter of John). John also greets Gaius in the same way that he greets the chosen lady. In verse 4 of John’s third letter, John also refers to children as he did in his letter to the chosen lady. However, theologians do not question that John is talking to an actual man in his letter to Gaius, but there is question as to whether or not John is talking to a woman in his letter to the chosen lady although both the letters are quite similar in style. The point here is that the argument that John was referring to a local church in his second letter instead of to an actual woman is indeed a weak one. After all, he speaks of hoping to visit with her and talk to her “face to face.” It is quite apparent that there was definitely a woman who John referred to as “chosen” and that this woman assembled the saints together in her home, for what could have very possibly been a sacred assembly. Thus, it is evidently conceivable that this lady functioned in the role of pastor. It is also possible that she did not. But the possibility that she could have, should not be denied.

There is simply no concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to pastor. If we say that a woman can be in authority over a man as long as there is man in authority over her, then we must say that a woman can pastor a church as long as there is a man in authority over her (just as Paul was in authority over Timothy). And if we contend that women should not serve as pastors because it puts them in authority over men, then we must take it as far to say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men. Otherwise, we become hypocrites. And if we say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men, then we must sincerely ask ourselves…where would that leave the church? Overall, when it’s all said and done, if a woman believes she is called to pastor a church then she should seek to pastor one. For it is better to obey God rather than man. So to my friend I say, carry on my dear sister in the Lord, no matter how many discouraging phone calls you get, carry on.

The Bible teaches that the man is the head of the wife but does this mean that he is her “spiritual” head and the “priest” of the marital home?

There is a teaching that has emerged in the church, which says that a man is not only the authority in the home and the head of his wife, but that he is also the “spiritual” head and “priest” of his marital home. Those who adhere to this teaching use the following scripture to support it: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV).

There is no doubt that husbands have authority over their wives. However, the question becomes: how far does that authority go? Many interpret the above verses of scripture to say that the authority of the husband is not just an earthly one, but a spiritual and priestly authority as well. The thinking is, since the Lord gives us spiritual direction and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, it is now the husband’s job to direct her spiritually. But I contend that this is a misinterpretation. The scripture is simply directing the wife as to how she is to submit. She is to submit to her husband just as willingly as she would submit to the Lord. The scripture is not focusing on the type of headship but instead on the type of submission.

We see something similar when we look at how slaves are to submit to their masters. Ephesians 6:5 teaches the following: “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect, and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The King James Version reads, “as unto Christ.” So, just as a woman is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, a slave is to submit to his master as unto Christ. However, in the case of slave and master, the church doesn’t go so far as to say that the master is the spiritual head and priest of his slave.

One of the main problems we run into when we say that the husband is the spiritual head of his wife is how to apply this type of thinking to a marriage in which a Christian woman is married to an unbeliever. Although the unbelieving husband is still the head of his wife, there is no way that his authority transforms into a spiritual authority…it can’t…he is an unbeliever. This is one of the dangers of this teaching. To say that since a man has an earthly authority over his wife, also means he has a spiritual authority over his wife, automatically 1) places the wife’s spirituality as second to her husband’s 2) implies that when a woman gets married her spiritual connection to God must somehow now come through her husband 3) assumes that the husband is more spiritually mature, and more spiritually in-tune to God, than his wife, 4) puts the wife in a position where her spirituality can always be questioned by her husband 5) assumes that the husband will always hear from God first 6) gives the impression that the wife must always go to her husband regarding spiritual matters 7) puts the wife in a position of second guessing-herself or having to get a confirmation from her husband as to whether or not she has truly heard from the Lord. This is indeed oppressive, and in my opinion, unbiblical. I have not read one scripture that says that the husband is the spiritual head, but only that he is the head. I contend that the spiritual head is Jesus. This is not to say that the husband cannot, at times, lead spiritually, but there is a difference between leading spiritually and declaring oneself to be the spiritual head.

Case in point: This is the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:18-20 (NIV) “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Most of us know the account of how the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary with his Spirit resulting in the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). Before this happened, the angel Gabriel visited Mary to inform her that she would be with child and give birth to the Son of the Most High, Jesus.

There are some significant points to be made here. First, God brought this very important spiritual matter (if not the most important spiritual matter ever) to Mary before bringing it to her husband, Joseph. If Joseph was Mary’s spiritual head, then it would seem that God would have brought this information to Joseph first. Secondly, Mary apparently told Joseph the good news but from looking at the historical account it appears that Joseph didn’t believe her and was going to divorce her because of it. He was going to divorce her privately but he was still going to divorce her. In a sense, it looks as if he questioned Mary’s spirituality in all of this or that he doubted that Mary had ever really had a spiritual visitation from Gabriel. It took God’s intervention to turn Joseph around. I believe that Joseph probably initially felt as many men in the church today would have…that God would not have given such important spiritual information and direction to a man’s wife without first informing her husband. After all…the husband is the spiritual head, right? You see the danger here? Although Joseph was a righteous man, he was righteously wrong in his initial assessment of this very spiritual occurrence.

Another case in point: I knew of a church which supported the teaching that says that a man is the spiritual head of his wife, and therefore turned women away from its church membership whose husbands did not also want to join. At the end of service, an invitation would be made for church membership for those who felt led. During the invitation, there were times when women would come to the altar and by the prompting of the pastor give reason why they wanted to join this particular church. If a woman happened to say that her husband was not going to join, or that her husband belongs to another church, she would be told in front of the entire congregation that she was welcome to visit the church but that she could not become a member without her husband joining too. This ultimately meant that she could not serve in this church.

The problem here is that, in order for these women to have been denied church membership, the following assumptions had to be made: 1) that these women, who claimed that the Lord had led them to this church, must have been mistaken and weren’t spiritually adept enough to know better 2) that the husbands couldn’t have been rebelling against God so these wives must have been rebelling against their husbands 4) that since the husband is the spiritual head of the home, then these husbands knew what was spiritually best for their wives and for their families. Of course there are instances where husbands do know best. But there are also instances where wives know best. There are historical examples of the former and the latter in the Bible and in present times. The dangerous part of this latter scenario is that these women were turned down from a church that they felt God led them to. As a result, they no doubt eventually became members of churches that were spiritually unsatisfying to them or some may have become discouraged and stopped attending church altogether. This is spiritual oppression. A woman’s spiritual wellbeing is more important than a man’s exercise of authority.

Now, one last point: there’s a second half to all of this and that’s the teaching that not only are husbands the spiritual head but they are also the priests of their homes. There is no doubt that the husband’s authority reins supreme in his home, but I believe identifying him as a priest takes things too far. 1 Peter 2:4-6 reads, “As you come to him the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The NIV study Bible Commentary identifies the holy priesthood as the “whole body of believers.” All of us who are saved are priests, in a spiritual sense, who offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus (sacrifices of praise, holy living, etc). Therefore a married Christian woman is a priest just like any other believer. She is to offer up her own spiritual sacrifices just like any other believer. Her husband is no more a priest than she is. She is not dependent upon her husband to offer up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord on her behalf. She can do this on her own, for herself, as she should. Of course, her husband can intercede in prayer for her just as she can for him, but there are important distinctions between intercessory prayer and the holy priesthood. And I believe that the church might be inappropriately infusing the two.

Hebrews 7:22-27 reads, “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself.” Jesus is our High Priest. Hebrews 8 defines Jesus as the mediator between us and God. Therefore it is not the husband that is the priestly mediator between his wife and God, but instead, Jesus. The wife has the ability and opportunity to offer spiritual sacrifices to Jesus who in turn intercedes and mediates between her and the Father on her behalf. To teach that a woman’s husband is her priest instead of teaching that Jesus is her priest is unbiblical and minimizes her privilege to approach the throne of grace for herself. It also implies that somehow her husband can help to exonerate her of her sins, which, of course he cannot. The term “priest” should not be used too freely. It has too much biblical meaning.

Both the husband and the wife are spiritual priests and are subject to the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore, both can approach the High priest on an equal basis at any time without sanction or permission from the other. With all this said, it is simply best and spiritually safer to identify the man’s role as no more than what it is…he is the head of his wife and the head of his house. He is the earthy head of his wife, but he is not identified in the Bible as his wife’s spiritual head, and he is not identified as his wife’s priest. Therefore, I think it would be best if we were not to identify him in that way either because to do so can easily lead to the spiritual oppression of women.