Let’s Talk About The 'F' Word In The Female-Elder Debate

The tension in a room is almost palpable when a man is asked, “so, why don’t we appoint women as elders in this church?” Even when asked innocently, the volatility in this question is unavoidable, as more than a century’s worth of social commentary on women’s rights barges into the conversation. Every pastor/elder, deacon, or male congregant in 2023, knows that a certain response will unleash a barrage of labels:  “misogynist," “sexist,” “complementarian.” If his answer includes “we don’t, because in first Timothy 2 it says…,” he could be accused of bigotry, even by fellow Christians, especially Christian women. This is because for some, Complementarianism is nothing more than a theological euphemism that men use to christianise sexist thinking and behaviour towards women in church. 

But is this an accurate depiction of church governance, the scripture, or the men who uphold its imperatives? Have men in the church, through theological invention, found a way to openly discriminate against women? Or, are men in safeguarding divinely assigned roles (i.e. Complementarianism) exercising wisdom, biblical faithfulness, and in doing so protecting women? Before you answer that, we must first unpack the position of those who believe the former. Specifically, why they treat a biblical response, concerning a biblical appointment (eldership), as a cultural or moral infraction. This lies at the heart of the issue.

“Weak Men Create Tough Times…”

Whether it’s societal arm-wringing or the expression of cultural left leanings, a growing number of men in ministry are either: capitulating to integrate women into eldership, avoiding the issue until eventually capitulating, or they’re strongly advocating for female “representation”. They all seem to take the same predictable routes to justify this position. Those who oppose are labeled quarrelsome, persnickety, uncompromising “stick-in-the-muds” who need to get with the times. Or they offer-up weak, mealy-mouthed obfuscations and workarounds, to dodge pesky biblical texts, that clearly contradict the pro female-elder view. See if you recognise these workarounds: rebranding - replacing “elders” with “leadership team”, or "governing board”, then there’s; semantics - agonising over the interpretation of words like “pastor”, hoping to squeeze out an ounce of gender ambiguity. Well-known pastor and author Rick Warren engaged in similar, yet unsuccessful, techniques to dissuade the Southern Baptist Convention from disfellowshipping his former church, Saddleback Church in California. Warren installed a couple (husband and wife), as his “pastoring” successors, triggering a vote for removal from the convention. Denny Burk of 9Marks, who made on-the-record remarks in support of the S.B.C’s decision, took on the coed interpretation of the word “pastor”, in a robust and defanging rebuttal, that is worth reading. 

Nonetheless, the female-elder debate remains resilient, as more and more Christian men in particular, become biblical contortionists. Why? I’m convinced, that the culprit is Feminism! I know, no surprise there. Although, if we know it's the cultural source, stoking contention between the sexes and coercing compromise in men, why isn’t it addressed more? Discussions seem to revolve around the bible’s disallowing of female-elders, but not on what’s fuelling the desire to be or see female-elders? Consequently, any examination of how feminist messaging exploits the spiritual disposition of men and women, is also left unaddressed. What is the spiritual profile of men who cower at female/cultural intimidation? What is at root spiritually, that produces the adversarial temperament within women, towards male authority? Before delving into the metaphysical inner-workings of the sexes, how sure can we be of the feminist contaminant? Should we view feminism as a contaminant?

Gravitational Pull

There is obvious correlation between the heightened preoccupation with female eldership and the sociopolitical progress of the women’s movement. With the recent resurgence of “social justice” advocacy, female “representation” efforts have intensified and expanded throughout Western societies. For instants, the saturating of cultural entertainment with creatively lazy gender-swaps and female empowering initiatives in movies/television, that produce more eye-rolls than box office dollars e.g. new phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (M.C.U), that fans have rejected under the meme “M-She-U.” Then there is the not so subtle ramping-up of female quotas in politics and corporations e.g. President Joe Biden in 2020 announcing that a “black woman” would be his pick for V.P., before hiring Kamala Harris. 

Although polling on the number of Christians who consider themselves feminist is not readily available, articles on the internet like this one - exploring the compatibility of Judaeo-Christianity and feminism - abound. Also consider that a 2020 Pew Research study found that 61% of U.S. women say “‘feminist’ describes them well,” with 35% of republican leaning women saying “somewhat well.” Suggesting that a segment of Christian women either identify as feminists or, at least, find a portion of feminism consistent with their faith. It’s not only the blogosphere, scholarly work tackling “biblical feminism,” (undertaken by Dr. Susan T. Foh, author of Women and the Word of God, A Response to Biblical Feminism (1978)) further corroborates that feminism has long breached the church doors. Christian women have and continue to wrestle with the gravitational pull of an alluring ideology, which pledges to supply them with a gender specific world-view, more equipped than the scriptures, for navigating their contemporary circumstances.

Still, there are those in favour of female “representation” in church leadership (eldership), who say their position is not sociopolitical, but a matter of fairness. They claim this while arguing that the issue is men clinging to outdated traditions, built on a few Bible verses, that require a modern interpretation. Which begs two obvious questions: 1) Does the insistence on a “modern interpretation”, suggest the influence of current social expectations? and 2) Do those expectations resemble the same sentiments championed by feminism? If not feminism, then what? What is causing the male-elders-only church structure to be seen as prescriptive, unfair, or controversial? Why is accentuating a woman’s value in approved roles (deaconess) unsatisfactory?  

  

I had an opportunity to offer-up a defence for male only eldership, during a bible study one Sunday, attended by some dear church sisters and a brother. We were in Galatians when the question on female-eldership was asked. I have written out a close approximation of their responses. My questions and arguments were a pre-prepared apologetic that I had thought-up in the event of being confronted with this topic. Hopefully it can help you flesh-out your own thinking on this issue. Starting with a brief dissection of feminism’s history that will hopefully illuminate its connection to the female-elder debate.

From Rights…

Every iteration of Feminism has been signposted and metaphorically referred to as a “wave.” The more widely recognised kick-off to the “first wave,” took place in July 1848 at The Seneca Falls Convention in Seneca County N.Y., which was attended by an estimated 200-300 women. The women’s conference was outlined by its chief architects, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony. With the help of male allies, they drew inspiration from “various masculine productions e.g. abolitionist conventions" (which probably explains why notable abolitionist Fredrick Douglas was a featured speaker at the convention). Stanton also consulted Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence” to draft a “Declaration of Sentiments.” This outlined civil grievances, “detailing injuries suffered by women at the hands of men.” Borrowing Jefferson’s language, Stanton wrote of the “self-evident truth” that “all men and women are created equally.” Speaking before the New York State Legislature in 1854, Stanton summed up the mission objective of the suffragettes when she said,

“We ask no better laws than those you have made for yourselves. We need no other protection than that which your present laws secure to you…”

The efforts of Stanton and other’s culminated with the passing of the 19th amendment, on June 4, 1919, granting women the right to vote. It was ratified in US congress on August 18, 1920. In Great Britain who had their own Suffrage movement, women over thirty who met property requirements, were given the right to vote under the Representation of the People Act 1918. Fun fact, 42% of men, of voting age, many of them in the army, who were barred from participating in the voting process, were also given access to the booth. The Equal Franchise Act 1928 extended voting rights to all women in Britain. 

Classical feminist Christina Hoff-Sommers describes the “first wave” this way,

“The aims of the Seneca Falls activists were clearly stated, finite, and practicable. They would be eventually realised because they were grounded in principles - recognised constitutional principles - that were squarely in the tradition of equity, fairness, and individual liberty…Misandrism (hostility to men, the counterpart to misogyny) was not a notable feature of the women’s movement until our own times.” Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women p.35

Although the first wave is universally touted as a true social justice victory, and in many ways it was. Could it also be true that it resulted in opening a “pandoras box” of unintended consequences? Is this an example of what Thomas Sowell wrote of political struggles, that “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs?” Those who warned of the negative outcomes, were unfortunately relegated to disgraced footnotes in Suffrage history. I’m speaking of the Anti-Sufferage movement and the Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League formed in the early 20th century (1908). Educated wives and mothers who predicted the erosion of gender roles, marriage, the meaning of woman/womanhood, and the societal ills that would ensue. Women like Mary Ward who also spoke of the “sex rivalry which masquerades as reform,” which Hoff-Sommers currently diagnoses as “misandry.”

… To Resentment (The Resentment Feminist)

So it was that in the embryonic stages of the first wave, the undercurrents of the second and proceeding waves were already brewing. John Stuart Mills wrote, 

“women are subjected to duties in wives and mothers because the whole force of education enslaves women’s minds to such roles” - The Subjection of Women (1869). 

Here were the early hints that the goalpost would move from ‘equality before the law to advocating for ‘equality’ meaning sameness (men and women are the same). To achieve this required unshackling women from social institutions namely marriage, and the subsequent functions/roles (motherhood) that women perform as a result of biological realities. Decades later Mills’ views would be echoed by pillar of the second wave and author of Second Sex (1949) Simone de Beauvoir. Beauvoir in the 1970’s issued this sobering edict, 

“No woman should be authorised to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.” (1975)  

Beauvoir reveals an ugly truth that’s alive to this day - staunch feminist despise other women that won’t do as they say, just as much they despise straight-white-Christian-males. Beauvoir also admits three things, albeit inadvertently 1) the first wave was successful, women had “equal opportunity,” with more life choices - stay at home or work 2) “equality of outcome” (50/50 male to female representation) does not naturally occur when there’s freedom to choose, a level of force intervention and even discrimination is required to achieve equal outcomes (e.g. Affirmative Action) and 3) feminism was clearly no longer about “equality”, but power - to Beauvoir, a woman was more valuable to society as a sexually liberated female CEO, than as a housewife.  

The arrival of Beauvoir and publications like Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) and Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970) signalled the complete transformation of feminism, from a civil rights initiative, into a politically militant, academic, ideological world-view in its subsequent waves. These waves are characterised by what Hoff-Sommers describes as deep-seeded “resentment” of men, that disguises itself in the more virtuous “ethical passion” of “moral indignation”. This faux indignation is whipped-up by a perception of collective victimhood - us women (the victims) vs. those men (the victimisers). Turning legitimate, isolated, individual cases of injury or discrimination, into tribal infractions. Thus, keeping alive the illusion of “women as a subjugated gender…and men as oppressors of women.” Hoff-Sommers observes that, “by enlarging the class of victims it magnifies the villainy as well.” Self-proclaimed expert on “phenomenology of feminist consciousness” Sandra Bartky admits that, “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization…to come to see oneself as a victim.” 

It’s not hard then, to see why some Christian women, given “feminist consciousness”, would jettison certain scripture and resent male leadership, who they feel are impeding a fellow sister’s or their own professional/ministerial aspirations. Eldership in church, in their estimation, is no different than the corporate D.E.I. battlegrounds of the FTSE 100 companies, and the bemoaned gender make-up of its top CEOs list.

Hammer In Search Of A Nail

Given all this, what you’ll still hear from most women is “I’m a feminist, because I believe men and women are equal.” They’ll insist, “if you believe in equality of the sexes, you’re a feminist!” To that I have a few rebutting questions: if Cady Stanton and co. borrowed from Jefferson’s “Declaration…,” and Jefferson borrowed from Judaeo-Christian principles, does that mean that Christianity is superior in instructing us on the equality of men and women? If men and women enjoy equal protection under the law, which they do in Western societies, why be a feminist? Furthermore, if feminism is necessary in a society already equal, then equality must not be the goal then, right? Why in places with actual gender inequalities like the Middle East, feminists seem curiously less motivated to act?

This is precisely the flaw even in the definition of contemporary feminism - “the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” The definition is predicated on three false assumptions 1) that women are always the gender/sex that experiences depressed societal outcomes, discrimination or mistreatment 2) disparity in those outcomes can only be the result of discrimination and not other factors, like the choices women make as free citizens and 3) as the word “feminism” implies, in cases where men are experiencing adverse outcomes, there are no efforts by contemporary feminist organisations or individuals to intercede on behalf of men (e.g. US women are given primary custody of children 90% of the time in divorces). In the words of Jordan Peterson, “should we equalise that?!” Other areas of disparity include: academic drop-out rate; number of homeless; suicide victims; victims of homicides; industrial deaths and accidents; average jail sentences; and victims of rape (if you include prison). Women experience more favourable outcomes than men and boys in these areas and more. The silence from feminists on these issues is deafening. There are women like Karen Straughan, an activist and writer who organised and hosted an International Men's Rights conference in Chicago 2020, but she doesn’t describe herself as a feminist.

But don’t fret, feminists have one remaining relic of oppression they dust off, when they're hit with the reality of their privilege, the “wage gap”. The claim that women face pay discrimination, sometimes for working the same job as men. A lie that refuses to stay dead since the US Equal Pay Act of 1963 killed it. It along with its frequently quoted, and misleading statistic, that women make 77-80 cents for every dollar that men make. While it’s true, in many, but not all cases, that men earn more than women. The deception is in purposefully avoiding the reasons why men earn more. Simply put, men work in more lucrative industries like S.T.E.M, finance and jobs that are dangerous. Still, pick up any “study” making the “wage gap” claim and you’ll notice the same glaring pattern - disparities in and of themselves, equal discrimination. With no mention of what Economists call “controls” affecting the pay differences. For example, types of jobs, hours worked, educational background, part-time vs. full-time employment, pauses in employment for things like maternity leave. Disparities all but disappear once these variables are applied. In many cases, it’s discovered that women earn more than their male counterparts.

Because of this an increasing number of people view Feminism, as having had its day. Now it’s a solution in search of a problem; a hammer that sees men as nails. Cristina Hoff-Sommers throws a bucket of cold water, on “the patriarchy” conspiracy by saying,

“Real-life men have no war offices, no situation rooms, no battle plans against women. There is no radical militant wing of a masculinist movement. To the extent one can speak of a gender war, it is the New Feminist themselves who are waging it.” The contemporary feminist is like a shadow boxer, throwing punches at an imaginary opponent.

Bible Study Discussion

In my conversation with my church sisters, the intent of my questions was to unpack their assumptions and the feminist influence feeding those assumptions. Then to direct us back to the scriptures as the authority of reality and truth. It may seem as if I’m painting myself as the discursive victor in the discussion, but it is the way I formulated the questions that gives this appearance. They were certainly capable of providing more resistance to my points, but I believe they were more curious about where I was going with this line of questioning. This is roughly how it went down…

ME: Why do you want to see women as elders/pastors? 

CHURCH SISTER(S): Well, we’ve come a long way in society and there are more women in  positions of leadership in other professions - why shouldn’t a woman be an elder. 

ME: So society (Western society to be clear) has grown in the way women are viewed and treated? You feel that a woman’s value is affirmed, in ways it wasn’t before?

CHURCH SISTER(S): YES! Absolutely, but there’s still more to be done to achieve equality.

ME: Would you say that the positions that women occupy in society, validate/affirm their intrinsic value?… (clarifying) You acknowledged that women given access to leadership positions was a sign of progress for how women are seen and valued in society?

CHURCH SISTER(S): Hmm, okay, I see that. I would say yes then. But we all should be valued no matter what!

ME: Of course!  

ME: Women are permitted in scripture to be deaconesses, does this affect your position at all?

CHURCH SISTER(S): Not really… I still don’t see why the elder/pastor position isn’t permitted, when deacon is.

ME: Okay. Now I’m going to switch gears a bit and ask some biblical questions. 

ME: Can you direct me to a place in the Bible where it teaches that men are more intrinsically valued than women? I don’t mean instances in scripture where it is documented that women were mistreated or that a cultural view of women was poor. I mean didactic writing - where it instructs us to view or treat women as being inferior to men.

CHURCH SISTER(S): I can’t think of any off the top of my head… But I’m guessing there aren’t any?

ME: If you find any that do, please bring it to my attention later. Let’s say that you’re right. God created us (male and female / Gen. 1:27) in His image, it would, and does follow that He teaches in His scriptures that men and women are equal in essence and dignity. There is however an acknowledgement that the understanding of equality was broken by sin, but is repaired, partially, in union with Christ’s life, death, burial and resurrection. 

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 ESV).

What is more, the bible is littered with examples of countercultural behaviour towards women initiated by God: 

• The industrious woman of Proverbs 31.

• Christ publicly elevated the adulteress that was to be stoned, to the same spiritual (and intrinsic) level of her male executors - “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”Jn. 8:1-11 ESV.

• The woman with the alabaster flask of perfume was paid the highest compliment by Christ while being jeered by the disciples - “wherever this gospel is proclaimed…what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” Matt. 26:7-13 ESV.

• At a time when a woman’s testimony was inadmissible in a Jewish court of law, the gospel writers risked delegitimising their account of the resurrection, by truthfully stating that it was women who found Jesus’ empty tomb - (continued from Lk. 23:55) And they (the women) found the stone rolled away from the tomb,… Lk.24:2 ESV.

This is not to ignore isolated events throughout the years of men using scripture to subjugate and mistreat women. But we can certainly agree that the scriptures themselves are also abused, if used to abuse others. Also, this shows that society has not outpaced the scriptures, rather they’re foundational and continue to hold together Western morals, precepts and ethics. 

  

ME: Could you direct me to a passage of scripture that teaches that a person’s intrinsic value is determined by their station in life or vocation/career?

CHURCH SISTER(S): I don’t think that that is taught anywhere in scripture.

ME: I agree. Our innate or intrinsic value is not established in what we do, but in whose image we bear - God’s. (Gen. 1:26-27)

Again, recognise what God says through Paul in Galatians 3…

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28 ESV)

Also in Acts - “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,…” (Acts 17:26 ESV)

 

There is no distinction in essence due to nationality, ethnicity, liberty or gender. Again, we are not ignoring that this is not perfectly depicted in society, but once more we must acknowledge that this is a failure of man (mankind); and not God. This also demonstrates that His scriptures convey morally superior teaching concerning personhood.

ME: Could you direct me to a passage in the Bible where it teaches that your intrinsic value increases or decreases based on the position you occupy in the church?

CHURCH SISTER(S): Pregnant pause…

ME: There’s a pretty good chance that you won’t find a text/passage that teaches a sliding-scale of innate worth based on the positions people occupy in church. Our value doesn’t change if we go from congregant to elder.

 

Moral Cudgel 

ME: What we’re doing, when we insist on female-elders, is projecting feminist expectations into the scriptures. Accusing those who adhere to a biblical leadership structure (and God) of sexism for failing to meet current, moral societal standards, when they gate-keep a supposed “position of power”. The mischaracterising is meant to morally scold Christians into compliance. In order to smuggle secular views on the positions men and women can occupy into the church.

It’s Not About Capability, But Obedience…

ME: Women are fully capable of reading, explaining and applying biblical text. The restriction is not an indictment on a woman’s capability, but a means to sanctify her through the exercise of restraint and obedience. Being obedient to the parameters God put in place, regarding how, with who, and in what capacity they use this gift. So not capability; but in obedience - teach other women, not men and not as pastors/elders (1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Tim. 3:8-11, Tit. 2:3-5). Women operating outside of God’s parameters (disobedience), and the men who allow it, even champion it, are operating under God’s wrath. Roles in the church were not created to validate or establish worth (Eph 2:8-10); they are not rungs on a career ladder, or the spoils of a gender war. They are given to be given back! To keep order, to sanctify, to edify, to make servant leaders and those their gift serve, more like Jesus (Matt. 20:26-28 ESV). 

Due to Bible study taking place an hour before service, and the discussion starting mid-way through, we unfortunately ran out of time. We were all interested in continuing the discussion and promised that we would. The remainder of the article lays out the spiritual argument to my apologetic, with a few updated references. 

Adam Father of the "Beta Male"

Providing the spiritual backdrop to the ongoing gender struggle, is a familiar scene - the Garden of Eden. It is with Adam and Eve and the events surrounding “The Fall” (Genesis 3), where clashing male and female spiritual temperaments were incubated, and passed on to the rest of us. We are not exempted, our sinful proclivities are our own (Rom.3:22-23), but understanding male and female interaction, starts with our inheritance. Beginning with the men…

Most are aware of the potential for harsh male dominance of women, as a consequence of the fall “…and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). What’s often overlooked is Adam’s first sin, that preceded the eating of the fruit. This was his abdication from his leadership role in the marriage (Gen 3:6,12). We know this, because as the leader he bore primary responsibility, for passing on spiritual death to his offspring - us, “For as in Adam all die…” (1 Cor. 15:22 ESV). Consequently married/unmarried men also inherited in that spiritual death, a sinfully passive character trait.  

It is this Adam-like passivity that manifests itself in the attitudes of men who: shirk leadership responsibilities in the home; capitulate to assertive women in the church or; allow emotion/fear/cowardice to rule over them, when confronted by contentious ideologies. I’m not speaking of the introverted personality, but a temperament marked by a tale-between-the-legs posture when for example choosing to preserve someone’s feelings, at the expense of the truth. Substituting sober reasoning for emotion in times where reason is most needed, but not popular - kowtowing to cultural/political viewpoints that are anti-biblical.         

Eve Mother of the "Strong Independent Wahman Who Don't Need No Man!"

Eve’s contribution to our feuding nature, is more conspicuous than Adam’s, as it relates to the female-elder debate, as well as the feminising of Western Societies in general. For Eve’s part in the ‘Fall’, the resulting curse inflicted, not just wives, but all women, with a predisposition to control men - “…your desire shall be for your husband…” (Genesis 3:16 ESV). Despite competing schools of thought, scholars like Susan T. Foh rightly translate the Hebrew for “desire” (teshuqah), to mean “to rule over”. The word appears and is used this way only in Genesis 3. Furthermore, this interpretation is supported by the New Testament counter imperative, calling for wive’s to “submit,” rather than seek to dominate their husbands, in light of the gospel (Eph.5:22, Col. 3:18). 

A woman’s temptation then, generally speaking, is to sinfully grasp for leadership in the same way their mother Eve did. Taking advantage of the male inclination to sinfully relinquish that leadership - in marriages, in the church, and in light of feminism’s evolution, other areas of society. We see it in the weaponising of terms like “toxic masculinity” and “mansplaining”. Terms launched at men and young boys to create fearful suspicion around male competence and to disparage traditional depictions of manhood, while elevating these same traits in women. Earlier this year ‘Ant-Man’ actress Evangeline Lilly made this astute observation, "Why are we only applauding masculinity in women and villainizing it in men? And why are we only applauding femininity in men and debasing it in women?"

Of course, there is a separate conversation to be had on single mothers, female bosses and politicians. However, in the home and the church specifically, there is a role women must play for the health of the family, the effectiveness of the church.

Re-Establishing Order - The Gospel Not The Red Pill

With what many see as the church's cultural inactivity, pushback to feminist ideology has been left to Red Pill / Manosphere personalities, websites, podcasts, and debate forums, that dominate the male/female relationship conversation. Shows like Fresh & Fit, Whatever Podcast, JustPearlyThings and others, offer opinions, insight and anti-woke perspectives on dating, marriage, and self-improvement - packaged in GenZ approved hot-takes and viral takedowns. They tend to identify the symptoms well, delving into statistics and psychology, however the diagnoses and treatments can oftentimes miss the mark entirely. Nonetheless, they are filling a void left by the church. Young men yearning for affirmation flock to them in droves and women, as a result, are being confronted with the harsh realities of buying into feminism. This confrontation has sparked counter-trends for example the TradWife - married GenZ women, who embrace traditional gender roles. These can come across as theatric at times, with call-backs to 50’s style aesthetic, but they closely resemble the biblical model of marriage in regards to roles, responsibility and respect. 

I’m not suggesting more Christians start Youtube channels or podcasts, although I certainly welcome the idea. I am saying that “cleaning our room,” by holding the line on eldership and gender roles, in our local church’s and homes, is an important contribution to the culture war, society, and the kingdom. Here are some practical things for churches to emphasise to combat passivity in men and to encourage appropriate submission in women:  

Men 

• First and foremost, Christ is always our north star as an example of how to be effective and faithful servants and servant-leaders (Phil. 1:1-12). 

• Adopt eldership as a church-wide criteria for all men. The requirements needed to be considered for eldership found in (1 Tim 3:2-7, Titus 1:7-9, 1 Peter 5:2-3, 5), are desirable traits to be instilled in all men, young and old, whether or not they are elected for the position. It directly addresses the temptation to fade into the background at home and in church. I was taught that 1 Tim. 3 “is the Proverbs 31 for men”. 

• As part of training in self-control, affirm and encourage men to reason dispassionately. Provide opportunities where contentious subjects can be discussed in this way. Train young men, not only in the ways of the Scripture (2 Tim. 2:2), but in how to engage the culture. I’ve found that venturing into other genres like economics and social theory has been invaluable to my spiritual fortification, especially in these times. The works of people such as Thomas Sowell are not only brilliant, but inadvertently buttress gospel teaching. But like everything else - moderation is crucial, and therefore men should protect against making these things their main diet.

• As fatherlessness is a social epidemic in and outside the church, encourage/facilitate spiritual surrogacy/mentorship. 

• Male leaders need to lead decisively well, while consistently validating and supporting women who serve in divinely approved roles. Decisive and competent leaders, will aid in a woman’s ability to resist the temptation to grasp for leadership, and embrace a supportive role. Men need to create an environment where “women see leadership as a burden and; submission as a joy!”

Women

• Disclaimer - when I speak of submission, I mean appropriate submission and not the tolerating of abuse or mistreatment. Nor does deferring to male leadership mean not participating in decision making. 

• Like men, women require modelling as well as instruction from other experienced women (Titus 2:2-8). Who will encourage spiritual behaviour applicable to both married and unwed women (Prov. 31 1 Pet. 3:3-5 et al.).

• Equally important to individual introspection and restraint, is women actively spurring-on men around them to be leaders. Single/married women can start by upholding biblical church leadership to other congregants and leaders in need of affirmation. Married women can intentionally communicate (vocally) the leadership of their husband over the family, to their kids e.g. in dealing with certain request from my kids, my wife will say “I may have given you a ‘yes or no’ on this, but I’m the trial court; dad’s the supreme court, he makes final decisions.” This coming from a former feminist.

Conclusion

The female-elder/pastor debate is undoubtedly a cultural debate - with feminism, “the patriarchy,” and “social justice” as its tentpoles. But ultimately this is a spiritual conflict waged against God (Eph. 6:12). Which Christians must resolve internally by confronting this reality - If God, through His word, makes and organises His people; and it’s not God’s people who make or organise themselves, shouldn’t He/His word have final say on church structure? If God, in His wisdom, has demarcated roles for men and women to occupy in the church, oughtn’t we to be faithful to those roles? Christ, in His perfect obedience to God the Father as the Son and headship of the church as its bridegroom, projects a perfect union and a perfect gospel message. We bear and display that message and union in our marriages (Eph. 5:22-33), and our churches (1 Cor. 12, 14, Eph. 4:1-16). That message is marred beyond recognition; that union flipped on its head, when women pridefully grasp for leadership, and when men timidly surrender it.

 

References 

Can Women Be Pastors But Not Elders? By Denny Burk / https://www.9marks.org/article/can-women-be-pastors-but-not-elders/

Women Get The Vote / https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/

Hoff-Sommers, Christina. Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 22 quote from The Elizabeth Cady Stanton-Susan B. Anthony Reader, ed. Ellen Carol Dubois (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), p. 51

Ibid., p. 45

Ibid., p. 23

Ibid., p. 42 quote from Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 15

The Challenge of Feminism (1): Should We Call Ourselves Feminists? By Claire Smith / https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/challenge-feminism-1-call-feminists/

Southern Baptists Reject Rick Warren’s Saddleback Appeal https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/june/saddleback-sbc-women-pastors-appeal-rick-warren-southern-ba.html

61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well; many see feminism as empowering, polarizing / https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-women-say-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-as-empowering-polarizing/

The Robert Half FTSE 100 CEO Tracker / https://www.roberthalf.com/gb/en/insights/ftse-100-ceo-tracker

What is the gender pay gap and is it real? / https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-and-is-it-real/

Quote heard under tutelage of Thabiti Anyabwile - “women see leadership as a burden and; submission as a joy!”

ESV Study Bible, (Crossway / Good News Publishers, 2008)