Should Women Lead?
Is Patriarchy Biblical?
I am still surprised by how controversial the question of women’s leadership remains within the Christian community. Some churches have welcomed women into leadership for decades, while others continue to exclude women from preaching, teaching men, or holding positions of authority, citing Scripture as the basis for these restrictions.
Interestingly, both sides of this debate believe they are being faithful to Scripture. This reminds me, although the injustices are certainly not comparable, of the Christian debates surrounding slavery a century and a half ago. Christians on both sides appealed to the Bible to support their positions. The disagreement raises an important question: How do we interpret and apply Scripture when passages appear to support practices that may conflict with the broader message of the Bible?
Patriarchy has certainly been present throughout much of biblical history. But describing a cultural practice is not necessarily the same as prescribing it for all people and all generations. Scripture also provides examples of women who exercised authority, led households, taught, served as deacons, and participated in the leadership of the early church.
Perhaps the question is not simply what the Bible says about women and authority, but how we should understand what it says.
Interpreting Scripture in Context
Before using individual passages to establish rules about women’s roles, I believe we should ask several important questions:
- Is the passage descriptive or prescriptive? Is it describing a cultural practice, or is it instructing believers to continue that practice?
- What is the historical and cultural context? What circumstances or particular problems might the author have been addressing?
- Is this instruction universal? Was it intended for all churches and all generations, or was it a response to a specific situation?
- How does this passage fit into the whole of Scripture? Does our interpretation reflect the broader biblical themes of loving God and loving our neighbors?
We must also remember that the Bible originated in particular historical and cultural settings. Paul’s letters were pastoral communications addressing the needs and concerns of specific churches. Even the Gospels were written by authors who interpreted and recorded the life and teachings of Jesus for particular communities.
Furthermore, many traditional interpretations Christians consider timeless have not always been understood the same way throughout church history. Our interpretations are influenced by the cultures, traditions, and experiences we inherit. Recognizing this does not diminish the authority of Scripture. Rather, it invites us to approach it with humility and a willingness to learn.
Were Women Created to Be Subordinate?
One of the most frequently cited passages supporting male authority is Genesis 2:18:
“The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'” (NIV)
Some interpret the word helper as evidence that God created women to occupy a subordinate position beneath men. However, the Hebrew word ezer, translated as helper, appears 21 times in the Old Testament. Twice it refers to Eve, three times to nations providing assistance to Israel, and sixteen times to God as the helper of His people.
Clearly, the word does not inherently describe someone in a subordinate position. In fact, it frequently describes someone providing essential help and strength.
Should we assume that Eve was created to serve beneath Adam simply because she was called his helper? Or might we understand her as the partner and counterpart he needed?
Genesis 1:26–28 offers another important perspective. God creates humanity in His image and gives them dominion over the earth. God gives this responsibility to both men and women. Before sin and its consequences entered the world, both are included in God’s creation mandate.
It is worth considering whether the hierarchy we often associate with gender roles is actually part of God’s original design or whether it reflects the patriarchal cultures in which these stories were written.
Did Paul Believe Women Should Be Subordinate to Men?
Paul’s letters are frequently used to support the belief that men should exercise authority over women in both the church and the home. Yet when we read his letters as a whole, we encounter a more complicated picture.
In Romans 16, Paul commends ten women, seven of whom are recognized for their contributions to ministry. Among them are:
- Phoebe, identified using the Greek word diakonon, commonly translated as deacon or servant.
- Prisca (Priscilla), recognized as Paul’s coworker and frequently mentioned before her husband, Aquila.
- Mary, commended for her hard work in ministry.
- Junia, described as prominent among the apostles.
- Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, recognized for their labor in the Lord.
These women were not simply passive participants in the early church. Paul openly acknowledges their important contributions.
If Paul believed women should never teach, lead, or exercise authority in the church, how do we reconcile that belief with the women he so readily commends?
Perhaps we should consider whether our interpretations of certain passages have been influenced more by inherited traditions than by the full picture Paul presents.
What Did Paul Mean in 1 Timothy 2:12?
One of the strongest passages used to prohibit women from teaching or exercising authority over men is 1 Timothy 2:12:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (NIV)
Alice Mathews, in Gender Roles and the People of God, encourages readers to consider several questions about this passage:
- Is Paul establishing a permanent restriction for every church, or addressing a particular problem?
- Are teaching and exercising authority two separate issues, or are they connected in this particular context?
- What was happening in the church at Ephesus when Paul wrote this letter?
We know that Paul’s letters were pastoral responses to specific communities and their concerns. They were not written as isolated collections of universal rules.
Mathews suggests that the Ephesian church was struggling with false teaching. Paul addresses problematic behavior among some members, including young widows who were spreading inappropriate teachings and individuals who were taking advantage of vulnerable women (1 Timothy 5:13; 2 Timothy 3:6–7).
In this context, Paul’s instruction that women learn quietly and refrain from teaching may have been a response to a particular situation rather than a universal prohibition against women teaching.
This interpretation deserves consideration, even if we ultimately reach a different conclusion.
The following verses, 1 Timothy 2:13–15, introduce another difficulty. Paul refers to Adam being created before Eve and to Eve being deceived. Some interpret this as evidence that women are inherently more susceptible to deception and therefore should remain under male authority.
Yet elsewhere Paul clearly identifies Adam as responsible for the entrance of sin into the world (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
The final verse, concerning salvation through childbearing, is also difficult to interpret, particularly in light of Paul’s teaching about salvation through grace.
Mathews offers several possible explanations, including the possibility that the reference to childbearing points to the childbearing, meaning the birth of Christ. She also raises questions about how to translate the original Greek and where one thought ends and another begins.
These are debated interpretations, not settled conclusions. Nevertheless, they remind us that even passages often treated as straightforward instructions can be more complicated than they first appear.
Perhaps the most important question is whether Paul intended these restrictions to apply to every woman in every church throughout history or whether he was addressing a particular problem in a particular congregation.
What If We Have Misunderstood 1 Corinthians 11?
Another frequently cited passage is 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, which addresses head coverings and the relationship between men and women.
At first reading, Paul appears to establish a hierarchy:
“The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3, NKJV)
He then discusses the appropriate appearance of men and women when praying and prophesying.
However, the passage contains several apparent contradictions. Paul says that woman came from man, but then reminds his readers that every man since Adam has come through a woman. He discusses head coverings but later refers to a woman’s hair as her covering. He also acknowledges that women pray and prophesy, indicating their active participation in worship.
Most importantly, he writes:
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:11, NKJV)
Why does Paul emphasize mutual dependence if his primary purpose is to establish female subordination?
Biblical scholar Lucy Peppiatt, in Women and Worship at Corinth, proposes an alternative way of reading this passage. She suggests that Paul may be quoting statements from a letter he received from the Corinthian church and then responding to those statements.
Because the original Greek manuscripts did not contain quotation marks, identifying where Paul might be quoting someone else’s words can be difficult. Peppiatt believes that portions of this passage may represent the Corinthians’ position rather than Paul’s own teaching.
If this interpretation is correct, some statements traditionally attributed directly to Paul may actually be arguments he is challenging.
This is not the only possible interpretation, but it offers another way to approach a passage that has often been used to establish a permanent hierarchy between men and women.
It also reminds us that the early churches were small communities meeting in homes, with cultural expectations and circumstances quite different from those of our churches today.
We should be cautious about turning every instruction concerning a particular church’s worship practices into a universal command for Christians in every generation.
Rethinking What We Have Been Taught
I grew up in the Texas Panhandle, in what is often called the Bible Belt. I spent my childhood and much of my young adulthood in Southern Baptist churches. Later, my children and I attended Pentecostal and non-denominational churches. In each of these settings, women were generally taught that they were created to be helpers under male authority.
Women could serve in the kitchen, nursery, and children’s classrooms, but preaching, teaching adult men, and holding pastoral leadership positions were reserved for men.
These ministries are important, and I do not wish to diminish the women who faithfully serve in them. However, women who felt called to other forms of ministry were sometimes viewed as ambitious or rebellious for desiring positions traditionally held by men.
I have never felt called to serve as a senior pastor. My own gifts and calling lie elsewhere. However, as a woman with strong leadership abilities, a hunger for knowledge, a love of deep theological conversations, and a heart for mercy and justice, I understand how difficult it is to reconcile one’s sense of calling with limitations imposed by traditional interpretations of Scripture.
For many women, these limitations have simply been accepted as the biblical norm. But should we be willing to examine the traditions we have inherited, just as we encourage others to examine theirs?
At Second Baptist in Lubbock, I have found a church where people are valued as equals and where I have felt welcomed to be fully myself. It is a place where I have felt seen and heard, and this experience has reminded me how important it is for the church to recognize and encourage the gifts God gives to all His people.
An Invitation to Reconsider
Women, like men, were created in the image of God. Throughout Scripture, we encounter women who were called to serve in ways that challenged the expectations of their cultures.
Deborah served as a judge and leader in Israel. Priscilla helped teach Apollos. Phoebe served the early church as a deacon, and Junia was recognized among the apostles.
These women were not exceptions to God’s ability to work through women. They were part of the biblical story itself.
Patriarchy was a reality in the cultures described throughout Scripture, but its presence in the biblical narrative does not necessarily mean God prescribed it as a permanent arrangement for all people and all generations.
I am not suggesting that we disregard Scripture or simply choose the interpretations that appeal to us. Rather, I believe we should approach difficult passages with humility, considering their historical context, the original language, the circumstances of the early church, and the broader message of Scripture.
For those who believe the traditional interpretation is correct, I hope these questions will at least encourage thoughtful consideration. And for those who have felt excluded because of their gender, I hope the examples of faithful women throughout Scripture will remind you that God has always worked through women as well as men.
Perhaps instead of asking whether women should be permitted to lead, we should ask whether the church is willing to recognize and nurture all the gifts God has given His people.
After all, the calling to serve God is not diminished by the gender of the person who receives it.
For Further Reading
Mathews, Alice. Gender Roles and the People of God: Rethinking What We Were Taught About Men and Women in the Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.
Patterson, Stephen J. The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015.