Resolving the Question of Women in Church Leadership: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

15th in a multipart blog series.

How does one resolve the question of women serving in church leadership?

Well, surely, as discussed in the previous post, it is not a matter of churches inevitably following down some slippery slope, towards something like the adoption of same-sex marriage. To repeat again, just in case there is any confusion, a “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. The adoption of female elders does not necessarily entail a betrayal of classic Christian sexual ethics or other fundamental truths. So, while such supposed slippery slopes do raise important questions, they do not fully help us to resolve the question at hand.

What then shall we do?

As we have surveyed, the Scriptural evidence examined thus far (and there is a lot more to consider), is complex, and in a number of cases, ambiguous. Complementarians have their prooftexts. Egalitarians have theirs. Plus, not all complementarians or egalitarians are exactly the same!

If there is no one, or two, “killer” Bible verses to settle the matter, what do you do? There are two things that I believe will help here, as least as starting points:

  • It is best to narrow down the question to the very crux of the issue. There are so many nuances and various positions one could take, but it helps the most to identify the real sticking point, the clearest area of disagreement,” as British Bible teacher Andrew Wilson put it. Should women serve as elders, assuming that the elders are those who take upon the function of pastoring in a local church? When it comes to things like the office of deacon, women teaching under the authority of elders in a mixed adult group, etc., complementarians are all over the map. But when it comes to elders, all breeds of complementarians will say NO, whereas egalitarians will undoubtedly say YES.
  • Build a cumulative case, that takes into account all of the available evidence. In this blog post series, I have tried to lay out some of the crucial arguments used to interpret various texts. Yet what I have set out is by no means exhaustive.

That is all very important, but in this blog post, we will examine still another, very important part of the discussion: the role of tradition.

Throughout the breadth of church history, there is good evidence to show that having women deacons in the church was considered to be uncontroversial, particularly prior to the medieval period. For example, before robes became common for adult baptism, Christians would at times be baptized in the nude, in the early church. As a result, women deacons assisted with baptism. Furthermore, women at various times throughout church history, have used certain teaching gifts, church planting gifts, and other leadership gifts, to the great benefit of other believers.

Granted, some in our day say that having women serving as deacons is still wrong, despite what the story from early church history shows. However, those who would suggest that women should not exercise their full range of ministry gifts, from various forms of teaching to administration, whether being “deacons” or not, simply do not have the force of tradition on their side. Such tradition reaches all of the way back to the New Testament, where we have the record that four of Philip’s daughters prophesied (Acts 21:8-9 ESV).

Evidence from Church History: Women Deacons, Yes, But Women Elders?? Not So Much.

But when it comes to elders and/or pastors, over the past 2,000 years, the story tends to work more against the egalitarian cause. Until relatively recently, women have not generally served in those capacities, as these offices have been, in a certain sense, associated with the exercise of spiritual authority, however it may be defined. Historically, there has been hardly any dispute about this, despite some limited evidence to the contrary.1

Even today, the overwhelming majority of church congregations throughout the world practice some form of all-male eldership, in their churches. However, within the past couple of hundred years, and particularly within the past few decades, in certain Protestant circles, having women ordained to positions of leadership, where spiritual authority is being exercised, as with elders or pastors, has become acceptable. Some see this as a good thing, believing that this is the work of the Holy Spirit, to unleash more ministry for the Kingdom of God.

Others think that the church has been going down the wrong track, with this newer practice of having women as elders and pastors, and the church needs to turn around. Compare this modern, innovative practice, with the chronologically broader practice and unified consensus for 2,000 years, among Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, that for priests, who perform the sacraments of the church, they are to be male and male only.

In other words, when it comes to the sacraments, particularly with respect to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and taking the long view of history, gender matters, reflecting a long standing consensus of what the New Testament teaches. As a well-informed commenter noted, in response to a previous post in this blog series, to think that modern Christians know better what the original Greek means, than did the early Greek fathers of the church, would be the “height of arrogance.”

So, why have Protestants, in comparison, been so relatively open to challenging the tradition?  Part of it is the commitment to sola scriptura. Scripture alone is the authority among evangelical Protestants, and this has led to a number of traditions and traditional interpretations of the Bible to be abandoned. As a result, certain texts, like Galatians 3:28, have been read in a particular way, that have led towards the acceptance of women as elders. But is the weight of the evidence sufficient enough to overturn the tradition?

C.S. Lewis. A theological dinosaur??

A Word From C.S. Lewis

There is much to be thankful for, in our modern world today, ranging from advancements in medicine, to instant communication across the world, over the Internet. However, in our world today, where we glorify the “new,” with our infatuation with the latest iPhone and the other near-daily improvements in technology, and despise the “old,” as worn-out or old fashioned, we tend to ignore the voices of those who held the long view, and embraced the riches of history. One such is the Oxford don, C.S. Lewis, who was greatly concerned by innovations, that would toss out the baby with the bath water, all in the name of “progress.”

Does this situation fairly apply to the question of eldership for women? For example, Lewis, in his 1948 essay, Priestesses in the Church, had this to say about the possibility of women serving as priests in the Church of England in his day:

To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. My concern with the proposal is of a more theoretical kind. The question involves something even deeper than a revolution in order.

Note that this was written in 1948. Women were finally ordained in 1994, in the Church of England, for the priesthood. Since then, despite some small gains, the Church of England has suffered an interesting type of decline. According to the Guardian, while the total number of parishioners who occasionally attend church has gone up, regular attendance at church continues to decline.

Is there a correlation? Was Lewis just a crusty old curmudgeon, an otherwise noble product of his own culture and his own time? Or is Lewis like a voice crying out in the wilderness?

But let us set such statistics off to the side: What concerns me about the more aggressive side of the egalitarian debate, is that by introducing women into such positions of spiritual authority, we do cut ourselves off of the Christian past, as Lewis contends. When we do something that furthers the divide that already separates Christians, this does not speak well of the unity of the church.

Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do differ from Protestants in many deep, deep respects. I am not suggesting that Protestants completely abandon the Reformation, though many of my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends would be elated, if such steps were taken. Ah yes. I can hear them now, with their whispers of “Come Home! Come Home!,” as their voices cry out from across the Tiber and the Bosphorus, respectively.

Nevertheless, all three branches of Christendom share much in common as well, as an expression of the unity of Christ’s Body. To work towards further reconciliation, if possible, is a good thing, is it not?

Egalitarians who call for more opportunities for women to serve in leadership are right, and sadly, many complementarians are needlessly dragging their feet. But when egalitarians seek to push the point on church eldership, we enter dangerous ground. Are we not then driving the wedge in deeper, on issues that divides us, in the Body of Christ?

Christ has called us to be one body, and yet, much of the history of the Protestant movement has continued to pull us apart.

And that makes me sad.

A Deeper Mystery?

There is that last line I quoted from Lewis, that keeps bugging me: “The question involves something even deeper than a revolution in order.”  What is that “something even deeper” that Lewis is warning about?

Lewis goes on in his seminal essay, in response to those who argue for women eldership (Lewis uses the Anglican terminology of “priest,” which is an important and neglected issue in the discussion):

I have every respect for those who wish women to be priestesses. I think they are sincere and pious and sensible people. Indeed, in a way they are too sensible…. I am tempted to say that the proposed arrangement would make us much more rational “but not near so much like a Church”…..The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it – as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element.

Is Lewis right? Is something important at stake near to being lost?

As someone drenched in the riches of church history, Lewis knew of things that few of us in the 21st century can fully appreciate, particularly among Protestants. We have become so enamored by the great principle of the “priesthood of all believers,” that we forget that Israel had an all-male priesthood, in the Old Testament. Was that simply a cultural artifact of the Bronze Age, an excuse for misogyny that we are better off without? Or could it be that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions are preserving something, that in that opaque sense, reveals the glory of God? Does an all male eldership speak to a profound mystery, that many Protestants have simply forgotten?

What about Jesus’ selection of twelve men, to be his original apostles? Does not the number twelve correspond somehow to the twelve tribes of Israel? Jesus broke all sorts of cultural customs, such as speaking directly to the woman at the well, and associating with female prostitutes. So, why did he start with these twelve men, when he could have mixed a few women into the bunch?

Was he simply holding back on his reforms, thinking that the Jewish community of his day, would not be able to handle having women as elders, yet? Or was this all-male pattern of spiritual leadership somehow mysteriously ingrained into the very revealed purposes of God?

I wonder.

The next blog post will explore this theme a little further, but let us for now consider the other side of the debate.


Still, I get the standard Protestant idea that we should not preserve the unity of the church, at the expense of truth. Truth is more important. C.S. Lewis could have been wrong.

A lot of egalitarian Christians believe this to be the case. Despite whatever good intentions C.S. Lewis might have had, there are a number of egalitarian Christians who already find the evidence from Scripture to be compelling for allowing women to be elders. To refuse women as elders threatens to be contrary to the impulse of the Gospel.

Some egalitarians even contend that there is a certain trajectory, inherent in Scripture, that make the full participation of women and men together, in all levels of ministry, an inevitable consequence of the following the Gospel!2

What then must be done, with respect to those who do not find the egalitarian case so compelling?

We should be open to go wherever the Holy Spirit takes us, and put our trust in God. Follow the evidence wherever it leads, but when the evidence is difficult to decipher, caution is in order. A few churches have done just that by not taking a position, one way or the other, regarding whether or not women may serve as elders. It can be a difficult position to take, but in my view, it would be a wise road to take, at the present time.

Who Then Must Bear the Burden of Proof?

What shall be done in the meantime, until further evidence comes in, to settle the matter? Here is my guideline: it is those who believe it best to overturn a traditional interpretation of the Bible, who bear the burden proof, not the other way around. To do otherwise threatens to be a recipe for chaos. Sadly, we live in an age when what is new is often assumed to be better. We reject the old…. well, because it is old, but not because we always have sufficient evidence to support the new, and reject the old.

Therefore, if we assume that the verdict is still out concerning having women as elders, the default position should be clear. Across the widest spectrum of Christian belief, a complementarian view has remained the standard. The presumption of complementarianism is the wisest path to take.

Nevertheless, this blog series has shown that there are at least some elements of the traditional view of women and church leadership that do need to be discarded. The biblical evidence marshaled to support the most extreme complementarian views has proven unpersuasive, and even contradicted by the Bible. For example, you would be hard pressed to find any Christian saying today that women are somehow inferior to men. Egalitarianism has surely helped all of us in the church with that.

Misogyny has no place within the mind and heart of the Christian, and to that extent, the egalitarian side of the debate has made their case, and met the burden of proof. Any perspective on this issue that denigrates women, in any way, shape, or form, does not pass the muster of the biblical standard. Hopefully, this much is clear.

Both sides of the debate deserve a full hearing, concerning the touchstone question of having women as elders (I am including pastors here, too). If the full force of the egalitarian argument meets the burden of proof, then we must be prepared to say that complementarianism should be rejected. If not, then it is best to let the complementarian view stand.

So, now is a good to time to ask the reader: With respect to having women serving in the office of elder and/or pastor, has the egalitarian side of the debate met the burden of proof, based on the evidence?



1. Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek’s Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History indicates that the practice of having women as deacons in the early church was known, though the practice was more common in the East than the West. Regarding women as elders, we have substantially less evidence for the practice, but ironically, for what evidence we do have, it is found more in the West than the East. Nevertheless, Madigan and Osiek tells us that, “As is so often the case in Church history, the sources do not tell us what we would most like to know” (p. 198). The terminology of female elder, or presbytera, could simply have referred to an elderly woman; that is, an older woman in the church, or it could have been to designate the wife of a male presbyter. It in no way implies that such women “elders” were in the position of necessarily presiding over the sacraments of the church. We simply lack the evidence to make a confident judgment as to what such female “presbyters” actually did. A 10th century witness in Italy suggests that women priests were known to operate with the blessings of their bishops, but that it is most likely do to the lack otherwise qualified male presbyters. So, while the existence of women deacons is clearly evident within the life of the early church, the existence of women presbyters, as understood within the context of how many evangelical churches today understand the role of elder, is difficult to establish. The practice of having women serving as presbyters, was normally condemned by early church authors, as such practices were associated with marginal groups, like the Montanists, whose orthodoxy in other areas were suspect. Were there exceptions, where orthodox groups had women serving as presbyters? Possibly, but these exceptions were rare, and we still know very little as to what type of spiritual authority was exercised by such women presbyters. Nearly all of the reports of the early church having women serve as presbyters come from the Middle Ages, several hundred years beyond the period of the early church, making it impossible to confirm such reports. Either way, the practice of having women serve in various offices, such as “deacon”, began to steadily decline by the end of the sixth century. In summary, in reading Madigan and Osiek it does beg the question as to whether or not the burden of proof for having women serve as presbyters today has been met.  

2. Such is the basic argument found in William Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Webb contends that just as slavery was eliminated, even though the New Testament allows for it, the same situation applies to women in ministry. The Gospel paved the way for the elimination of slavery. It also therefore paves the way for the elimination of gender discrimination in all levels of church office.  

About Clarke Morledge

Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit. View all posts by Clarke Morledge

7 responses to “Resolving the Question of Women in Church Leadership: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

  • Sarah Joiner

    Hi Clarke, in this post, am I right in thinking that you use elder and priest as synonymous terms? From my reading of the NT, it seems as though there wasn’t a priesthood as such – as Jesus Christ has now become a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7). He is the only priest. It appears that a system of elders and deacons oversaw the first century church – not priests,as we have in the OT. An elder was not a priest – though they had some similarities (e.g. as teachers of God’s word).


    • Clarke Morledge


      Well………. that’s a good point.

      So, here is the tricky thing about this: When William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English, he translated the Greek word presbuteros, or presbyter, as “elder” or, at times, “senior”). His Roman Catholic counterparts translated that word as “priest.”

      Some of the English is dated here, but this is Tyndale’s translation of James 5:14:

      “Yf eny be defeated amonge you let him call for the elders of the congregacion and let the praye over him and anoynte him with oyle in the name of the lorde”

      Compare this to the first “official” English Bible, the Douay-Rheims translation, done by the Roman Catholics, for the same verse, James 5:14:

      “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

      Tyndale also translated the Greek word episcopos as “overseer.” Whereas his Roman Catholic counterparst translated that word as “bishop.” See 1 Timothy 3:1 as an example.

      The controversy, then, is in what way does Tyndale’s translation alter the theology of the church, of the medieval period, or even earlier, of the early church?

      What is interesting is that most modern Roman Catholic Bible translations have fallen in line with Tyndale. For example, in James 5:14, most “approved” Roman Catholic translations now say “elder,” and not “priest.” But has the Roman Catholic theology changed in the process? Probably not.

      So, this is one of those thorny questions as to what from the Old Testament carries into the New. For Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the understanding of priesthood from the OT does carry forward into the New Testament, a great deal. For Protestants, things are all over the place. C.S. Lewis’ Anglicans suggest more continuity with the Old Testament, rather than less. But the folks like the Quakers are the more radical, suggesting that nothing is really leftover from the OT priesthood; i.e. radical discontinuity.

      However, everyone concedes your point, namely that Jesus Christ is the new high priest, superseding all others.

      The 64-dollar question here is: Does the maleness of the priest carry forward into the office of elder/overseer in the New Testament, or is the gender qualification superseded as well?

      This gets us back to where we started, earlier in the blog series, as to how best to interpret passages like 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3, etc.

      Anyway, my answer above is actually a preview of what will come in the next blog post. Thanks for raising a really good point.


      Liked by 1 person

  • Sarah Joiner

    Thanks Clarke, it looks like I’m with Tyndale on this one.


  • GarthS

    I have come back to Veracity after something of a hiatus… Interesting series, but for many of us, this issue was ‘resolved’ a long time ago…

    Green, Roger J. “Settled Views: Catherine Booth and Female Ministry” Methodist History, 31:3 (April 1993)

    To paraphrase/expand fellowsrichard’s comment from blog post #7 in the series… “One of the strongest arguments for the egalitarian position is the fact that women make good pastors and teachers and that the Holy Spirit has seen fit to abundantly bless such ministry.”

    And, if you read the article, you’ll understand that this is much more than mere pragmatism: it is a view held as much “because of the Bible and not in spite of it”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Clarke Morledge

      Hi, Garth,

      Welcome back! Thank you for the link to Roger Green’s paper on Catherine Booth. She was certainly an extraordinary woman, whom God used greatly.

      With respect to Green’s paper, we did cover some of the issues regarding biblical interpretation in previous posts in this series. I have not covered the 1 Corinthians passages in much detail, as there are plenty of complementarians and egalitarians both, who come to the same conclusions, regarding those texts. The 1 Timothy 2 passage is tougher, but I won’t repeat what has already been addressed.

      It is interesting that you repeat fellowrichard’s support for an egalitarian view, with “the fact that women make good pastors.” There are probably still some complementarians who would not agree with that, but there are a growing number of complementarians who would.

      That is why, in the second post in this series, I argued that the question at hand is “Should women serve as elders, deacons, or pastors,” and NOT “Can women serve as elders, deacons, or pastors.” Many complementarians and egalitarians today would surely agree that women CAN do such things. Women are just as competent as men, in many areas.

      I may not be able to deal very well with those complementarians, who hold some denigrating view of women, such as a common misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14, that some suggest teaches that women are somehow more inherently deceivable than men. That just strikes me as a rather lame interpretation of that text.

      So, if we can somehow get complementarians and egalitarians to agree on these matters of Scriptural interpretation, I wonder what if more could be done to try to resolve the conflicts between complementarians and egalitarians?

      Any thoughts?


  • Clarke Morledge

    Here is a copy of a paper written by Catherine Booth, cofounder of the Salvation Army, regarding women in ministry. It interesting to note that many of the arguments discussed today are exactly the same type of arguments that go back to 1859, when this was written:


    • Clarke Morledge

      I have been reflecting on J. I. Packer’s death, over the past couple of weeks, and my thoughts have turned back once again to this topic of “women in ministry.” Like the Anglican C.S. Lewis, J. I. Packer was a type of moderate complementarian when it came to the topic of “women in ministry.” Though Packer was silent on the question of deacons, he made a controversial case for Anglicans to stop ordaining women as presbyters/elders. While Packer wanted to affirm the full use of women’s gifts for ministry and leadership in the church, he firmly argued that that office of presbyter be reserved for qualified men only:

      Packer has been remembered fondly over the past few weeks, following his death, though convinced egalitarians have been awkwardly silent about Packer’s complementarianism.

      It made me want to dig a little deeper into the views of a fellow contemporary of Packer, John R. W. Stott, who died back in 2011. Stott held a somewhat less defined, but still moderate complementarian view of “women in ministry.”

      As my theological mentor at Fuller Seminary, Ray S. Anderson wrote in _Ministry on the Fireline_ (1993), in the chapter on “Entitlement and Empowerment” (p. 94), John Stott believed that women can be ordained together with men in ministry, but that women should be ultimately subordinate to men, in that ministry. This is fairly close to my position.

      Anderson, whom I deeply respected and admired, rejected Stott’s view as not going far enough to affirm the calling of women to presbyterial ministry. Though I benefited much from Anderson’s work, even in this volume, I found his argument against Stott in this chapter to be particularly weak, employing an unsatisfactory logic:

      “In [Stott’s discussion] there is virtually no acknowledgement of the fact that the risen Christ is present in the church through the Holy Spirit as a hermeneutical criterion made evident through the actual praxis of the Spirit in setting women apart for this very ministry.”

      But this line of reasoning effectively says that simply because women have sensed the “Spirit’s leading” to become presbyters, and have demonstrated good fruit in this ministry, that this should effectively overturn Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy and Titus that would restrict such exercise of women possessing this type of spiritual authority.

      This was the one chapter in Anderson’s book that I must confess that I found convincing in the mid-1990s to read. But now I have my doubts and serious misgivings.

      Anderson wrote this in 1993, but since then, we have witnessed a sea change of views that have taken this “Holy Spirit as a hermeneutical criterion” perspective to undermine other positions regarding gender that the church has held for 2,000 years.

      Episcopalians some 15 years ago were arguing that it was a “move of the Holy Spirit” to have the church affirm same-sex marriage and have practicing same-sex person occupying pulpits. Within the past 5 years, transgender activists in the church have been using Galatians 3:28 as contending that gender is simply a social construct, whereby sexual identity is determined, neither by God and/or biology, but rather by the experience of the individual.

      Granted, this “slippery slope” is not inevitable, but the poor reasons used to affirm women as elders appear to be the exact same reasons used to sanctify same-sex marriage and transgender ideologies.

      At the same time, a hyper-complementarianism appears to be pushing back too much on the views of those like Stott. For example, Kevin DeYoung finds Stott’s views to be too vague, and thus blinding Stott “to the glorious particularities of complementarity.”

      But DeYoung’s judgment against Stott here risks running too far in the other direction, subjecting women to unnecessary restrictions to leadership in the church, that are simply not warranted by the Scriptural text.

      Yes, I would agree that gender is not merely a social construct. But this does not mean that Christians should simply adopt sharply defined “traditional” views of women’s “roles”, that can not be substantially supported in Scripture.

      Balance. Balance. Balance. This is what is needed here. Sadly, we see too many egalitarians uncritically embracing a culturally driven narrative, that fails to take Scripture seriously enough, while too many complementarians over-react in the other direction.

      It is too bad that we have lost the earthly presence of moderate voices like Packer and Stott, who could have steered us in a more sane direction, than we find in much of the current church debates, that tend to promote more heat than light.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: