Two primary perspectives dominate the discussion on female preachers. Complementarianism asserts male authority over women, prohibiting women from preaching or teaching men, and in contrast, egalitarianism advocates gender equality, empowering women to share God’s message just like men.
Let me be upfront in stating that I have no interest in either of these perspectives, and I don’t align myself with either camp. In fact, I distance myself as much as possible from any “-isms” in Christianity.
As you may have gathered, I strongly oppose the man-made doctrines and customs that are prevalent in the church. Hence, my focus for this topic is solely on God’s Word and historical facts.
But before we get into actual Scripture, I want to first take a moment to answer some of the common arguments that keep popping up. Seriously, it’s as if there’s a list published somewhere that opponents of female preachers refer to, as these arguments are repetitive and lack originality.
I believe we could solve many problems if we’d stop and think for a moment and use Scripture and common sense instead of relying on the ideas of popular preachers. In this post, I will try to accomplish that.
So, without further delay, here are answers to 5 common arguments used to oppose female preachers and teachers.
1. The fact that Jesus chose only men to be apostles indicates that women should not become pastors, preachers, or teachers. Had he wanted women to lead, Jesus would have chosen at least one woman. Instead he chose 12 men.
My goal here is to connect with logical reasoning. First, Jesus was male. Given the need for close and intimate contact over three years—living, eating, sleeping, and bathing together—he may have opted for male apostles in a strategic effort to avoid potential temptations, distractions, and adulteries that could have arisen with female companions.
Personally, if I had to choose a twelve-person entourage that would be in intimate contact with me over the course of three years, I would probably pick twelve females and no males for the sake of myself and others; it just makes sense in my opinion.
Was it not a wise and common sense choice on Yeshua’s part?
Furthermore, while it’s accurate that Jesus didn’t appoint any women apostles, it’s also true that he didn’t choose any Gentile apostles. All twelve apostles were Jewish. Therefore, if you consider this point as a basis for excluding women from preaching, but you’re a male “pastor” who is not of Jewish descent (which is highly probable), then you are also in error, just like the women you criticize.
It’s unlikely that many will admit to this, let alone provide a scriptural reason as to why they, being Gentile, are somehow more acceptable to God to preach than a woman, Jewish or non-Jewish. However, if you can offer a biblical explanation for this reasoning, I’d love to hear it.
Otherwise, we can dismiss this argument as invalid, because it’s based on nothing more than a biased opinion.
2. No woman in the Bible had an on-going prophetic ministry.
This counter-argument is often employed by opponents when advocates highlight the fact that women in the Bible served as prophets, chosen by God, to communicate his Word. The original argument implies that since prophesying involves aspects of preaching and teaching, women should be permitted to fulfill all aspects of this divine calling as they’ve done throughout history.
The counter-argument—that no woman had an ongoing prophetic ministry—is not only an assumption since our knowledge is limited to certain writings, but its relevance remains unclear, despite being cited by individuals such as John MacArthur, to dispute the above-mentioned viewpoint.
It is presented without further elaboration or explanation, and seems to suggest an unsupported biblical requirement of “ongoing” prophetic ministry, in order for the ministry to be considered valid. But, where can we find this requirement listed or implied in Scripture? It doesn’t exist. So, why entertain such a silly thought?
Additionally, we know there were male prophets in the Bible who didn’t have a “continuous” ministry like Elijah did from our perspective, and some weren’t even identified. But what does that matter? Did that reduce their credibility as prophets? Has it invalidated their ministries? Certainly not.
A related argument used to discredit female preachers is that prophesying differs from preaching and teaching. This is inaccurate since prophets engage in both activities. How does one come to the conclusion that a prophecy can be made without giving instruction or announcing God’s Word?
The prophet, Samuel, accomplishes both in one passage. In 1 Samuel chapter 12, Samuel preaches, or proclaims,(v. 16-22), he teaches or instructs (v. 20-21, 23-24), and he prophesies what will happen if the people ignore these instructions (v. 15, 25).
Likewise, women who prophesy on behalf of the Lord preach and teach, and it doesn’t matter how long or how short they do it as that has no bearing on anything.
So, here’s the conclusion: This argument is ultimately based on a lack of biblical support, and comes across as a desperate attempt to escape the lack of a valid response. Therefore, it is null and void, unless it can be supported with biblical references to make a case for excluding women from preaching.
3. Priscilla taught Apollos in the privacy of her home, not in public or in church, so it’s okay.
It seems the main cause of this issue against women preaching, is the perception that churches are well-organized and air-conditioned structures where believers gather in their finest clothes to partake in uplifting music and prayer. This is typically followed by a male figure reading from the Bible and sharing his interpretations and real-world implications.
Some even go as far as labeling it as a “Sunday” service and proudly declaring the exclusion of women from teaching during their “Sunday Morning Service”—as if there’s something spiritual about it. After about an hour and a half to two hours, the service ends and everyone goes their separate ways—to work, eat out, relax, have fun with family, etc.
Folks, that ain’t a church. That’s a temporary meeting of the church.
During the New Testament era, the church was everywhere. They would have surely gathered for certain occasions, but the church was not confined to a physical structure or a specific day of the week. It was the assembly of the saints, working together to do the work of the Lord.
Therefore, people taught everywhere and at different times—in the market places (Acts 17:17; Mark 6:56 ), temple courts (Acts 5:19-20), and of course in the synagogues (Matt. 9:35; Mark 6:2; Acts 13:15).
Synagogues in Paul’s day weren’t like our modern church buildings where people gather one day a week for a few hours. These synagogues were an important part of Jewish life.
The word synagogue means “a bringing together, a gathering, or an assembling.” In biblical times, a synagogue was a place where people of like mind and purpose could gather together each day to worship, commune, and study. It’s what our modern church service is most likely modeled after.
The Greek noun ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), meaning a called, or summoned assembly, is translated as “church” in the New Testament. As a closely related verb, ekklesiazo (ἐκκλησιάζω) refers to “holding an assembly,” often for the purpose of deliberation or debate.
Assemblies are gatherings of individuals or groups for some purpose, and the verb assemble means to “unite, collect, or come together in one place.” Additionally, it should be noted that this “assembling” is not restricted by location or time.
Thus, the church of God constitutes the gathering of believers in community, to handle matters of God. I’m sure you may have heard this a thousand times—but it’s the people. Not the building.
With this in mind, many ministries have told of their humble beginnings which often started with 3 or 4 members and through faith, persistence, and ultimately the power of God, it grew to unimaginable numbers.
Would we say that those few faithful believers gathered in their home or some old rundown building aren’t a part of God’s church? Then, how does one reconcile the claim that Priscilla didn’t teach within the church?
If three or even two believers gather, whether in a building, outdoors, at a restaurant, around a dinner table, or elsewhere, they in part, represent the assembly of God—believers united with a common devotion to the God of Abraham and to Jesus Christ.
Consequently, Priscilla instructed a man, and she did so within the church. Those who disagree should provide a more convincing biblical argument, otherwise this explanation holds no weight.
4. Priscilla taught Apollos with her husband alongside her, not by herself, so it’s okay.
Just as with lying, once an initial untruth is spoken, a series of falsehoods must follow to maintain its credibility. Initially, it was believed that a woman couldn’t instruct a man. Then, it was suggested that a woman can teach a man, but only in private. After that, it was “as long as she’s in the presence of another man.” What provisions will be made next?
The ability of a woman to teach a man is either permissible or not. The verse that opponents reference to prohibit women from teaching (1 Tim. 2:12), doesn’t specify conditions under which this teaching is prohibited.
No concessions are made to the rule such as allowing it in certain places or with certain people present. According to opposition, it simply says that a woman is not to teach a man. That means they aren’t to teach a man anything, at any time, and in any manner.
No matter how much they claim that those who point this out are twisting the Scriptures, or how much they insist it’s Satan’s handiwork, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an obvious truth. Furthermore, adding to what is written isn’t noble.
There’s no other verse in the Bible that relates to this command, so there is no other verse to consult. While some might be eager to point out passages from Genesis and Corinthians, I reiterate that no other verse in the Bible mentions women teaching men, and those other passages will be discussed later.
So, let’s try again. What happened with Priscilla, and how was Paul able to speak so highly of her when she was directly violating the instructions he gave to all the churches?
Those who argue against women teaching have to wrestle with this passage until they can provide a biblical explanation, rather than relying on personal interpretations. Scriptures aren’t Lego pieces that can be added upon to create a personalized interpretation based on one’s imagination.
But that’s what’s happening here. These counter-arguments are purely human constructs designed to support a particular agenda. Those who build them understand deep down that if the situation can’t be explained, their whole argument collapses. Therefore, they resort to distorting the Word of God which is unacceptable.
To be clear, critics should justify how this woman instructed this man with no repercussions or criticism from the one who supposedly gave the restriction concerning women teaching. Otherwise, the entire argument against women instructing men is invalid.
5. Women aren’t allowed to have “spiritual authority” over men. Therefore, women can’t preach to men or teach them.
First, in what sense does preaching and teaching have anything to do with having authority over anyone? Is that connection made in 1 Timothy or elsewhere in Scripture? Isn’t it God, not us, who is the authority when we speak his Word? Is his Word not authoritative on its own?
We are merely servants. As the word of God goes forth, let no one see or hear you or me, but let them hear and obey the Lord.
Second, What exactly is spiritual authority? Where can one find information and teachings on spiritual authority in Scripture? I’m willing to guess that they can’t. Because spiritual authority isn’t mentioned in Scripture—not the term nor the concept.
In other words, it’s another human invention designed to divert attention from practical matters, such as, “Whose instruction should a woman listen to if her husband and male church leaders differ on a particular topic?” Is she to obey her husband, who is her “head,” or the menfolk at church, to whom all women in the church are supposed to “spiritually” submit and obey?
Will she not be in sin regardless of what she chooses? According to some, she’d likely be damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t—literally. Since the Bible doesn’t provide instructions on such a situation, any answer one provides will be purely an opinion or made up.
But, surely this was a conflict that was bound to happen, right? So, why did Paul never address this possible dilemma when speaking about authority? Why did he not offer guidance on how to navigate such a situation? Paul never addressed this issue because he never permitted the kind of authority we see in today’s churches, so the scenario would have never happened.
Moreover, how can one flesh and blood human possess spiritual authority over another flesh and blood human? What form does this authority take, and what is its purpose and function? Only a spiritual being can hold authority over a spirit. The only “spiritual authorities” over the spirits of believers should be the Spirit of God and Jesus Christ.
Some say government leaders are set in place by the Lord, so in a sense, they are spiritual authorities. How so? Despite being appointed by God, government authorities are not spiritual authorities, but physical ones. You’ll understand this when you’re physically punished if you break the law.
Furthermore, when the apostles expelled demons, they relied on the name, that is, the “power” or “authority” of Jesus Christ, not their own power. Even when we oppose the adversary, we know our battle is not against physical entities, so we engage in spiritual warfare with the power of God, who is Spirit (2 Cor. 10:4).
In other words, it’s impossible to relate to spirit with flesh. For instance, without being born of the Spirit, one can’t see God’s kingdom (Jn. 3:5). In addition, those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). What is of the flesh is flesh and what is of the Spirit is spirit (Jn. 3:6).
So, again, what is the basis for the idea that one person can exercise “spiritual authority” or “spiritual power” over another? Neither you nor I have access to one another’s spirits. My spirit is not under your dominion or control, nor is your spirit under mine. Only flesh and blood can hold power over other flesh and blood, except of course, for God, who is God of all.
Therefore, the idea that women are unable to preach because they aren’t permitted to have spiritual authority over men is unjustified.
If spiritual authority is a “thing,” then it is God who is the spiritual authority, and the power is in his Word, not a person. The purpose of his power is not to put anyone in charge or to require that others submit to them, but to set captives free, turning them from lies to truth, from darkness to light, from ignorance to understanding, and ultimately, from the power of the adversary to God (Acts 26:16-18).
Submit yourselves, therefore to God.
But no random man, church leader or not, should have control over any woman physically, and it is impossible for him to do so spiritually.
I’ll admit, I’m still unclear as to why this authority is so coveted in the first place. What does one intend to do with it? Boss people around? Tell them what to do? That’s not biblical. Believers serve and obey God’s Word not out of compulsion, but out of a willing heart, working together toward a common goal. That’s how we submit to one another as one body.
The church works in cooperation, not as a corporation.
As long as one shepherds the flock faithfully and lovingly, according to God’s Word, others should follow their lead without a problem, working with them to accomplish the Lord’s work.
So given that this “spiritual authority” doesn’t exist and no individual in the church has physical dominion over another individual, except for families who are instructed to submit mutually, this argument is also without merit.
In the next post, I’ll attempt to answer 5 more oppositions against women preachers and teachers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In