Can Women Be Elders in the Church?

This question has been rattling around in my head for years. When my church started a conversation about eldership and what it looks like, we dove right into the qualifications of an elder, and the "men only" part rubbed me the wrong way.

Why only men? Shouldn't qualified women be allowed to lead?

I should say upfront: I'm not a pastor. I've never been to seminary. I'm a lay leader at New Community Church in Tacoma who came to faith in a federal prison cell. I don't have the credentials to write the definitive word on this topic. But maybe that's why I should write about it. Because most of the people in the pews don't have seminary degrees either, and we still need to think about these things honestly.

What the Bible Actually Says

We should start with Scripture and go with that. The problem is, if you don't take a strict literalist view ("It says what it says, and that's that!") and begin to factor in the culture and context of the day, the Bible's position on women in leadership becomes less straightforward than a lot of people want it to be.

This is not a complete exegesis. Others have done that work far more competently than I could. A quick search will prove that in about thirty seconds.

The Complementarian View

Most church leaders, I think it's fair to say, take a complementarian view. Men and women have equal value but separate roles. The headship of the man in the marriage relationship translates to headship in the church body, with women in a subordinate role.

But there's a wide spectrum here.

Strict complementarians, like John Piper, read 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet," and say the Bible is clear. Women cannot preach from the pulpit, lead community groups, or teach men in any capacity. They are encouraged to teach other women and serve in children's ministry.

Modified complementarians, like Andrew Wilson of King's Church London, encourage women to pursue ministry, prophesying, deaconing, worship leading, preaching, teaching, leadership, missionary work, church planting, and more. They cite dozens of New Testament examples (Luke 24:10; Acts 18:26; 21:9; Rom 16:1-16; 1 Cor 11:5; Php 4:2-3; 1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:3-5, to name a few). Preston Sprinkle digs into this thoroughly in From Genesis to Junia, tracing the full biblical arc of women in leadership and landing somewhere in this camp. But even the modified view still holds that only men can qualify to be elders. The position draws mostly from two passages:

1 Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

The Egalitarian View

Egalitarians argue that women can lead in any role within the church, including elder or pastor. They lean on Galatians 3:28: "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."

Where I Land (Sort Of)

I lean toward the modified complementarian view, mostly because of the gender distinctions the LORD created and the fact that He set up men as head of the household.

But I have doubts. Real ones.

When we exclude an entire gender from leadership in our churches, I want clearer direction than two verses. And there are two questions buried in those verses that nobody seems to talk about enough.

No Singles?

If we take these passages at face value, with no cultural context (for instance, it would have been rare for a woman to head an organization in Roman and Greek culture), then only married men can be elders. "Husband of one wife" is right there in black and white.

You know what that means? Jesus wouldn't qualify. Paul wouldn't qualify. The apostle who wrote the requirements couldn't meet his own requirements. Paul can be an apostle, plant churches across the Roman Empire, write half the New Testament, but he couldn't serve as an elder in your church?

I find that hard to believe.

No Fathers of One?

Both passages assume children. Plural. "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive." Not child. Children. So is fatherhood of multiple children a requirement? If a couple has one kid, is the husband disqualified? If they struggle to conceive at all, is he barred from eldership entirely?

I've served in lay leadership at my church for years now. Being married and having children does make you better at it. Managing household conflict is training for the conflicts you face in church leadership. My wife Megan and I have been through enough that not much surprises me anymore.

But is marriage necessary? Are multiple children necessary?

And if we're willing to make allowances for single men, childless husbands, and fathers of only one, on what basis do we exclude women?

It seems to me that the more important qualifications are being above reproach, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. If a single man, a father of one, or a woman meets those qualifications, why shouldn't they serve as the Holy Spirit directs? Sprinkle makes a similar point in From Genesis to Junia. The closer you look at these passages, the more the neat lines start to blur.

My Honest Answer

I don't know.

I believe women can serve as elders. I've watched women in my own church lead with wisdom and discernment that puts most men to shame. But I'm not sure the Bible says it's okay, and I take that seriously.

Here's what I do know. I'm a convicted felon who heard God's voice in a jail cell and somehow ended up in church leadership. The qualifications say an overseer must be "above reproach" and "well thought of by outsiders." If we applied those literally, I wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a leadership role. And yet God called me to serve. So maybe the letter of these passages isn't the whole picture.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters. I'm trying to be honest about the fact that the water was already muddy when I got here. It pains me that we might be missing out on the leadership of gifted women because we've drawn a line the Bible might not draw as firmly as we think.

I don't have the final answer. But I think the question deserves more honesty than most churches give it. And if a guy who found God in federal prison can serve in church leadership, the boundaries of who God calls might be wider than we've assumed.

What do you think?