The question of women’s roles in church leadership

 The question of women’s roles in church leadership is a subject of intense theological debate, characterized by two primary interpretive frameworks: complementarianism and egalitarianism. Those who advocate for women in pastoral and leadership roles do not generally view their calling as a rejection of God’s design, but rather as a faithful response to spiritual gifting and the broader witness of Scripture.

I do have a particular mental block for after years of collecting books, commentaries, and particular writers of scripture, I have found that if they deviate from an exact verse, or context of a section of scripture that they always tend to bring into the context their opinions, and always a trending world view.  It is not a maybe, or if, it is a fact, and so I tend to read all scripture exactly as it is written, and I find very few people who agree with that. 

Throughout church history there has been a push for women to be in leadership roles, and the usual point is women have all the same gifts as men, as pointed out by women in scripture, and had similar offices such as Apostles, and this one verse is their support for such a belief: Romans 16:7 “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” The debate begins with this one simple interpretation, and other Bibles say this differently to adjust this interpretation: “who are of note among the apostles”; it does not call them Apostles; it says, Of note among the Apostles; entirely different meaning, and so this was rewritten in many texts. Jesus chose only men to start His Church, and so many over the centuries have tried to rewrite this fact, and now it is taking place.

Note: “Complementarianism and egalitarianism are two differing theological perspectives on the roles of men and women within the church and family. Complementarians believe in equal value but distinct, gender-specific roles, while egalitarians advocate for equal roles and opportunities, including shared leadership and ministry.”

Proponents of women in ministry argue that spiritual gifts, such as teaching, leadership, and prophecy, are distributed by the Holy Spirit without regard to gender. Scholars like N.T. Wright and Dallas Willard have noted that the New Testament contains numerous examples of women serving as deacons, apostles, and coworkers in the early church, suggesting that restrictive interpretations of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12 may be rooted in specific cultural contexts rather than in universal, timeless mandates. Rather than claiming a "special ability" that makes them inherently superior to men, many women in ministry emphasize that the church suffers when it excludes half of its members from utilizing their God-given talents, arguing that diverse leadership teams—comprised of both men and women—often exhibit greater emotional intelligence, integrative thinking, and relational depth.

Most never look up those men mentioned above, I did and looked at them closely. Those two men are but a few in today's world that try to rewrite scripture based upon their worldly position and scholarship, and yet even they do not offer facts over that of God's exact wording, they speculate and want their writing to make them famous and rich. That is my opinion, and it is quite evident in writings for centuries.

Conversely, those who hold to a complementarian view believe that while men and women are equal in value and dignity, God has ordained distinct roles for them within the church and home. They interpret specific Pauline texts as establishing a normative pattern of male headship in the office of elder or pastor. This perspective is often maintained out of a sincere desire to adhere to what they perceive as the clear, literal instruction of the Bible, viewing these structures as essential to maintaining order and honoring the created order.

I for one agree here, for if we can alter even one truth of scripture, then we can pretty much do so with all of God’s Holy Word; and then I ask, why did God inspire it, or is it we have now moved to the idea so many want to cleave to and that is God inspired men to write, but it was of men and is meant to be communicated by the times, and so must always evolve. Perhaps those that do not totally agree with the creation story are right, and God set in motion the universe and then stood back millions of years as the universe and men evolved from a primordial soup, as it were. Sorry, either the Bible is totally inspired, or it is not, and it is the very Word of God, or the first chapter of John is wrong as well.

The tension between these two views often hinges on hermeneutics—(I myself have learned from the dozens of books and commentaries I have the that word Hermeneutics is a joke for what is right in this science by one man is wrong by another) (if it truly is a science then they Should all agree but they don’t so I cast that word as trash right off) the science of biblical interpretation. I consider hermeneutics like the word Evolution; it has so many worldly meanings that it is a real Joke. Egalitarians argue that a "weak hermeneutic" is one that isolates a few verses to override the overarching biblical narrative of liberation and equality, such as Galatians 3:28. They contend that the "need" to lead is not a worldly ambition, but a sense of vocational obligation to serve the body of Christ where they are most gifted. Ultimately, the movement toward women in leadership is viewed by its advocates as a return to the early church's practice, while critics view it as a departure from traditional biblical authority.

Personally, I contend that Women hold the most, more, important role in scripture than any man, because right off the bat Eve was called what? KJV Bible Genesis 3:20 “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”

And all through scripture it is the woman who is mentioned so often, bringing forth the men of God or influencing this outcome or that. Even one woman (Deborah) was a Judge, but she was not a leader of the Congregation.