I believe that certain biblical passages are often taken wildly out of context and used to degrade and diminish women’s roles in the church—especially in the Bible Belt of rural Virginia.
The Archbishop of Canterbury leads the Church of England—and for the first time in the practice’s 1,400-year history, that role went to a woman.
On March 25, 63-year-old Dame Sarah Mullally began her public ministry in the position, an appointment originally announced last October. She now serves as both the head of the Church of England and spiritual leader of the international Anglican Communion—groups that, together, make up approximately 100 million people worldwide.
Online, many people congratulated her, citing her former work as a cancer nurse, progressive views, and a pro-age approach to starting a new chapter. Others, however, raised questions and concerns about a woman taking the helm of a Christian denomination.
Sadly, the latter reaction is one I’ve seen time and time again in rural Virginia communities—and in a multitude of Christian denominations. Churches in Stuart, Martinsville, Danville, Chatham, and more have duked it out, tossed scripture around like confetti, and picked out verses to fit their agendas.
I’ve seen decades-long friendships shatter and congregations rip apart over different interpretations of women’s leadership roles in the church. What I’ve witnessed, by and large, hasn’t been an example of Christian love—it’s been downright ugly. And I say that as a devout Christian woman myself who absolutely adores church.
The “C” word—and what it means for women
It’s no secret that women have faced oppression for years. Centuries. Millenia. From the ever-present gender wage gap—currently averaging 18.6% nationally and 24% in Virginia in 2023—to former voting rights restrictions, women fought and continue to fight against inequality.
One area we see that inequality enter the church is in the battle between two unique Christian-based views: egalitarianism and complementarianism.
I fall under egalitarianism, or the idea that men and women are equal in dignity and worth and have equal opportunities for God to call them to do whatever needs doing, be that in the home or church.
Meanwhile, complementarianism lends to the idea that men and women are equal in dignity and worth, but have differing and distinct roles in the home and church.
Clutch your pearls, but I view complementarianism this way: Dudes are the head of the house and have the ability to be pastors and elders in the church, while women exist to tend to the children and puff up male egos.
Unlike the story of Creation, the entirety of both the Old and New Testaments, and the original publication of the Bible, the idea of complementarianism has only been around since the late 1980s. In my personal opinion, the idea is a heretical sham that challenges the sovereignty of God.
It’s like saying, “God, you can pick anyone to do your work, as long as they meet this certain list of criteria we’ve cherrypicked; that’s the only pool you’re allowed to choose from, thanks.”
To me, that sure does seem convenient—for the guys in the church. And it sure does seem contrary to what the Bible says, too.
How important is context?
I believe that when man says “no,” God says “watch.” Time and time again, God picks people that others might not expect.
David? That kid was on a path to be a shepherd, not a literal king. Joseph? His own brothers sold him into slavery; they weren’t trying to propel him to be Egypt’s second-in-command. The Woman at the Well? She was a known adulteress, not pining to become the world’s first evangelist.
But for some reason, when it comes to who can pastor a church, the above tends to fawn in favor of an interpretation of who God will—or, can—call upon. There are three main passages people often go to when addressing this issue: 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 35, and 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
These verses are often taken wildly out of context and used to degrade and diminish women.
The church in Ephesus
1 Timothy 2:11-15 states: “11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
That seems pretty damning—until we look at the cultural and historical context with which the apostle Paul wrote those words. Our setting? Ephesus—and that’s a super important detail.
Around 50 AD or so, the church at Ephesus was having some issues. On top of other things during this time in Ephesus, the mythological cult of Artemis was abundant. From a young age, girls were trained to worship the female deity of childbirth. The culture believed—contrary to Christian theology—that man came from woman, and that man transgressed.
One of the big ideas was that Artemis would protect women during childbirth—on the condition that the women did certain things. To keep the deity happy, women were to intertwine gold and pearls into their braided hair and go into places of worship to enhance spirituality by chanting and performing incantations. And those new converts, trained since childhood in Artemis worship, were starting to come into the emerging Christian faith in Ephesus.
In other words, Paul was dealing with a very specific problem in a very specific place.
Tying concepts together
If we go a couple of verses prior, 1 Timothy 2:8-10 states: “8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”
Sound familiar? Within context, we see Paul correcting theology and telling the women to leave the Artemis stuff behind—not creating some blanket statement to mean women shouldn’t have roles in the church.
Side note: It’s also irritating to me that the same group that might try to thump my head with verse 11 would likely be totally fine with me plaiting my hair for the church service. If that’s not cherrypicking, I’m not sure what is.
Putting a bow on it
This doesn’t mean I hate anyone who has a different opinion on this than I do. Even my own pastor and I disagree on this topic, and we still exchange “love yous” every week—because we do.
And I’m not saying that if you want to homestead, homeschool, bake your own sourdough or any other stereotypical view that folks might associate with “women’s roles,” that you’re wrong for it. In fact, just the opposite. I think women should have that freedom—and then still be able to run for and win the office of President of the United States. Or, you know, accept a role as the head of a church (be that in England or your own community).
But if reading this ruffles some feathers—or raises some questions—I’d entreat that before running to social media to bash the idea, you first pause and ask yourself why. And then, maybe you open your Bible instead of your echo chamber.
Intrigued by this? Next time, I’ll delve into a historical and contextual account of 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 35 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13—two additional passages often used to undermine women—and what we can glean from researching those today. Write to me at amie@couriernewsroom.com to share your findings, questions, comments, and opinions.
