Why I Don't Trust Women-led Churches
I'll just say it honestly:
For the most part, I do not trust churches that have a woman as head pastor. I have no plans to ever attend a church with a woman head pastor (WHP).
And here's why:
If the Bible teaches one thing ... and a church does the opposite ... I don't think that church can be trusted to uphold the Word of God in all areas.
When they are already compromising in one clearly taught area, they are likely to compromise in others.
To me, the Bible clearly teaches that men are to have the positions of ultimate leadership in a church.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 state that the overseers of a church should be men. I take this to mean that the very top people - the ones ultimately responsible for the church, the head pastors - are to be men.
This "man as head leader" is also evident in the fact that Paul doesn't allow women to have authority over men in church, that God made men the head of the family, and that Jesus is the head of the church (His bride).
All throughout Scripture, men have the responsibility to be the final authority.
I don't think this means that God trusts or values men more than women, just that He has set up guidelines for how He wants things to work, for order and for the sake of accountability to Him.
The thing is, I don't think we women - in our feministic frenzy to usurp men in every role they have, including pastors - realize the serious, solemn responsibility (and risk) it is to be the one who is ultimately accountable to God for how the church/family is run.
If God was to come down here to punish a wayward church ... and He looked out at the congregation and demanded, "Who's in charge here?" ... could you imagine the fear that would go with having to be the one who has to go forward and say, "That's me! I'm the one responsible for this church."?
Could you imagine God holding you accountable for everything that happened in that church, for the spiritual condition it's in?
Being head pastor is not so much a position of power as much as it's a position of serious accountability to God, of incredible service to God and the congregation. If women really understood the amazing responsibility that comes with that role, we might not be so eager to take it upon ourselves.
I have no problem with women teaching and leading in many various roles. They should be using their gifts to build up the church in many areas.
My own mother was our "youth pastor" when I was growing up, although she wasn't called "pastor." And she was a better teacher/leader than the male head pastor who was still in Bible school. So I know how capable and wise and instrumental women can be in church.
I don't have a problem with women serving in church.
But I do have a problem with a woman being in the head leadership positions.
Because God has reserved those positions for men.
[To be loud and clear: I'm not saying that women can't teach men. Or that if a woman teacher has any men in the audience listening to her then it means she's sinning or rebelling against what God says about women in leadership. I can't stand when I read people's blog posts saying that some godly woman is a heretic because there are men listening to her teachings. Teaching or having men listen to your words isn't contrary to Scripture. First off, in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says that he doesn't allow women to teach or have authority over a man, not that "women cannot teach." And secondly, according to Tony Evans' Study Bible notes, Paul is not necessarily saying that women can't teach but that they cannot teach from a place of having authority over a man, as in a woman head pastor. I do not think there is anything wrong with men learning from a woman, or with a woman teaching men in a seminar or conference or Bible study. But what is wrong is for the woman to teach men from the position of head pastor or head elders. Having the head leadership position, or a comparable position of ultimate authority over men or over the whole congregation, is what goes against Scripture, not simply the "teaching" part. I know my stand on this won't make either side happy. One side will consider it too restrictive and the other will consider it too lenient. But I'm not trying to make anyone "happy." I'm trying to be true to God's Word, as best I can understand it.]
Adding to my concern is my observation that most churches with WHPs also compromise on other clear teachings of Scripture. Having a WHP seems to go hand-in-hand with strongly left-leaning feminist agendas, supporting LGBTQ-lifestyles, embracing the trans-this-and-that culture, supporting "women's rights," etc. (Not in all cases, of course, but in many.)
As I said, if they will compromise in one area, they will most likely compromise in another. If they put the will of mankind over the Will of God, they can no longer be trusted to faithfully uphold, defend, and spread God's Truth.
I wasn't planning on writing about this issue, but a recent exchange in the comment section of a post on this topic got me thinking about it. (Read his views on women in leadership. I think they're very good and right on target.) And here's a little of how I responded to another believer who disagreed with me:
In the comments, I was agreeing with the author of the post, saying what I am saying here - that I do not trust churches with WHPs because I think they are compromising clear teachings of Scripture. And I think many are doing this to appease people, to "get with the times," twisting Scripture to please a hyper-feministic culture.
And a fellow Christian challenged me (politely) on my view, cautioning me that I shouldn't act like I know what people's motives are. She believes that WHPs really want to glorify God and to be true to Scripture.
I agreed with her that I can't assume that I know what people's motives are, that I can't assume they are trying to please people over God. She's right in that.
But on the other hand, I told her that it doesn't really matter what their motives are. If they are disobeying Scriptural teaching or trying to find a way around a clear biblical teaching, then they are on the wrong side of God's Will, even if they love the Lord and truly intend to honor Him.
Personally, I think it would be more honoring to God to do things the way He wants them done, instead of taking it upon our selves to alter His Word or make "better" changes.
Even if their hearts are in the right place, to deny a clear teaching of Scripture is wrong. And it puts Christians and churches on a slippery slope of compromise.
Do you know what happened to Aaron's own two sons - Moses's nephews - when they offered incense to the Lord improperly, when they took it upon themselves to offer unauthorized fire to the Lord in ways that God didn't prescribe?
"So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord." (Leviticus 10:2)
These two men figured that what they were doing was okay. It probably even looked righteous and good. Maybe their hearts were in the right place, intending to honor God.
But they disobeyed a clear directive from God about how things should be done.
And they paid the price for it.
God doesn't necessarily excuse defiance and disobedience just because "our hearts are in the right place."
Does it really matter what our motives are when we clearly break one of God's rules? Will our excuses hold up before Him? Is there really an acceptable excuse for going against His stated Will?
Women head pastors might think they are trying to "bring God glory," but wouldn't the best way to bring Him glory be to obey Him, to uphold His truth?
Of course, we live in an age of grace right now, so God doesn't strike us dead for straying outside of His boundaries. He calls us to make things right, to get back in line with Him. But I think it still matters to Him that we do things the way He says we should do them, that we uphold His Truth and His ways, instead of seeking to do things our own way.
Sometimes, it isn't our motives that matter. Sometimes, it isn't the thought that counts. Sometimes the only thing that really matters is what we actually end up doing - if we obey God or disobey Him, if we uphold His Truth or deny it.
People who support WHPs often bring up Deborah (Judges 4). They push the idea that WHPs are okay because a woman was a judge in Israel at one point.
However, this comparison doesn't hold up.
First off, she was a judge, settling disputes among the people and leading in battles. She wasn't the head leader of a church, responsible for the spiritual condition of a congregation.
Secondly, this was Old Testament Israel - before Jesus and the church and the establishment of rules for the church. The New Testament's clearly-spelled-out rules for the church should take precedence over an Old Testament example in pre-church Israel.
Thirdly, she was a judge by default, because no godly-enough, brave-enough man would step up to the plate. She even told Barak that God was instructing him to lead his men to defeat their enemies. But Barak wimped out. Therefore, Deborah said that God would give the victory to a woman. She got the leadership role and the victory because the men wouldn't lead. But nowadays, women are becoming head pastors not because there are no qualified men, but because they want to be the leader. Because they want to change the way things are done, in direct opposition to God's guidelines in the New Testament.
You can't compare Deborah's leadership to what's going on today. Totally different roles, responsibilities, and conditions.
Of course, there might be some times today when the conditions may necessitate a woman leader, such as a tiny church in a tiny town where there are only like 15 members and none of the men are willing to step up and lead ... or such as a missionary situation where a woman missionary is the only one there to teach God's Truth and to lead the native people to spiritual maturity until a spiritually-mature man rises up to take the lead.
But these would be the exceptions, not the rule. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 3, the overseer should be a man.
Other than these, there are not many other situations where I see a WHP being necessary. Most of the time, churches have WHPs not out of necessity, but simply because it's what the church wanted to do, in direct defiance of what God says to do.
This commenter who responded to me also tries to use "grace" to deflect my challenges to WHPs, suggesting that we should show grace when considering someone's motives.
Yes, I could show grace by not assuming I know what's in someone's heart, why they do what they do. And maybe this is how she meant it. But, to me, it seems like her version of "showing grace" means that I should assume that someone's heart is in the right place and, therefore, not criticize what they're doing simply because their heart is in the right place.
Is this what grace means? That we should overlook practices that go against the Bible just because someone means well?
I don't think that's the best use of "grace." (Of course, she didn't exactly say this, I am reading into what she said to make a point about culture nowadays.)
To me, "grace" doesn't mean supporting whatever someone is doing - even if it's in clear opposition to the Gospel - simply because they have good intentions. We shouldn't be using "grace and love" to excuse those who compromise God's Word or break God's rules, which is happening a lot these days. (For more on this, click here.)
Grace and love that's not built on God's Truth isn't flowing from God.
In this case, I think the best, most gracious course of action is for me to lovingly but firmly state my concerns about compromising God's Word, but then to let others choose what to do about it. I can uphold the Truth in my own life and stand up for it when needed, but I have to let others be responsible for their own lives. For choosing whether they will obey God or disobey.
I am accountable to God for my decisions. They are accountable to God for theirs.
But even if it's not popular and not what people want to hear, I will firmly stand on the Truth and the authority of the Gospel, doing what I can to hold faithfully to what it really says ... instead of trying to find a way around it or altering it to fit my preferences.
Can the same be said of churches with WHPs?
This commenter also said that we all interpret the Bible in different ways. The implication being that we can't know some things for sure, so let's just let people decide for themselves.
But this should be the case for unclear issues, those gray areas that are not clearly addressed in the Bible or that have to be inferred from other verses.
This shouldn't be the case for clear, consistent teachings. There shouldn't be tolerance for denying or altering clear teachings of Scripture. This is when we are called to take a stand and defend the Truth of the Bible in the face of opposition.
When the teachings are unclear, there is room for debate, for differing views, for "grace." But when the teachings are clear, there is no room for compromise, for trying to find a way around it, or for trying to come up with other ways to read it.
For the most part, I do not trust churches that have a woman as head pastor. I have no plans to ever attend a church with a woman head pastor (WHP).
And here's why:
If the Bible teaches one thing ... and a church does the opposite ... I don't think that church can be trusted to uphold the Word of God in all areas.
When they are already compromising in one clearly taught area, they are likely to compromise in others.
To me, the Bible clearly teaches that men are to have the positions of ultimate leadership in a church.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 state that the overseers of a church should be men. I take this to mean that the very top people - the ones ultimately responsible for the church, the head pastors - are to be men.
This "man as head leader" is also evident in the fact that Paul doesn't allow women to have authority over men in church, that God made men the head of the family, and that Jesus is the head of the church (His bride).
All throughout Scripture, men have the responsibility to be the final authority.
I don't think this means that God trusts or values men more than women, just that He has set up guidelines for how He wants things to work, for order and for the sake of accountability to Him.
The thing is, I don't think we women - in our feministic frenzy to usurp men in every role they have, including pastors - realize the serious, solemn responsibility (and risk) it is to be the one who is ultimately accountable to God for how the church/family is run.
If God was to come down here to punish a wayward church ... and He looked out at the congregation and demanded, "Who's in charge here?" ... could you imagine the fear that would go with having to be the one who has to go forward and say, "That's me! I'm the one responsible for this church."?
Could you imagine God holding you accountable for everything that happened in that church, for the spiritual condition it's in?
Being head pastor is not so much a position of power as much as it's a position of serious accountability to God, of incredible service to God and the congregation. If women really understood the amazing responsibility that comes with that role, we might not be so eager to take it upon ourselves.
I have no problem with women teaching and leading in many various roles. They should be using their gifts to build up the church in many areas.
My own mother was our "youth pastor" when I was growing up, although she wasn't called "pastor." And she was a better teacher/leader than the male head pastor who was still in Bible school. So I know how capable and wise and instrumental women can be in church.
I don't have a problem with women serving in church.
But I do have a problem with a woman being in the head leadership positions.
Because God has reserved those positions for men.
[To be loud and clear: I'm not saying that women can't teach men. Or that if a woman teacher has any men in the audience listening to her then it means she's sinning or rebelling against what God says about women in leadership. I can't stand when I read people's blog posts saying that some godly woman is a heretic because there are men listening to her teachings. Teaching or having men listen to your words isn't contrary to Scripture. First off, in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says that he doesn't allow women to teach or have authority over a man, not that "women cannot teach." And secondly, according to Tony Evans' Study Bible notes, Paul is not necessarily saying that women can't teach but that they cannot teach from a place of having authority over a man, as in a woman head pastor. I do not think there is anything wrong with men learning from a woman, or with a woman teaching men in a seminar or conference or Bible study. But what is wrong is for the woman to teach men from the position of head pastor or head elders. Having the head leadership position, or a comparable position of ultimate authority over men or over the whole congregation, is what goes against Scripture, not simply the "teaching" part. I know my stand on this won't make either side happy. One side will consider it too restrictive and the other will consider it too lenient. But I'm not trying to make anyone "happy." I'm trying to be true to God's Word, as best I can understand it.]
Adding to my concern is my observation that most churches with WHPs also compromise on other clear teachings of Scripture. Having a WHP seems to go hand-in-hand with strongly left-leaning feminist agendas, supporting LGBTQ-lifestyles, embracing the trans-this-and-that culture, supporting "women's rights," etc. (Not in all cases, of course, but in many.)
As I said, if they will compromise in one area, they will most likely compromise in another. If they put the will of mankind over the Will of God, they can no longer be trusted to faithfully uphold, defend, and spread God's Truth.
I wasn't planning on writing about this issue, but a recent exchange in the comment section of a post on this topic got me thinking about it. (Read his views on women in leadership. I think they're very good and right on target.) And here's a little of how I responded to another believer who disagreed with me:
In the comments, I was agreeing with the author of the post, saying what I am saying here - that I do not trust churches with WHPs because I think they are compromising clear teachings of Scripture. And I think many are doing this to appease people, to "get with the times," twisting Scripture to please a hyper-feministic culture.
And a fellow Christian challenged me (politely) on my view, cautioning me that I shouldn't act like I know what people's motives are. She believes that WHPs really want to glorify God and to be true to Scripture.
I agreed with her that I can't assume that I know what people's motives are, that I can't assume they are trying to please people over God. She's right in that.
But on the other hand, I told her that it doesn't really matter what their motives are. If they are disobeying Scriptural teaching or trying to find a way around a clear biblical teaching, then they are on the wrong side of God's Will, even if they love the Lord and truly intend to honor Him.
Personally, I think it would be more honoring to God to do things the way He wants them done, instead of taking it upon our selves to alter His Word or make "better" changes.
Even if their hearts are in the right place, to deny a clear teaching of Scripture is wrong. And it puts Christians and churches on a slippery slope of compromise.
Do you know what happened to Aaron's own two sons - Moses's nephews - when they offered incense to the Lord improperly, when they took it upon themselves to offer unauthorized fire to the Lord in ways that God didn't prescribe?
"So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord." (Leviticus 10:2)
These two men figured that what they were doing was okay. It probably even looked righteous and good. Maybe their hearts were in the right place, intending to honor God.
But they disobeyed a clear directive from God about how things should be done.
And they paid the price for it.
God doesn't necessarily excuse defiance and disobedience just because "our hearts are in the right place."
Does it really matter what our motives are when we clearly break one of God's rules? Will our excuses hold up before Him? Is there really an acceptable excuse for going against His stated Will?
Women head pastors might think they are trying to "bring God glory," but wouldn't the best way to bring Him glory be to obey Him, to uphold His truth?
Of course, we live in an age of grace right now, so God doesn't strike us dead for straying outside of His boundaries. He calls us to make things right, to get back in line with Him. But I think it still matters to Him that we do things the way He says we should do them, that we uphold His Truth and His ways, instead of seeking to do things our own way.
Sometimes, it isn't our motives that matter. Sometimes, it isn't the thought that counts. Sometimes the only thing that really matters is what we actually end up doing - if we obey God or disobey Him, if we uphold His Truth or deny it.
People who support WHPs often bring up Deborah (Judges 4). They push the idea that WHPs are okay because a woman was a judge in Israel at one point.
However, this comparison doesn't hold up.
First off, she was a judge, settling disputes among the people and leading in battles. She wasn't the head leader of a church, responsible for the spiritual condition of a congregation.
Secondly, this was Old Testament Israel - before Jesus and the church and the establishment of rules for the church. The New Testament's clearly-spelled-out rules for the church should take precedence over an Old Testament example in pre-church Israel.
Thirdly, she was a judge by default, because no godly-enough, brave-enough man would step up to the plate. She even told Barak that God was instructing him to lead his men to defeat their enemies. But Barak wimped out. Therefore, Deborah said that God would give the victory to a woman. She got the leadership role and the victory because the men wouldn't lead. But nowadays, women are becoming head pastors not because there are no qualified men, but because they want to be the leader. Because they want to change the way things are done, in direct opposition to God's guidelines in the New Testament.
You can't compare Deborah's leadership to what's going on today. Totally different roles, responsibilities, and conditions.
Of course, there might be some times today when the conditions may necessitate a woman leader, such as a tiny church in a tiny town where there are only like 15 members and none of the men are willing to step up and lead ... or such as a missionary situation where a woman missionary is the only one there to teach God's Truth and to lead the native people to spiritual maturity until a spiritually-mature man rises up to take the lead.
But these would be the exceptions, not the rule. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 3, the overseer should be a man.
Other than these, there are not many other situations where I see a WHP being necessary. Most of the time, churches have WHPs not out of necessity, but simply because it's what the church wanted to do, in direct defiance of what God says to do.
This commenter who responded to me also tries to use "grace" to deflect my challenges to WHPs, suggesting that we should show grace when considering someone's motives.
Yes, I could show grace by not assuming I know what's in someone's heart, why they do what they do. And maybe this is how she meant it. But, to me, it seems like her version of "showing grace" means that I should assume that someone's heart is in the right place and, therefore, not criticize what they're doing simply because their heart is in the right place.
Is this what grace means? That we should overlook practices that go against the Bible just because someone means well?
I don't think that's the best use of "grace." (Of course, she didn't exactly say this, I am reading into what she said to make a point about culture nowadays.)
To me, "grace" doesn't mean supporting whatever someone is doing - even if it's in clear opposition to the Gospel - simply because they have good intentions. We shouldn't be using "grace and love" to excuse those who compromise God's Word or break God's rules, which is happening a lot these days. (For more on this, click here.)
Grace and love that's not built on God's Truth isn't flowing from God.
In this case, I think the best, most gracious course of action is for me to lovingly but firmly state my concerns about compromising God's Word, but then to let others choose what to do about it. I can uphold the Truth in my own life and stand up for it when needed, but I have to let others be responsible for their own lives. For choosing whether they will obey God or disobey.
I am accountable to God for my decisions. They are accountable to God for theirs.
But even if it's not popular and not what people want to hear, I will firmly stand on the Truth and the authority of the Gospel, doing what I can to hold faithfully to what it really says ... instead of trying to find a way around it or altering it to fit my preferences.
Can the same be said of churches with WHPs?
This commenter also said that we all interpret the Bible in different ways. The implication being that we can't know some things for sure, so let's just let people decide for themselves.
But this should be the case for unclear issues, those gray areas that are not clearly addressed in the Bible or that have to be inferred from other verses.
This shouldn't be the case for clear, consistent teachings. There shouldn't be tolerance for denying or altering clear teachings of Scripture. This is when we are called to take a stand and defend the Truth of the Bible in the face of opposition.
When the teachings are unclear, there is room for debate, for differing views, for "grace." But when the teachings are clear, there is no room for compromise, for trying to find a way around it, or for trying to come up with other ways to read it.
Like it or not, God gave men the role of top leadership in churches and families ... because He is ultimately holding men responsible for the condition of the churches and families.
And here women are ... fighting for positions of power and head leadership in a church, contrary to what God said.
And here men are ... letting the women take the roles and responsibilities that God gave them. Shirking their duties. Letting mankind make its own rules instead of doing things God's way.
I know this won't be popular, but I'm going to say it anyway: Man up, Men!
It's time to stop abdicating your God-given roles and authority to women. Personally, I believe you men will still be held accountable for the leadership of a church (and your families) ... but not for leading it (since you gave that job to a woman), but for not leading it.
You will be held accountable for not doing the job God gave you. In families and in churches.
You need to rise up and be the men that God made you to be. Fulfill the duties that God gave you. Stop letting the feminists shrink you into emasculated servants.
And how should you go about doing this? How should you go about fulfilling your responsibilities and assuming your God-given roles again?
I don't know. It will look different for different families and situations.
Maybe it's by leaving a church that has a WHP. Maybe it's by demanding that the board of the church consider Scripture's teaching on who should be in charge. Maybe it's by taking responsibility for your families, instead of letting the wife do everything and make all the decisions. Maybe it's by taking a more active role as spiritual leader in your house, reading the Bible to your children, praying with them, being a strong, godly example of a man who lives for the Lord, loves the Lord, and loves his wife and children. Maybe it's by refusing to let feminists bully you into submission, into lesser roles, by not letting them make you feel like you don't deserve to lead just because you're men, like there's something wrong with being a man, like you should bow down to their feminine superiority and let them do whatever they want because they are women.
You know what, I enjoy being a woman. I am a very strong, confident woman. But I do not like this ultra-feministic society we live in. Because I also enjoy men being men. I enjoy a man who acts like a man, when a man opens the door for me, when my husband brings the groceries in for me, when he pumps the gas on the frozen winter days instead of making me stand in the cold to do it.
I enjoy being a woman because I enjoy my husband being a man. If the husband, the leader, the head pastor is doing it right, it should be a delight to let them lead.
I enjoy being a woman because I enjoy my husband being a man. If the husband, the leader, the head pastor is doing it right, it should be a delight to let them lead.
Hyper-feministic women have become the bullies they used to fight against. They don't want equality; they want supreme authority. They want to rip from men any sense of pride or joy they have in their manhood. And it makes me sick. (Of course, I'm not saying that all feministic goals/efforts are bad. Just the ones that are bad.)
Women need to stop doing that. And men need to stop letting women do that. They need to not let feminists convince them that there is something wrong with their maleness. They need to be confident and strong in who they are.
It's okay - it's good - to be a man!
Just as it's okay - it's good - to be a woman!
It's okay - it's good - to be a man!
Just as it's okay - it's good - to be a woman!
Lead in loving ways that show respect and care for women. Lead in ways that consider what women want and need. Lead because God told you to.
And women need to let men lead.
Leading doesn't mean having controlling authority over women; it means leading them like Christ leads the church. Loving them. Sacrificing for them. Honoring them for the wives and mothers they are, along with any other hats they wear. Working for their best. Working alongside them, making sure that women's gifts and talents are utilized the best way possible, for God's glory and Kingdom.
But ultimately, lead with the sober knowledge that you men have the ultimate responsibility to answer to God for how the church and family is run. And as a woman, I thank you for being the ones to fulfill that role, to bear that heavy responsibility.
And women need to let men lead.
Leading doesn't mean having controlling authority over women; it means leading them like Christ leads the church. Loving them. Sacrificing for them. Honoring them for the wives and mothers they are, along with any other hats they wear. Working for their best. Working alongside them, making sure that women's gifts and talents are utilized the best way possible, for God's glory and Kingdom.
But ultimately, lead with the sober knowledge that you men have the ultimate responsibility to answer to God for how the church and family is run. And as a woman, I thank you for being the ones to fulfill that role, to bear that heavy responsibility.
If you are leading in the right way - full of grace and love and care - women should have no problem sitting under your leadership.
[Except the hyper-feminists. They will always have a problem with men, just because they're men. (And yet they accuse men of being sexist! Ironic.)]
[Except the hyper-feminists. They will always have a problem with men, just because they're men. (And yet they accuse men of being sexist! Ironic.)]
