What Does the Bible Say About Women in Leadership

Christians who love Scripture give two answers to this question. The egalitarian reading holds that women may serve in every role of church leadership, including preaching and pastoral oversight. The complementarian reading holds that some leadership or teaching roles are reserved for men. Both readings appeal to the whole Bible, and both have careful defenders. This guide will not hand you a verdict. It will help you set the two readings side by side, read the passages each one has to explain, and practice stating the view you find hardest so fairly that someone who holds it would say, yes, that is what I believe and why.

The guide draws on a Jude 3 Project conversation with Dr. Preston Sprinkle, who holds a PhD in biblical studies and taught the Bible at the college level. Raised in a complementarian setting, he set out to study the question for himself and concluded that women can serve in all positions of leadership. He also named the complementarian arguments he found strongest, and that is what makes his work useful here. You can work through this guide alone in about an hour. A group will need two sessions, or one long one, with the practice in the middle.

Start with what you already think

Before opening any passage, write down two sentences. First, your current answer to the question, however tentative. Second, the one verse or experience that most shapes that answer. Do not share these yet. You will come back to them at the end, and the point is to see whether anything moved, not to prove that it should have.

Sprinkle described his own approach as a refusal to start from the answer. Of 1 Timothy 2, the passage most people treat as decisive, he said: “I just wanna understand the text on its own terms.” That is a fair standard for both sides. A complementarian who reads 1 Timothy 2 on its own terms and an egalitarian who reads Romans 16 on its own terms are both doing honest work. The trouble begins when one text is allowed to silence the rest.

The passages both readings must account for

Read each passage in its full chapter, not just the verse. For each one, note two things: what the passage plainly says, and what a reader would have to add in order to use it for one side or the other.

• Judges 4:4-10. “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4). This is narrative. Ask what it describes and whether it presents Deborah’s role as normal or unusual.
• 2 Kings 22:8-20. King Josiah’s officials take the newly found book of the law to Huldah the prophetess to inquire of the Lord. Notice who travels to whom.
• Romans 16:1-7. Paul writes, “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1), and greets “Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles” (Romans 16:7). What titles and descriptions does Paul give these women?
• 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34-35. Paul speaks of “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth” in the first passage. Three chapters later he writes, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34). Both sit in one letter.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 3:1-2. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13). In the next chapter, an overseer must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2).
• Mark 10:35-45. Jesus contrasts the rulers of the Gentiles with his disciples: “But so shall it not be among you” (Mark 10:43).

One small observation for careful readers. The KJV word servant in Romans 16:1 and the word minister in Mark 10:43 translate the same Greek word, diakonos. The English hides the link. Keep it in mind for what follows.

The egalitarian reading at full strength

The egalitarian case, as Sprinkle builds it, begins by refusing to treat any single verse as the lens for all the others. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is the fixed starting point, every woman who leads elsewhere becomes a problem to explain away. If the wider witness comes first, 1 Timothy 2:12 becomes the puzzle.

From Israel’s Scriptures, Sprinkle argues that prophets held real authority, even over kings, and that Deborah and Huldah exercised leadership over men. What strikes him is the narrators’ calm. In his words, “the biblical writers do not give any sense that they were kind of exceptional or different or whatever.” Of Huldah’s consultation, he observes, “they don’t summons her to the palace. They go to her.”

From Paul’s letters, he points to Phoebe, Priscilla and Junia, to women hosting house churches, and to female prophets in a church Paul describes as founded on apostles and prophets. On that last point he says, “there’s no evidence that he is only thinking of male prophets.” He reads the word servant as leadership language because, as he puts it, “servant is one of Paul’s favorite designation for leaders.” That is where the Mark 10 connection matters: Jesus redefines greatness as service, and on this reading Paul builds his whole vocabulary of leadership on that teaching.

The two restrictive passages receive close attention. Since 1 Corinthians 11 assumes women pray and prophesy aloud, Sprinkle concludes about chapter 14: “It is not forbidding women from all kinds of speaking. There’s something really specific going on.” For 1 Timothy 2:12, the hinge is the rare verb behind “usurp authority,” authentein, which appears only once in the Bible. Sprinkle traced its uses in other ancient texts and reports that it refers to the authority a master wields over a slave, or a high-status person over a low-status one. His conclusion:

it seems like he’s saying women shouldn’t be exercising or teaching in this kind of domineering way the same way a master might do over his slave.

Notice what this argument claims and what it rests on. It does not drop Paul or call him inconsistent. Sprinkle insists on the full inspiration of the canon. The argument rests on a reading of one rare word, on a pattern across many texts, and on the judgment that 1 Timothy 2 addresses a particular local problem.

The complementarian reading at full strength

The complementarian case also claims the whole Bible, and Sprinkle named several of its arguments as serious ones. The first is that every one of the twelve apostles Jesus chose was a man. Sprinkle notes this is the main argument for an all-male priesthood in the Catholic Church, and admits, “I used to think that was a slam dunk argument.” He now considers it more complex, but he says those who are not complementarian still have to wrestle with it.

The second is the pattern of named leaders. Even granting that some women led, the leaders named in the apostolic writings are mostly men: the Twelve, Timothy, Silas, Apollos and others. Sprinkle’s response is that “I don’t fault people” for drawing a conclusion from that pattern.

The third is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Timothy 2 itself. Paul grounds his instruction in creation, not in a local custom: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). A complementarian reader asks why Paul would reach back to Genesis if he meant only to correct a few domineering women in Ephesus. An appeal to creation, on this reading, signals a principle that outlasts the situation. Sprinkle says he can see why someone reads it as a universal prohibition and does not dismiss the argument. “I just think there’s a better case to be made there.”

The fourth is the qualification that an overseer be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2), which many read as assuming the office belongs to men.

A complementarian reader can also respond to the egalitarian evidence without denying it. Deborah and Huldah appear in narrative, and narrative describes before it prescribes. A prophet in Israel is not automatically a pattern for church office. Women praying and prophesying in Corinth, on this reading, fits well with a restriction on the governing and teaching role of an elder. And Phoebe’s service and patronage need not mean she held the office Paul restricts in 1 Timothy. On this reading the restriction is narrow: it concerns certain roles, not the worth, gifts or ministry of women.

Where the two readings actually divide

It is easy to imagine more disagreement than really exists. Set out the common ground first. Both readings, as presented here, hold that all Scripture is inspired and that Paul’s letters carry full authority. Both acknowledge that women prophesied, served and were commended by name. Sprinkle reports that almost all scholars today, on both sides, agree Junia was a woman. He treats the live question as whether she was an apostle and, if so, of what kind. Both reject the shortcut of setting Jesus against Paul. Sprinkle says, “I think it’s actually just incorrect to say Jesus was kind of pro-women and Paul wasn’t.”

The real division comes down to a few specific questions:

1. What does authentein mean in 1 Timothy 2:12? Domineering authority, or authority as such? Sprinkle’s survey is his own reading of the evidence. Complementarian scholars study the same word and reach different conclusions.
2. Does the appeal to Adam and Eve make the instruction universal, or does it support a local correction?
3. Were the women named in Romans 16 and Acts holding the same kind of office that 1 Timothy 3 describes, or a different kind of ministry?
4. Is the mostly male pattern of named leaders a norm for the church, or a wise adjustment to the culture of the time?

Notice that these are questions about evidence and interpretation, not about who loves the Bible more. That is why Jude 3 Project does not take a house position here. Faithful Christians who follow Jesus land on both sides.

Practice: argue the other side first

Sprinkle said he wanted readers, whatever they conclude, to “be exposed to a fair assessment of the best arguments.” This practice puts that goal into action. It works alone with a notebook or in pairs within a group.

1. Name the reading you find harder to accept. Do not pick the one you disagree with least.
2. Choose one of the four dividing questions above. Write out, in three or four sentences, how that reading answers it. Use at least one passage from the list, quoted or paraphrased accurately.
3. Add the strongest piece of evidence for that reading that you have not yet answered for yourself.
4. In a group, read your summary aloud to someone who holds that view, if anyone does. Ask them one question: What did I leave out or get wrong? Revise once based on what they say.
5. Only then write your own response to the argument, and note which passage your response depends on most.

If no one in your group holds the view you are restating, swap summaries with a partner and test each other against the passages instead. The goal is a summary that holds up when someone checks it against the text.

Questions for discussion

1. Which passage on the list did you find hardest to fit into your current view? What would you need to believe about it in order to keep your view?
2. The two readings agree that Deborah and Huldah exercised real authority in Israel. How much weight should narrative carry when the question concerns church office?
3. Paul’s appeal to creation in 1 Timothy 2:13 can be read as grounding a universal principle or as supporting a local correction. What features of the surrounding passage push you toward one reading?
4. Sprinkle says the mostly male pattern of early leaders reflects the culture and the needs of the mission. A complementarian reader sees a norm. What evidence would help you tell a cultural adjustment from a binding pattern?
5. When you restated the other reading, what did you find you could not fairly leave out?
6. What is one thing you would want someone on the other side to understand about why you hold your view, and one thing you now understand about theirs?

For whoever leads the group

This question is not abstract for many people in the room. Some women in your group may have sensed a call that was affirmed. Others may have had one refused. Some men and women hold the complementarian view with deep conviction and care. Make it clear at the start that no one needs to announce their position, and that the practice is about restating views accurately, not winning.

Keep the conversation on the dividing questions. When someone says, in effect, that the other side does not take the Bible seriously, steer the group back to a specific verse and ask how each reading handles it. If time runs short, cut discussion questions rather than the practice. The practice is the part of this guide most people will not do on their own.

Returning to where you started

Look again at the two sentences you wrote at the beginning. Your answer may be the same. If so, check whether you can now give a reason for it that accounts for more of the passages than before. If the one verse that shaped your view has changed, notice what changed it.

Sprinkle described his own conclusion as answerable to the text alone: “If God says women can’t lead, then he says they can’t lead.” A complementarian reader could say the same sentence with equal sincerity and mean the opposite conclusion. That shared submission is the real common ground. The question worth carrying from this study is simple: which passage would have to read differently for you to change your mind, and have you read it as carefully as the ones that support you?