Few topics expose the difference between conviction and defensiveness like women and ministry. Many Christians know what they think before they have listened carefully. Some assume that any restriction on women is oppressive. Others assume that any movement toward women in broader leadership is capitulation to culture. I do not want to begin there. I want to begin with Scripture, the character of God, the ministry of Jesus, the life of the early church and the pastoral fruit of our conclusions.
At present, I would probably describe myself as softly complementarian, but drifting toward egalitarian. By “soft complementarian,” I mean that I have historically been open to some distinction in church leadership, especially around the role of senior pastor or elder, while affirming significant ministry, teaching, leadership and theological contribution from women. By “drifting toward egalitarian,” I mean that I increasingly find myself questioning whether some of the boundaries I inherited are as biblically secure as I once assumed.
This is not because I have stopped caring about Scripture. It is because I care about Scripture enough to keep re-reading it.
What complementarianism tries to protect
Complementarianism, at its best, is not meant to say that women are less intelligent, less spiritual or less gifted. It tries to affirm equal worth while maintaining some distinction in roles. Many complementarians sincerely believe they are honouring biblical patterns of creation, family and church order.
I understand that concern. The church should not simply mirror the surrounding culture. Scripture must be allowed to challenge modern assumptions. If a Christian position is unpopular in the modern West, that alone does not make it wrong.
Soft complementarianism can also be an attempt to avoid harshness. It may affirm women teaching, leading ministries, studying theology, exercising spiritual gifts and contributing significantly, while reserving certain offices or final authority structures for men. In some Baptist contexts, that sort of position can feel like a middle ground.
Where I struggle
The difficulty is that the middle ground can become inconsistent. If a woman can explain Scripture faithfully, shepherd wisely, lead teams, teach mixed groups in some settings and exercise spiritual gifts for the building up of the church, then the question becomes sharper: why is she excluded from particular formal roles?
Sometimes the answer given is “authority.” But authority in the church is not domination. It is service under Christ and Scripture. If authority is pastoral, humble, accountable and shaped by the cross, then I need to ask whether the exclusion of women from that authority is really demanded by the text.
I also struggle with how easily complementarian practice can become more restrictive than complementarian theory. A church may say it affirms women, but in practice women’s voices are marginalised, their theological insights are treated as secondary and their leadership is welcomed only when it stays safely invisible.
That concerns me pastorally. The church cannot afford to bury gifts God has given.
What makes me listen to egalitarian arguments
Egalitarian arguments have become more persuasive to me for several reasons. First, I see the ministry of women throughout Scripture more clearly than I once did. Deborah judges Israel. Huldah speaks the word of the Lord. Mary Magdalene is a witness to the resurrection. Priscilla helps instruct Apollos. Phoebe is commended by Paul. Junia is named among the apostles, depending on how one reads Romans 16. Women pray and prophesy in the gathered church.
Second, I find myself asking whether the restrictive passages are universal prohibitions or targeted responses to local problems. That question does not make the passages disappear. It simply asks how they function in context.
Third, I have seen gifted women serve the church with wisdom, courage and faithfulness. Experience does not overrule Scripture, but it can expose whether our interpretation is producing fruit that seems out of step with the Spirit’s gifting.
The danger of culture on both sides
It is easy to accuse egalitarians of being shaped by modern culture. Sometimes that may be true. But complementarians can also be shaped by culture. Patriarchal habits, fear of change, male comfort and institutional self-protection can all dress themselves in biblical language.
So the question is not, “Which view is untouched by culture?” None of us are untouched. The better question is, “Which view best fits the whole biblical witness when read carefully, humbly and in fellowship with the church?”
This is why I want to move slowly. I do not want to drift simply because the wider culture has moved. But I also do not want to stay in place simply because change is uncomfortable.
Where I currently stand
At this stage, I am still cautious about the senior pastor question, especially in traditions where that role carries significant authority. But I am increasingly uncomfortable with broad restrictions on women teaching, leading and contributing theologically. I want women’s gifts to be welcomed, not merely permitted. I want churches to ask what the Spirit is doing, not only what roles can be technically allowed.
I am also aware that my own Baptist context matters. Baptist churches often differ in polity, pastoral leadership and congregational authority. The way these questions are applied may look different from Anglican, Presbyterian or Pentecostal contexts.
What I still wrestle with
I still wrestle with 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. I do not want to explain those passages away. I also wrestle with creation-order arguments and how Paul uses Adam and Eve. These texts deserve careful study.
But I also wrestle with the gap between restrictive readings and the wider biblical picture of women speaking, leading, prophesying, teaching and serving in significant ways. I wrestle with whether our churches have often limited women more than Scripture does.
Why it matters
This matters because people are not abstractions. Women in churches are not theological test cases. They are sisters in Christ, image-bearers, disciples, gifted servants and often deeply formed leaders. Men are also harmed when leadership is defined in ways that confuse masculinity with control.
The church needs mature women and men serving together under Christ. If my view continues to shift, I want that shift to be driven by Scripture, humility and love, not by fashion or fear. For now, I remain soft complementarian in some instincts, but I am listening carefully to egalitarian arguments and finding many of them increasingly persuasive.
Why this is difficult in practice
One reason this question is difficult is that most churches do not live with tidy theological categories. They live with people. A woman may have a recognised gift for teaching Scripture, but the church may only allow her to teach children or other women. Another woman may be trusted to lead complex ministries, counsel people through crisis and shape the spiritual life of a congregation, but not be trusted to preach on a Sunday. In theory, the distinction is about authority. In practice, the distinction can feel arbitrary.
I also notice how much depends on context. Some churches would never call a woman a pastor, but they will gladly allow her to do pastoral work. Some churches restrict women from preaching, but will allow them to share a “testimony” that functions almost exactly like a sermon. Some churches say women cannot have authority over men, but they still expect women to carry significant responsibility behind the scenes. That inconsistency does not prove egalitarianism is right, but it does make me ask whether our categories are as biblical as we think they are.
The texts I keep returning to
The passages that matter most in this debate include Genesis 1–3, the ministry of Jesus, Acts 2, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Galatians 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2 and the qualifications for elders. I do not think it is faithful to build the whole view on one text while ignoring the wider witness of Scripture.
Genesis shows men and women together bearing the image of God and sharing the human vocation. The fall damages relationships, including the relationship between men and women. That makes me cautious about baptising male rule as though it automatically reflects creation rather than the disorder of sin.
The ministry of Jesus also matters. Jesus dignifies women, teaches women, receives women as disciples and entrusts resurrection witness to women. That does not settle every question about church office, but it creates a trajectory that should make the church careful before silencing women’s voices.
Paul’s letters are the hardest part of the discussion. Paul both restricts and affirms women in different places. That is why context matters. If women pray and prophesy in the gathered church, then Paul is not simply requiring universal female silence. If Phoebe, Priscilla and Junia are significant ministry figures, then Paul’s practice is more complex than some versions of complementarianism suggest.
Why I am drifting
I am drifting because I increasingly find the egalitarian case more biblically serious than I once assumed. It is not simply a cultural compromise. Many egalitarians are trying to read Scripture carefully, honour the gifts of the Spirit and take the whole biblical story seriously.
I am also drifting because I care about the church’s mission. The church needs wise, gifted, godly people serving according to the gifts God has given. If God is raising up women who can teach, shepherd, lead and equip, I do not want inherited assumptions to bury those gifts. At the same time, I do not want to move carelessly. The church should not change convictions merely because the surrounding culture applies pressure. But neither should the church refuse correction simply because the correction arrives in a contested cultural moment.
What would persuade me further
I would need to be persuaded that the restrictive texts are best read as local and corrective rather than universal and permanent. I would also need to be persuaded that the pattern of creation does not require male-only eldership or senior pastoral leadership. I am moving in that direction, but I want to move with Scripture, not ahead of it.
For now, I am softly complementarian but increasingly open to egalitarianism. That means I affirm women’s gifts strongly and want churches to make generous room for them. It also means I am still working through the exact question of formal office and final teaching authority. I would rather admit that honestly than pretend to be more settled than I am.
The pastoral test
The pastoral test is not simply whether a position wins an argument. It is whether it helps the church honour Scripture, love people and recognise the gifts of the Spirit. A faithful church should not be embarrassed by gifted women. It should be grateful. The question is how those gifts are ordered in obedience to Christ. That is the question I am still wrestling with, and I hope to do so with humility rather than fear.