A Vote on Women “Pastors”
There are two kinds of Bible readers: those who read it for themselves and those who want someone else to do their thinking for them. That’s why there is so much big government religion today. Denominations set up a governing body supposedly to guide and assist the individual churches in that denomination. There are tow major problems with that arrangement. First, there is no biblical authority for it. Second, it is the source of many personal and doctrinal problems.
A recent example is the Southern Baptist Church which is coming under fire for proposing a “constitutional” ban on women preachers. A vote of delegates passed the resolution with almost 75% approving the inclusion of the ban. But the proposal must pass two consecutive years to become part of the Southern Baptist charter.
This episode will look at two questions about this issue in light of the Scriptures: Why do churches vote on matters the Bible already addresses? Does the New Testament authorize any form of church government higher than elders who oversee individual congregations?
Read about this subject
- Scripture: I Timothy 2:11-3:12; I Corinthians 14:34-35
- What is “Church”? Chapters 5, 9-11
Listen to more on this subject
Transcript
Kerry Duke: Hi, I’m Kerry Duke, host of My God and My Neighbor podcast from Tennessee Bible College, where we see the Bible as not just another book, but the Book. Join us in a study of the inspired Word to strengthen your faith and to share what you’ve learned with others.
Today, we’re taking a break from our series on the book of Daniel. There’s an issue that’s becoming more and more controversial in churches, and that issue has caused quite a stir in a large Protestant denomination recently. So, I want to spend a few minutes today talking about it. I hope you have your Bible ready.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. When I think about those days as a young boy, I can still see the preachers. They were always men. I never saw a woman preaching. I never even heard of a woman preacher. There were deacons, but they were all men. As far as I know, the men taught Bible classes when there were men and women in the class. The men always took the lead. But that was in the 1960s. Times were changing.
I’m no longer a part of the Baptist church, but from time to time I notice with interest what’s happening in it. Most of you know about the recent controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s the issue of female “pastors.” It made headlines all over the world. But before we look at that debate, I want to share with you a newspaper clipping from years ago. It’s from the Nashville Banner, June 13, 1983. The headline reads: “Baptist here break tradition – Woman Deacon is Ordained.” here’s how the story begins: “In a departure from Southern Baptist tradition, Immanuel Baptist Church here has elected and ordained a woman deacon, drawing negative comments from some church ministers.” Now bear in mind that this Baptist church was in Nashville; there are several churches that have the same name. The article quoted one Baptist preacher in Nashville who called this a “red-hot issue” that some in the Southern Baptist Church were “pushing.” This question about the role of women in churches came on the heels of the Women’s Liberation Movement and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. And, the sexual revolution of the 70s followed the 1960s when the young people threw a fit and rebelled against authority on every hand. So it was only to be expected that male leadership in churches would be challenged. The issue of women pastors and priests and deacons was new to many denominations at the time. But it was here to stay.
In the 1980s, the question in the Southern Baptist Church was more about women deacons than women pastors. I was a young preacher at the time. Honestly, I didn’t think it was much of an issue. I didn’t think it would go anywhere. I thought the answer was so obvious it would never be much of a controversy. The Bible says in First Timothy 3 verse 12, “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife.” I just said, “How on earth can a woman be the husband of one wife?” But the culture was changing more than I realized, and some denominations were changing with the times. By the way, the Baptist Church in this article from 1983 did not stop with ordaining women deacons. Now they have a female pastor. I’ll deal with the Bible meaning of the word deacon and pastor shortly. At this point, I just wanted to look at the history behind this controversy. The Southern Baptist Church has been dealing with this problem for a long time. But the fact is that the SBC stood against having female deacons in 1983 and that is their policy to this day.
In the 1990s, the debate about the role of women progressed. Even Bible translations changed. In 1990 the Preface of the New Revised Standard Version complained about “linguistic sexism” and “the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender.” So the translators removed male pronouns like “he” and “him” from the Bible as much as possible and replaced them with “gender-neutral” pronouns like “they” and “them.” That was in 1990. In 1995 Oxford University Press released The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. That so-called version referred to God as “Father-Mother.” I’m not saying that Southern Baptists went along with this. Again, I’m just looking at the overall trend in religion at the time. The issue of women’s role in churches was definitely here to stay.
Now let’s fast forward to 2026. In June the Southern Baptist Convention met. Representatives from Southern Baptist Churches voted on a resolution that would ban women from being pastors in that denomination. The proposal was to make this ban part of the constitution of the SBC. But one vote is not enough to do that. The rule in the SBC is that an amendment to the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention must be passed two successive years. This proposal for a constitutional ban on female pastors passed in 2024, but it was defeated in 2025. So they voted on it again in 2026. Almost 75% of the delegates voted in favor of this ban against female pastors. That’s what created all the stir you’re hearing about. But of course, if you’re in a southern Baptist Church, you already knew about that. If you’re not, then this will help you to understand the question before we look at what the Scriptures say. There are doctrinal issues in any group, and there is usually a more conservative, traditional element on one end of the spectrum and a more liberal, progressive element on the other end. Albert Mohler, a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, admitted that this is the problem underneath the question of the role of women. Here’s his comment on the recent vote. He said, “There’s a great line that divides liberal and biblical evangelicalism, and you can see it on this very issue. The trajectory of liberal denominations is clear.” Now I’m not agreeing with how he uses the words “biblical” or “liberal.” I’m simply laying some groundwork for our discussion today. Baptist churches are divided on this issue. Some think it is alright to have women pastors and deacons and others are against it. The SBC says if your Baptist congregation wants to be in good standing with us, then you cannot have women in those roles. And they do make it a matter of fellowship. The SBC has excluded several Baptist congregations over this issue. The most notable one was the Saddleback megachurch in California.
Now let’s do what some of you are already thinking. Let’s examine what the Bible says. Here are two key passages. In First Corinthians chapter 14 verses 34 and 35, the Bible says, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” The other is First Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Paul said a woman is not permitted to teach or to have authority over the man. Now how can anyone look at these verses and say it’s alright for a woman to preach?
Well, there are many people in all kinds of churches that say she can. And you may be asking, “But what do they do with these verses? How did they try to get around them?” They usually say those verses don’t apply today. They say it was wrong for a woman to preach and serve in a leadership role then (when the Bible was written), but they say it’s fine if she wants to preach today. They tell us that the culture back then was different than it is today. They argue that so many people were against a woman speaking publicly in New Testament times that she would have been looked down on if she did and the church would’ve gained a bad reputation. In other words, they say the culture was different then, but today people don’t have as much of a problem with women taking a lead in church so those verses don’t apply to our situation. So they say these verses were limited to the first century culture. These people that advocate women preachers today tell us that Paul was only talking about the situation in his day, not our day and age.
Now the thing you need to remember is that this is a very common approach to justifying women in leadership roles. These people just brush these verses aside and say they don’t apply today. And if you don’t know how to answer this objection, please listen carefully to the words of the Bible in these verses. Let’s start with First Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12. Look at the words again: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Now why did Paul give this teaching? Was it because the people in that culture wouldn’t listen to a woman preacher? That is not what Paul said. In First Timothy 2 verses 13 and 14, he gave two reasons for what he said in verses 11 to 12. Notice that verse 13 begins with the word “For.” This is a conjunction that gives the reason or reasons for what has just been said. The first reason is in verse 13. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The first reason for male leadership and female subjection is the order of creation. That doesn’t change! That’s the same in any culture at any time anywhere in the world! God created man first, and the woman was created as a help suitable for him. Paul wrote in First Corinthians 11 verse 3: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” That started at the creation, and God never changed His mind about it. There was no “society” or “culture” except Adam and Eve and the environment they had in the beginning. Paul added in First Corinthians 11 verses 8 and 9, “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” Paul based the prohibition about women in leadership roles on the creation, not on custom or culture. The second reason women are not to teach or have authority over men is in First Timothy 2 verse 14. Remember, we’re looking at what the restriction in verses 11 and 12 is based on. Verse 14 says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Eve took the lead in the first human sin. She was the first to eat of the tree and then she convinced Adam to eat of it. Adam was not deceived like Eve was. She listened to Satan and he deceived her with his words. Paul can’t mean that it was impossible for Adam to be deceived. He was misled by his wife. She took the lead and she was wrong; and women today are not to take the lead over men by teaching and having authority over the men in the church.
Think about it this way. What if the Holy Spirit had stopped the writing in verse 12? What if verses 13 and 14 were not in the Bible? That would have still settled the issue because God would have spoken on the subject. But God made it extra clear when He gave the regulation in verses 11 and 12 and then gave the reasons for that regulation in verses 13 and 14. That’s why it’s inexcusable for people to say this regulation doesn’t apply today.
Now let’s look at First Corinthians 14 verses 34 and 35. Let me read that passage again to get it firmly in our minds. “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” First Corinthians 14 verse 34 says women are to keep silent in the churches and that they are not permitted to speak because… (and here’s where we have to pay close attention; here is where Paul gives the basis for this prohibition). Paul says women are not to speak the word in the worship assembly because the law also teaches this—“as the law also says.” This goes back to the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit didn’t reveal male leadership for the first time to the church at Corinth. The Old Testament had already taught it. God taught male leadership in the home in Genesis 3 verse 16 when he told Eve: “he” (Adam, your husband) “shall rule over you.” Women were expected to be submissive to their husbands in the Old Testament. This is a permanent principle, not a temporary, cultural rule. The New Testament shows this in I Peter 3 verses 1 through 6 when it tells wives to submit to their husbands just as Sarah and other holy women obeyed their husbands.
But it’s not just in the home where we see this principle. The Patriarchal system was a time of father rule in religious affairs as well as home life. Patriarchs like Noah, Abraham, and Job offered sacrifices for their family. The law of Moses also taught male leadership in spiritual matters. Priests were men, not women. That principle is permanent and universal. The law of Moses as a whole taught this as an overall principle. Paul gave this as the reason why women should not speak the word in the assembly. He didn’t say they were forbidden to speak because of the culture. He didn’t say they were not to speak because they were interrupting. He said they were not to speak the word in church because the law also taught the same rule. First Corinthians 14 verse 34 emphatically denies that this prohibition is based on some cultural or occasional circumstance in the city of Corinth.
You might wonder why Paul told the women to be silent and to ask their husbands at home. Remember, he’s talking about the worship assembly of the church where men preach to a mixed audience of men and women. In that setting men are to do the preaching of the word. A woman can sing in that assembly, but that is not the kind of speaking Paul is talking about. A woman can confess Christ in the assembly, but that is not the speaking in this passage. Women are specifically forbidden in this passage to speak the Word of God in the assembly for worship. That’s the kind of “speaking” he means. The word “silent” in verse 34 (where he says women are to keep silent) needs to be understood in the same light. Women are to be silent in the teaching of the Word in the worship assembly. This has nothing to do with singing or confessing Christ before baptism. In the context, the speaking is not a woman talking in a church building after the services. It is not a woman teaching children in a Bible class. It is about women speaking the Word of God in the worship assembly. And it is definitely based on a principle that was in place a long time before the culture at Corinth or anywhere else.
Now let’s look at the question of female deacons and elders. The Bible is so plain about this that all we have to do is read it. But the problem today is that these verses are not read like they should be. They are not being taught like they should be. The Bible plainly says that an elder (who is also called a bishop or a pastor in the Bible) and a deacon in the church must be the husband of one wife (First Timothy 3 verses 2 and 12). But some think they have found a way to justify women deacons (even though it’s impossible from the outset for a woman to be the husband of one wife). They tell us that the woman named Phoebe in Romans 16 verse 1 was a deaconess in the church and that she was in the same position as men who were deacons in the church. Let’s look at that verse. Romans 16 verse 1 says, “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.” Now did you hear anything in that verse that would indicate that he’s talking about a woman deacon called a deaconess in that church? It just says that she was a servant. That’s how most Bible versions translate that word. But people who advocate this role change tell us the key is in the original Greek of the New Testament. The Greek word for servant in Romans 16 verse 1 is a feminine form of the same Greek word that is translated “deacon” in First Timothy 3. So, some say since the same word is used, it must have the same idea! That’s like saying if you say your shoulder is hurting and then you say that you were driving and had to pull over on the shoulder of the road, that you must be talking about the same kind of shoulder! We need to use the same common sense when we read the Bible. This word means a servant. But what kind of servant or deacon it refers to depends on the way it is used. Just a few verses before Paul calls Phoebe a servant in Romans 16 verse 1, he referred to Jesus with a form of this same Greek word in Romans 15 verse 8! He said, “Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.” Does that mean Jesus was a deacon in the sense of the office of a deacon in the church? Of course not.
Here’s something else to remember about male leadership in the church in the book of First Timothy. The office of deacons is part of a larger section on male leadership in the church that begins in chapter two. In First Timothy 2 verse 8 Paul said that men are to pray in every place. The word “men” in that verse means males. It’s not the generic word for mankind (both men and women) that we find in verse 4 where he says that God wants all “men” to be saved. But verse 8 is directed specifically to males. Now all Christians are to pray—men and women. Therefore, when he says in First Timothy 2 verse 8 that men are to pray in every place, he must be talking about leading in prayer, not praying in general. Then, in First Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12, Paul taught male leadership by saying that a woman is not to “teach or have authority over a man.” Then in First Timothy 3 verse 2, he said that a bishop must be the “husband of one wife.” Then in the same context he taught that deacons in the church are to be males in verse 12.
Let’s look at the word pastor next. The word pastor is used one time in the King James Version in the New Testament. That’s in Ephesians 4 verse 11. The word pastor means a shepherd. That’s how it’s translated every other time it’s used in the New Testament. The Bible never talks about one man being “the pastor” of a church. Let me repeat that. You will not read in the Bible anywhere about any man being called “the pastor” of a church. Now the question is this: who are the shepherds of New Testament congregations? Peter gives the answer in First Peter chapter 5. Peter was a shepherd himself. He was an elder in the church. In the Bible, the words “Elder” and “Bishop” and “Pastor” are three different words for the same office in the church. They describe different aspects of the work of men in this office. Here’s what Peter wrote in First Peter 5 about that work: “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (First Peter 5 verses 1 through 3). Peter told these elders (notice that—he’s talking to elders) to “shepherd the flock,’ that is the Christians in the congregation where they serve as elders. That’s why he told them to shepherd the flock of God “which is among you.” So, who are the shepherds of the flock or congregation? Elders, who are the pastors or shepherds. Notice that Peter didn’t say, “Let the pastor take the oversight of the church and shepherd the flock.” There’s not one word here or anywhere else in the New Testament about one man running a church. The Bible does say that a group of men (two or more) who meet the requirements for this office laid out in First Timothy 3 and in Titus 1are to do the shepherding. They are the overseers. That’s why the Bible says in Acts 14 verse 23 that they appointed elders (plural) in every church.
This means that women pastors violate the Bible in two ways. First, they exercise authority over men. Second, they preach to men. Paul specifically forbids this in the verses we’ve looked at.
But there’s a bigger problem, a deeper issue. Where on earth do you read about a church in the Bible voting on a matter of doctrine? Take the book of First Timothy, for example. Paul says that women are not to teach or have authority over the men. He says that bishops and deacons must be men—the husbands of one wife. That book was written to Timothy when he was at Ephesus. Can you imagine somebody in the church at Ephesus saying, “I know what Paul said, but let’s have a church vote on that”? Or suppose the church at Ephesus did what these denominations are doing today. Suppose the church at Ephesus got together with the other six churches of Asia and said, “We’ve got some doctrinal problems at Ephesus and you all at Sardis and Laodicea have problems too. Thyatira and Pergamos have some real issues. Why don’t we form a coalition to monitor these issues? We could set up an overseeing board of men. All the seven churches of Asia could send delegates to an annual convention. Then when something controversial comes up, we can take a vote.” That would’ve been unscriptural! There is no New Testament authority for that kind of church government. There is no higher level of the human side of church government than elders in a local congregation.
But that’s the problem with the very idea of a denomination. There are people at the top of that denomination. They run that denomination. When there’s an issue, they get together and take a vote. They can decide whether a congregation in that denomination stays or goes. I ask you again, where do you read about anything like that in the Bible? You don’t. Now it’s a strange thing that the protestant movement started over this very problem of church government. Protestant reformers looked at the Catholic Church and saw the corruption. They saw the false doctrines and the unbiblical practices. But they also saw the politics. They knew that if anything was done in a Catholic Church, it had to have the approval of the people at the top. That’s why reformation leaders opposed the office of the pope. And what scriptures did they use to say that having a pope was wrong? There was nothing in the New Testament that specifically condemned having a pope and having cardinal and bishops under him. I’m not saying that the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church was right. I’m saying that it was wrong, and that it was wrong because God never gave them the authority to have that kind of church government. Of course, I’m well aware that Catholics claim to have another source of authority besides the Bible. That would be what they call sacred tradition and also, and I emphasize, they claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit today. All that is false, but that’s another topic we don’t have time to get into. My point is this. Protestant denominations started because they didn’t agree with what the Roman Catholic Church taught and how it was organized. But here’s the question: how are they any different? They have denominational headquarters. Some of them have bishops that oversee several congregations in that denomination. All of them have a top level person or group that makes a final decision for the denomination when a question or an issue arises. Again I ask, how is that any different from the Roman Catholic arrangement? The truth is: one is as unscriptural as the other.
Let’s take the United Methodist Church as an example. I was talking with a friend who had left this denomination. He was like millions of other Methodists. He left over the issue of same-sex marriage. He was telling me one day about bishops in the Methodist Church that didn’t agree with its decision to allow their clergy to conduct weddings for same-sex couples. He said when there was an annual meeting of bishops, there were quite a few bishops that said this was wrong and voted against it. I tried to listen as patiently as I could. And then I asked him, “Do you believe that homosexuality is wrong?” He said yes I do believe it is wrong. I said, “Do you believe the Bible and even nature teaches against it?” He said yes. So I asked him, “Then why are they voting about it?” He smiled and said, “Yes, I know what you’re saying.” He had come to see that the very way the Methodist Church was organized was wrong.
Now, how is this any different from what the Southern Baptist Convention is doing? Where is the authority to set up a denomination to begin with? Where is the biblical authority to set up a governing body and have congregations to send delegates to vote on issues that will be decided for the whole denomination? And we’re not talking about matters of judgment. That would be wrong enough because each congregation in New Testament teaching is to decide its own affairs. That’s what the word autonomous means. It means self-governing. But when you have a body of officials that have the power to include or exclude congregations under it, then it usurps the autonomy of those congregations. But here is the Southern Baptist Convention taking a vote to decide whether to add a “constitutional” amendment that would ban women preachers when they admit that the Bible laid down that prohibition two thousand years ago!
There’s another problem here. It’s an even deeper problem. Five hundred years ago the protestant movement began with the belief they called sola scriptura. That means Scripture alone. They said the Bible is the supreme authority, and the only authority, in religious matters. Why was that so important to them? Because the Roman Catholic Church said they had another source of authority from God, sacred tradition. Protestant reformation leaders like Luther and Calvin argued that the Bible and the Bible alone is authoritative. And yet they made the same mistake that Catholics made. Instead of letting the individual congregations that were part of the movement run their own affairs, they set up their own version of church government. That’s what we’re seeing 500 years later. Instead of just following the Bible, churches are looking to some church official or church board to tell them what to do.
God gave us the Bible so that we can know true doctrine from false doctrine. Second Timothy 3 verses 16 and 17 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If f a teaching goes against the Bible, then it’s wrong and we must reject it. You don’t need some church official to tell you what the truth is, and you don’t determine truth by a vote. Truth comes from God. And when God speaks, the matter is settled.
Thank you for listening to My God and My Neighbor. Stay connected with our podcast on our website and on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever fine podcasts are distributed. Tennessee Bible College, providing Christian education since 1975 in Cookeville, Tennessee, offers undergraduate and graduate programs. Study at your level. Aim higher and get in touch with us today.