AP

Complementarianism or Capitulationism?

‘Oh sister are you licensed to preach? What kind of a church do you belong to anyway, they let women preach in it?’ — John Wayne Rooster Cogburn (1975)

There is a trend in some areas of the reformed church to desire to employ female pastoral staff—even giving them the title of ‘pastor’—to serve alongside the ordained male eldership team. This desire ought to be distinguished from the practice of outright employing female teaching elders (i.e., ordained female pastors) as most in the wider Protestant church are wont to do these days. Those in the wider church practice creative exegetical gymnastics in making 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 include women as ordained pastors. Sure, to be honest, women are included in both epistles, but as part of a reference to the fact that the elder, or overseer, must be a ‘one-woman man’. That is to say, he—the male elder—must only have one wife. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, did not say that women could be elders or overseers otherwise He would have easily included in these texts that a woman must also only have one husband.

The trend in question, however, does not appear to be seeking to take this errant leap of ordaining women, but claim that female pastors can be gainfully employed in a manner where they do not overstep the ‘reformed’ understanding of the Pastoral Epistles. Now, this desire, at first, seems exemplary and responsive to some perceived needs in the church. Evidently, some in reformed churches can comfortably argue for the place of a female ministry worker/pastor provided they clearly distinguish the roles of a female worker from ordained female elders—at least that’s usually the way they frame their argument.               

The question, however, we need to ask ourselves—in the reformed camp—is whether this desire to employ female pastoral workers/pastors is a natural outworking of Complementarianism or, is it a sign of Capitulationism? In other words, have we been led to this position (i.e., the desire for female pastoral staff) by deducing it from Scripture via ‘good and necessary consequence’ or, rather, have we capitulated to the wisdom of the world, societal pressure, self-righteous pragmatism, or the long tentacle of wokeism?

While there are certain elements in the Presbyterian Church of Australia (PCA) that still actively ordain women elders (ruling not teaching), for the most part this practice has ceased following Union (1977 – two years following the ironic John Wayne quote above) because the continuing PCA sought to wash its clothes stained by the taint of liberalism. One look at the Uniting Church today should remind us—and warn us—of what the PCA could be if we were to place the word of man over and above the Word of God.

Some in the reformed camp who might be considering employing a female pastoral worker should not automatically be considered heirs or seekers of a liberal church. No, the discussion is far more nuanced than that. However, they could become precursors of a liberal trajectory given female ordination is usually one giant step for females, but one small step for un-ordained female workers/pastors.

Given that some elements of the PCA still actively ordain female elders—contrary to Scripture, would not the employment of a female pastor—albeit non-ordained—be a kind of ‘I told you so’ by the proponents of female ordination? This generation may be able to distinguish between a female pastor/worker that is not an ordained elder, however, the next generation will inevitably take this role one small step further backwards to the days of Union and female ordination.

It’s no coincidence that the rise of female ordination in the wider Christian Church coincided with the rise of feminism. While one may find some benefits, or lessons, from feminism it cannot be said that overall it was a good thing. That being the case, why do we let it influence the church? Why did the combatant voices of the feminist movement have more sway in the wider church than God’s own voice? It’s the age old ‘did God really say?’ trick. Feminism paved a way for LGBTQIism; which paved a way for Transgenderism—all of which have become normalised in many liberal, female ordaining, churches. Did God really say only suitable men can be pastors? Did God really say that a wife should submit to her husband? Did God really say that homosexuality is a sin? Did God really say that there are only two genders? The answers to these questions depend ultimately on whether we listen to God or listen to man (for the gender-neutral language proponents among us, ‘man’ here is inclusive of woman. We are not as un-inclusive as we are made out to be!).

Complementarianism was an attempt to demonstrate the equal value of both men and women—no doubt a response to feminism—while affirming the complementary roles that they have. That is to say, when operating according to God’s purposes and in their respective roles, mankind really flourishes. In family settings, the man cannot do his job without the vital support of his woman—and vice vera. Thus, nothing should be more affirming of females than complementarianism.

All this said, however, does a commitment to complementarianism require the employing of non-ordained female pastors? Not at all. In fact, I would suggest complementarianism negates the need for female pastoral staff. A humbly led complementarian family, through family worship, submission to God’s Word, and regularly attending to the means of grace is God’s way of providing pastoral care for the entire family—both male and female. After all, the husband is the head of his wife and family (Eph. 5:23) and is the first shepherd under Christ. If the father can care for his wife and daughter pastorally—which is his role—surely the male ordained elder is also able to care for females in the congregation. If the situation requires more assistance, then the husband can reach out to the local pastor.

But what of the broken families and single ladies you ask? Can a male pastor not care for his female flock, I reply? (obviously with purity and in view of safe church practices). Is a man not able to shepherd women? Well, if the role of the husband is to shepherd his family—which is a microcosm of the church—then a male pastor can and should shepherd the female congregants through his preaching and pastoral care. Can a male pastor preach to females but not pastorally care for them? If not, he cannot therefore preach to them either. After all, if we cannot apply truths to women in pastoral care, surely we are also inept at applying these truths from the pulpit. Has feminism so castrated male pastors into the belief that women are indeed from Venus—a long way from Mars—and this difference requires females alone to deal with females? But did not Eve actually come from Adam (1 Cor. 11:8)? They lived in the same garden—not on different planets! Sure, there are differences—both sinful, and complementary. But in His mercy God has ordained how the church is to run to care the flock of God.

Paul did not say to Timothy, ‘Look Timothy you are either too busy or too ignorant to deal with all those women problems. Appoint female workers to aid you in your roles as shepherd.’ No, but what did Paul say to Timothy? ‘Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity’ (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Paul evidently trusted Timothy to teach and rebuke our female flock not just our male. Paul evidently trusted Timothy, through prayer and knowledge of God’s Word, to be able to deal with any issues that came up. Paul would later advise Timothy inclusively, ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

So, maybe the problem is not the Word, because Paul did not restrict Timothy’s work and ministry to men. Maybe the problem today, one which tempts us to consider female pastors, is the fact that our men are poorly selected and, or, poorly trained for the ministry. Maybe they do not have what it takes to care for all in the flock of God. Maybe the problem is not the desire to employ female pastors, maybe the problem is that the males we have do not adequately meet the standards of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, nor do they meet intent of 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Maybe I too am part of that problem. If so, the proper response is not to employ female pastors but to employ and train better qualified, complete and equipped male pastors who can minister with all biblical wisdom and purity.

After all, when there is a tricky situation with our sisters in Christ maybe we need to remind ourselves of how to deal with it according to the word of God, and evidently enough female pastors are not the solution; rather, ‘Older women likewise are to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:3-5). Paul did not imply that in order to do this crucial work the women needed to be employed as pastoral staff. No, this is part and parcel of the priesthood of all believers and the important role given by God to the people of God.

So, let’s not be hasty in the laying on of hands. Let’s rather consider our motives and utilise the practice and teaching of the church that God has handed down to us through Paul.

– Nathan Runham, doctoral student at PTC