Women are attacking the church. Weak men are allowing it to happen.
According to various statistics, in 2025 about 30% of the “pastors” in America were women. That is up from 21% in 2016. In 2009, it was roughly 10%. In the 1990’s just 5% were women, and if we go back to the 1960’s we find about 2.3%. The trend points to a rapid decline in male pastors in our churches. This is a complicated phenomenon, but it is rooted in the rise of feminism and the so-called Women’s Liberation movement across the country. Outside of a few fringe groups, women pastors were relatively unknown until the last 150-200 years.
Clarissa Danforth
She was an itinerant minister in the New England states, having gained official credentials in 1815 from the Free Will Baptist denomination. In 1818, she became the pastor of Chepachet Baptist Church in Rhode Island.
Antoinette Brown Blackwell
In 1851, she received a license to preach at the Congregationalist Church. Her writings are considered to be classified as feminist theology. Her tenure was marked with failure and conflict and so she left the church and became an outspoken women’s rights activist being a participant of the 1850 Women’s Rights Convention leading to the woman’s right to vote in 1920.
Ann Allebach
In Philadelphia, Ann received her credentials from Union Theological Seminary and became ordained in her local church. She was an advocate for female ordination and women’s rights. She preached at Marcy Avenue Baptist Church in Brooklyn, was the first woman pastor in the Reformed tradition at Sunnyside Reformed Church in Long Island(footnotes) and also was ordained in the Mennonite Church1.
Addie Elizabeth Davis
She first worked as the director of education at the First Baptist Church in Elkin North Carolina. After her father passed away, she returned to her birthplace of Covington, Virginia and became the interim pastor at Lone Star Baptist Church. While studying at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, she wrote a paper on women’s ordination. Warren Carr issued her a preacher’s license in 1963, leading to her eventual ordination at the Watt Street Baptist church (the first woman ordained to be a Southern Baptist pastor).2
The pastor of Addie Davis’s Watt Street church as of this writing is Dorisanne Cooper. Under her current leadership the church, “Watts Street Baptist Church is a progressive, inclusive, ecumenical, welcoming and affirming congregation uniting prayer, learning, and social justice in the context of a vibrant community.” Further qualified on their website: ordination of ministers and deacons who are LGBTQ+, hiring staff members who are LGBTQ+, full inclusion of LGBTQ+ members/friends in all aspects of worship, leadership, and volunteer positions, hosting and celebrating weddings of LGBTQ+ members/friends, etc. This is the ravaging consequence of a church opening the Pandora’s Box of women leadership.
Mary Dill Matz
She graduated from Grove City College in 1953. She was a director of Christian Education at the First Presbyterian Church in Athens Ohio and then went on to become the first woman ordained in the Moravian Church in America in 1975. Shortly after that, she served as Assistant Pastor in the Central Moravian Church. Her influence has not gone without notice at this church, as it has two women pastors at the time of this writing. How long until it descends into the abyss of wokeness and cesspool of liberal ideology like the Watt Street church, if it’s not already there?
Feminism and Women’s Lib
The term “feminism” was coined by the French philosopher Charles Fourier in 1837. Karl Marx used to reiterate his famous saying: “the extension of the privileges of women is the principle of all social progress”. Charles Fourier’s ideas that a universe of dualisms needed to be kept in balance. He believed that “suppression of one of a pair of contrasted elements distorted the system entirely and need to be redressed for the correct functioning of the cosmos”. In other words, to Fourier, holding to the biblical roles of men and women is supporting and inequity that would lead to a malfunctioning of the world system. It’s then not surprising that a radical such as Marx would hijack principles of another radical in Fourier.
The phrase “Women’s Liberation” became popularized in the 1960’s by another radical: the atheist, bi-sexual and existentialist, Simone de Beauvoir. Not surprisingly, she was an advocate for the legalization of abortion and free contraception in France. She called for the freeing of three arrested pedophiles. She believed that females were suppressed and argued that feminism had to overcome the idea that ‘one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’. In her book The Second Sex (1949), she attempts to destroy the idea that women are born feminine —that they are constructed to be such through social indoctrination.3
The church couldn’t possibly fall prey to the devouring nature of feminism… could she?
Not only could she, but she has. The relentless attacks on the church by those who question, “Did God really say?” cause a crack so deep in the foundation that the whole structure is compromised. Were it not for Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18), she would certainly be in danger of collapse.
Lest I be accused of male chauvinism, it’s best to evaluate the Biblical record, and ask what did God really say on the matter?
Advocates of women pastors attempt to use the Bible to support their position. And so we examine a few of these first:
Judges 4-5
In the book of Judges, there are cycles where God’s people fall into sin and then they are judged for it. The cycle completes with repentance and a season of obedience, followed by complacency resulting in falling back into sin and disobedience. This pattern repeats itself with all the judges being men… except for one: Deborah.
Flawed conclusion:
Deborah was a judge, so women can be pastors in the church.
Notice what the passage does not say:
Deborah was never a pastor of a church. It’s really that simple. Judging in the Old Testament is never equated with pastoring in the New.
Acts 18:26
[Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
Flawed conclusion:
Priscilla is explaining a more accurate way to Apollos and therefore she is a pastor.
Notice what the passage does not say:
There is nothing in this verse to even remotely suggest that a woman named Priscilla is a pastor. There is nothing about her being an elder or having authority over a man in the context of a church gathering. The passage actually says that Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and clarified some points of doctrine. It is very clear from a straightforward reading of the verse and the surrounding context that there is not one shred of support for the title of Pastor Priscilla.
Acts 21:8-9
On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
Flawed conclusion:
The daughters are prophesying and therefore are pastors.
Notice what the passage does not say:
It does not say that the daughters were pastors! There are no other details on who the daughters were, what they prophesied about, or the location of said prophecy. How then do we automatically assume they were pastors or elders? This assumption is too bold and goes beyond sound principles of interpretation.
Romans 16:1-5
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house.
Flawed conclusion:
Prisca (Priscilla) has a church in her home along with Aquila. Therefore, she is automatically the pastor.
Notice what the passage does not say:
It does not say that Priscilla is the pastor! It simply says she is a fellow worker who as a church that meets in her home. The proponents of women pastors who use this as a proof text for their position reach beyond what the passage actually says. Simple logic exposes the faulty conclusion here.
Colossians 4:15
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Flawed conclusion:
Akin to the Priscilla argument: Nympha has a church in her house, therefore she is the pastor.
Notice what the passage does not say:
Again, it does not say that she is the pastor! The presence of a meeting of the church in her home hardly means she’s a pastor, elder or teacher. In a real life modern example, Don and Jane host a large Bible study twice a month inside their house. To assume Jane is the pastor of the group is absurd.
Saying What the Passage Does Not Say
If we’re inserting our own preconceived notions into a passage as illustrated above, we can make the Bible say anything we want it to say. The technical term for this is eisegesis, which is the interpretive process by which one reads their own ideas and biases into the text. In other words, the person ‘reads into’ the text, rather than ‘reading out of’ the text. Eisegesis is tantamount Biblical vandalism. Flawed conclusions are wrong conclusions.
Flawed Conclusions Are Wrong Conclusions
As mentioned earlier, advocates for women pastors almost always invoke the name of Deborah from the Old Testament book of Judges, holding her up as the proof that women can (and should) be pastors today. The problem with that is that Deborah was never a pastor. She ascended to her role as judge due to the passivity of man. Granted, the scripture says she was a prophetess, but just like the four daughters of Philip, we’re not told exactly what her role included, except that “the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judges 4:5). It says she was involved in “judging”, not that she was leading a congregation of New Testament believers. Judging in Israel is quite different than pastoring in the early church; a fact that should put a spike in the very forehead of the Deborah argument. Rather than strong-arming her into to being the cheerleader for female pastors, it’s better to err on the side of caution and leave her out of our pro-women argumentation.
Twisting What the Passage Says
To add to the passages already mentioned, a common twisting of scripture is from the third chapter Galatians. Verse 28 is often pulled out of context: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. This verse often gets wrestled to the ground and improperly used to assert that women are as qualified to do any work in the church that a man can do. The Bible, however, is not a lump of malleable dough that we roll into a pretzel to satisfy our insatiable appetite for equality. We do not make the Bible submit to our demands, rather we study it, obey it and let it shape us according to God’s purposes. Doing this requires the hard work of diligence.
A careful reading of this chapter in Galatians reveals the true meaning of the oft-misused verse 28 in it’s fuller context, namely that the law could never save anyone but rather it is a tutor to lead us to Christ — there’s no distinction as to who this applies to! It’s not Jew vs. Greek or slave vs. free. Neither is it male vs. female. Anyone who belongs to Christ, regardless of their station in life, is an heir according to God’s promises. How this passage is ever used to explain the rationale for female pastors can only be explained by the practice of improper hermeneutics — the twisting of scripture to say what it does not say. Whether this is unwitting or not, God has not given us permission to interpret His very words wrongly, as 1 Timothy 2:15 and James 3:1 warns.
Order Matters
Imagine for a moment that the passages from Acts, Romans, Galatians and Colossians really are referencing women pastors. And then Paul comes along in the pastoral epistles and says things like “I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” and elders are to be the “husband of one wife”. What do we make of this?
Paul’s letters often contained correctives to wrong church practices. As such, it’s not hard to unravel when we consider when each of these passages were written.
- Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians immediately following the Jerusalem Council, so it is dated around 49-50 A.D.
- He wrote Romans during his third missionary journey, around 56 A.D.
- Both the book of Acts by Luke and the letter to the Colossian church were written between 60-62 A.D.
- The pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus were penned by Paul between 62-64 A.D.
The order of these events matter significantly. It is probable that Paul was writing to correct improper practices in the local church. If a pattern was emerging in Galatia, Rome and Colossae, then it is likely that Paul was boldly addressing the issue by his statements in the pastorals. When he said, “I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”, it likely wasn’t a hypothetical, but rather addressing real life situations.
Paul’s teaching here is just as valid today as the day he said it. That we rationalize “there are many gifted women communicators” or “there are no men in [whatever church or missionary context], so a woman is better than nothing at all” simply reveals what we think of Paul’s clear instruction. We have to ask again, “Did God really say?” Are our ideas to fill in ministry gaps better than God’s clear commands? Our view of scripture as it pertains to leadership matters… and our resulting actions answer this question unequivocally.
The Passivity of Adam in the Garden
Paul’s tells us explicitly that males are to be the leaders in the church. And he tells us the reason why: it is rooted in the order of creation. A careful and straightforward reading of the creation of man and his fall into sin clarifies important points regarding male headship.
When God gave the command that there was a certain tree in the garden of Eden that he was not to eat from (Genesis 2:16-17), the woman was not even created yet. God gave this command to the only person on the planet: a man, whose name was Adam. Consequently, he would be responsible for teaching God’s word to his soon-to-be bride. This heavily implies that God gave him the authority that goes along with headship. This is why the Apostle Paul is able to unashamedly write, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet”. Why? Not because of some cultural bias at the time. Not because of some prejudice in Paul’s heart. Paul appeals to the created order and the events of the fall4 when he says, “for it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14).
God created the woman from Adam’s side to be a suitable helper for him (Genesis 2:18-24). There is nothing here to indicate that the woman is subservient or unequal in value as a human being. Neither is Paul being chauvinistic with his view of male/female roles. The fact is, biblically, God’s plan has always been for men to be the heads of their families and the leaders in their churches. Reformed author and theologian Joel Beeke observes from the scriptures, “God chose men to be the primary teachers and rulers of Israel. All of the priests were men; there were no priestesses in Israel. All rightful monarchs in Israel were men.” He goes on to say that Christ “selected only men to serve as his apostles (Matt. 10:1-4). When others were added to the apostolic office, such as Matthias, James, and Paul, they too were all men (Acts 1:26; Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:19).5
Continuing through the narrative in Genesis, we come to the moment where the woman is approached by the serpent and convinced to eat from the tree that God had forbidden when he questions God’s word, “Did God really say?”. Where was her husband and protector? Where was her leader and teacher? The Bible says he was right there with her (3:6). Like so many passive men today, he had quickly abdicated his God-given role. In fact, by not stepping in, it appears he was willing to let the person in his care and under his authority die in her disobedience.
Adam: Our Federal Head
If the woman ate the fruit first, then why do we always refer to the sin of Adam?
– “Through one man sin entered the world…” – Romans 5:12
– “Adam’s transgression…” – Romans 5:14
– “For as in Adam all die…” – 1 Corinthians 15:22
The reason should be obvious: Adam was the head of the family. The buck stops with him. Being the first human and first man, he was designated by God as the representative of the whole human race. His disobedience as the head of all mankind caused the guilt of his sin to be passed on to his descendants. Louis Berkhof states that the guilt of Adam’s sin “is placed to [our] account, so that [we] are all liable to the punishment of death. It is primarily in that sense that Adam’s sin is the sin of all”.6 Adam, not the woman, represents us all. He is, according to A.W. Pink, “the legal representative of all his posterity”7, not the woman.
Playing Right Into the Curse
God responded to the sin in the garden by pronouncing curses upon the parties involved. Paraphrasing the curses from Genesis 3:
- To the serpent: “You will eat dust as you go about on your belly, and someday when you attempt to hurt the coming Savior, He will crush your head”.
- To the man: “You will labor and toil and sweat for your food. Thorns and thistles will grow in the now-cursed ground. And your body will die and turn to dust.”
- To the woman: “Your pain in childbirth will be multiplied and you will desire to rule over your husband”.
Imagine, the desire to rule over her husband is a curse? James Montgomery Boice describes it like this: “The woman will experience multiplied pain in childbirth (and ultimately passed down to every woman afterwards). She will ‘desire’ (or try to usurp) the leadership role in the family, but he will still rule over her (3:16). But this ‘rule’ is more of a harsh dominion and subjugation situation that was never intended for a husband/wife, leader/helper relationship. God’s order for the family unit has been disrupted from the very beginning, because of sin and the resulting curse.”8
Susan Foh writes, “The woman has the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain, a desire to possess or control him. This desire disputes the headship of the husband. As the Lord tells Cain what he should do, i.e., master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband should do, rule over his wife. The words of the Lord in Genesis 3:16b, as in the case of the battle between sin and Cain, do not determine the victor of the conflict between husband and wife. These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman’s desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship), and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination.”9
Adam’s sin consists in part in being led by his wife rather than leading her (Genesis 3:17). Just like he stood idly by and allowed the woman to take hold of the fruit and eat… without much concern over whether or not she would actually die, so the men stand idle, hovering in the background as women ascend into the pulpit… without much concern. Will she die?
The gates of hell are pushing hard against the church… God, save us from this attack.
- https://www.sunnysidereformedchurch.org/church-history
https://www.sunnysidereformedchurch.org/detailed-history
https://mosaicmennonites.org/2021/03/11/a-woman-parson-who-really-ministers
↩︎ - https://wattsstreet.org/welcome/about-us/a-brief-history/ ↩︎
- https://blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk/philosophy/2015/11/28/feminism/ ↩︎
- Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Crossway, Wheaton IL, 2017, p. 764 ↩︎
- Essentials of Reformed Systematic Theology, Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Crossway, Wheaton IL 2025, p. 727 ↩︎
- Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle PA, 2021, p. 218 ↩︎
- https://www.monergism.com/adam-and-federal-headship ↩︎
- Genesis, An Expositional Commentary Volume 1 Genesis 1:1-11:32, James Montgomery Boice, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p. 179 ↩︎
- Susan T. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?”, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 37, Spring, 1975, pp. 376-83. Quotation from pages 381, 382. ↩︎
Establish my footsteps in Your Word ~ Psalm 119:133 