Women in Ministry Leadership: Getting Genesis Straight

The practices of the New Testament church arguably speak for themselves. Women were apostles, deacons, prophets, teachers, disciplers, and almost certainly elders and overseers. We don’t always have to know the why or the background to know God’s will. Sometimes it is like the blind man who knew almost no background on Jesus except that he could now see. Women minister in the age of the Spirit. The conversation could stop there.

However, debates relating to women in leadership and ministry often spend some time in Genesis 1-3 discussing God’s design in creation as well as how that design may have been corrupted by the sin of Eve and Adam. What was the original intention for how men and women would relate to each other in the world? How was that intention derailed by the Fall? You will find that those who support women in ministry and leadership typically understand this backstory differently from those who do not. We should be aware that this discussion can be a diversion from the simple fact that God calls women to lead and minister throughout Scripture, which is really the end of debate.

Wesleyans believe that women can serve in any role to which God calls them and that God calls women to every role of leadership and ministry to which he calls men. This position is called egalitarianism. In our interpretation, God created Adam and Eve as co-rulers and co-workers in the Garden. She was a helper not in the sense of a subordinate but as an equal partner with equal authority. Any subordination of the wife to the husband took place as a consequence of the Fall.

And if Galatians 3:28 spiritually undoes “male and female,” then the kingdom of God could in theory even supersede the primordial Garden state. Christian theology talks about the “consummation” of humanity in the kingdom of God, a higher state than the original state of Adam and Eve. In short, the debate doesn’t stand or fall on the interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

Wesleyans believe that God calls women to every role in leadership and ministry to which he calls men and that husbands and wives are equal partners in authority and decision-making in the home. This position is called egalitarianism.

Other traditions hold either that God does not call women to roles of leadership and ministry or that his calling is significantly limited (e.g., just to other women or to subordinate roles). They believe that the husband is the final authority and ultimate decision-maker in the home. This latter perspective especially is called complementarianism.

Other traditions see the wife created from the very beginning to be subordinate in her role to the husband. A century ago, there was little hiding that the woman in this scenario was considered inferior and lesser than the man. In more recent times, this concept has been “cleaned up” a bit to say she has equal value but just a different role, a position known as complementarianism. We are reminded a little of how, in the transition of the Civil Rights Era, the argument was sometimes made that African-Americans were “separate but equal.” It sounds like it doesn’t devalue the other while frequently doing so in practice.

Most complementarians believe either that women should not be leaders or ministers at all or that they can only serve in subordinate roles such as children’s pastors or leaders of women’s groups. Some complementarians say they believe in women in ministry, but what they often mean is subordinate ministries. This is not the Wesleyan perspective. Wesleyans affirm that God calls women to all ministry offices and senior leadership roles.

So what does Genesis 1-3 actually say?

As Pastor Lipscomb indicates, both women and men are created in the image of God. Both are called to oversee the earth. Both are called to be fruitful and multiply.

Then God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image to resemble us so that they may take charge of the fish of the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and all the crawling things on earth.'

God created humanity in God’s own image, in the divine image God created them, male and female God created them.

Genesis 1:26-27, Common English Bible

Some versions translate ‘adam as “man” in 1:26-27, but this is “man” in the generic sense, human. We know this because “male and female” are included in the creation of “the human” in 1:27. “Humanity” is thus a more accurate representation of the meaning of these verses than “man.”

What does God assign to this “humanity” which includes both male and female? He assigns them 1) to be fruitful and multiply. This obviously is not something the male does alone. It is a commission to both sexes.

He commissions them to 2) fill the earth and subdue it. This is a commission to thrive on the earth. It assumes there will be challenges that these humans – male and female – will face. It is not a commission to trash the earth. No, there will be work to do and effort to exert.

There is no hint of hierarchy here. It is a co-mission. Male and female are both created in the image of God. All is good, working the way God intended it to (1:31).

The discussion of how to fit Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 is millenia old. Genesis 1 is a systematic progression from plants to animals to humans. Genesis 2 starts with “the man” then moves to plants then to animals then to the woman. To fit the accounts together, some have suggested that Genesis 1 is more of a general overview or that the creation of Genesis 2 is a more “local” secondary creation in the Garden of Eden.

When Genesis 2 gets to the creation of a woman in 2:22, it bases this creation on a deficiency with the man being alone. He needs help! He is alone and that isn’t good (2:18). He needs a community. He needs a helper (2:18), a partner.

The word for helper is ‘ezer. This is the same word several times in one form or another in relation to God. For example, in Psalm 70:5, the psalmist says that God is his helper using the same exact word. If God is our helper (Ps. 33:20; 115:9-11), then a helper clearly is not inferior or subordinate to the one he or she is helping!

What is the end result of this creation? Eve is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). This certainly sounds like a statement of equality rather than distinctiveness. Similarly, the two become “one flesh,” not a guy with an appendage (2:24). In short, there is no indication here that a woman is limited in scope in any way in her creation.

After Adam and Eve have sinned, God indicates the consequences of their disobedience. For example, they will not get to eat from the Tree of Life and will thus die in their dusty state (3:19). Snakes will become mortal enemies of humans (3:14-15). On a deeper level, Christ the son of Eve will one day crush the Adversary. The ground will not cooperate with the man as he toils the soil.

It is the consequence to the woman that takes center stage in these discussions:

I will make your pregnancy very painful; in pain you will bear children.You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you.

Genesis 3:16, CEB

We should make a couple observations. First, it would be hard to find anyone who would say that men can’t use improved farm equipment to work the soil. In other words, although God may have cursed the ground, no one sees a problem with us using human ingenuity to work to overcome the consequences of the Fall in this regard.

Similarly, the vast majority of Christians have no problem with a woman using the medications and medical improvements of recent years to improve the childbearing process. Christian women regularly receive pain-reducing medications during labor, and most don’t see any theological problem with it.

So why would we treat the consequence of disharmony in the last part of the verse as a directive of the way it must be in marital relationships?

There are varied interpretations of the last statement in 3:16. It seems to point to conflict between men and women. The expression “your desire will be for… but he will rule” is exactly parallel to Genesis 4:7 where sin desires Cain (shuck), but he is told to rule over it (mashal). Based on this context, Genesis 3:16 probably points to a situation where the husband and wife are at odds with each other, and the husband prevails.

Is this the ideal? Obviously not because this is a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin. This is not the situation of the kingdom of God. This is not God’s ideal obviously.

But Christ has provided redemption and salvation from the sin of Eve! And Christ is our peace between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14), between slave and free (Phlm 16), and between husband and wife (Eph. 5:33). It would go completely contrary to the gospel to insist that husbands and wives be at each other’s throats, with the man making sure to dominate!

No, this verse reflects fallen humanity. In the kingdom of God, Jesus says, women will not “be given” to men (Mark 12:25). And what is the Church but the kingdom now on earth to the greatest extent possible? In so far as Christ can empower us to return to harmony between husband and wife, why wouldn’t we? Christ is powerful enough!