The website of author C.L. Wells

Misogyny in Sheep’s Clothing

by Christopher Wells 4/2025

This series of essays on needed reforms in the church would not be complete without addressing the role of women in the church.  There really is no easy way to say it, so I’ll come right out with the truth:  most Christian churches follow a misogynistic doctrine regarding the role of women in the church that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  This false doctrine is harming women and men and limiting the ability of the church to effectively carry the good news about Jesus Christ to a world that desperately needs to experience His great salvation.  As a result of many in church leadership implementing misogynistic doctrine, many women who are called to be leaders and influencers are having their voices and their gifts silenced and are being actively barred from using their God-given gifts to serve God and fulfill their calling in the church.  It is time for the followers of Christ to stand up and demand reform. 

In his book, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, author Philip B. Payne gives a very practical definition to this misogynistic doctrine, whose most prevalent embodiment is in the viewpoint technically referred to as ‘complementarianism’ (Payne, xxiv):

“Complementarians” repeatedly affirm the equality of men and women while denying women equal opportunities for service.  This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s pigs’ mantra:  “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

The negative effects of this false doctrine are deep and far-reaching.  It is beyond the scope of this essay to delve into the finer points of deconstructing the complementarian doctrine or its far-reaching negative effects on women and men alike.  There are many good books that address these points in detail.  One of the best that I’ve read recently is the aforementioned book by Philip B. Payne, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality.  The purpose of this essay is to provide enough food for thought to hopefully spur you on to further individual study on this topic so that you might ultimately be free from the harmful effects of this false doctrine in both your personal life and help to foment change in your local church.

The doctrine of complementarianism effectively removes women from leadership roles and positions of influence in the home, church, and often in society—in all of which they are desperately needed.  By telling women that they cannot lead men, cannot help lead their homes, are junior partners in the marriage relationship, and have no business pursuing a calling or career beyond supporting the calling and career of their husbands, we are all poorer off.  It is spiritual abuse, and it is being perpetrated by the highest levels of leadership in most denominations and churches in existence today.  By educating yourself about the truth of the value and role of women as actually taught in the Bible, you can be set free from the harmful effects of this teaching and be a source of freedom for others.  As our Lord and Savior taught us, “. . . know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32, NASB95).

The Bible does not, itself, encourage misogyny.  However, it was written in an age of rampant misogyny.  As such, there is a consistent reflection in its pages of that misogyny as it existed in the lives and culture of the people who lived during that time—including the lives of many of the people who are followers of God in both the Old and New Testaments.  This, however, should not be construed to be an endorsement by God that we should pattern our lives accordingly.  Slavery is also a consistently present reality in the stories of scripture, yet we clearly understand that slavery is contrary to God’s will and not something God wants us to practice.  In a similar vein, the misogynistic practices of the cultures and people recorded in the Bible do not amount to an endorsement by God of these practices.

If we want to learn how God views women and the roles He has for them, we need to go back to the beginning of creation.   In Genesis 1:26-27, God makes a statement about His human creation that He is about to establish on the earth that reveals His intent about their co-equal status:

[Gen 1:26-27 NASB95] 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

In creating humankind, which included both sexes—male and female, God emphatically states that they are both to rule.  He establishes no hierarchy among His creation and no subordinate order, simply stating that they are co-rulers over all His creation and subservient only to Him.  The word translated as ‘man’ in these verses is translated as ‘Adam’ thirteen times in the King James Version.   Yet, it is clear in this passage that it does not refer to the male sex alone but refers to humankind—including both males and females.  Not only is this intimated when looking at the definition of the Hebrew word translated as ‘man’, it is also clarified in the last verse when God references the same subject, once using the word ‘man’ and again using the phrase, ‘male and female’ to refer to the same creation.  It similar to how God refers to Himself using the word ‘Us’ in one place and ‘He’ in another in the same passage.  Here, God created ‘Adam’, and ‘Adam’ consisted of two halves—one male and one female.  It is only later that one-half of ‘Adam’ was differentiated by name and called ‘Eve.’  Using this form of the word ‘man,’ verse 27 can be re-stated thusly (emphasis mine):

God created Adam in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

It is difficult to describe the mental gymnastics and twisting of this passage that misogynistic complementarians go through in an attempt to explain away the obvious implications of this creation passage.  They take the beautiful equality of creation and somehow expect people to believe this actually establishes a God-ordained hierarchy of men ruling over women.  But a clear reading of the text does no such thing.

A second point I wish to bring to bear on this topic concerns the teaching and ministry of Jesus.  Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, In His interactions with women, He routinely elevated their status far above that which was accorded to them in the misogynistic Jewish culture of His day, often not treating them any differently than He would a man.  He spoke to the woman at the well—which a Jewish man would not dare to do, especially a woman unaccompanied by a male relative (John 4:7-28, NASB95).  He refused to execute a woman guilty of adultery, even though the law demanded her death, choosing instead to spare her life and forgive her sins, speaking tenderly to her in the course of their conversation (John 8:1-11, NASB95).   He allowed a woman to anoint His feet with tears and dry them with her hair, even addressing her directly—something no Jewish leader would have done, not only because the woman was considered a notorious sinner, but because she was female (Luke 7:40-50, NASB95).

Another conspicuous point to be made is that nowhere in the New Testament is it recorded that Jesus ever mentioned or taught on a hierarchy between men and women.  He did not teach about the man supposedly being the head of the home, nor did He teach that women could not hold any spiritual position of leadership that a man could hold.  Some argue that the fact that Jesus selected all men as His disciples proves He supported a male-dominated hierarchy between the sexes, but this is nowhere even hinted at anywhere in the scriptures.  It could well be that He selected only men for more practical reasons.  Jesus and His disciples regularly camped out by themselves and risked encountering thieves, robbers, and other rough characters.  Putting women in such a position could lead to accusations of sexual impropriety as well as put them in physical danger.  Also, the cultures to which the disciples would first take the message of the gospel were almost exclusively patriarchal, and it would have hindered the message they were sent to bring unnecessarily.  But none of these practical considerations and certainly no explicit teaching of Jesus ever indicates He recognized a spiritual hierarchy between the sexes.  In fact, His actions demonstrate an equality that many in the society of that day found scandalous.

One of the most significant indications that Jesus did not recognize or endorse gender-based hierarchy is something He did just after His resurrection from the dead.  The first person Jesus commissions to take the message of His resurrection to others is a woman.  And He sends that woman to deliver this message to a group of people that included His male disciples: 

[Mat 28:1-10 NASB95] 1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” 8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Now, if Jesus didn’t want women preaching or teaching men, why would He specifically send a woman to proclaim the message of His resurrection to a gathering that included His male disciples (a gathering of believers—in other words, a church gathering)?  If it was contrary to God’s will for a woman to preach to men, why would an angel from heaven commission her to do the same?  The answer, of course, is that neither Jesus nor an angel sent by God would tell someone to do something contrary to God’s will.    Unsurprisingly, I have never heard this passage mentioned in the context of gender-based hierarchy by those who promote complementarianism.

The next stop on this mini-tour of Biblical teachings that support equality of the sexes is Ephesians chapter five.  It is notably the single most-often cited passage used to support gender-based hierarchy in the marriage relationship.  It would take an entire essay to adequately address each verse and how this entire passage has been misused and abused by the misogynist camp.  For just such a treatment of this passage, I would direct you to the aforementioned book by Philip Payne, who does an excellent job with the topic.  For now, I simply wish to highlight one section from this passage:

[Eph 5:18-22 NASB95] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, [be subject] to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

In almost every English Bible translation you will find a heading between verses twenty-one and twenty-two, making it appear that one section of scripture has ended and a new one has begun.  Additionally, you will find verse twenty-two translated similarly to the above, with the word ‘subject’ or ‘submit’ printed as part of verse twenty-two.  However, my study indicates that these two editorial choices do not appear in the original Greek and are, in fact, misleading insertions into the English translations.  In the original translation, there is no break between the verses.  Also, the word translated as ‘submit’ or ‘subject’ does not even appear in verse twenty-two.  A more accurate reading of verses twenty-one and twenty-two would be, “. . . and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ—wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

Why is this important?

It is important because in verse twenty-one, Paul is discussing the submission of all believers to all other believers—men to women and women to men—there is no differentiation in the wording or in the preceding verses in this chapter to suggest Paul was speaking only to men.  So the submission of wives to husbands that is mentioned in verse twenty-two that follows is the same type of submission, which does not supersede or eliminate the first instruction.  In other words, Paul is not saying that husbands do not also submit to their wives; he is simply emphasizing the submission of wives to their husbands.  This is a completely different meaning than what complementarians teach concerning this passage, and it is a monumental departure from what is taught in many (if not most) churches.  With this understanding of this passage, a significant blow is dealt to the supposed Biblical support of the male-dominated hierarchy in the home.

By using this phraseology, Paul is very delicately threading the needle between not offending the culture of his day—a blatantly misogynistic one—and yet also emphasizing that in Christ’s kingdom, all believers submit to each other—regardless of their gender.  If Paul had come out blatantly against the submission of wives to husbands, it would have placed an unnecessary obstacle in the way of people accepting the message of the gospel and received widespread societal opposition.  So, instead, immediately after stating that all believers should submit to one another, he re-emphasizes that wives would still be submitting to their husbands in this arrangement, thereby satisfying the cultural requirement demanded by the society of his day. 

The twisting of the obvious message of this passage to indicate that Paul is stating that wives should submit to husbands, but husbands should not also submit to their wives is to contradict the plain reading of verses twenty-one and twenty-two.  Additionally, the complementarian interpretation of this passage contradicts the creation story in Genesis and a host of other Biblical passages indicating God’s view of establishing the equality of the sexes in His kingdom.

The last item I will mention in this essay concerns Paul’s closing comments in the Book of Romans:

[Rom 16:1-2 NASB95] 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.

In the above passage, the word ‘servant’ is the same word translated as ‘deacon’ in the below passage from Philippians.

[Phl 1:1 NASB95] 1 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:

It is obvious from the use of the word meaning ‘deacon’ and including the phrase ‘of the church which is at Cenchrea’ that Paul meant the office of deacon and not merely some other form of servant.  So, Phoebe (a woman) was a deacon in the Cenchrean church, which meant she served in a leadership role helping oversee the church benevolence ministry and other practical matters of running the church.    This would have included her leadership in some capacity over men.  Secondly, Paul entrusted this deacon to deliver what is arguably his most significant theological treatise to another church.  Payne suggests that as such a trusted envoy in those times, Phoebe would have been expected to provide a theological explanation on any passage that the recipient church desired clarification on.  If so, she would have absolutely been teaching men in the process—something many churches strictly forbid as somehow being disallowed.

In closing, in this essay, I have provided numerous examples from the Bible to indicate that God’s original intent for women was that she be a co-ruler with men in the earth.  From the creation story to the teachings of Jesus and His interactions with women, all the way through to the teachings and practice of Paul the Apostle, I have provided evidence that starkly stands out against the common church teaching that women should not be leaders over men in either the home or the church.  I hope that you, dear reader, are more interested in the truth than you are in maintaining the status quo.  I hope that you will, as the scriptures encourage, study to show yourself approved, a person who rightly divides the word of truth, and use this as a call to delve deeper into the Word of God and the many other resources on this topic to further explore the implications of this essay.  It is time to end the un-Biblical subjugation of women in the church.  It is time to empower our sisters, mothers, daughters, and wives to fulfill their God-given destinies to rule alongside the men in helping to establish God’s kingdom on earth.  We cannot accomplish the task without women serving unreservedly in their various callings—including leadership roles—to help bring the full reflection of God’s image into the earth.

Bibliography:

NASB95 – New American Standard Bible.  Retrieved from https://www.blueletterbible.org

Payne, Philip B. (2023). The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality, MI: Zondervan.