Women and Church Leadership by E.Margaret Howe,
a Zondervan Publication, 1982, pp.227-239.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

The Church is an ancient institution, and changes in its structure tend to come about slowly. At this present time, however, there is in many churches an openness to change and a desire to develop leadership models which will enhance the effectiveness of the Christian mission. There is a renewed interest in searching out the origins of Christian worship, and keen analysis is being made of the significance of historical development in the formation of church structure. Many churches have demonstrated a willingness to initiate change and to establish new organizational patterns. Reflection on some of the key issues may stimulate others to thought and action.

The Servant Model

The structure of the institutional church communicates a message to the world as surely as does its congregational worship, and that message ought to be consistent with the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The leadership model presented by Jesus to his disciples emphasized the significance of service. He discouraged the use of tides of honor and stressed the importance of humility: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:25-26). This disposition was exemplified by Jesus as he led the community from which the church was born: “The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45). The title “minister” (servant) is thus a natural title to use for a church leader. The sphere of ministerial service is threefold—the minister is a servant of God, a servant of other Christians, and a servant of men and women outside the Christian community. The New Testament documents present Jesus as one who “ministered” in all of these dimensions.

First, as a servant of God, the minister is required to maintain a lifestyle in accordance with God’s design. The Hebrew psalmist expressed the sentiment in these words: “O Lord . . . who shall dwell on thy holy hill? He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart” (Ps. 15:1-2). When Jesus assumed the form of a servant, his act entailed obedience to God (Phil. 2:6-8). The church leader must come to terms with the fact that servanthood demands allegiance and obedience to God. Next, as a servant of other Christians, the minister finds that his or her responsibilities are analogous to those of a parent. The minister is exhorted to provide the Christian community with spiritual sustenance (1 Peter 5:2), to guard the spiritual life of each member (Heb. 13:17), and to set an example of what it means to live as a Christian (1 Tim. 4:12). Finally, as a servant of men and women outside the Christian community, the minister must command respect (1 Tim. 3:7). He or she must have the ability to present the Christian faith in a reasonable manner and to handle the opinions of others with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:25).

In what sense does a minister serve a congregation? There are some who imagine that a minister must be ready to “fetch and carry” at all times for all people. Of course there will be times when the help of a minister is needed for unusually long and late hours, and to this extent a minister’s schedule will often be unpredictable. But this is not all that is involved in service. Similar demands may be placed on a church secretary or a church janitor from time to time.

Servanthood may best be defined as a particular attitude with which the minister approaches his or her profession. Humility is a leadership virtue much praised in the Scriptures. A minister should cultivate an attitude of humility in relation to God and in relation to people. It is not enough for this to be assumed: it must be demonstrated.

Humility before God will be evident in the way a minister prays. Prayer is the warm expression of a growing and developing relationship between God and the one who prays. In audible prayer the minister reveals to others aspects of his or her own experience of God. This serves a double purpose—it presents the congregation with insight into a minister’s true consciousness of the presence and person of God, and it serves as an example of personal communication with God which may be emulated by the congregation. The ministerial profession offers a natural outlet for prayer of this nature. Sessions of congregational worship usually allow time for prayer, and the prayers offered by the minister on such occasions reveal the minister’s own spiritual depth. But perhaps more important are the times when the minister prays in less formal settings. Prayers offered in the presence of the church staff when church business is being conducted; prayers offered at mealtimes when the members of the church family eat together; prayers offered during counseling sessions or when the minister is visiting in the homes of members of the congregation—all of these reveal to others the attitude with which ministry is undertaken. As a child’s attitude may be judged by the way in which the child addresses a parent, so a minister’s attitude may be judged when the minister is “overheard” conversing with God.

Humility in relation to people will be evident in the way a minister conducts church affairs. An attitude of humility is sensed in the minister who permits members of a congregation to interact as equals and to serve the church with dignity. The minister who has cultivated this virtue will never trample people underfoot in order to achieve his or her goals or in order to ascend the hierarchical ladder. Humility precludes treating others as though their opinions are of little worth. Rather, the humble person is eager to hear the opinions of others and to integrate them into his or her own thinking. The humble person will give others credit for their insights and achievements and will not absorb the reflected glory as though it belonged to the leader alone.

A minister’s attitudes surface readily and are usually noted by members of the congregation. They will elicit praise or censure, expressed or unexpressed. A minister’s actions are weighed by observant onlookers, and as one who has accepted the role of being an example to others, a minister must not begrudge the fact that his or her life is carefully observed. A congregation which finances a full-time minister has the right to evaluate whether or not the minister is adequately fulfilling the assigned role. Certainly this is not to advocate constant personal appraisal and criticism, but it does draw attention to the fact that humility must be as much a way of life as it is a virtuous attitude. Humility is demonstrated in a personal lifestyle that is not ostentatious. A minister’s dress, car, and home are significant indicators. A servant generally assumes a lifestyle somewhat less luxurious than that of those who are served. This would speak well in the affluent materialistic society of the Western world, but even more so in countries where there is greater material need. The minister needs balance and perspective in this area.

How can this servant model be reconciled with the biblical teaching that honor should be accorded spiritual leaders (1 Tim. 5:17)? Does this “honor” demand the “enthronement” of the minister, in the sense that he or she should be provided for lavishly? Unhappily, this has sometimes been the case. The higher a person ascends up the administrative hierarchy of the church, the more adulation that person receives—sometimes in the form of higher salaries and sometimes in the form of more lavish vestments and more elegant living accommodations. This is often justified by the argument that the living accommodations actually belong to the church, not to the individual. While this may be true, they nevertheless bestow social status and a living environment which is the envy of the majority of the working people of the world. Does this adequately portray the servant model? Certainly the Christian is exhorted to give “respect to whom respect is due” (Rom. 13:7), but has the church mistaken one form of respect for another?

How is the servanthood model affected by the hierarchical organization of many churches? A system in which appointments are made from the top of the hierarchy downward creates problems and is a cause of great unease. Instead of leaders being people of spiritual worth recognized and appointed by their peers, they are people who have been enabled to climb the ladder of promotion. Chance factors, such as those of race or sex, may feature heavily in promotion decisions. An elitist group may thus perpetuate itself by appointing to high positions only those who will ensure the continuance of the system unchanged, whether or not this system is adequately serving the needs of the church.

The servant model seems to be the dominant leadership model presented in the New Testament documents. But the spiritual leader is not without authority. In the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, the Christian leader is to “convince, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2), and congregations are instructed to “obey [their] leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17). How can such authority be exercised by one who is assuming the role of a servant? One might respond that such authority can be effectively exercised only by one who is assuming the role of a servant. When a congregation perceives in its minister a life of humble devotion to God and selfless commitment to people, then it will be ready to respond with respect and an attitude of obedience. But probably not until then.

Diversity in Ministry

Just as people differ from one another, so church structures differ from one another. It would be a mistake to insist on only one pattern of church leadership. Perhaps in the past churches have erred in this respect—they have allowed tradition to dictate the norm and have then resisted any deviation from this. The Roman Catholic church has limited itself to celibate male leadership; Protestant churches have largely limited themselves to married male leadership. Both are impoverished as a result. The early church evidently found richness in diversity, and the time has come for the present-day church to rediscover this wealth.

Christians meeting in community have many options in establishing leadership patterns. They may appoint one leader, who may be single or married, a man or a woman. Or they may choose to appoint a team of leaders, consisting of a husband and wife, or of an unrelated man and woman, or of two people of the same sex. The team may consist of co-leaders having equal responsibilities, or of a senior and junior partner. If necessity dictates, the team may consist of more than two members. The persons appointed to leadership may be salaried or unpaid. No matter what options are chosen, the leaders bring to the task of ministry those gifts with which they have been endowed by the Holy Spirit.

In the past, Protestant churches have strongly resisted the appointment of unmarried people as ministers. The situation is now changing. By placing single men and women in leadership positions, the Protestant church is once more affirming the value of celibacy. The church needs to recognize that the way of life chosen by these people should be openly held in honor, just as the married lifestyle has been honored in the past. Certainly sexual purity should be expected—fornication and adultery both fall short of the biblical ethical standard. But attitudes of suspicion directed toward single people should not be countenanced.

In the past, churches were strongly geared to the family unit. It was assumed that the majority of young people would marry and raise a family. But social structures are changing. Increasingly large numbers of people choose not to marry or not to raise a family. The church must therefore rethink its values and its strategy. The “singles’ fellowship” no longer caters to a few people who happen not to be married. Its members are now found to be in the mainstream of the church’s life. Divorced and widowed people are included in this group. Unmarried church leaders, therefore, serve as role models for a rising percentage of people in any church congregation. When the youth of the church are included in the assessment, it may be found that the single minister finds natural rapport with a larger section of the congregation than does the married minister.

As Protestant churches begin to appoint unmarried ministers, they should be careful not to overlook their special needs. In this respect much may be learned from the Roman Catholic tradition. The Roman Catholic church recognizes that a person who chooses a celibate lifestyle is particularly in need of a supportive community and a network of personal friendships. This is provided for such people. It may take the form of living accommodations shared by a small group of priests, with housekeeping duties provided at the expense of the church. Retreat centers around the country or overseas provide these church leaders with an environment in which they may relax and form new friendships. These are, of course, geared to the needs of single males. The Protestant church must provide realistically for the needs of both male and female single ministers. In addition, care should be taken to see that single ministers are not placed in isolated geographical areas. They do not take with them a supportive family unit, and they will find it difficult to develop friendships in such areas.

The possibilities of team ministry are also being widely recognized in churches across the United States. This is in itself a recognition of the value of diversity in leadership. Increasingly large numbers of married couples are entering the ministry as co-pastors and are working efficiently and effectively in local churches. Probably this represents the ideal of church leadership—with man and woman complementing one another in this role and thus more perfectly representing the image of God. It is not, of course, necessary for the team to be a married couple. It may be more convenient and less expensive if they are married, but there is no reason why a team might not consist of any two ordained persons. If men and women work side by side in business organizations, how much more should they be seen working side by side in the church! The fear expressed by some is more an admission of weakness or of jealousy than it is a rational objection to the principle. If a man and a woman cannot work side by side in a church leadership context without unlawful indulgence of passion, where can they work side by side? The church leadership situation directs attention toward a wide variety of people and of activities—a situation that may be most effectively met by diversity in the leaders.

Spiritual Gifts and Seminary Training

The New Testament indicates clearly that every Christian is endowed by the Holy Spirit with particular spiritual gifts. These are diverse in nature, but all have a common goal—to edify or build up the body of Christ, the church. Some of these gifts equip a person for leadership positions: Paul states that God has placed within the church such people as apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Cor. 12:28). Members of the church in Rome were encouraged to put these gifts to use, not let them lie dormant (Rom. 12:6-8). Timothy, a young church leader in Ephesus, was exhorted not to neglect his spiritual gifts, but to develop them (1 Tim. 4:14-15). In practical terms, church congregations have a role to play in identifying spiritual gifts and in encouraging their development. This is particularly true when leadership gifts are under consideration. Discernment is necessary in this area.

Characteristically, Protestant churches have identified the gift of preaching as being a most significant gift. But not everyone who has the ability to stand up and address a group of people is called to be a preacher. In pioneer days when the preaching was often conducted out-of-doors and before large crowds of people, it was necessary for the preacher to have a loud voice and decisive gestures in order to communicate the message. Even today there are people who assess a person’s “call to ministry” by such criteria. The significant issue, however, is not the manner in which the communication takes place but the content of the message communicated. Church members are edified only insofar as the message communicated rightly represents the mind of God as expressed in Scripture. Certainly the preacher must also have the ability to express ideas in a clear and intelligible manner, but that in itself is not enough. Common experience over many years has been that church leadership is a calling which requires a multiplicity of skills. Some of these may be natural abilities; some may be abilities which surface when a person becomes a Christian; and some may be acquired only through long hours of study, training, or experience.

Of these skills, one of the most important is a knowledge of the Scriptures and an ability to interpret these in a meaningful way. Training in biblical exegesis, therefore, will always be an important part of the seminary program. It is essential that church leaders should have the ability of “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). In this respect, above all others, congregations need able leadership.

There is, however, a sense in which biblical exegesis is a means to an end. An objective understanding of scriptural teachings is a matter of the mind only. An effective church leader moves the congregation from mental assent to practical application. The Christian faith demands both understanding and action. The minister must be able to so apply the biblical message that it results in changed attitudes and lives. He or she must be trained to be alert to the everyday life situation of a congregation—its needs, its joys, its problems, its choices, its challenges. If the Christian faith has meaning at all, it is to be found in the ebb and flow of family life and factory life and professional life; in the next-door neighbor who stands in need of the redemptive act of God, for it is before that neighbor that the Christian life is lived. What principles govern the normative life of the Christian, and what spiritual energies are available to aid in the application of these principles? Unless exegetical exposition of Scripture is accompanied by practical application, it may be empty and ineffective.

But the church leader is required to do more than preach to the non-Christian and teach the Christian. The way many churches are organized, the minister must also exercise professional business skills. The minister must make decisions concerning finances— such as the purchase of church property and equipment and the placing of investments. The minister must delegate responsibilities for the daily running of the church, secretarial duties, program planning, and the operation of committees. Behind the so-called “spiritual ministry” of the church is an organizational structure that can only operate effectively with the exercise of administrative skills. It is naive to assume that a minister is responsible only for “spiritual leadership”; most will find themselves committed to much more than this.

Professional ministry requires wide-ranging knowledge and ability. To what extent is the seminary preparing men and women for such professional performance? Many seminarians have found that their training gave them a love for ancient languages and an ability to handle library research projects but did not equip them for the “real-life” situations encountered in churches. The seminary classroom readily addresses homiletical problems and the mechanics of preaching, but the psychology of interpersonal relationships and methods of handling conflict must often be figured out later by the minister when he or she is alone and in a field situation. Some seminarians find that the seminary is silent on current social and personal issues—issues that are prominent in the churches to which they are appointed. Such matters as how to handle interracial problems within a congregation, how to counsel effectively when faced with a wide spectrum of problems relating to sexuality, and how to deal with inner conflicts and tensions were never touched on during the years of seminary training. Some argue that the task of the seminary is to give a broad-based educational foundation on which the seminarian may build when appointed to a church and faced with practical situations. Others respond that no other sphere of professional training would be so narrowly defined. Do medical doctors learn only chemistry and biology, or do they learn also how to treat patients? These are issues with which seminaries must grapple.

An alternative response is to face realistically the possibility of more specialization in the field of ministry. To some extent this has taken place over the years with churches appointing a minister of education, a minister of music, a minister of youth, and a minister of recreation in addition to the position of senior minister. There is, however, another possibility for the division of duties. Perhaps it is too much to expect any one person to acquire all of the skills presently required of a minister. Instead, church leaders might become specialists in a particular area and might serve a number of churches in this one capacity. For example, one person might serve as theologian, one as business administrator, one as counselor, and one as evangelist. In this way each would contribute only those skills or abilities in which he or she excels.

This specialization would be a more realistic reflection of the New Testament teaching that spiritual gifts are distributed widely among Christians. In fact, Scripture teaches that no one Christian may claim that he or she possesses all of the leadership gifts (1 Cor. 12:28-30). The effect of this individual “incompleteness” is to draw the church together for mutual sharing of abilities and thus to create healthy interdependence. A sharing of the leadership function in any given church would create a model for each member of the church body to emulate. It would help to protect the church from the polarization of “priest” and “laity,” of “minister” and “congregation.” It would enable Christians to understand more clearly that they are the body of Christ and that the leader they appoint is simply one who serves them.

Conclusion

This book has addressed issues relating to women and church leadership. A study of Jewish and early Christian models has been made in an attempt to trace the reasons why women have for centuries been excluded from positions of prestige and influence in the church. In identifying these reasons, discussion has ranged over the development of the concept of the church leader as a priest, the gradual introduction of rules requiring church leaders to be celibate, and the widespread practice of appointing a full-time paid minister to a church. It has been shown that once this pattern was established, it became self-perpetuating, and women were excluded from leadership on the basis of longstanding tradition.

That this is not the only viable model of church leadership has been established by redirecting attention to Scripture and by identifying the subtle and sometimes unwholesome influences which fashioned the course of history. Recommendations have been made not only for the inclusion of women in professional church ministry but also for more far-reaching changes in the patterns of church leadership. Here the author’s task is finished and the reader’s task begins.