In the public sphere, for example in online publications and on social media, one sees two extremes regarding women in the church generally: let us call the first the “make me a sammich” crowd.1 This is the online face of the patriarchalist movement. This view is the mirror of and reaction to the second: the evangelical egalitarians. The former argues that females are subordinate to males in their being and in their roles in every sphere of society. For the patriarchalists, females are said to derive their being and significance from males. In some cases, their patriarchalism is either derived from (or more likely read back into) the Trinity in the form of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son. The egalitarians, on the other hand, seek to eliminate distinctions in roles in the same spheres. Both movements are largely culturally driven, which is reflected in the quality of their biblical exegesis and systematic theology.
Recently, however, the uglier side of the online patriarchalist movement reared its head in response to a social media post by my alma mater (and my employer). The seminary published a photo of some recent female seminary graduates and congratulated them on their accomplishment. Sadly, most of the comments below the original post were misogynistic, ill-informed, and shocking in their ungodliness. Virtually all of these profiles in masculine courage were anonymous.
Nevertheless, because people will see such comments and some might be influenced by them, and because I continue to hope that at least some of those who say these things might still be secretly open to rethinking their position, I want to defend the righteousness of females attending seminary and engaging in theological studies. My thesis is that there is a biblical middle ground between the “make me a sammich” crowd and the evangelical egalitarians.
One Bad Premise Spoils A Whole Argument
First, let us clear away some confusion about what seminaries do. Several respondents to the social media post objected to female seminary students on the ground that seminaries are only for educating future pastors. The argument is thus:
- Seminaries are solely for educating future pastors.
- Females are biblically disqualified from pastoral ministry.
- Therefore females are ineligible to attend seminary.
The middle (minor) premise is true but the major (first) premise is false and therefore the conclusion is false.2 Most seminaries, including mine, offer Master of Arts (MA) degrees that are not intended for ministerial students. Some MA graduates go on to become writers, some go to the missions field in various non-ministerial capacities, some work as Bible translators, some male MA students are preparing to become ruling elders, both males and females take the MA in order to teach in high schools, others study for for personal enrichment, or as preparation for further studies.
As it happens, however, the seminary that published the social media post which set off the patriarchalists, exists primarily to educate future pastors. As a matter of principle and fact, the seminary does not enroll females in the ministerial studies degree (Master of Divinity). By conviction, the denominations served by the seminary do not ordain females to the pastoral or ruling elder offices.
The principal reason the seminary was established was to educate future pastors and thus about 70% of the students are enrolled in the Master of Divinity degree with the intent of presenting themselves as candidates for pastoral ministry, and most of those are headed for the ministry in the churches in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. This means that the vast majority of the more than 1,000 graduates have been men headed for pastoral ministry.
When I enrolled in seminary in the early-mid 1980s, there was a Master of Arts in Religion (MAR) degree. Since that time, however, the MAR degree has been replaced by three MA degrees: the Master of Arts in Theological Studies, the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies, and the Master of Arts in Historical Theology. As it happens, I was a student when (to the best of my knowledge) the first female student enrolled in the MA program. She was an excellent student. Since that time, the seminary has enrolled a number of female students in the MA programs, and those students have gone on to do useful work in the academy and in other areas. They have made notable contributions to the life of the seminary and beyond.
What God’s Word Says
If the evangelical egalitarians will not be limited by the unambiguous teaching of God’s Word (e.g., 1 Tim 2:12), the “sammich” crowd simply ignores those parts of Scripture that describe the active and important role that females play in the church, both formally and informally.
Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2) is perhaps the most visible female serving the visible church. We need not answer the question whether she was ordained to the diaconal office to pay attention to what we can see plainly on the face of Scripture. Whereas the “sammich” demanding patriarchalists would tell her to stay in the kitchen, the Apostle Paul commends (συνίστημι) her to the congregation at Rome. He commended her as “our sister, being also a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Paul did not tell the congregation in Rome exactly what her role was in Cenchrea but he did tell the congregation (composed of both males and females) to “welcome her” (προσδέξησθε) and he tells them how they are to welcome her: 1) “in the Lord” (i.e., as a fellow believer) and 2) worthily (ἀξίως) of the saints. Further, they are to place at her disposal (παραστῆτε) whatever financial resources (χρῄζῃ) she might need to accomplish the task (πράγματι) that the Apostle Paul has given to her. She was evidently a person of means (προστάτις) who has helped many, Paul among them.
We should also notice the prominence of females among those whom Paul greeted in Romans 16, for example, Priscilla (Rom 16:3). She is notable along with her husband, Aquila, for helping Apollos to understand the history of redemption in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the types and shadows (Acts 18:26). If, as some believe, Apollos wrote Hebrews, then Priscilla’s contribution to the life of the church has been mighty indeed.3 Paul also singles out a certain Mary (not the mother of our Lord; Rom 16:6), Junia (Rom 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom 16:12), whom Paul calls “laborers in the Lord” (κοπιώσας ἐν κυρίῳ). He mentions a certain “beloved Persis” (Rom 16:12) who also “labored much in the Lord” (πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν ἐν κυρίῳ). He greets Rufus’ mother (Rom 16:13), and mentions another Julia and the sister of Nereus among others.
Paul’s recognition of the significant service by women in the church is part of a pattern. Consider Paul’s expression “coworkers of God” (θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; Col 4:11; Philemon 24). In 1 Corinthians 3 he applied that expression to Apollos and explained that both Apollos and he were coworkers of the Lord. So, we can see that this is an elevated title.
In that light, consider what Paul wrote about Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–4).4 Though it might be tempting to pass over this passage, if we do we might be missing the very reason Paul wrote Philippians.5 In Acts 16:12 we read of Paul’s arrival to Philippi, “a leading city of the district of Macedonia and Roman colony.” On the Jewish Sabbath, he went “outside the gate to the riverside” where he thought he might find some people at prayer. He did. He found “the women who had gathered” (Acts 16:13). One of them was Lydia, a businesswoman from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). As you will remember, she was converted, and she with her whole extended household were baptized (Acts 16:15). She was the same sort of patroness as Phoebe. She had a house large enough to host a congregation. Evidently, among those at the river that day were Euodia and Syntyche and now, as Paul writes Philippians, the two women, founding members of the church, are at odds. In Philippians 4:1 he begs Euodia and Syntyche “to think the same things in the Lord.”6 Who were these women? They “had struggled together in the gospel” or perhaps “contended together in the gospel” (συνήθλησάν) with Paul “and with Clement and and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are are in the book of life” (Phil 4:3). If Paul does not quite call Euodia and Syntyche coworkers in the Lord, he classes them right next to the coworkers.
When we pay attention to what female Christians were doing in the New Testament church we do not see what the evangelical egalitarians imagine. We do not see them acting as ministers, ruling elders, or deacons but, contrary to the patriarchalist approach, we do see them actively serving the Lord in significant ways such that they are either called “coworkers in the Lord” or classed next to them. Their service was sometimes so important that Paul required the congregation to help them with their service, whatever it was.
If women could help to found congregations, if they could be delegated by Paul and called “co-workers in the Lord,” and help members of the apostolic company to understand Scripture, then it is hard to understand how anyone could say that females may not learn Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, biblical theology, historical theology, and church history with a view to being of use to the church in a variety of modes of unordained Christian service. Do we have too many highly educated females in confessional Reformed churches making videos for other women or writing VBS and other Christian education curricula? Do we not need theologically educated teachers and administrators for Christian schools or do we not need theologically educated females to write and edit books and articles? Certainly we do. We also need theologically educated females to help with Bible translation, missions, counseling, and many other worthy modes of service.
The culture wars we will always have with us. In the church, however, our task is to seek to bring our thinking into submission to God’s holy, inerrant, infallible Word and not the bring the Word into submission to our cultural or political positions. Here it is necessary to distinguish between nature (creation) and grace (redemption). The church is not a subset of the culture. It is the embassy of the Kingdom of God. The culture is not semi-eschatological (heavenly), but the visible church is. It is headed for the city whose maker and builder is God (Heb 11:10). We are not the prisoners of our culture now any more than Paul, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche were prisoners of their culture.
Notes
- This is the shorthand expression they use, “make me a sammich,” for “make me a sandwich.” It means that females should restrict themselves utterly to domestic duties.
- For more on women in the church see our resources page.
- On the authorship of Hebrews, Calvin wrote: “Moreover, as to its author, we need not be very solicitous. Some think the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome relates; yet Eusebius, in his sixth book of his Church History, mentions only Luke and Clement. I well know that in the time of Chrysostom it was everywhere classed by the Greeks among the Pauline Epistles; but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were nearest to the times of the Apostles. I, indeed, can adduce no reason to shew that Paul was its author; for they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then, did he mention the name of Timothy? as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner of teaching, and the style, sufficiently shew that Paul was not the author; and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is said of the practice of catechising in the sixth chapter, does not well suit the time or age of Paul. There are other things which we shall notice in their proper places.” John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), xxvi–xxvii. We cannot know with certainty, of course, that Apollos wrote Hebrews, but he seems to fit the profile of the sort of person who did.
- My translations, unless otherwise indicated.
- I intend to explain this more fully in a forthcoming podcast series, but the actual purpose of Philippians was to address the upset caused in the congregation by the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche. If the dispute was the influence of the Judaizing doctrine of salvation, then we have an explanation in chapters 2–4, which the thank-you note theory does not offer.
- The echoes of chapter 2 are unmistakable.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›