Women in church leadership can be a contentious issue among Christians, frequently prompting vigorous discussion. Male headship in the church often lies at the heart of the debate. Let’s explore the origin of the idea and its implications for the life of the church.
Although the phrase “male headship” is not found in the New Testament, it finds its roots in a particular interpretation of two primary New Testament passages, 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:22, which establish the man/husband as head of the woman/wife. Because the apostle Paul does not provide a comprehensive explanation of what it means to be the “head” as applied to Christ or husbands, various culturally influenced meanings have been ascribed to the idea throughout Christian history. Most commonly, it has been assumed that the word “head” should be understood in terms of the husband having authority over his wife and the expectation that the wife should submit to the decisions of the husband in all matters pertaining to family life. For a further exploration on headship in the home see part 2 in the December 6 issue.
For many Christians, the idea of male headship in the home naturally extends to the church. They believe that since the church is God’s family, the supposedly biblical rules governing family life should apply to the life of the church. It follows that, as the husband is the head of the family, the pastor is the head of the congregation, which submits to his authority. Since the New Testament only speaks of the “husband” being the head, this should naturally preclude women from any position that would place them in authority over others in the church. Interestingly, this position rarely gets taken to its logical conclusion, ie that all men in the church have authority over all women in the church, or that the pastor’s authority over women supersedes the authority of their husbands.
While there is biblical support for Christ as head of the church and for husbands as head of the wife, there is no biblical support for the idea of male headship in the church; rather, it stems from extra-biblical philosophical and social traditions hostile to women in leadership.1
Within this context, the early Catholic Church applied family imagery to church relationships in two main ways: first, the church adopted the position that, in view of Christ’s absence on Earth, bishops and their representatives (local priests) should function as Christ’s replacements. As such, bishops assumed headship positions in the church in place of Christ. Eventually, this was expressed through the Latin phrase in persona Christi Capitis (“in place of Christ the Head”).2 The logic is as follows: in the NT, Christ the Head is portrayed as the bridegroom (male imagery) who cares for His bride, the church (female imagery). If the bishop serves the church in persona Christi Capitis, ie, taking a headship role in place of Christ (vicarius Christi), he must be a man. Consequently, a bishop’s ordination is a metaphorical marriage, the bride being believers in his parish. This is the origin of male headship in the church. Second, the application of family imagery to church relationships resulted in priests being addressed as “fathers”, while the Bishop of Rome came to be known as the Holy Father or “pope” (Latin papa; Greek pappas; father).
While the 16th-century Reformation rejected many aspects of Catholic theology, the restriction of ministry to men remained deeply embedded in many Protestant traditions until the 19th century and beyond. Unlike Catholicism, where this restriction was rooted in doctrine, in Protestantism it was primarily traditional and cultural, often supported by a selective and superficial reading of New Testament passages. In recent decades, however, responding to the cultural shifts of the 1960s, the idea that a husband’s headship over his wife extends to male headship in the church has gained traction within some evangelical circles, particularly those influenced by Calvinist traditions. Adventists reading evangelical literature on this subject have sometimes adopted similar positions and have argued against female leadership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, being unaware that the concept of male headship in the church first originated in Roman Catholic theology.
It is not surprising, therefore, that until recently, the concept of male headship in the church was not present in Adventist literature. It was also missing in the writings of Ellen White and in early Adventist periodicals, such as the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald and the Signs of the Times. Neither was male headship in the church a voted Seventh-day Adventist fundamental belief or even the subject of a General Conference vote. To add to this, our denomination recognised Ellen White as an ordained and credentialed pastor.3 In this capacity, as well as that of being recognised as a prophet, she preached hundreds of sermons, exhorted and rebuked numerous church leaders, and exercised leadership in the church worldwide.
Accordingly, in contrast to other 19th and early 20th-century conservative Protestant denominations, early Adventists encouraged women’s leadership.4 As a result, women served as local church pastors, evangelists, teachers and administrators. Accordingly, when Flora Palmer was elected to serve as acting Iowa Conference president in 1900 and Petra Tunheim to serve as the West Java Mission president (1913-1915), this did not cause dismay or uproar in our denomination.5
Adventist women have continued to serve in leadership roles, including commissioned pastors, elders, Sabbath school superintendents and teachers, worship leaders and personal ministry directors. Women have also been encouraged to give Bible studies, pray publicly and to lead in worship, as well as to serve on executive committees and boards. One can only imagine the complications that the doctrine of male headship would introduce into Adventist church life.
So why is this doctrine not compatible with Adventist faith?
First and foremost, Seventh-day Adventists have always upheld the New Testament belief that Christ is the only Head of the church (Ephesians 1:21, 5:23; Colossians 1:18), and that both men and women are included in the body of Christ. Accordingly, all who accept Christ as their Saviour, including pastors and leaders, are to “grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). Nowhere in the New Testament do we find church leaders referred to as “heads” of other believers.6
Ellen White also emphatically supported Christ’s unique headship in the church and never applied the term “head” to pastors or other church leaders. She thus wrote: “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church,”7 and “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church.”8 Similarly, in describing Peter’s restoration to apostleship and calling to ministry, she wrote: “[T]he honour and authority [Peter] received from Christ had not given him supremacy over his brethren . . . Peter was not honoured as the head of the church.”9 Ellen White then goes on to quote Peter, who exhorted leaders not to “lord it over” those entrusted to them, but to be examples (1 Peter 5:3; cf. Mark 10:42-45). Thus, it is evident that Ellen White did not support the concept of male headship in the church.
Second, Paul never implied that headship in the family extended to the relationship between church leaders and congregants. Rather, the husband/wife relationship is compared only to that of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:25-32). Thus, there is no scriptural foundation to conclude that men/ordained pastors are “heads” of women in the church. Within the church there is only one head, Jesus Christ. Thus, rather than engaging in any form of spiritual headship over those entrusted to their care, pastors and leaders, like other believers, are called to exercise their spiritual gifting within the church.
And finally, the word “head” in Paul’s writings is often given connotations foreign to those found in the New Testament. In the context of our culture, the word “head” implies “ruling over” or “exercising authority over”. However, Jesus expressly forbade this approach to authority in the church: “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45; cf Matthew 20:20-28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Thus, a biblical understanding of leadership in the church is not about “ruling over” or having the last word but about service and self-sacrifice.10 Accordingly, the apostles often referred to themselves as slaves or servants (eg, 1 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:5).
In light of these biblical teachings, the Adventist Church has not taught male headship in the church, but rather, has seen the roles of men and women in the church through the lens of spiritual gifting. Accordingly, both men and women who are gifted by the Spirit, whether it be in teaching or preaching, leading or serving, giving or showing mercy, have been encouraged by the church to serve as elders, pastors and leaders at various levels of church organisation; and as university and hospital administrators, theology professors and conference leaders—according to their spiritual gifting (Romans 8:4-8).
- See my “Breaking Down the Gender Walls of Antiquity,” Spes Christiana 34.1, 2023, 5-26.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), 387. Also here.
- Although human hands were never laid on Ellen White, the Ellen White Estate at the General Conference has several copies of ordained minister credentials issued to Ellen White. Her name is also listed alongside ordained Seventh-day Adventist pastors in many issues of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.
- See, for example, BF Robbins, “To the Female Disciples in the Third Angel’s Message.” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 8, 1859: 21-22, and GC Tenney, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, May 24, 1892, 328-329.
- record.adventistchurch.com/2020/12/17/women-conference-presidents-a-forgotten-history/.
- See the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary statement for a biblical exposition of this idea.
- Ellen White, “The Most Effective Agent for God,” The Signs of the Times, January 27, 1890, 50.
- Ellen White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1950) 51.
- Ellen White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1940), 817.
- We develop this theme in our article “To Submit or Not to Submit, That Is the Question,” Adventist Record, November 16, 2021.
Dr Darius Jankiewicz is the field, ministerial secretary and Spirit of Prophecy coordinator for the South Pacific Division.
