It’s true that all the women mentioned in her list served at times in positions of Christian leadership but that does not mean they either meet the qualifications for ecclesiastical office in the present age or that it is God’s general design and purpose for women to exercise author over men.

Rachel Evans, a popular Christian writer and professed egalitarian, recently published a blog post entitled 10 Reasons I Support Women in Church Leadership. The ten reasons consist of a list of names of recognizable historical Christian women.

Then, without a word of additional comment, Evans goes on to state “You know, sometimes it amazes me that this is still a debate”, obviously referring to her goal to see the church embrace her view that women should be allowed to hold church office.

Several items should be noted in response:

1. It’s not so much a debate as a case where the church is defending the truth against those who with various persuasions assail and seek to overthrow the church’s practice by various methods like this one based on popular appeal rather than sound theological argument

2. Evans MISLEADS by committing an error in logic known as the accident fallacy since she implies the general principle (that women can participate in church leadership) suggests the more specific principle or application applies (i.e., that this means women should also then be allowed to serve as church officers). I suggest she implies this because while Evans does not out-rightly state this, it’s clear that Evans, who is a professed egalitarian, is not suggesting the “debate’ simply involves supporting women “generally” in church leadership (i.e., in women’s ministries, as members of committees, etc.) but published this post to advocate much more

3. Evans OMITS pertinent information by cherry picking one piece of information about the women she lists without mentioning other information. It’s true that all the women mentioned in her list served at times in positions of Christian leadership but that does not mean they either meet the qualifications for ecclesiastical office in the present age or that it is God’s general design and purpose for women to exercise author over men.

· Deborah leadership not only came during her service in the extraordinary role as a prophetess but at a time when Barak (a man) was not willing to exercise primary leadership. While Deborah was certainly a heroic women of the Old Testament, this is hardly a case for overthrowing complementarianism and justifying women in church office.

· Huldah also served in the uncommon role of prophetess during a time of famine regarding God’s Word and when Israel had forsaken God and given themselves to idolatry. The Jews even suggest at that time her normal role was prophesying among the women. Like in the case of Deborah who pointed out the honor would fall to her because a man would not lead, Huldah also makes reference to the Lord’s Word being given to “the man”, and this when Israel had gone astray. Huldah, also a Christian leader is hardly the strongest support, though you would not get this from Evans.

· Miriam, who was ranked along with Moses and Aaron, also served in the extraordinary capacity of a prophetess. While her service was highly laudable, besides her helping Moses to live and her victory song, we’re told little about her except when she was punished for questioning Moses’ authority while seeking to advance her own. Hardly the most convincing case, wouldn’t you say?

· The list could go on: Mary Magdalene was a celebrated disciple but whose prominence rose when Jesus’ male disciples fled; Mary of Bethany sat at Jesus’ feet and displayed commendable service but was in no organizational ecclesiastical position; Mary of Nazareth was a woman of faith but did not lead the church; Junia’s was known to the apostles but both Junia’s gender and apostleship are subjects of significant debate; Phoebe was a Christian servant but considerable debate also surrounds her particular role; Tabitha was known for her good works, acts of charity and being raised from the dead but did not serve in church office, and Priscilla though gifted in teaching the Word is presented only in connection with her husband and in teaching in their home.

Evans in positing that she wonders why “this is still debate” seems to be declaring “Mission Accomplished”, but does the list she provides really achieve that? The answer is unmistakably no.

In closing, I ask as well: “Why are we even having this debate”? We should not be except that church leadership must protect the church from being misled into error and practice not supported by sound biblical argument.