The good news is that today women as well as men are leading many churches. Last year about one third of the active clergy in the Church of England were women, whereas in 2024 there were only 28% of clergy. In the so-called ‘new churches’ 405 of women ministers out of 2,934 are women. In Pentecostal churches 1,252 are women out of 7,474. In Methodist churches 879 are women out of 2186 ministers. Although for over 80 years Baptists have affirmed the ordained ministry of women, last year only some 60 Baptist ministers in the Baptist Union of Great Britain were women – and they are only 3% of Baptist ministers. To the surprise of many, Sarah Mulally, the Bishop of London, on 2 October 2025 was appointed to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury. On 28 January 2026 she will be enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Yet sadly there are still churches which believe it is wrong for women to lead churches. Of these churches Roman Catholics refuse to ordain women. Other churches who believe it to be wrong for women to lead churches are traditional Anglicans; and also some Evangelical churches. One of the reasons for their refusal to recognise women in leadership is based on the teaching of the Apostle Paul, who wrote:
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2.11-15)
Most Christians find these verses thoroughly embarrassing. Did the Apostle Paul really say this? One of my scholarly friends, the late Dr Alistair Campbell, was quite convinced that “a quite unsupported suggestion is perhaps worth considering by the apparently non-Pauline theology: namely the idea that Adam was not deceived; the idea women are saved through childbearing. In addition there is the roughness of the Greek grammar: for instance the switch from plural to singular verbs and the absence of a particle. It is true that there is a similar passage in 1 Corinthians 14.33b-35: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says” is by many considered to be undoubtedly textually suspect.
The truth is that when the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 16.1-16 he had an exceedingly positive about the role that women played in the churches in Rome.
- First, there was Phoebe, who almost certainly ran her own house church. Paul describes Phoebe as a “deacon of the church” (Romans 16.1), but that can be a misleading term, for in Anglican churches a deacon is normally a probationary minister, who has yet to be allowed to preside at the Lord’s Table; while in many Baptist churches deacons are just lay leaders in a church, Therefore I much prefer the GNB’s translation: namely, Phoebe “serves the church at Cenchreae, the eastern seaport of Corinth”.
- Secondly, the Apostle greets Prisca, who may well have been the wife of Aquila (Romans 16.3). I find it significant that whenever Prisca and Aquila are mentioned by Paul in his letters (see also 1 Corinthians 16.19 and 2 Timothy 4.19) Prisca’s name came first. The implication is that she played the more important role in the church. She was clearly the leader of the church that met in her home.
- Thirdly there was Junia, who was either the wife or the sister of Andronicus. Junia and Andronicus are described as being “prominent among the apostles” (Romans 16.7).
- Fourthly, in addition to Phoebe, Prisca and Junia, there were other women who the Apostle Paul described as “workers in the Lord”: for instance there were Tryphaena and Tryphosa (Romans 16.12); likewise there was “the beloved” Persis, who is described as having “worked hard in the Lord” (Romans 12.12).
Unless the Apostle Paul fundamentally changed his mind, then it seems me that he did not write 1 Timothy 2.11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14.33b -35.
My father, George Beasley-Murray, in Man and Woman in the Church wrote: “The Church has much to do work out the implication of these insights. For centuries it has been under the bondage of a clouded understanding of the Scriptures….” In which “Church order as interpreted by male clergy has taken precedence over the kingdom of God and salvation for the world. Man and woman, created for partnership, have been redeemed for partnership in service. It is high time to make that partnership truly effective in the service of God in His church and in his world”. As a result, long before there were women ministers in the Church of England, my father and other Baptist leaders were ordaining women ministers. The fact is that women as well as men should be leading churches.
Dear Paul,
My own conviction is that the restrictive views on the minisrty of women shrivel up when laid alongside the place given to, and examples set by, women in the four gospels: Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. Jesus very existence deended on one of them! And women played a cricial role in spreading good news at key moments; Anna at the start and Mary as the first personal witness of the resurrection. Similar reasoning applies to your examples from Romans
I’d like to add a personal note – In 1970, my father drove my wife Frances to Denholme Baptist church near Bradford because she was leading and preachin there. Later, over our mid day meal which Frances had got well organised, we were talking about how things had gone in the services. I think I had been at Queensbury. My father commented in his usual thoughtful and understated manner’ “If I ever had any doubts about the propriety of a woman preaching, they were taken away today”. Needless to say, Frances and I were very encouraged so early in our ministry!