Preston Sprinkle, as a theologian, is known for two things. First, he writes his books and speaks on his podcast ‘Theology in the Raw’ only after careful and considered research which he then communicates with clarity and in manner which is accessible to the lay person and casual reader. His style in speech and in writing is conversational. Second, he has a generosity and sensitivity to those from who he differs especially in areas of controversy and potentially heated debate as was shown in his writings on human sexuality.
From Genesis to Junia (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2026) is classic Sprinkle. It is as it says on the cover, ‘an honest search for what the Bible really says about women in leadership’. To add to the credibility of his honest search, in his introduction, he tells us that he is unfettered by restraints from a denomination or a college faculty. He recognizes, of course, that his exegesis will not be without some presuppositions.
Sprinkle has a winsome style, and he can maintain friendship and relationships with those with whom he disagrees on this issue. This is evident in that the commendations in the book are written by both complementarians and egalitarians.
The tone and emphasis of the book is that the reader is invited to join him on a journey of exploration as he exegetes and reflects on the key passages of scripture which are central to the questions of women in leadership in the church. That journey results in him arriving at an egalitarian position and the book explains how he got there. Put differently, through his study Sprinkle became convinced that the egalitarian position is more faithful to Scripture than the complementarian approach.
Sprinkle explains what he means by leadership: “A Leader is a person who (1) holds a recognized title or position of authority (such as “King” or “elder”), (2) guides and directs a group of people toward a specific goal or mission, or (3) speaks or acts in a way that expects others to follow their direction”. P. 15 So, do women exercise such leadership in the church? He follows the key passages through the sweep of the biblical material. To get a flavour of how he approaches each text, Genesis 1-13 is a good place to start.
Genesis 1-3
There is agreement, he acknowledges, that Genesis 1 affirms ontological equality between men and women as they are called to rule over creation, but does Genesis 2 demonstrate how men and women are to do this, with men in leadership and women subordinate as old commentators and complementarians have argued? He looks at various arguments used to contend for this and finds flaws in each.
The first is the argument from primogeniture in that Adam was created first. But he shows this is not primogeniture in that Adam was not first born but created and that Eve was not a sibling but his wife and it only applies when the Father dies and God is not dead!! He demonstrates how in practice God subverts the primogeniture principle throughout Genesis in who he chooses to lead not Ishmael but Isaac, not Esau but Jacob not the older brothers but Joseph. He invites us to leave what Paul thinks until we come to those passages in our journey.
When Eve is said to be Adam’s helper (ezer) does that suggest being subordinate? He shows how ezer is used some nineteen times in the OT and of them and always of someone stronger and more able such as the fifteen times it refers to God who is subordinate to no one. And when combined with kenegdo (suitable / just right) this, he says, implies a mutual partnership, not a subordination.
When Adam names Eve does this show his authority over her? He recognizes that there are occasions when naming is an exercise of authority but not always. He illustrates this when Hagar names God in Gen 16:13 and has no authority over him. Before the Fall Adam calls her ‘woman’ designating her sex and does not actually give her a name ‘Eve’ until after the Fall.
The argument that Adam was commanded by God in Genesis 2:16-17 and was therefore the leader, Sprinkle believes is flawed in that Eve had not yet been created and the text consistently holds them mutually responsible. He concludes, “Genesis 1-3 alone does not teach male headship over women or husbands’ authority over their wives, as some universal principle etched into creation”. P.36
Women in the Old Testament
Sprinkle then looks at women in the Old Testament and particularly those who exercised prophetic ministry or who ruled like Huldah and Deborah. He seeks to show that this was leadership in the Old Testament – contrary to the complementarian view that they exercised only private ministry. Huldah, he shows, spoke to five elite rulers of the nation and that what she says is for all the people. Deborah, again he argues, was a key leader as a judge and ruler. Sprinkle argues that Barak, her military commander, was not simply encouraged but summoned to travel to her – she was no subordinate. The verb to judge (shaphat), he contends, is not limited to private disputes but means to govern, administer and exercise leadership – as when Deborah was judging Israel. The Israelites went up to her so that she might give her judicial rulings.
Sprinkle recognizes that the teaching of the law was the prerogative of male priests, but male priesthood was based, he contends, not on gender per se but on a patrilineal society where inheritance was passed on through the male heirs, in this case, heirs of Levi. This meant that all men and women who were not male descendants of Levi were excluded no matter how gifted and qualified they were. In the New Covenant this, of course, does not apply in that priests are now both men and women in Christ.
Women in the Ministry of Jesus
In the ministry of Jesus, he discovers that in the gospels, especially in Mark and Luke, women are highlighted as exceptional disciples in comparison to men but specifically the twelve apostles. The gospel writer Mark sandwiches these examples of women’s faithfulness – such as the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years, the encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, the poor woman who gave all she had and the unnamed woman who pours the jar of perfume over his head – over and against the tepid faith and quarrelsome questioning of the male disciples. He finds the same in Luke, Matthew and John.
Apart from their commendation of faithfulness (a basic requirement of leadership), Sprinkle notes how women preachers are recorded, such as Elizabeth, Mary, Anna, the Samaritan woman and those who witnessed the resurrection, especially Mary Magdalene. Here are woman preaching the divine Word to a community of men. Are they leaders? It is at this point Sprinkle sets out the radical nature of Jesus’ understanding of leadership in Mark 10-42-45. It is in stark contrast to the prevailing patterns of those at the top lording it over the people rather than acting as their servants.
A leader is not someone who exercises hierarchical authority as did the secular bodies of his time. Rather they are those who serve. Significantly, he adds, the only people Mark describes with the verb diakonos (to serve) are Angels 1;13, Jesus 10:45 and women 1:31;15:41. Women, he concludes, show the primary trait of leadership.
What about twelve male apostles? While the creation of a new Israel requires the analogy of twelve men, Sprinkle argues that they are hardly a model of what leadership should look like according to Titus 1: 7-9.
Leaders and Leadership in the New Testament Church
Sprinkle in his reflections found this chapter his most enjoyable to research and write. How then did the first century church think of leadership? The radical view of leadership in the ministry of Jesus, he believes, permeates the thinking of the apostle Paul and his writings. He uses diakonos (servant) nineteen times in his letters, either to describe his own ministry or those of his coworkers. Paul seeks to model this in how he expresses his authority.
Paul’s leadership terminology
Today we think of church leaders as those with a title like elder/ pastor/ bishop, but Sprinkle discusses how Paul uses a wide range of leadership terminology. ‘Elder’ and ‘overseer’ appear in only the three of thirteen letters and ‘pastor’ appears only once in the New Testament. He quotes R.A. Campbell, an expert of the issue of elders in the ancient world, that elders were a term to describe leaders, rather than an office.
In 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul writes of the leaders as those who ‘work hard among you ‘and ‘lead/manage you in the Lord’. He does not use titles. ‘To work hard’ is one of his favourite expressions for those who lead. He uses it of four women in Romans 16 and Sprinkle comments “if these woman were not leaders, then this is the only time Paul uses this term to describe the ministry of non leaders”. P.103
In the Corinthian letters leaders are not called elders / overseers. Rather Paul uses words like ‘service’, ‘labour’, ‘joins in the work’, and ‘co-worker’. Paul calls house church leaders like Philemon and Aquila his ‘co-workers’. Three women in Romans 16 are called co-workers. When Paul writes his letters, they are often to the leaders in the church like Philemon v 1-2, where he names them and one of them is a woman called Apphia.
Were the hosts of house churches leaders?
The first Christians gathered in the homes of someone who could afford a house large enough to cope with 20-30 people, perhaps 50 at most.
According to Roger Gehring, whose research Sprinkle leans on, the home was more than a building to meet but the locus of a broader social environment. The church was a home and a family or as Paul describes it ‘the household of God’. The Spirit birthed the church in a house, ethnic barriers are broken down in the house church. The home was the base of operations throughout the Mediterranean world. Houses served as the basic foundation of all church life.
Sprinkle makes 2 observations.
1. Women played prominent roles in the home. The home was their primary domain. They had titles at that time, The ‘queen’, the ‘manager’, the ‘mother’ of the household. To enter a house church was to step into a woman’s world.
2. Some women owned the homes in which the churches met. A church meeting in the home meant a built-in leadership structure with the host at the centre.
Hosts were typically older, mature and educated with administrative skills. They would often be the patron of the church. The host probably presided over the common meal. This he sees, as a theological event in which social barriers were broken down. Gehring, in fact, argues that the host of the house churches were de facto the leaders.
Four different women hosted churches in their homes: Mary, Nympha, Lydia, and Priscilla with Aquilla. We know a lot about how Lydia and Priscilla expressed leadership traits. Sprinkle draws some conclusions from the discussion of leadership in first century house churches.
1. We should see leadership through a Christian lens
2. The leadership terminology used in the New Testament is diverse
3. The social and historical context shows leadership was primarily functional, rather than associated with a title
4. We should discern leadership activities according to their first century context
He therefore concludes that on this basis, women played leadership roles in the early church.
Women in the ministry of Paul Romans 16
Sprinkle admits that, like many, he almost ignored the concluding chapters of Romans in his teaching and ministry. In Romans 16 Paul names and affirms those people he has ministered with. He mentions twenty-six people, ten females and sixteen males. Sprinkle notes that Paul he commends more women than men. Paul frequently uses the phrase ‘worked hard or very hard in the lord’ as an affirmation of leaders. He refers to three important women that Sprinkle considers in turn.
1. Phoebe. A deacon / patron and a letter carrier. Obviously, she is a high-status person who probably hosts the church in her home which would make her a leader. As a letter carrier for Paul to the church in Rome, she has a specific status which carries with it certain duties which she would be expected to perform. In the culture of that time letter bearers would have had to represent the author, give additional information and to interpret the letter for the audience. Sprinkle argues this shows Paul entrusting a woman with a significant position of leadership.
2. Priscilla (and Aquilla). They are referred to six times in the NT. They hosted the church in their home, so they were wealthy and had social status. They are described with the leadership title ‘co-workers in Christ Jesus’. He notes that Priscilla’s name typically comes before her husband’s. Priscilla with her husband had taught Apollos who became a key leader in the church. The language used to describe the teaching is that ‘They explained, they taught.’ This, Sprinkle claims, is a mark of leadership.
3. Junia. Junia is mentioned, along with Andronicus, in Roman 16: 7 as ‘outstanding among the apostles’. Here Sprinkle makes three points:
i. Almost all scholars agree that this person is a woman.
ii. He is persuaded, after a long study of Greek usage, that Junia is an apostle. He rejects the complementarian attempt to make her less than an apostle (either by changing, without textual basis, her name to the male ‘Junias’ or to translate verse 7 as ‘esteemed by the apostles’). If the early Greek Fathers, who spoke Greek and opposed women in office, accepted that verse 7 names Junia as an apostle, then so should we.
iii. Junia was an apostle like Paul, not one of the twelve.
Sprinkle concludes that to understand church leadership in the New Testament, we must see it as being wider than simply the terms of elder/ pastor/ overseer. If this is so, then leadership definitely includes women.
Female prophets in the New Testament
Sprinkle shows that all are agreed that there were female prophets in the NT. But what was prophecy and how did it function? Was it akin to preaching? Was it authoritative?
Concerning the nature of prophecy, Wayne Grudem’s doctoral thesis was on this topic and Sprinkle recognizes him as an expert in this area. Grudem rejects the idea that prophecy is teaching otherwise his claim to exclude women from teaching in the church would not stand. Sprinkle refutes Grudem’s view on two grounds.
Concerning whether prophets and prophecy played authoritative roles in the church, Sprinkle argues they did. The book of the Revelation is a prophecy given by John, who he believes was not an apostle. Apostles and prophets are listed as key leaders in the church. Apostles, prophets and teachers are listed in 1 Cor 12: 28 in that order which suggests that Paul saw prophets as at least as important, if not more so, than teachers in the church.
Marriage, headship and submission
This chapter is essentially an exegesis of Ephesians 5:21-33. Sprinkle looks at the Household Codes of the Greco-Roman world and how Paul adapts them for a Christian context so as not to cause unnecessary offence in the culture of the time. He argues that Paul transforms both how the Codes are expressed and practiced. For example, women and slaves are addressed before their husbands and masters which in itself was culturally shocking. Sprinkle accepts that Paul’s use of the metaphor ‘head’ has some level of authority, but, and this is the heart of his thesis, the serving and suffering nature of this headship expressed in the ministry of Jesus transforms what ‘head’ means. It is therefore not hierarchical but in fact leads to mutuality (5: 25-27).
Man is the head of woman (1 Cor 11: 3-12)
This, for the writer and the reader, is the most demanding chapter. Sprinkle argues that 1 Corinthians 11:3-12 says nothing to support either a complementarian or egalitarian view of leadership in the church. It is a passage about head covering. There is a consensus among scholars that it is one of the most demanding texts to understand in the New Testament.
The traditional or complementarian view is that the husband is ‘the head’ with authority and that the wife honours her husband by covering her head. However, Sprinkle is persuaded that 1 Cor 11:11-12 is the key that unlocks the entire passage.
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is independent of man, nor is the man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”
This text shows a different way of viewing men / women or husband / wife. Namely, they are now both ‘in the Lord’ and belong within the new creation. Sprinkle proposes that this stands in contrast with the previous verses and its cultural expression which is not ‘in the Lord’. Paul, he says, does not merely qualify his previous statement about man’s priority in creation, he challenges it. He inaugurates a new social order created by the gospel so that V 11-12 express a profound mutuality and interdependence.
He recognizes that this interpretation, like others, is not without its problems and he is willing to hold his view with open hands.
Women be silent in all the churches. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35
Sprinkle is seeing more and more biblical evidence, in his journey, supportive of women leaders in the church. But what of the apparent prohibitions of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2-3?
This chapter focuses on the Corinthian passage in which women are told to ‘remain silent in the churches’, yet earlier prophets, including women, have been instructed on how to speak at a community gathering. Sprinkle considers four ways of reading the text and avoiding the apparent contradiction.
1) The first is to deny that Paul wrote verses 34-35 – they are a later addition and do not seem to fit in the overall flow of the text. Sprinkle rejects this essentially on the grounds that every single Greek manuscript includes the passage even though not always in the same location we have it in our translations.
2) A second common way of handling the apparent contradiction is to say that Paul is here quoting a Corinthian slogan which he then refutes. That is not a crazy idea, he says, because Paul does this frequently in this letter (6:12;7:1;8:1;10:23). However, 1 Cor 14 is not structured like the other examples and he agrees with Don Carson, ‘in every instance in the New Testament where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it’. So Sprinkle thinks the slogan view is possible but speculative and based on sketchy evidence.
3) A common complementarian view is that in this passage Paul is not prohibiting all kinds of speech among women but only one kind, namely judging prophecies because this involves an authoritative function. In so far as Paul already tells the church to weigh prophecies to see if they are true (14:29) then, they argue, Corinthian men should judge prophecies (14: 30-34a) and women are prohibited (14: 34b-35). In summary, complementarians hold that the passage commands female submission to male authority in the church, and when women evaluate prophecy, they are violating ‘the law’.
Sprinkle challenges this on the basis that there’s no indication that 14:30-34a refers only to men but rather the whole congregation. Then he argues that there is no linguistic evidence that 14:34-35 is about judging prophecy. The word Paul uses in 14:29 about judging prophecy, he does not use in this instance. Sprinkle shows that ‘judging prophecy’ is not more authoritative than prophecy itself. That is simply an assumption derived from a prior theological position. The text is not about who can judge prophecy but how they do so. So when Paul calls for ‘women to be in submission’ he is not talking about women submitting to their husbands or male authorities. It is about prophets, whether male or female, submitting to other prophets while they are prophesying (14:32).
4) Sprinkle prefers the fourth view that this is a prohibition of women from speaking in a disruptive manner. He argues for this by examining four words: ‘speak’, ‘be silent’, ‘submit’, and ‘learn’.
Paul uses the verb ‘speak’ twice in 14:34-35. In 1Corinthians 14 it refers to specific kinds of speaking, in tongues, prophesying and with understanding as instruction. He then forbids speaking that creates disruptive behaviour that makes the place of worship like a madhouse.
‘Be silent’ he uses three times in the letter and they are all here in this passage, with reference to speaking in tongues without an interpreter, prophets not interrupting each other, and women potentially being disruptive in worship.
The word ‘submit’ is informed by its context. In 14: 32 prophets are to submit to another prophet who is prophesying. Women therefore are not being told to submit to their husbands or to male authority which is nowhere in this passage but rather to the prophet who is speaking.
The fourth word ‘learn’ is also shaped by Paul’s earlier use in 14:31 where he expects prophecy to occur in an orderly manner so that everyone may ‘learn’. The tone is of women interjecting or asking questions in a belligerent and disrespectful manner, hence being a disgrace (v35). They should therefore learn by asking these questions at home from their husbands. This silence, he contends, is not a categorical statement that it’s disgraceful any time a woman opens her mouth in church. He says, ‘It pains me to think of how many women throughout the ages have felt this way. Not only is this interpretation sexist and dehumanizing but it’s also bad exegesis.’ P.231-232
Finally, he sets Paul’s argument in the context of the Greco-Roman world by looking at the writings of Plutarch and Juvenal which shows Paul being sensitive to the social conventions of his time.
However, Sprinkle recognizes potential pushbacks from his position in that the language of silence for women, in the text, is apparently unqualified in vv 34-35.
Some soft complementarians agree with Sprinkle’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 14 but think 1 Timothy 2:2-3 is the ‘slam dunk’ passage which prohibits women from teaching and leading in church. To this he now turns.
Women, Teaching and Authority (1 Tim 2-3)
It is not surprising that this is the longest chapter in the book. As a complementarian, Sprinkle believed that 1 Timothy 2:13 was simply a text impossible for the egalitarians to get around because he saw Paul basing his argument for women not to teach or have authority over men not on culture but on creation.
The passage, Sprinkle notes, is challenging to understand. Some Greek words are difficult to interpret. Paul’s logical connections can be seen in different ways and the passage ends with the obscure comment about women ‘being saved through childbirth’.
Wealthy women (2:9-10)
He sets the scene by looking at women in Ephesus who were lavishly displaying their wealth. He asks mischievously, if Paul might lose his mind .in seeing this prohibition of hairstyling and the wearing of jewellery played out in what women wear at American megachurches? He thinks that there was a cultural context in Ephesus that provoked his prohibition rather than a universal ban on ‘perms and pearls’. The emphasis, he sees, is on propriety and sets the scene for the entire passage on women.
To teach and authentein a man (2:11-12)
Sprinkle examines both the strong and soft complementarian views of these verses.
The strong complementarian view espoused by Wayne Grudem that excludes women from teaching in church gatherings where men are present is based on three points.
1. The word authentein is a type of authority in general not a negative exercise of authority
2. Since It is joined with the positive word ‘to teach’, the authority (autheintein) prohibited is also positive.
3. Grudem defends the position that (gar) ‘for’ is a causal word that links Paul’s prohibition to creation and Adam and Eve, thus making the command universal.
The soft complementarian view is that women are being prohibited from a certain type of ‘authoritative preaching/teaching’. Otherwise, they may teach if under the authority of male overseers.
The meaning of the verb authentein
There follows an extensive and technical examination of the use of the word authentein in Greek Literature. He concludes that in every occurrence of the verb authentein prior to 312 AD it conveys an authority antithetical to the servant model of Jesus. It refers to tyrannical authority where a leaders Lord it over their subjects.
The meaning of the noun authentes
There are many more examples from the past than the verb and the noun is associated with murder, despotism, and a master-slave relationship. Sprinkle sees Paul’s choice of this unusual word as deliberate to contrast it with the model for leadership in the Christian community. He concludes that what is being prohibited of these women is domineering authority.
Didaskein and the “neither – nor” construction (2:12)
This is a reflection on how teaching (didaskein) and authority (authentein) is conjoined in this verse – in that women are said neither to teach nor to have authority over men. The complementarian understands the teaching to be positive and that this positive teaching determines the nature of the authority prohibited, which would then also be positive, However, Sprinkle argues that we can just as easily make the word authority, if it is negative, to shape our understanding of teaching, which would also be negative.
He then does an extensive examination of when didaskein is used positively and negatively in Paul’s letters. He concludes that didaskein is a neutral word which can be used positively or negatively. He adds that if autheintein is a negative authority then the teaching will also be negative. He concludes that Paul is prohibiting women from teaching men in a domineering manner.
Adam’s priority and Eve’s deception. (2:13-14)
Sprinkle describes how the complementarians appeal to creation and so interpret these verses as making the prohibition against women teaching men universal for all churches in all times. He then outlines various alternatives to this view.
1. If it is universal then it is a prohibition of women teaching in an ungodly and domineering manner. No one would have issue with that.
2. Does the linking word, for ( gar) between the prohibition and the reference to Adam and Eve, mean ‘because’ or ‘for example’ since it can be either? Those who want to read the passage as ‘because’ are convinced that this is causal and what follows is the reason. The reason is then primogeniture, Adam is created first thus giving him the leadership authority but as Sprinkle showed in his exegesis of Genesis 2, primogeniture does not exist in that Adam was not the first born, and the Father was not dead.
3. Is Paul maybe referring to some general priority of the created/ born first? He does refer to Adam’s priority over Eve in 1 Cor 11: 8-9 but then refutes or qualifies it in 11:11-12. If this is a universal principle it would be at odds with the biblical theme of overturning the firstborn as when Ismael, the first born, is rejected in favour of Isaac or Esau rejected in favour of Jacob.
4. The universal principle from creation means that this also applies to Eve as well as Adam. ‘It was the women who was deceived and became a sinner’ (2:14). Then this susceptibility to deception would apply to all women, as the grounds for them not to teach or have authority over men, because Eve was deceived. Are women therefore more easily deceived than men? The old view in the church was to say yes. The complementarians want to say no. They want to make the argument from Eve a ‘generality’ rather than a universal view about women, that is women are more relational and nurturing while men are more rational and objective.!! But it seems odd, says Sprinkle to interpret 2:13 universally but 2: 14 generally. And what of the women who for whom the generality does not apply? Should they be able to teach? If women are more relational and nurturing? Do they not have the basic qualifications for leadership?
Sprinkle argues, “I can’t imagine Paul advocating for male-only teachers and authority figures in the church because he believed that men are more rational, less relational and nurturing, and don’t place a high value on unity and community. I’ve been in churches run by such pastors. I don’t recommend it.” P.266
The cultural context of Ephesus
After an extensive examination of the Artemus cult and its pervasive influence in Ephesus, Sprinkle sets out a summary of his thesis. “I think its’s plausible that Paul prohibits wealthy women from teaching men in a domineering way (1Tim.2:12) then appeals to the Genesis creation account (vv13-14) to combat a local genealogical myth (Artemis’s firstborn status and Ra’s deception) that empowered female religious leaders to think that they were superior to men. Paul then concludes that God – not Artemis – is the one who saves women through childbirth.” But, he adds, “it’s impossible to know exactly why Paul wrote what he did’. P.277
Sprinkle reckons that if one were to make a compelling case for male-only overseers, then you would do it from 1 Timothy 3. So he turns next to this text.
1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Male only Overseers
In this passage Paul lists the qualifications for an overseer (episkopon). Sprinkle sees the list as a character description rather than a job description. He shows that although most translations contain male specific language, the Greek does not. It is neutral.
The character trait translated ‘the husband of one wife’ (3:2) means literally ‘a one woman man’. Sprinkle argues this verse is the best and only argument from scripture for male only overseers. However, Sprinkle points to several problems with this interpretation. Is Paul arguing against polygamy which would be odd in a world were monogamy was the norm? He shows that most scholars agree that Paul is making a general statement about marital faithfulness. But is he literally excluding single men from this office and what of the need for their children to express obedience, must overseers have children? Sprinkle’s friend and theologian Gerry Brashear’s, a complementarian, believes that to be faithful to the text, an elder must be married with at least two children!
Sprinkle recognizes the merit of the complementarian interpretations of this passage and does not think that their position is outlandish. However, he concludes that it has more weaknesses that the alternative interpretations he has outlined. He says he is open to change his view on further study, but he does not believe that 1 Timothy universally excludes all women from positions of teaching and leadership over men in the church.
Landing the plane
In his final chapter Sprinkle summarizes what he has discovered on his journey in exegesis of the key passages relevant to the question of women in leadership in the church. He writes, “In the end, I think the best interpretation of all the Bible’s evidence shows that both women and men can be equally qualified and gifted for all forms of church leadership. I guess that makes me an egalitarian”. P. 291
Sprinkle commends complementarian scholarship but concludes that “complementarians arrive at their view through a questionable interpretation of a few New Testament passages and Genesis 1-2, leading them to conclude that women are excluded from certain kinds of teaching and leadership over men because Adam was created first. P.295 The rationale for the egalitarian view he finds more compelling.” It says that men and women are beautifully different, that neither is intellectually or spiritually inferior to the other. Both are empowered by the same Spirit, who distributes a diversity of gifts to both men and women. The mere fact that Adam was created first and called his partner ‘women’ in no way limits the opportunity for a mature, godly woman who’s skilled in biblical exegesis and demonstrates gifts in teaching and leading to shepherd God’s people.” P.295
Many readers will be familiar with the complementarian and egalitarian ways of exegeting the passages Sprinkle, considers. He exegetes Genesis1-3, the references to women prophets in the Old and New Testaments, the silencing of women in1 Cor 14, and the apparent prohibition of women to teach men or lead in 1 Timothy 2 and 3. In some ways he goes over old ground covered by many advocates in the debate but yet with the freshness of one who is on a journey of discovery.
Sprinkle does not hesitate in affirming positions that could undermine his conclusions. He is willing to go wherever the text of scripture will take him. As an example, he believes that Paul’s use of the metaphor ‘head’ (kephale) references some sort of authority rather the ‘source’ (the common view of egalitarians).
Chapter 8 on ‘Man being the head of woman’ is demanding on the reader. Here he shows himself to be a first-rate biblical scholar who is meticulous in handling the text of scripture but also in his breadth and depth of research.
However, chapter 4, ‘Leaders and Leadership in the early church’, which Sprinkle found the most enjoyable, is perhaps the most insightful and original. Seeing the house church as central to understanding leadership, recognizing that leadership terminology is diverse, and that the social and historical context shows leadership without a title, such as, pastor, elder deacon, is all fresh and helpful and leads to the implication that women were leaders whether they had an official title or not.
Where Sprinkle landed as an egalitarian was and is unsettling to many of his friends and mentors. Complementarianism is the world in which he lived, in his church and when he was a professor in college. He speaks, in the reflections on each chapter in the audiobook, of how his friends and colleagues had expected, after the three-year journey, for him to embrace a ‘soft complementarian’ stance. However, he found the soft position less exegetically credible than the hard complementarian perspective. Those who know him best do not question the integrity and openness of his desire to be ‘captive to the Word’ in his exegetical journey that led him to this egalitarian position.
This is an outstanding book which I would commend and give to anyone who is willing to go on an open and honest journey of discovery in considering afresh the issue of women in leadership in the church.
© Equal to Lead
