Please do not make broad generalizations. Such resistance is characteristic of highly conservative Protestant denominations, but by no means all Protestant churches. 

I agree with the comments above as a partial explanation. The resistance to female leadership continues to be justified on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Bible, along with a belief that the Bible contains no errors.

Having said that, I also suspect their is a separate cultural component which is uncomfortable with and/or afraid of change. Quoting scripture is a convenient way to resist all things new and maintain the status quo. 

Thirdly, I also suspect this resistance to female leadership is driven primarily by men, who desire and need to stay in control. Much of this is subconscious, but nevertheless real..Power is difficult for most to give up.

Bottom line: resistance to female leadership stems from resistance to change along with a reluctance to share power. The Bible is used as a more respectable justification for an otherwise fearful and selfish mindset. 

I came across some quotes about women that early church theologians made and they were quite hateful and even Martin Luther dismissed women as good for nothing but childbearing.. I was disappointed to find that some modern theologians made disparaging remarks about women also. I believe this hateful attitude is part of the phenomena that has caused resistance to women as leaders in the church. It is an adopted attitude, I think.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

To my own opinion, it is a matter of fundamentalism that have been rooted in the churches protestant which on the other way influenced by no-churches belief.

1. Reflects expectations of congregations.

2.  Religion, including Protestantism, is very traditional, so the lack of female leadership reflects overall cultural patterns.

Thank all of you for your responses. I find them interesting. Alan Shope, I think you have hit the mark. My research is revealing these very things.

For a more well-rounded exploration of this topic I hope you are seeking input from several very conservative view points as well. I tend to agree with Mr. Perry's and Mr. Shope's insight as contributing to Protestant resistance to female leadership.

But I would be cautious against assigning the emotion of hate to words spoken in very different times and cultures. Keep in mind that these men were devoted to following Christ at great personal cost. Jesus suggested that, by comparison to our love for Him, we would appear to hate even our own parents. (Mt 10:37; Luke 14:26). So it should not come as a great surprise that theologians of the day as well as modern conservative theologians who hold to the authority of Scripture may come across has having disparaging views of women in leadership.

This would be especially true if one examined the issue solely through the lens of cultural prohibitions against women. However, if other passages teaching the responsibilities of Christian men to honor, revere, cherish, and protect women are considered, (Ephesians 5:21-33 & Romans 16:1 for example)  one might walk away with a very different understanding of the motives behind conservative doctrines on the role of women and how they should be treated in the context of Church polity.

In my opinion, to divorce the issue of women in leadership in Protestant churches from conservative interpretation of Scripture would skew one's findings considerably, rendering the findings irrelevant.

Thomas, I think the Bible is a key component. However, one must consider how the Bible developed. For his day, Jesus seems to have had a radical attitude toward women, treating them with full equality. Examples are talking to women in public, touching women (even prostitutes), and having women followers. The fact that a woman was supposedly the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus reflects the initial equality women were given by Jesus and his early followers, even though his first followers were often seen shocked by and struggling with the idea.

But the emerging church digressed quickly. Its inability to give women full equality is reflected in the church hierarchy and in the Bible it produced. The most oppressive scriptures occur in later books of the Bible (1 Timothy), and in the writings of Paul, who never actually met Jesus. He claimed to have met the risen Jesus.

Those who view the Bible as inspired by God and without human error will obviously disagree. But my point is that gender inequality reflected in the early church and in the Bible was due to the churches unwillingness and inability to maintain the radical example of Jesus. Again, most of this was due to a natural human and cultural resistance to change, as well as a normal, but selfish, resistance to sharing power.

In my view, the Bible is a reflection of both Jesus and a culture that often resisted him.

Mr. Shope,

I certainly agree with your assessments that Jesus was radically different than his culture and his treatment of women (and people in general) was indeed exemplary. I also agree that the infant church and the modern church most definitely fall very short of the ideals set by Jesus in many - if not all - respects. After all, it has always been made up of deeply flawed men and women - individual admition of such is a requirement for membership!

I would, however, urge caution at impugning later writings appearing in the New Testament, simply because they were written by flawed men. Paul, to use your example, who "claimed to have met the risen Jesus", according to the written record, most definitely had some sort experience that motivated a 180 degree change in behavior - that eventually resulted in his execution. Perhaps what he had to say should be given serious consideration and not completely discounted because of the ebb and flow of cultural variations of the time and locale.

I acknowledge that to hold to this belief, it is necessary for one to hold to the validity and authenticity of Scriptures. And, though, I am being careful not to take sides in this issue, I feel a duplicity should be pointed out: It was said that hiding behind the authority / divine inspiration of Scripture is convenient for those with oppressive / controlling agendas, so too, it is just as convenient for those opposed to the teachings of Scripture to hide behind a rejection of the same.

Very good discussion, Gentlemen. I will be writing a balanced paper presenting the pros and cons. The uneven treatment of female leadership Christin churches began somewhere and is embedded in some denominations. The Jewish communities were under Roman rule, and before that it was the Greeks. Both these cultures were very masculine oriented. During this Hellenistic period, Jesus was preaching and after the Ascension, His followers became known as Christians and were considered at first to be a sect of Judaism. So you can see the relationship here and how the influence of Jewish beliefs were an influence on the new church. This influence is present to a degree with Paul. I will have to look up the verse I believe to be in Corinthians where Paul is discussing family and he says “I, not the Lord, say this………… That gives me a little pause. Paul was earlier in the Sanhedrin. Peter had a nasty attitude toward women. As far as I can tell at this point, women were never treated as fully equal, but in certain eras, under the Old Testament, they had rights and were treated well until Judaism became prevalent, especially during the Hellenistic period. I am still looking into this.

You will have to determine whether or not you need cultural or biblical interpretation issues in your thesis.  It seemed to me that your thesis was more concerned with cultural ones.  For an overarching view of US culture at least, I would suggest you consult the work of Robert N Bellah, especially his work on American civil religion and the cultural patterns of patriarchalism which often undergirds biblical interpretations of gender and family.  The same may be said of homophobia which is also justified by conservative evangelical interpretations, the other gender question.

Thank you Mr.Stockwell, good info.

Violet,

I'll give you a hand! :) The verse you asked about is 1 Corinthians 7:10

10 I command the married —not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to leave her husband. 11 But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. 12 But I (not the Lord) say to the rest: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not leave her. 13 Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is set apart for God by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart for God by the husband. Otherwise your children would be corrupt, but now they are set apart for God. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to live in peace. 16 For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

https://bible.faithlife.com/books/hcsb/1Co7.10

It's hard for a person like me to tell or assert, but at least I would like to share my opinion and benefit from your responses.

It is very logical that everyone takes his rightful place based on his / her abilities and talents, so we see man in the most part  imposes control over the female not just because he is stronger mentally and physically, but also because the female  mostly likes to be under the confines of the man because she does not feel safe and reassured unless she does.

This is the wisdom of God, who founded life on the principle of complementarity between the  two sexes.

Male and female need each other and they can't separate, but one of them should be the leader, and of course, leadership need certain characteristics, which exist mostly in males.

The issue is not just customs and traditions. In fact  customs and traditions often underpin off  human nature or at least, it"s influenced by it beside many other factors.

As the religion came from the Creator of the human being, it makes sense to find religious teachings to the approval of human primitiveness, so we find the heavenly religions agree on this matter, I mean giving the leadership to the man not to the woman.

Even when the religious factor miss or weaken its effect on the heart, the Primitiveness  or nature that God created man with, and the superiority He ALMIGHTY gave to men over women in leadership dictates that he mostly takes leadership actually unless some of the men intervene to change this reality which confirms that the leader - in fact - is the man even it  did not look like that.

I hope that I clarified my idea.

Tank you for giving me the opportunity. 

thank you

Thank you Osamah Aqeel AL-Kooheji. Another viewpoint is always welcome. I understand your point of view.  The Scriptures offer us much moral instruction and how to behave in various situations. They were written to specific peoples at specific times. Although I agree that the tenets set forth in ancient times in the Scriptures and traditions can give us a guideline to apply our own lives, do you think there is a possibility that as the centuries passed and people became more literate and men and women gained more skills, that the old laws should be forcibly applied in modern times? If God calls someone, man or woman, as He did in the Scriptures, are not the man or woman obligated to follow that call?

I appreciate your view of the males in ancient times being head of household and protector. People often ask why were not the women sent out on the road to spread the gospel as were the men. It was dangerous times and common sense would dictate them staying close to home which they did and held services in those homes.

I believe we both have valid points in common. Thank you for your comments. 

Mai I suggest:

Women and Church Leadership by E.Margaret Howe,

a Zondervan Publication, 1982, pp.129-160.

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic2/howe07.asp

Nice Contribution Violet Joan Berry