Written by Dr. Kristi Meyer
Can I eat popcorn and ice cream for dinner? Sure (and I’m slightly ashamed to admit that I’ve done so recently). Should I eat popcorn and ice cream for dinner? Clearly not. It’s not a balanced meal, and the nutritional value is terrible.
We have no problem separating “can I?” and “should I?” in meal planning. But what about when it comes to women fulfilling leadership roles in our churches and schools? What about women serving as Lutheran elementary school principals or ushers or church board members? Can a woman serve in each of these roles? Should she? Here, we’re often much more reticent to make a distinction between “can” and “should.”
Differentiating Between Principle and Application
In order to determine whether we’re in a “can” or a “should” situation, we need to clearly understand the difference between biblical principles and applications. Biblical principles are timeless, foundational teachings that transcend culture, time, and place.
Applications, on the other hand, are specific ways these principles play out in our lives. Unlike principles, applications can and sometimes do change, both from biblical times to now and from one contemporary situation to another.
When it comes to roles of men and women, the biblical principle in view is that of headship. God created men to fill the role of head, and he created women to fulfill the role of helper. In the apostle Paul’s writings about these roles, he often switches back and forth between principle and application. Differentiating between the two can be challenging, but doing so is crucial when examining and evaluating individual situations.
Dealing With the “Should” Situations
In “can” situations, where the roles of head and helper are clearly delineated, then the answer is always the same. For example, women serving as pastors will never be in harmony with God’s Word. But there are also “should” situations: places where the headship principle can be applied faithfully in several different ways. For example, we still strive for orderly worship but no longer hold to Paul’s directives on length of hair and head coverings from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
So how do we go about evaluating these “should” situations? Every situation is unique, and much care and prayer need to go into identifying and deciding on the best application of the headship principle. But, as the following examples demonstrate, some overarching considerations can be helpful.
- The culture and comfort level of each school or congregation. My home congregation is just beginning to incorporate female ushers in a way that does not violate the headship principle. Although other congregations have had female ushers for years or even decades, it would have been inappropriate to force female ushers on us before we were ready. Patience and education are needed as we gradually introduce a new practice.
- Those available to serve and their potential for growth. Based on the duties of the Board of Outreach members at my home congregation, a woman could serve on this board without violating the headship principle. However, this would deny my congregation a great organic opportunity to train males as spiritual leaders. Therefore, allowing women to serve in this way is not the best application for my congregation at this time.
- The impact that our decisions might have on others across the WELS. There are a handful of WELS schools who have female principals; these situations have been carefully evaluated to ensure the headship principle is not being violated. But these schools do not operate in a vacuum, and female principals have the potential to cause offense across the synod. When contemplating a female principal, it is incumbent upon schools to recognize and accordingly weigh this potential for offense as one factor in their decision.
Why Bother?
If none of the examples above are relevant to your ministry setting, it might seem as though making a distinction between “can” and “should” is entirely theoretical. However, regardless of your current setting, it is important to make this distinction for two main reasons:
- The distinction helps us do a better job of teaching and explaining the doctrine of headship. I’ve had some pretty epic conversations with one of my former pastors on the doctrine of headship, and I am convinced those conversations would have been much less epic had I understood the difference between “can” and “should.” Clearly differentiating whether a situation is “can” or “should” lets us avoid making stronger statements than God’s Word does and keeps us from insisting on restrictions where the Bible does not.
- The distinction enables the conversation to progress differently in “can” vs. “should” situations. “Can” situations are timeless, remaining the same from the apostle Paul’s time to now to 2000 years in the future. “Should” situations, however, have the potential to change from time to time and place to place. We owe it to ourselves, and especially to our female students, to regularly reexamine these “should” situations. Doing so will let us determine if it is appropriate, beneficial, and loving to allow women to fulfill roles in our churches and schools currently open only to men.
Applications of the headship principle in our churches and schools often fall somewhere between black and white. But properly understanding the difference between “can” and “should” helps us better evaluate the various shades of grey—both in light of the changeless principles of God’s Word and the changeable applications of these principles to our ministry today.
Dr. Kristi Meyer currently serves as a mathematics professor at Wisconsin Lutheran College. She earned her Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS) degree from Martin Luther College in May 2022.