From Franco to Feminism: Challenges to Spanish Evangelicals for a Biblical View of Gender and Ministry, Part 2
This article is the second in a two-part series. In part two, Rubén Videira-Soengas builds on his earlier analysis by defending Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 as rooted in God’s creation order rather than cultural chauvinism, applying universally to the church in all times and places. Videira-Soengas urges the Spanish church to resist feminist reinterpretations of these texts, affirming distinct yet complementary roles for men and women in ministry as essential to faithfulness to God’s design.
The previous article argued that Spanish evangelicals, in their increasing confusion over gender and ministry, must return to the authority of Scripture. In particular, 1 Timothy 2:12 prescribes male leadership in the church. But this is a difficult stance in Spain’s feminist culture.
To understand this, we observed two developments. First, the historical roots of feminism in Spain trace back to a direct reaction against the misogynist, oppressive system of Franco’s regime. Because of this, many associate any restriction of women’s roles—even biblical ones—with authoritarian repression.
Second, feminism in Spain has since shifted from a political movement to a popular ideology advanced by media, social networks, and celebrity culture. It now, ironically, promotes a hypersexualized vision of female empowerment, which, far from liberating women, redefines their identity according to image, success, and desirability.
As a result, the Spanish church has largely succumbed to a “Christianized” feminism that confuses cultural relevance with biblical fidelity. Yet it is precisely these cultural narratives that must be carefully untangled if the church is to remain the pillar and buttress of the truth. She must recognize that obedience to Scripture is neither oppressive nor outdated but the necessary safeguard for her witness.
Paul’s full instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 are as follows:
9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, with modesty and self-restraint, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women professing godliness. 11 A woman must learn in quietness, in all submission. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass. 15 But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with self-restraint.
In the remainder of this second article, we will see that Paul’s instruction is not rooted in chauvinism but in creation, and it must be upheld by the church today despite the pressures of modern feminism.
WHAT FEMINISM CLAIMS PAUL ARGUES: CHAUVANISM
The all-pervasive feminist influence seeks to merge the lines between time-bound culture and timeless principles of the Bible, especially when it comes to Paul’s instructions for women in the church.
The world outside of Protestantism assumes that chauvinism shaped Paul’s teaching regarding the role of women.[1] The Spanish Catholic writer and journalist Luis Antequera, for example, says that even though Paul was not a chauvinist, he could not escape the misogynist worldview of his time.[2] Francisco Javier Recio, also a Spanish Catholic, and the local editor of the newspaper El Mundo in Seville, encourages the Christian church, whether Catholic or Protestant, to remove the Pauline passages that call women to submit to men, from public speech.[3] The atheist blogger Hernán Darío Toro asserts that Paul’s usage of the creation account to defend male leadership, proves that he was chauvinistic, since the creation argument extends the principle of female subjection to all women in all places.[4] The Spanish sociologist Ana Martos Rubio goes as far as to say that the Roman Catholic Church added 1 Timothy 2:12 to Paul’s letter in order to support Christianity’s patriarchal system.[5]
The situation does not appear to be much different within evangelicalism. The Christian writer Jesús Murillo blatantly writes that chauvinism is rooted in the teaching of Paul.[6] The former Spanish Catholic priest, Antonio Aradillo, speaking of both evangelical and Catholic Pauline interpretation, says that: “Christians have said almost with the same authority as the Word of God that Paul was a misogynist. In fact, he has been called the misogynist par excellence in the New Testament.”[7] Others write that Paul’s context did not allow him to realize that his instruction for women in the church was tainted with chauvinism.[8] He was a product of his time and could not escape the influence of centuries of female oppression.[9]
Feminism, under the rationale of delivering women from the archaic bondage of chauvinism, concludes that the church should dismiss the apostle’s instructions for women.[10] His context, it is argued, made him prejudiced against the female gender.[11] Yet, the question arises whether evangelical feminists have been influenced by their own context in turn. If so, the claims of these evangelicals should also be dismissed on the grounds of contextual delusion.[12]
In addition to dismissing Paul’s teaching, the church, according to feminist claims, needs to serve the feminist revolution.[13] It is the instrument chosen by God to eradicate the oppression of class and gender, they say.[14] In other words, Christianity must adapt to society’s worldview;[15] it must claim that Paul says whatever society wants him to say.
The church has become so captivated by the voice of feminism that the cry of Scripture on these matters has been muted. This was poignantly Illustrated in the joint statement issued in 2016 by the first non-denominational evangelical organization in Spain (la Alianza Evangélica Española) and the national association that represents Christian professionals (los Grupos Bíblicos de Graduados). The statement, which is translated “If Luther Were A Woman,” wrote twelve “theses” calling upon women to take leadership roles within the church, as the Bible allegedly exhorts them to do.[16] However, even acknowledgment of such prohibitions as 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, let alone any attempt to reconcile their movement with them, are completely absent from the statement. For this reason, it is all the more important to proclaim these truths, as it were, from the rooftops.
WHAT PAUL ACTUALLY ARGUES: CREATION
Regardless of what evangelical feminists claim, the Christian world needs to know that Paul’s instruction for women in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 reflects God’s good design since creation. Genesis begins by demonstrating that God’s design for men and women is not an issue of female inferiority. In the first chapter, rather, men and women are introduced as having equal value before God. Genesis 1:26 shows that God created man in His own image and likeness, to have dominion over creation. The next verse reveals that “man” here refers to both male and female: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (1:27).
Thus, both men and women were created in the image of God. In fact, the Hebrew word for man in this text, adam, reflects the distinction between human beings and animals, not between men and women. If the author had wanted to nuance the male-female difference when referring to members of the human race, he likely would have chosen the words ish and ishah, respectively, since etymologically they reflect the concept that man was the source of the woman (2:23).[17] But adam in this context puts humanity in an entirely different category than the beasts, and so infers that every person, male or female, portrays the same divine image.
Yet, feminist scholars use this passage from Genesis 1 to eliminate gender differences altogether. They suggest that the word “man” should be translated “mankind”[18] to show that male and female are the same before God, and by extension, have identical roles. It is argued that if God commanded man and woman to exercise authority over the earth, then masculine and feminine roles should be interchangeable. Aída Besançon Spencer, for example, writes,
[The creation of woman] symbolizes equality (if not superiority!) in all respects…. God’s original intention for women and men is that in work and in marriage they share tasks and share authority. Females as well as males are needed in positions of authority in the church to help people better comprehend God’s nature.[19]
The same conclusion was reached by B. T. Roberts more than a century ago, that “there is nothing in the creation of woman or in her condition under the law which proves that no woman should be ordained as a minister of the Gospel.”[20]
Mankind, however, was created with sexual distinctions, male and female, as God Himself clarifies (Gen 1:27). These distinctions are far too important to be ignored.[21] Even if the translation “mankind” was to be accepted throughout Genesis 1, it does not alter the gender specification of verse 27, which points to the necessity of role differentiation in verse 28.[22] Mankind—man and woman—receive the same mandate from God, and yet, it is clear that each must play a different role to fulfill it. God blessed them and said: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” (1:28).
It is not necessary to explain the biological details of human reproduction to understand that a man cannot physically conceive (become pregnant) and a woman cannot physically beget (father a child). Equality, therefore, should not be confused with interchangeability. Men cannot exchange their role with women and vice versa. If Eve had followed feminist ideals and sought Adam’s role in every regard, based on their common and equal essence, then mankind would have been extinguished in the first generation. It is evident, then, that even though male and female were created in the image of God, their roles are still in some ways distinct from creation onward. This is the very foundation for Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:12–13.
The distinction of genders is also highlighted in Genesis chapter two, where the different origins of Adam and Eve establish their different roles.[23] God creates man from the ground of the earth for the earth (Gen 2:5, 7, 15), and fashions the woman from the rib of the man for the man (2:18, 21–22).[24] In other words, the life of the woman, her constitution, and her nature, is rooted in and derived from the life, constitution, and nature of Adam.[25] It is because the source of the woman is the man and not the ground of the earth, that her existence revolves around the man, as Genesis 2:18 shows. When God said, “It is not good for man to be alone. I will create a suitable helper for him,” He made it clear that the woman was created for the man, hence, she was taken from the man (cf. 1 Cor 11:9).
In order to avoid any confusion, God himself defines the role of the woman as “a suitable helper,” which literally means “a help of his like.”[26] According to the Old Testament scholar Franz Delitzch, the expression “suitable helper” relates the two sexes to each other to emphasize that the woman was created to complete the man.[27] It was Adam who experienced a time of loneliness and incompleteness, not Eve. Only the woman could satisfy the loneliness of the man; no other man or animal had that ability. Therefore, God’s design for the woman was to complete the man, and they are mutually interdependent and complementary (1 Tim 2:15; 1 Cor 11:11).[28] Is this not sufficient to show that male and female roles are distinct?
Adam and Eve were equal but not interchangeable. They both portrayed God’s image and yet, Eve is fashioned in light of Adam’s need. The woman, by virtue of being created after the man, is called to help the man by coming under his headship.[29] For this very reason, Paul does not permit women to teach or to exercise authority over men in the context of the local church (1 Tim 2:12). “For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve” (2:13). The same argument is made explicit in 1 Corinthians 11:3–12, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35,[30] and assumed in the requirement that elders must be men in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
To dismiss 1 Timothy 2:12 on the grounds of chauvinism is to imply that God’s design for creation is inherently chauvinistic, since Paul’s instruction is based on the creation order.[31] If Paul’s teaching is negative, God’s design must be negative as well. But God said of his creation that it was “very good” (Gen 1:31), which includes the creation of man and woman and the establishment of their unique roles. Therefore, if God’s design for the creation of male and female is very good, then Paul’s instruction for woman, which is also based on the divine design, must be very good as well.
CONCLUSION
The creation argument alone should suffice to encourage the church in Spain not to fall under the spell of feminism, though the tide of popular opinion is strong. One cannot reject the face value of 1 Timothy 2:12 just because it might be unpopular in a context where feminism predominates. The apostle’s prohibition for women to teach or exercise authority over men rests upon the creation order; Adam was created first and then Eve. Such appeal makes it crystal clear that Paul’s instruction is not the result of his chauvinistic context. In fact, using creation as the basis for his argument highlights even more the universal application of his teaching: 1 Timothy 2:12 is for all Christian women throughout the world and throughout the entirety of the history of the church.[32]
Paul’s appeal was to a time in human history when chauvinism did not even exist, when gender roles had not yet been distorted by the fall, when the relationship between the man and the woman was still perfect, and when sin was but a sad reality yet to come. Thus, his mandate in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be disregarded as a byproduct of sinful cultural bias, as feminists in Spain try to do. For churches to follow Paul’s complementarian view of men and women in the church is not Francoism or its machismo leftovers; it is submission to Scripture and to an all-wise God.
Moreover, the evangelical church in Spain and in every other country ought to recognize in light of God’s design that feminism’s quest in the church is doomed to fail. There is no victory in turning Paul’s instruction into something culturally acceptable today. The biblical instructions were not established by any social agenda.[33] They are the design of God, the Creator, and command of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the church. Only the divine design will succeed.
Therefore, the Spanish church must not succumb to the influence of feminism. The Word of God is not held accountable by modern society, as trending celebrities and the media seek to make it. Feminists in Spain have no right to question Paul’s letters, unless they think they can call God to the stand and question His very own design for men and women. Women have a high calling within the church, families, and societies to serve and use their giftings appropriately, including to teach and lead others (cf. 1 Cor 11:5–6; 1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:3–5; 1 Pet 4:10–11).[34] Yet, the church should never promote women to positions of authority over men.
Those that do will find the body of Christ going against Christ Himself—her Head (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23).
[1] Here, as in the first article, chauvinism and misogyny are used interchangeably for the world’s false characterization of the biblical teaching on gender, namely, as a belief in inherent male superiority.
[2] Luis Antequera, “De La Mujer en El Pensamiento de San Pablo. ¿Es o No Es, San Pablo, El Machista que Algunos Dicen?” Religión en Libertad, March 26, 2015.
[3] Francisco Javier Recio, “San Pablo, el Machista,” El Mundo, December 30, 2013, accessed May 28, 2018, http://www.elmundo.es/blogs/elmundo/lineados/2013/12/30/san-pablo-el-machista.html.
[4] See Hernán Darío Toro, “El Cristianismo Sí Es Machista,” El Tiempo, January 31st, 2008 (http://blogs.eltiempo.com/confesiones/2008/01/31/el-cristianismo-si-es-machista/ accessed on May 28th, 2018).
[5] See Ana Martos Rubio, Pablo de Tarso ¿Apóstol o Hereje? La Inquietante Verdad sobre la Identidad del Auténtico Fundador del Cristianismo, Historia Incógnita, ed., Santos Rodríguez (Madrid: Nowtilus, 2007), 173.
[6] Jesús Mario Murillo, Sexo, Eros, Matrimonio (Bloomington, IN.: Trafford, 2009), ii, iii, 19.
[7] Antonio Aradillas, La Mujer en la Iglesia: La Rebelión Pendiente (Madrid: Visión Libros, 2012), 162.
[8] E.g., Carmen Galué, He Aquí una Mujer (Maitland, FL: Xulon, 2012), 28. To say that Paul’s context was chauvinistic is an anachronistic argument, since it defines the inequality of sexes in the first century AD by standards of the culture of the twenty-first century AD. Additionally, it is a generalization that globalizes some miserable situations of female abuse during that epoch, while ignoring the historical data that show the social context of the early church to also favor women. William Weinrich, “Women in the History of the Church: Learned and Holy, But Not Pastors,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 274.
[9] Sally Bentley Doely, Women’s Liberation and The Church (London: Association Press, 1971), 136.
[10] E.g., Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, and Jürgen Moltmann, “Foreword,” in Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective: A Theology, Letty Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 11, 17.
[11] To see textual arguments from 1 Timothy 2:9–15 marshaled for feminist claims, see Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 319–397. For a response to these arguments see the chapters by Henry Scott Baldwin and Andreas J. Köstenberger on the exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:12 in Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 39–84.
[12] Susan T. Foh, Women & The Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Phillipsburg, NJ.: P&R, 1980), 3.
[13] E.g., Rosemary Radford Ruether, Liberation Theology: Human Hope Confronts Christian History and American Power (New York: Paulist Press, 1972), 183.
[14] Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism with the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992), 54.
[15] Letty Russell, Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective: A Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 50–51.
[16] “Si Lutero, hoy, fuese mujer,” Protestante Digital, December 13, 2016, accessed May 13, 2025, https://protestantedigital.com/95tesis/41003/si-lutero-hoy-fuese-mujer.
[17] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 12; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 70.
[18] See Letha Scanzoni, and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to be: Biblical Feminism for Today, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), 36.
[19] Aída Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 25, 29.
[20] B. T. Roberts, Ordaining Women (Rochester, NY: Earnest Christian, 1891), 36.
[21] Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 13.
[22] Raymond C. Ortlund, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 88.
[23] See Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, rev. and exp (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1995), 62–63.
[24] Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, eds., R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 177–78.
[25] Bruce A. Ware, “Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 18.
[26] Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135, no. 539 (July 1978): 248.
[27] Carl Friedrich Keil, and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 55.
[28] This language of Genesis 2:18 is the namesake of the view today called complementarianism. It stands in contrast to the view of evangelical feminists called egalitarianism. For the former, see the Danvers Statement by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), 1987, https://cbmw.org/about/the-danvers-statement/. For the latter, see the statement of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) International, “Men, Women, and Biblical Equality,” 1987, https://www.cbeinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DefiningBiblicalGenderEquality.pdf.
[29] See Ortlund, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” 91.
[30] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 7 (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 298.
[31] The postpositive causal particle gar (“for”) in 1 Timothy 2:13 is syntactically subordinated to the verb epitrepō (“allow”) in verse 12. This means that the ground for Paul not allowing a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man was that Adam was created first. George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids; Carlisle, England: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 142; “γάρ,” BDAG, 189.
[32] See R. C. Sproul, "The Order of Creation," Tabletalk 23, no. 5 (May 1999): 7.
[33] Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 36.
[34] See the chapters by George W. Knight III, H. Wayne House, and Dorothy Patterson in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, 345–77.