The Bible & Women’s Equality, Feminism, Women’s Rights and the ERA

Introduction

From the first American suffrage campaigns to the still-unratified Equal Rights Amendment, Christians have quoted the same Scriptures both to resist and to champion women’s political and social equality. The dispute is therefore not simply about which texts appear in the canon, but how they are interpreted, arranged, and weighted. Below, the essay traces (1) the principal passages and theological moves marshaled against feminism and the ERA, (2) the counter-readings deployed for them, and (3) the hermeneutical fault lines that keep the debate alive.

I. A Biblical Case Opposing Feminism, Women’s Rights, and the ERA

1. Key Proof-texts and Arguments

2. Hermeneutical Foundations

• Literal-originalist inerrancy. Command texts are treated as timeless statutes, not culture-bound counsel.

• Creation-order hierarchy. Genesis is read to establish male authority permanently; the Fall merely confirms it.

• Conflation of church, home, and state. A woman barred from pulpit authority is, by extension, barred from governmental authority.

• Natural-law overlay. Catholic writers appealed to Casti Connubii (1930), which taught “if the man is the head, the woman is the heart … he occupies the chief place in ruling.” Papal Encyclicals

3. Deployment in Modern Reform Fights

II. A Biblical Case Supporting Feminism, Women’s Rights, and the ERA

1. Creation Equality – Imago Dei

Genesis opens by declaring that God created “male and female” in the divine image (Gen 1 :27). Pro-ERA Christians argue that withholding civil or ecclesial equality therefore denies something stamped into creation itself. Bible Gateway Mainline bodies such as the National Council of Churches invoked this text in 1975 when they urged member denominations to lobby for ratification. Christianity Today

2. Gospel Equality – Baptismal Oneness

Paul’s baptismal formula—“there is neither Jew nor Greek … male nor female” (Gal 3 :28)—became the movement’s banner verse, appearing on thousands of posters produced by groups such as the Religious Committee for the ERA. Bible GatewayThe New York Public Library Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) interpret the line as the New Testament’s social charter: hierarchy dissolved at the foot of the cross. CBE International

3. Spirit-Empowered Female Leadership

The Old Testament judge Deborah (Judg 4-5), New-Testament missionaries like Priscilla (Acts 18 :26) and Junia (Rom 16 :7), and Joel’s Spirit-on-“sons and daughters” prophecy (Acts 2 :17-18) demonstrate, supporters argue, that God calls women to every level of leadership—sacred or civic—and that civil law must not close doors God opens. Jewish Women’s ArchiveBible Interp

4. Mutual Submission and Justice

Proponents read Eph 5 :21 (“submit to one another”) as the controlling verse of the household code, making unilateral male authority a post-Fall distortion. Proverbs 31 :8-9 and Mic 6 :8 then authorize the church to battle structural injustice—including legal discrimination against women—as a gospel imperative. Presbyterian and Methodist assemblies in the late 1970s framed their ERA endorsements in exactly those terms. phewacommunity.org

5. Hermeneutical Principles

• Canonical reading. Restrictive passages are weighed against creation’s equality and the cross’s reconciliation.

• Trajectory ethics. Scripture shows movement from patriarchy toward mutuality; Christians continue that arc.

• Contextual exegesis. 1 Tim 2 addresses a local abuse in Ephesus; Acts 2 and Gal 3 are normative for all time.

• Justice lens. Isaiah 1 :17’s call to “defend the oppressed” legitimizes legal reform like the ERA.

6. Application in Reform Movements

III. Reading the Same Bible Differently

The chasm between the two positions is less about Scripture’s authority than about interpretive strategy:

Conclusion

Both camps root their convictions in Scripture, yet they arrive at opposite conclusions through divergent hermeneutics. Opponents of feminism and the ERA stress hierarchical readings of Genesis and Pauline restrictions, fearing that equal-rights legislation subverts God’s ordained order. Supporters foreground the shared imago Dei, the leveling power of the cross, and the Spirit’s history of calling women leaders, contending that the ERA merely enshrines what the Bible already teaches. The enduring debate, therefore, is not over biblical authority but over how the Bible’s grand narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation should shape public policy. Until Christians reach consensus on that interpretive question, the same Scriptures will continue to march under rival banners in the public square.

Sources

1. “Should Women Teach? Thoughts on Function, Office, and 1 Timothy 2 :12,” 9Marks 9Marks

2. New International Version texts: 1 Tim 2 :11-15; Gal 3 :28; Gen 1 :27 Bible GatewayBible GatewayBible Gateway

3. Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) Papal Encyclicals

4. History.com, “How Phyllis Schlafly Derailed the Equal Rights Amendment” HISTORY

5. Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on the ERA, 1977 SBC.net

6. Jewish Women’s Archive, “Deborah: Bible” Jewish Women’s Archive

7. BibleInterp, “Judging Deborah: The Prophetess and Gender Debates” Bible Interp

8. Christianity Today report on NCC endorsement of the ERA (1975) Christianity Today

9. CBE International, “Galatians 3 :28” commentary CBE International

10. NYPL Exhibit, “Why Religious Groups Support the ERA” leaflet by Religious Committee for the ERA (1981) The New York Public Library

11. Woman Suffrage and the Bible tract (1890) Women’s Political Communication Archives