Complementing the Egalitarians
There is a difference between a "complement" and a "compliment," and perhaps we'll do some of both. Please check out this link that Joseph suggested (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2143#comments), which presents an egalitarian perspective on Genesis 1-3. Let's use McKnight's thoughts as a jumping-off point for our own conversation about men's and women's roles. We don't need to let McKnight define or limit the terms of our own conversation, but it may help give us a common starting point.
And if you have trouble getting to the link, or just want to weigh in from another angle, have at it!
posted by Brian Emmet @ 1:43 PM
49 Comments:
Robert's point about the Epscopal church is obviously valid, and he would particularly feel the fallout in light of his recent involvement with the Anglican Churh (which I think, next to the Orthdodox faith, is the largest body of Christian faith in the world . . . not including the Roman Church). Yet, there seems to be another aspect to this that may even have a greater significance. According to Peter Wagner, and a book that he wrote a few years ago, that fastest growing group of Christians in the world is the "non-denominational church." Sometime in the near future, it will eclipse all other denominations in size and numbers. When one looks at that "tapestry," one sees quite a variety of beliefs (forgive me for the understatement). I was visiting the web-site for Willow Creek, looking for some unrelated information, and noted that they now have a woman "Teaching Pastor," and their elder board is about half women and men. To me this is significant, rather I agree of disagree with their policy, because Willow Creek has a HUGE influence on the church in America. Thousands upon thousands of pastors attend their leadership conferences every year. One of the two pastors that was sited in the article that Joseph recommended a week or so ago, the one here in Columbia, did his internship at Willow Creek and was sent out from there to plant the church here. Soooo, what affect will their position have on the larger body of Christ? It is interesting to me that their influence (and others like them) is not coming out of our seminaries nor out of denominational caucases (sp). It seems to me, as has been stated, that this is an issue that cannot be ignored! ERR
Is "male" and "female" a distinction without a difference? That "feels" wrong to me... but it seems that that's what the egalitarian position ends up arguing for. So to Robert's question: does gender matter, and, if so, how does it matter? Does scripture "require" distinct gender roles, or does it recognize the reality of gender roles (culturally) without "requiring" them? Is the husband (let's assume he's a believer) who stays home to care for the kids so his wife (also a believer), who has a "better" job and even perhaps more motivation to pursue a career, missing the boat--is he being "unmanly," not in a cultural way but in a way that really has spiritual significance? Is he failing to lead his family?
Is my church heading down the slippery slope to "liberalism" and apostasy because we're now permitting women (along with men)to preach, occasionally?
Randy, what's your problem with Willow's leadership structure? It sounds like you think that recognizinig women as elders or teaching pastors is a mistake? If so, why?
This is a subject that won't go away. Women's roles within the church have never been a big obstacle with me, in any area, except in terms of headship. I 've had dialogue with a well respected pastor who believes there is no restrictions upon a woman's role in the church...even as an apostle. I asked him if he saw a husband as head of the home. He said he did. He indicated he believed every woman should be under the authority of a man. He didn't see that as a detriment in women's roles within the church. In my opinion, to say a woman could not function as well in every role a man functions in has little merit. Often times, they can do a much better job, just as cabinet members under a president could possibly do a better job than the president. Wives can often lead the home much better than the husband. But what is God's divine order in the home, in the church? Pulling out scripture verses can be used to support both sides. Like everyone else...I'm asking.
Just a quick comment to Brian's question . . . the Maryland game starts in a few minutes! By siting Willow Creek, I was not staring my position on the issue (that's still a secret!). What I was trying to communicate is that an issue that for centuries, no two millenium(!), has been wrestled with by church councils and denominational conventions is now being decided independently by church bodies, who are exercising an enormous influence over the rest of the body of Christ (especially in the West). It seems to me that they are trying to fit into our culture, mirroring what is happening in our society. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY WRONG; however, it is a much different approach than has been historically true. Once again, as I believe I stated in an earlier blog, it seems that the question needs to be framed in the context of the broader subject that we've been discussing . . . the Kingdom of God. If Jesus came today (Maranatha!), what would He want His church to look like? This question (women's roles) is very important. ERR
Good discussion and an important issues. I wish you all were here...just had a cigar and a couple of brews with Jamie Johnson and my sons-in-law...
Here is my current view, which may change in time.
A comment Bob Mumford made years ago helped me understand Paul’s comment that he would not permit a woman to teach a man. He put it in the context of relational discipleship (character formation) rather than public speaking. We all know what happens when boy is formed by his mother rather than a father.
In my opinion, it is not possible to separate the issue of women’s roles in the church from the general the issue of church structure and ecclesiology. Such issues as what is an elder, what is an apostle? What is a deacon? What is the church?
I have no problem with women being on the boards of directors of modern congregational or mega-churches, because it often reflects the metaphor of the church as an organization. I have no problem with women speaking in the same churches, as a public speaker, or teacher.
I do feel that there are valid biblical concerns about a woman ‘discipling’ a younger man. I once knew a 60 year-old pastor in Colombia who had been raised up and mentored in ministry under a female apostle (Sister Berchtold). He was supremely sensitive and insecure. He kept asking me, a man younger than him by 30 years, what I thought of his preaching and his ministry, looking to me for affirmation. It was pathetic in the truest sense of the word.
I view the church as a family…which cannot be much bigger than 40 to 60 people. That leads me to view eldership as a type of fatherhood. An organic church with a female elder would be like a female-headed household. The one exception that I would see possible is drawn from first Timothy and Titus:
1TI 5:2 the older (elder, presbuteros) women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
TIT 2:3 Older women (elder, presbuteros) likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,
TIT 2:4 that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
In this context, it might be permitted to have a woman elder, or rather an elder woman, not to oversee the whole church, but to give teaching and discipleship to young women. My wife, Debbie, functions as an ‘elder’ woman, teaching the young women, disicpling them. But she has never been ‘ordained” or a label or title, office.
Obviously, the bible talks about women deacons, as well as men. Nothing wrong with women and men ‘servants’ and ministers…carrying out admin, tasks, handling money (board of directors?) etc. Nothing wrong with elder women discipling the younger women…just not the younger men. Regarding bishops, I don’t believe in them as anything other than elders (that’s for another post).
In terms of ministries, helps, healing, prophecy, administration, mercy, etc. I see no problem with women functioning equally with men in the use of giftings in service, without familial or disicpling authority.
As far as apostles, I see no problem with females members of apostolic teams or females functioning apostolically under the covering of their husbands or team leaders. However, that is again, because of my view of ecclesiology. I do not equate apostles with bishops, and I do not see apostles as having ongoing authority over local churches other than in the beginning, transitions or times of crisis. I view apostles more like entrepreneurial missionary/church planters rather than bishops or senior pastors of megachurches. Obviously, from that paradigm, there are lots of female missionaries, and wives of church planters and single women on church planting teams. The Catholics have always understood this and talk about lay apostolic groups such as Catholic Action which had both masculine and female versions. My wife is an apostle…but she never takes authority over a man or tries to disciple a man and she is clearly under my headship.
So… for me, the issue of women in ministry entirely hinges on one’s theology of the church and the structure of the church. In a mega-organization like Willow Creek I have no problem in principle with women ‘elders,’ preachers or teachers. Do I have a concern, however, with the use and meanings of words. Is an ‘elder’ at Willow Creek the same thing as Paul intended when he recognized, indicated or appointed older leaders to take a measure of responsibility for the local congregations? The meaning that we give to the word ‘apostle’ is also very important. Depending on how much and what kind of authority one invests in the apostolos, one may or may not include women.
in re-reading my comments I want make one corrction...my wife is "apostolic" ...in the sense that she has been commissioned both by our home church (Lancater) and by the Holy Spirit alongside me to go out and advance the kingdom. She would be VERY uncomforable with me calling her an "apostle" if it is understand as an authoritive church office....in fact, I am increasinly uncomfortable with the label as well.
We had an awesome time with Jamie, he left a wonderful deposit here and he stirred the guys up (although he left me a little tired...getting old). He is a treasure...and I am so glad that he is part of your team.
Agree, Jammie is an awesome guy! Say, bloggers. How do we reconcile our questioning of woemen's roles with the Church? 6 billion people live on this planet called Earth. One billion are members of the Roman Church. It seems to me that their position is pretty entrenched. Could this be why so many are leaving the Protestant Church for their doors? Are we STILL protesting too much? Joseph, the young man whom you met, one of the household leaders, John Christensen is converting to Catholicisim. Another wonderful, Spirit-filled brother, our age, who courted our church for a while, but we were not litergical enough for him . . . has been attending the Anglican Church that Robert you have noted is near us, is seriously considering converting back to Catholicism. mmmmmmmmmm? ERR
yeah... it even crossed my mind once or twice to convert last year.
We are swerving into a new topic. Just a comment. Are people leaving for the liturgical or because the true dynamics of God's power and presence are not being demonstrated, among other reasons? I thinks someone awhile back mentioned the greatest church growth, and will continue to be, is the nondenominational sphere.
Quick note to John: I mentioned the quote about the greatest growth in the nondenominational sector; however, perhaps I should have emphasized that that is within the Protestant world. Also, to answer your question: both of these men love "power encounters." They are finding that in more eccumenical gatherings where the power of the Holy Spirit is manifested. In fact, the younger of the two (John, ~ 30) preached about a year ago one Sunday (in our service) and to date, it was the most powerful service we have had!!! Sorry, if I appear to be getting us off track. When I think of church, I tend to think BIG, as in worldwide!:-} ERR
Thanks, Randy...apologize also for getting us off the path we were on.
here, here! I strongly resonate with your comments Robert. I especially resonated with, "why would anyone want to exercise authority over anybody?"
That is where I am at these days. Deb and I spend our time trying to out-do one another in serving one another. Most of my outreach at the University comes from those who have met Deb, and have watched our relationship through the fires of last year. They are attracted to the dynamic between us...and many of them are feminists! I overheard one girl last week say that she was hoping I would "adopt" her.
oops...is it "here, here" or is it "hear, hear" That is, when you are expressing strong agreement with someone? It is normally spoken not written.
By the way, there is an interesting discussion going on in Open Source Theology about prophets and the prophetic ministry. Andrew Perrimen, the blogmaster, had some good things about the colletive prophetic voice of the Christian community. I added some thoughts on a more personal level about prophetic attitude and motivation. The link is:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1136#comment-5337
Open Source is pretty good, but very cerebral. Most of the posters are Ph.D's in theology, or are Ph.D candidates. Sometimes a little too linear/rational for me, especially considering they are supposed to be friendly to post-modernism.
Boy, while the cat's away...! I'm just getting back from an ACM planning meeting somewhere in the middle of nowhere, Ohio--it was fabulous! Just wanted to check back in, say hi, and thank everyone for his comments--very stimulating, insightful, confusing, etc.! I'll be back shortly to Straighten Everything (and Everyone)Out!
Waiting with baited breath, Brian! Or is that simply bad breath! Thanks for serving us at the planning meeting.
Actually, it is "bated," not "baited" breath--"bated" related to "abate," or "stopped, paused, held" breath, but now I'm just showin' off! And I can still be suffering from, and afflicting the environment with, my halitosis (bad breath), either of the regular or the mental variety.
ok...then maybe you can help me with my earlier question...when you want to express strong agreement with someone, is it "here, here!" or is it "hear, hear!"
I believe it's "Hear! Hear!" as in "Listen up--what this guy's saying is right!" But I'd be happy to be shown to be in error...
My daughhter Amy called me last night on her way home from one of her final med school lectures...about caring for your gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender-intersexual patients (notice how the length of the list continues to grow). according to the presentation (a far from unbiased presentation), the average age at which kids are 'coming out' as self-identifying homosexuals is 11. I think we're moving into a culture where we will increasingly speak in terms of "sexualities"--the 'traditional' understanding of 'male' and 'female' as complementary poles will be replaced by a more 'plastic' and 'dynamic' understanding--hence, 'sexualities'. Chuck Colson in his daily radio broadcast was commenting on a law in the UK that has an excellent chance of passing that would make it a crime for private schools to teach that homosexuality is immoral; one of the supporters stated that where sexuality and religion come into conflict, religion must give way.
So--have I put my church on a slippery slope by flexing a bit about who can preach (i.e., women as well as men)? If we move in a more egalitarian direction, how do we articulate the goodness of and the differences between being male and female? Or do we sense that the West is entering a Romans 1 season, where God hands us over to what we are determined to have?
Fresh news: The two classes I teach are at a Christian High School, out of the Reformed, Presbyterian tradition. The students come from a variety of church backgrounds. One student in my psychology class, a senior, NHS type, attends a church which is advertized as a "FUNDAMENTAL INDEPENDENT BIBLE BELIEVING CHURCH." I thought you would find it interesting to read what she wrote in a paper I just read: (she was evaluating a film), "From my perspective, the film does a good job of evaluating the issues of gender roles. . . . I believe that men and women are equal, and should be treated so. Some people would consider this feminist or radical, and it saddens me that equality of men and women is sometimes thought of in that way, even in the Christian community. Equality should be a perfectly normal accepted and practiced idea, a way of life. God created men and women equal, and Jesus treated women the same way as men. . . ." ERR/out
Fresh news: The two classes I teach are at a Christian High School, out of the Reformed, Presbyterian tradition. The students come from a variety of church backgrounds. One student in my psychology class, a senior, NHS type, attends a church which is advertized as a "FUNDAMENTAL INDEPENDENT BIBLE BELIEVING CHURCH." I thought you would find it interesting to read what she wrote in a paper I just read: (she was evaluating a film), "From my perspective, the film does a good job of evaluating the issues of gender roles. . . . I believe that men and women are equal, and should be treated so. Some people would consider this feminist or radical, and it saddens me that equality of men and women is sometimes thought of in that way, even in the Christian community. Equality should be a perfectly normal accepted and practiced idea, a way of life. God created men and women equal, and Jesus treated women the same way as men. . . ." ERR/out
thats what I thought...but Debbie was under the impression that one raised one's hand and said "here, here" like "choose me"... makes sense.
I read a study the other day that was talking about the "constructed" social nature of gender categories, as opposed to "biological" and the author identified 5 genders.. male, female, male in a female body, female in a male body...and ... don't remember for sure..maybe it was bi-sexual. I am amazed at how many of my fellow students put "bi" as their sexual preference in the profile on myspace. I always try to give them an extra seconds worth of squeeze when I hug them to make up for the father vacuum...
well.. don't know if you can tell, but I had one vodka tonic tooo many tonght. Nevertheless, I had a great conversation with a young guy in our program who called me and wanted get some input. We went down to the billard hall where my daughter Ruth is the bar tender and had a wonderful conversation. A whole crowd of people showed up and the kingdom was present. Good stuff! thanks Brian and Randy... I always enjoy your posts.
I suspect/hope that we in the church can reconsider how we understand and apply "male and female roles" without denying "male and female created he them." Would you agree, or do you think that any departure from a "classic" understanding will inevitably lead to 5, 7, or unlimited "gender identities"?
In a battle that seems all but lost considering homosexuality, here is an amazing, encouraging story of a lesbian, editor or a magazine for black homosexuals, whose circulation is 38,000, and who has been a key spokesperson for this group of people. Now, she has "come out of the closet, again." This time to announce that her faith in God and that she has left her homosexual lifestyle!!!! http://www.venusmagazine.org/cover_story.html. Powerful testimony!
It seems that we are somewhat comfortable with the idea that women might could do some things that we didn't use to think they could, e.g., preach occasionally in the local assembly under the authority of the elders. So maybe the question is "governmental" rather than "ministry," i.e., we're perhaps we are more open than we used to be to women exercising ministries within the church. So why is it that we feel that women can't/shouldn't "carry governmental authority" in the church? I sense we're still uncomfortable with a woman serving as senior pastor...or as an elder? We have good NT warrant for women serving in the diaconate (but not a precise NT "job description" for the role of deacon), and it seems to me that deacons did carry a measure of authority with and under the elders. Why shouldn't women serve as elers (if in fact you think they shouldn't--and feel free to think, and say, otherwise!)
hi Brian,
I think I gave my opinion at length on the question you are asking in my original comments above. I personally think it depends on the metaphor/paradigm one is using for church: church as business organization, I see no real problem with women elders/board members...church as family, on the other hand, is complicated, because the elder is a 'father' figure. It seems to me that Paul was using the family metaphor when he set out the roles of church leadership in Timothy and elsewhere.
I think an argument can be made for an 'elder' woman who is focused a spiritual mother on the younger women. But in a organic/family type church....a woman as a senior pastor would be equivalent to a female headed household.
Regarding Robert's comment about biblical interpretation...this is one of the reasons why I am reading McLaren and visiting these 'emerging church' blogs... I want to understand how they approach the scriptuers and interpret them, before I take issue with their "hermaneutic," especially in the areas of gender and gay lifetsyle.
Let me say one more thing about my comments above about a "woman as senior pastor." ... The idea of a "senior" pastor does not appear in the N.T., although it does appear within one generation after the death of the last apostles, in the form of a presiding bishop among the elders (first among equals) in the writings of Ireneaus (130 to 200 ad).
I have come to believe that God can work through almost any church structure...
...but in an 'organic' family type church that is decentralized and non-hiearchical...the whole idea of a 'senior' pastor becomes a moot point. If there is a leadership team of relatively mature people leading the church... there is much more freedom for a gifted woman to function without worrying about her title. My daughter Sarah is constantly taking initiatives with the women of our community... and she is mentoring or discipling 3 or 4 of the younger single women. In a sense, she is functioning as an "elder" woman...but not as a senior elder.... Carlos and Jimmy are fulfilling similar roles among the young men, and yet neither of them is a 'senior' pastor or elder. Carlos brings more of the pastoral, and Jimmy brings more of the prophetic/leadeship gifting.
Perhaps by changing our metaphor/paradigm of church life or church structure we can to some extent side-step the whole controversy?
Hey guys,
This thread and our approach to it is quite clearly above my pay grade.
I do think that the Satanic point of attack in this is not really so much on the functional roles within the churches as it is on individual's gender identity. The church struggle is a result of the attack on identity.
This is happening on two levels: first, the accepted norms, guidelines, roles are being liquified at a meteoric pace both in media, in the workplace, relationally, etc. This means that kids are not growing up with a strong sense of "what they are and should be."
Second, the deterioration of the ecological system that children and then young people are growing up in has been absolutely sideswiped. This means that children are growing up in "wide open spaces" as far as gender roles with less than ever of the family "garden" that was built to help them form their identity.
As a result, the kids are encountering the daily pains and joys of life...the formation/learning process with less and less help in choosing between truth and deception...
between faith in the Word and seduction by the enemy to deny the Word...to a Christ-centered hope or to a life of earth-based lust...to living and breathing in the love of God...or to looking for love in all of the wrong places.
The landscape we see around us is the result.
The liquidity of the situation will mean that those who turn out healthy will do so because of radically following Jesus and those who don't follow Him will be severely damaged very early.
I think it is in this context that I see the need for the "dunamis" that John keeps pointing us to. However, I am struggling with the flakiness I see in much of what is passing for power in the church these days...signs and wonders that are all surface pyrotechnics (a stimulating show) instead of seeing men and women formed in their identities in Christ by the miraculous power of the discipleship Jesus showed us and the community Acts points us to.
Show young people the miracle of that happening fluidly in our local settings and I don't believe we will see many of them walking away to convert to another denomination or another gender preference!
concerning dunamis and "the flakiness in much of what is passing for power" ...
Hear, hear!
Brian..am I in touch? Kevin
wow...there was a Kevin sighting in here! awesome... j
Kevin is alive..yeah! Quick thought. To ignore or put dunamis on the back burner because of flakiness is a grave mistake. Like you, I don't want anything but the real deal. We have stressed character all these many years, rightly so, yet how many men have we known within our ranks and nationally who have fallen. We don't dismiss the need to pursue character....neither should we dismiss the pursuit of genuine power, that in my opinion will validate what we preach. Blessings!
Whoee! I think the militart refers to this as a "target-rich environment"! I don't mean that in any negative way, just that there's lots to talk about.
I appreciated Joseph's comments about a "business" vs. "family" model for the church, and the liberty provided by the latter in addressing some of our questions. For example, while we might generally think that "the husband should be in charge of the family finances" (as an expression of his leadership),we all know situations where the wife is far more effective handling the books, and the marriage and family continue to work quite well.
Jamie's comments were, not unexpectedly, very thought-provoking, especially the picture of the "liquifying" of so many aspects of modern life. I remember Robert's suggesting several years ago that we read Leonard Sweet's "AquaChurch," which presented a pretty positive assessment of the cultural move from land-based to water-based thoughtforms. I think Jamie was pointing to the ineivtable downside of this sort of thing: perhaps we are "liquidating" persons, in the old Mafia/CIA use of that term (i.e., "exterminate with extreme prejudice").
I continue to need help in thinking about how "dunamis" works. God of course needs no permission from me to do whatever he wills, but I sometimes feel that our desire to see the "power" manifested runs into Good Friday. I'd enjoy dialoguing the idea that the "power" of God was pre-eminently displayed on the Cross (and Resurrection!)--but those displays carry in themselves significant elements of mystery and paradox.
But I have gone on too long--next!
(Hear here!)
we are probably in a new thread now... but what the heck.
I have been fascinated for a long time by the fact that Jesus tried to keep his power miracles quiet...he did not want the word to get around. Diametrically the opposite of what we would do, much less TBN.
I have a sneaking hunch, that true dunamis only works when you release it...when you are no longer seeking it, but rather embracing the cross and obedience. In other words, if you seek dunamis... it will elude you...if you seek obedience and the cross...you may find dunamis despite yourself.
But let's not jump tracks just yet--sorry for releasing too many conversational rabbits for us to chase!
So...we've pretty much become egalitarians and it's time to move on to the next topic? Or do some of us feel we may not quite have gotten this all figured out just yet?
I am probably talking way too much in here but here goes. Here is my summary in response to your question.
I am an "egalitarian" in the sense that I believe men and women are equal in Christ...both genders bear the image of God.
I am an "complementarian" in the sense that I believe each gender bears the image of God differently...that is, reflects different attributes of God and that we are made to "complement" one another in our roles.
I would call myself a "pragmatist" in terms of women in ministry. I would not exclude women from any ministry unless it is absolutely prohibited by scipture. The only role like that that I see in scipture is for a woman "to have authority over a man" In the Hebrew concrete mindset...realism, I take that to mean discipleship or apprenticeship rather than public speaking or a board position.
My views of 'offices' or roles of leadership in the church are such that it makes the issue of women as bishps or senior pastors pretty much a non-issue. I still insist that it is important that we identify the metaphor or paradigm of church we are operating under.
And finally, I agree with Jamie, that gender distinctions are important...masculinity and Femininity are distinct, god-given characteristics that Satan wants to disfigure.
By-the-way, there is some theological material on gender from a complementarian perspective called "5 Aspects of a Women." It is pretty good...definitely not egalitarian.
I intended to say the opposite above:
"The only role that I see in scipture forbidden for a woman is to "have authority over a man" In the Hebrew concrete sense of apprenticeship or discipleship."
sorry...not enough coffee...
Let me press Robert and Joseph's points a bit: Scripture certainly uses some language that is metaphorical in describing the church (vine, body, new temple) and some that seems more... literal (assembly, ekklesia,family, people of God)...and arguably some language, e.g., "body," that we assume is metaphorical but which in fact may be very literal and concrete, more so than we might think.
Our culture also presents us with additional metaphors--business, team, army, network, mosaic--some of which we like, some of which we don't.
A question for Joseph (and anyone else who would like to respond): I agree we need to be conscious of and careful with the metaphors we use in thinking about the church (and our specific current issue of gender distinctives)--which metaphor/s do you think should prevail, and why?
For Robert (and others): while culture cannot dictate to the church, the church only exists within a culture. Following WWII and the massive flow of women into the workforce, our culture changed pretty dramatically and I suspect the church's understanding of gender roles likewise flexed or shifted somewhat... similarly for the cultural shifts following the Industrial Revolution. Can we claim that the NT gives us a model for church that is "culture neutral," i.e., that will be the same for all cultures? Again, I want to ask us to stay focused on the specific issue we're dealing with... and I trust everyone understtands that these are not hostile questions!
Wow…they sound pretty hostile to me! (just kidding – you are probably the most non-hostile person I know).
A quick response to your questions. I prefer the vine and family metaphors of church life. However, I am not sure that one is better than another, as long as they are congruent with biblical teaching (in agreement with Robert). I think each metaphor has strengths or weaknesses, and it is important not to be too idealistic (in the fullest sense of the term) about the church, but rather as faithful as possible. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that as a living organism, the church ‘evolves’ through time, adapting within biblical constraints to succeeding cultures (while holding on to the heritage). That is the genius of organic life… adaptation and change…but faithful to the divine DNA.
A quick response to Robert’s question about biblical examples of women in key positions of ministry: (Brian, please feel free to rebuke me if this is off topic). Lydia was the ‘women of peace’ who hosted the first church in Europe. Mary Magdalene was the first person after the resurrection of Christ to be sent with a message (go tell my disciples). Although they were not named ‘apostles’, in the missionary band of ‘disciples’ of Jesus were several key women, who even helped finance the operation. Pricilla and Aquilla were valued missonal coworkers with Paul and not only helped equip Apollos, but also were key team members in planting the church in Ephesus. Junia (a feminine name-sometimes translated Julia) was noted among the apostles (Rom. 16). Ana was a prophetess (Luke 2:6). Nympha hosted a house church (Col. 4:15). Phoebe was a deaconess and a helper of Paul and many and was worthy of honor. Again, using the family model of the church… I would refrain from naming female presbyters, although I do see women functioning as elders to other women (not in authority over the men).
WOW! This is our longest string, yet. I would like to expand upon Robert's questions: "Two questions, one...why would a woman want to be in that position? Secondly, where would you go for precedent, particularly regarding NT example?" First, the second question. I DON'T believe that there is a biblical precedent. Joseph, I agree with all your examples, EXCEPT the one of Junia as an apostle. I have heard the argument before by those who are strongly in favor of women's roles. I feel that theologically, it is a looooong stretch, a very remote possibility, and in light of the burden of the rest of Scripture AND extra biblical accounts, I don't believe those who are teaching this point are correct. HOWEVER, the more that I study Islam (today) and our Jewish roots (biblically), the more I wonder how much was culturally driven? Robert asked "Why would a woman want to serve in a leadership role in the church?" I feel that most of his generation and many of ours (10 years younger) would ask the same question. The challenge is from the younger, emerging generation. They are growing up with women CEO's, company presidents, store managers, owners of professional sports teams, etc., etc. I just read about the first woman to become a pilot with the Air Force Thunderbirds Team (second in the world only to the Blue Angels, of course!). She is also a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Now, let's say she knows the LORD (I have no idea of her faith), continues to advance in the Air Force, and perhaps retires as a colonel or even general. She has been leading men her entire career. Then, she comes into a church and is told that the best she can hope for is to serve as a deacon! She may have more guts than half the men in the church, be a natural born leader, full of the Holy Spirit, and on fire for God. This example is multiplied many times over, today, in our Western society. Believe me, I am wrestling with it. Personally, I have not, yet, been faced with such a challenge, but the very thought of it rocks my boat. I think that I am asking the same question that Brian is. One more point, I am also becoming more and more convinced that our role is as "Servant Leaders." I am sure everyone would agree to some degree or another. As such, I am aware of many women who are outstanding servants AND leaders (understanding that you CAN be one without being the other). It's almost 10:30 PM. I better sign off. Joseph, you guys are in our prayers. Robert, we look forward to seeing you this weekend! To the rest, Good night!
Hi Randy,
The reason why this thread is long, is that Brian keeps asking good questions, and I passing up good opportunities to shut up (lack of cowboy wisdom).
I agree with you, Randy and Robert, that there is not a strong biblical precedent for a woman apostle or elder. I would also offer that there is no clear prohibition either. The very fact that the argument can be made both ways, tells me there is some cultural latitude in this issue. The fact Jesus did not have a female apostle, does not mean that he couldn’t have. The fact that Junias’ gender can be disputed, does not prove that he/she was, or was not an female apostle. In fact, it seems to me, that considering that the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day was so clearly patriarchal, it is highly significant that there were so many women in key positions around Jesus and Paul in such a male dominated society.
I want to throw out one more thought, if Brian will permit it. I have not made up my mind entirely about postmodernism yet (heck, I don’t even understand it yet!), but one aspect of it that I can willingly endorse, is the desconstruction to expose the wrong use of power and domination.
It seems to me that a constant lurking thread throughout church history, since Simon Magus, has been the issue of coercive power and political domination, the very opposite of the Spirit of Christ. Despite the wonderful example of many dedicated servant leaders throughout the history of the church, there have been as many or more that have used church offices for positions of power, or even wealth.
So…in our modern age, (or postmodern), if men are motivated by ambition for power and the desire for personal gain, why shouldn’t the women want to get a slice of the action? Why would a woman want that kind of authority over men? Easy… for the same reasons that most of our national male leadership want it….power, ambition, pride, money. I don’t need to name names, you can supply your own.
That takes me back, hopefully for the last time, to the models and metaphors of church life and leadership. If we endorse the concept of hierarchical ‘offices’ in the church…(yes, sadly, even ‘senior’ pastors) we’d better be prepared for women wanting in on it. If we move toward something closer to the first century model of organic communities/spiritual families, with true servant leaders (or even the Chinese model of the 1950s-60s)…I think the whole issue can be reframed. In such a paradigm, there are no ‘offices’ or positions of power, to be coveted, just opportunities to serve.
In fact, I will go so far as to predict that the growing crisis of the church, from Ted Haggard to Gene Robinson to Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, will eventually force us back to primitive, organic underground Christianity.
This is like jello, isn't it? We had all this worked out about 25 years ago. Although it's important to note the abuses that have taken place all throughout church history, what answers are we coming up with? I also weigh on the side that the church is a family model. There are those today, and increasingly so, who have no problem with women apostles. Here is my question, a bottom line question for me: If the issue is one of authority, can a woman be an apostle, prophet etc. if she is fully under authority at home, and under church government? Mucho thanks in advance!
hey, are we going for 50 comments? We are almost there!
Good questions John. I think a lot depends on how you define the authority of the "apostle". The word I have been using lately as a synonym for apostle is "missional leader."
oops! I just got off topic. Sorry Brian
Hey guys,
I have resisted drawing this conversation into my own experience but do think that it would help us to better flesh this all out if we were seeing a more complete picture.
From the beginning, Boy With a Ball has had significant female leaders. Much of this has been due to two factors: one, we have functioned with a team concept that has allowed us to put women in roles where they can be used profoundly alongside men.
Secondly, we have done so out of necessity. Many times we have been planting in places where we have only had a sharp young female leader to plug into a need.
Some of the beauty of what God is doing in allowing this melting of external standards or in this refining of propositional truth is that He is continually pulling out areas where we are bound by things we were never meant to be bound by.
Some great byproducts of all this is that the younger marriages are more team-oriented with a greater expectation of intimacy. The two are better able to blend the giftings in them and to deliver them as a package in a way that is particularly effective if the man is a truly healthy leader who can navigate the new terrain without allowing them to fall into the traps that come with it.
I do believe that the change involved in all of this makes this conversation all the more important. I have already begun sharing parts of your perspectives with our young leaders.
So would the powerful councils of church history happen today in blog form?
Ahhh. come on, isn't someone going to be #50? Opps, I guess I am it! Sorry!
Well, I turned 55 earlier this month (my "AARP-y birthday"), so let's press on towards 55 comments before we all collapse in exhaustion.
Jamie--what are the "pitfalls" you referenced in discussing these new kinds of marriage relationships where the men know how to navigate the new terrain without falling into the pitfalls/traps? I think I get that the "old model" may have some real limitations and unnecessary restrictions for both men and women... how, specifically, do we avoid falling into an "old is bad/new is good" mindset?
Joseph, I wonder about the current trend to equate "apostolic" with "missional"...isn't it the case that THE apostles left a deposit for the church that is unique and therefore unlike the contributions made by those calling themselves "apostles" today?
John, since women can prophesy, why can't they be prophets? I may have misread your question, but it sounded to me like you were expressing some discomfort with women serving as prophets or apostles...but correct me if I'm wrong.
Everyone, especially you more egalitarian folks: should there be any gender-related or gender-based role distinctions? If so, what are they, and why are they? I can't escape the feeling that egalitarians have to end up arguing that gender just does not matter very much to the purposes of God...I'm not seeing how or why you would or can hold onto any idea of masculinity or femininity. I think you WANT to, I just don't see how you bring it off. So help me out here, OK? Lighten my darkness, dispel my ignorance, put to flight my pigheadedness!
Brian, you said: "I wonder about the current trend to equate "apostolic" with "missional"...isn't it the case that THE apostles left a deposit for the church that is unique and therefore unlike the contributions made by those calling themselves "apostles" today?
Brian, are you starting a new thread? You don't want me to get started on that subject if you want us to stay on the gender topic.
You obviously believe in current apostles because you mentioned them in the following statement to John. The short answer is, yes, the foundational apostles are eternally unique, and no current missional leader, or apostle can equate with them. I will exercise great self-discipline and not write the other 10 pages that are in my mind.
Going back to Jamie's post...you beautifully illustrate my tedious and oft repeated point, Jamie, that we can not separate our discussion about women in ministry and church from a parallel discussion about our model/metaphor of the church.
Because Jamie is using a team/parachurch metaphor, he is able to release gifted young women into appropriate ministry while side-stepping the issue of women's authority and women in church offices. Jamie does not have worry about defending A.C. as a female apostolic or missional leader, since she is just a 'team leader.' And yet, she is fulfilling the functions.
I say, lets let go of the old wineskins (while treasuring our heritage) and find biblically compatible metaphors that 'work' in our current culture without all of the hassle over terminology or positions of authority.
Robert has expressed pretty much what we have held to all these years. Brian, what I am pressing for is the issue of authority. I want to know if Paul was refering to women when he wrote
"...members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." People are pulling out OT and NT scriptures today to support women in roles we have generally held as male roles. Is Junias a definitive portion of scripture to support women in the role of apostle? As we are building a new church here in Albany, this is important to us and one we are debating now. As I said before, I know without question that women can function as apostles, prophets, elders, and possibly function in these roles better than most men...but are they suppose to? Many wives can lead the home better than men, but are they? I have always felt women were getting the short end of the stick in terms of church life and ministry. I have been opened-ended to women being free to exercise leadership roles in the church...but governmental? It is still a big question to me. This is why I am like Jamie, listening to the wise counsel of my brothers (no, sisters?) Blessings!
John raises an intriguing point: can we really have a full conversation about gender without some women's voices in the mix? What do you think?
Joseph's point about the "parachurch-icity" of modern evangelicalism--well, that wasn't actually Joseph's point, but it was embedded in there somewhere--is worth some further reflection. Our "parachurch" approach to "church" is both a great strength as well as a great weakness of evangelicalism and its offspring (charismatc movement, us, etc.) We may like the way it "flattens" out hierarchies and releases people into witness and work, but just as with the old more hierarchical model, the new model has some real weaknesses...as do all our models. But let's not case that just now, or we'll end up at 550 comments instead of 55!
without challenging anyone in this forum, I think we have some assumptions about authority and apostles that we have never really discussed. I personally have been "deconstructing" my view of apostolic authority...which has some significant impact on our discussion of women...but I will save that for another post.
An attempt to further breakdown our discussion into perhaps more bite-size pieces regarding gender issues . . . However, before I offer my morsels, I wanted everyone to know that Robert is scheduled to speak at our Men's Retreat this weekend. We will both be without internet access for more than 24 hours. What Robert doesn't know is that, with the exception of his talks, it is all being led by women! . . . . Guest kidding! OK! Women ARE different from men. I have been in very few conversations where this was not agreed upon. Every book written about marriage addresses these differences. Looking beyond marriage to life itself, both are EQUALLY capable of sin. Men may tend to commit the sin of rape, but women are infamous for their alluring, seductive ways. Both result in sin. Both are EQUALLY capable (it seems to me) of lying, cheating, stealing, and even committing murder. It seems to me that in that regard we are EQUALLY guilty in God's eyes. Physically, men have more muscle and less fat than women (proven scientific fat). Yet, my 22-year-old niece, who is in a PhD program, and preparing to do a triathlon, can run circles around me! Likewise, as I have posted before, my students, who are high school seniors, will be able to teach their sons EQUALLY as well as their husbands will (if not better) how to dribble a soccer ball or a basketball. We all know that women can be very competitive. I was married to Linda for three years before I beat her in ping pong! Now, can we agree that women can hear EQUALLY well from the Holy Spirit as men? It seems to me that God doesn't have certain "words" for men and others for women. So, could it be possible that women could function equally well in roles traditionally filled by men? IF our cultural accepts this and believes in it, then it would seem that a woman could be equally, if not more effective, than a man. HOWEVER, if the culture does not accept such quality (as in Islam), then such a role would be most counterproductive. THEREFORE, it seems to me that the question is NOT whether or not Scripture allows or even encourages women's roles, because that argument is very weak (concerning women), but are those roles culturally bound vs. Kingdom bound? None of us seems to have a problem with our wives wearing heals, piercing their ears, wearing make-up, and not covering their heads. Once more, I AM WRESTLING with these questions.
Post a Comment
<< Home