Busting Out of the Court of Women
January 26, 2004
Maybe it’s just that I had a lot of experience with the issue of women in ministry during undergrad, but I’m kind of tired of this issue. My freshman year roommate believed women should not be in ministry or leadership [he also had Confederate flags in our room and wrote his thesis in high school on a biblical basis for Slavery in the South] - and I disagreed. So I took Biblical Issues for Women during Jan-term of my freshman year at Whitworth; the course was taught by Gordon-Conwell professor, Dr. Catherine Clark Kroeger. After the course, went back and forth on the issue, and then finally realized…WHO AM I? Who am I to say who can be in leadership and who can’t? Don’t quote me 1 Tim 2: can you say “cultural context?”
So I was a bit surprised during my weekend spent with Allelon-folk, that we ended up discussing women in ministry for an entire morning. It seemed to me, for pomo / emergent / missional / whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-be-called Christians - this issue should really be a non-issue. However, people seemed to still be struggling with this issue [and by that statement, I'm not attempting to make a judgment on anyone and where they are on their theological journey, but...] and that is discouraging. Why can’t we MEN just get over ourselves and be open for the Spirit of God to work in whomever He/She wants to?
I first met Lilly Lewin a year ago at the Emergent Convention in San Diego. Got to hang out with Lilly and her husband, Rob Lewin. Amazing couple - had many great conversations with them and loved getting to know them. Lilly and Rob went to Mayhem and had an interesting experience.
Lilly first posted a few thoughts (in the form of a rant) here. Then I think Chris Marshall posted a quote from Lilly here, and then the conversation really got started. Since then, many others have joined the conversation: Amber Bishop, Rachelle, Bill Bean, Mollie Bean and Jonny Baker (he has had many posts the past week on this issue).
So what started off as an innocent rant into the blogworld has spurred on discussions on many, many blogs. On one hand, I feel that this discussion does need to happen. As has been mentioned before, those in the Emergent network are primarily middle-class, white males (myself included). I think we need to ask ourselves how we allowed this to happen, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. On the other hand, I continue to think this should be a non-issue for those who are asking themselves how to do church differently. As we approach a new ecclesiology, a new vision for what the church will look like - we need to stop boxing in God and deciding who God can speak through…
A lot of this discussion has been about people who are “up front” during church, events, conferences, etc. Some are saying that it doesn’t really matter who is up front, women who are doing behind-the-scenes ministries are happy to be there (and some women are saying that). However - whether or not the women feel they are truly ministering behind the scenes, what message is this sending to those women in the congregation when they see only male-leadership up front? I have a friend who is interning at a church and issues relating to this are truly only semantics. I can’t remember the exact words, but I think her pastor was okay with her “facilitating” worship - but not “leading” worship…
Jen Lemen (whose blog I just recently found and really enjoy) will be having a discussion on her blog about women’s roles within an emerging church context (at least I think that’s right, Jen correct me if I’m wrong) - and I look forward to that. Nothing really profound here to say, just wanted to make my readers aware of this conversation, throw out some links and encourage us to be open to the Spirit of God.
Tags: Ministry, Vineyard, Women-in-Ministry, Womens-Issues
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 26th, 2004 at 8:41 pm
you’re right on, adam! thanks for sharing your audience. we’re talking about this everyday on my blog and others. i think this is a critical time for women and we’re all eager to see each other grow into the full scope of our gifts. the right hand foundation gave $10,000 through emergent to fund a grant to start addressing this issue. i’m part of a small group of women involved with the grant–we’re looking for more people who are interested in seeing something really happen. it’s a wild ride, but i think the spirit is moving!
we’re psyched. your encouragement and openness means a lot.
jen
January 26th, 2004 at 9:00 pm
I agree with you. Seems strange that we keep revisiting an issue that should be assumed by most “emerging” ecclesial dreamers. I hope my children are not still wrestling with this issue when they are my age.
January 26th, 2004 at 9:07 pm
I used to be a “feminist” (I really hate that word for what it has become) though not in the man hater sense. I have also felt for some time as though I have been called into ministry. That being said I decided that my feminism thing had to end this past semester when I interned at a church that was completely run by females who were more focused on righting the wrongs done to women throughout the past then they were with God.
They changed the words to the doxology because of the reference to God as the father, refused to pray to God as a father in any prayer other than the Lords prayer, and attempted to manipulate things so that the highest job any male in the church had was that of an assistant to the youth director who really never got to say anything to them but was there more for controling some of the guys when they got to rowdy. We sang “Be thou my Vision” and even had to change the line that said “Thou my great father and I thy true son” To say “Thou my great savior and I thy true love,” because we couldn’t call God a father…that would have been inappropriate. I prayed to God “the father” in youth group while leading a prayer at the end of a bible study and was told that that was “wrong” of me because it discriminates against women.
I completely agree that women should have some leadership positions in church. I know people use 1 Timothy against women because that was who he focused in on at that point, but I really think that was more of a cultural thing. Lets face it, there ARE some women (and men for that matter) that really shouldn’t have much leadership because they become a stumbling block to others, as the women in my church in Atlanta had become to many of the men within their congregation, but it wasn’t because of their gender.
I guess it is more of a women thing. Women are more quick to try to right the wrongs of the past, men don’t have that concern. I, quite honestly, would rather be in a church where little to no women held leadership position, ut yet the focus was on Christ, than in a church where mostly women held leadership positions and the focus turned from God to fixing the unfortunate past.
January 27th, 2004 at 5:31 am
bored? Cleave, believe me, women like me are SO bored with this conversation - we’ve been talking about this for so long. I would love to see the day when we don’t need to talk about it any more. Therea re so many more intersting things to talk about. But until we actually get included, we will have to keep talking.
January 28th, 2004 at 11:28 am
There’s a danger here that I think threatens to section emergent folks off into just another denominational corner. My dispute isn’t with the idea of women in ministry, but with making that (or any other similar issue) a prerequisite for anyone to be approved as ‚Äúone of us.‚Äù
As long as I’ve been hanging around these circles, Emergent has made a point of defining itself as a “friendship” and a “conversation.” Since the early days of the conversation, there’s been an intentional effort to cast a wide net ‚Äì to involve people from a variety of perspectives within the Kingdom. That, as much as anything else, is what has made the Emergent conversation attractive to so many of us. When it comes to the church, most of us have some life experience where we felt like we were on the outskirts of friendship or conversation, maybe because we didn‚Äôt fit in on one or two particular issues. We felt like we didn‚Äôt quite fit in the existing structure, so we longed for a different structure. What’s happening in these emergent circles gives us hope.
So here’s the rub – what you’re talking about is a litmus test for being a part of the conversation. You’re saying that the folks who don’t agree with the majority of emergent-type thinkers on one specific issue really don’t have a place at the table. They can’t be a part of the friendship. In my mind, that turns one of the primary virtues and goals of the emerging church on its ear.
I grew up in a fairly conservative evangelical environment. I’ve “emerged” from a lot of that, but I still have a lot of friends and family who cling pretty tightly to those roots, including the complementarian interpretation. You might think their position on women in ministry is wrong, and you may be right. But they don’t wave confederate flags, they don’t affirm slavery, and they don’t hate women. They love God, they love women, they love men, they love children, and they’re following Christ the way they currently know and understand Him. They don’t need a logical, rational dismembering of their theology any more than any of us need a logical, rational dismembering of ours. They just need people to engage them in conversation.
And here’s the thing – many of them are interested in this conversation. They’re lurking around, reading McLaren, attending the conventions, checking out blogs like Cleave’s. Don’t shut the door in their faces because you think they’re wrong about an issue like this. The conversation shouldn’t require that everyone involved be right on a checklist of issues. It’s a conversation. We’re all wrong about something. If we were all right about everything, what would be the point of talking?
I know that we tend to get fatigued with certain conversations once we reach a point of conclusion for ourselves. Once our mind is made up, it seems tiresome or boring to keep talking about an issue. But remember that we probably only came to our conclusions because people who had already reached their own conclusions were willing to patiently talk with us. Many of them were probably tired of the conversations they had with us, but that’s how we participate in one another’s learning and growth. If you think what you have is wisdom, you don’t lord it over people or demand that they concede your point to sit at your table. You listen and share. And listen. And you let people be where they are. Sure there will be some bullheaded trouble makers along the way, but don’t let them convince you that you need to build walls to protect your territory.
If we start drawing lines and building fences over this, we undermine ourselves in some ways that are pretty tragic and telling. If it’s this now, it will be something else next. And when that “something else” comes, there’s no guarantee you’ll be on the right side of that fence.
January 28th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
Adam, thanks for taking a stand on this issue, and Thad, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I found Thad’s comments irenic and reconciliatory in tone, and therefore appealing. But also disturbing, since I think this issue is so crucial and that it would be a betrayal to women and humanity in general not to take a firm, emancipatory position.
Perhaps the old bounded-set/centered-set distinction that frequently pops up in discussions of church-life and ministry is helpful here. If “emergent church” is some sort of spiritual/social movement, then it must stand for something and hold some values as constitutive of what it is. But as you say, Thad, litmus tests are not a helpful means of conversing or converting. A litmus test approach is a bounded set: a social group that defines itself through clear lines of demarcation that define who’s “in” and who’s “out.” A centered set approach sees a group as defined by a core set of values that people are moving towards, no matter where they actually stand on the issues. I found this diagram in a quick google search: http://www.nextreformation.com/html/general/images/center-set.jpg.
A centered set approach gives people permission to explore and dialogue, yet still gives the movement a definite orientation, so it doesn’t devolve into formless chaos.
Now of course the values that would reside in the center of the emergent center-set are up for debate, since there is no emergent “pope” to define the movement through an act of declaration. But in contribution to that debate, I strongly recommend placing an egalitarian view of women in ministry, family, and society as an essential, central value. If emergent exists, it must stand for something, and if doesn’t stand for for empowerment and emancipation for all, impulses at the very heart of the gospel, then to me whatever it does stand for is aesthetic, stylistic, insubstantial, and ultimately inconsequential. But with equality in the center, those who had not arrived at their own conclusions on the matter could be considered part of the “family,” part of the dialogue, as long as they had an orientation and openness towards the values at the center of the emergent value-set.
January 28th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
I agree that the issues has been settled and therefore should be an “non-issues” but it is far from being fixed which means it is an issue. Classifying it as a “non-issues” is like saying we need to move on, but have racism, classism become non-issues, theoretically yes but practically no. There is so much work to be done that we need to be careful how we talk about this. For those in power (which is any white male) it’s easy to think that something has been resolved now that we “know” something about it. But this is far from the case…
January 28th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
Great post.
January 29th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Thad -
you make some really good points, and I’m always disturbed by litmus tests or anything that puts our focus on trying to decide who is in or out. I can absolutely be friends and talk to someone who has a complementarian view of women in leadership. Regardless of our disagreement on that issue, that person is still my sister or brother in Christ, and not necessarily a misogynist. However, I can’t work for their organization or go to their church if they are the ones in charge. This isn’t a judgement on them, just a matter of practicality, as I will not be able to use my gifts of expression and teaching in that setting. I used to be a member of a church with a wide spectrum of opinion on this issue that tried not to have an “official” stance on women in leadership - it doesn’t work. When it came time to hire a new senior pastor, either women could or could not be considered for the position. The question could not be left open. It is not fair to women to say, “Hey, we haven’t decided what we think about women in leadership, but why don’t you come and talk at our conference or lead in our church with a bunch of people who will then debate your right to be there.” I would rather spend my time being who I am, rather than debating whether or not that is okay. Fuller Seminary has an excellent statement on this - they say “Hey, we think women are free to do anything they are called to do. You don’t have to agree with that to come here, but we will not be debating the issue in classes or in school forums, and you cannot question the calling of female students or faculty.”
If the emergent leadership doesn’t take a position on this issue, ya’ll will just set those women who are in leadership up for failure, because they will have to spend substantial amounts of time and energy defending their right to do what they do. Plus, every mistake will be viewed as a referendum on women in leadership in general, rather than the mistake of a particular individual. (Just read Brandy’s post. Darlin’ - just because you thought those women were jacked up, doesn’t mean all women are. I’ve got LOTS of ugly stories about boys running things.)
Conversation is good, but sometimes, you’ve gotta take a stand.
January 30th, 2004 at 1:36 am
Thanks to Adam for writing about this and taking a stand. I was dismayed at the comments on the post here a while back regarding Mars Hill — so few men were willing to stand up for their sisters.
I truly believe that the Holy Spirit works in all of us, and we cannot decide how He works or who He chooses for what roles.
A fascinating contemporary example comes to mind: there’s a 17-year-old woman from Russian who has an amazing healing gift, Natasha Demkina. She can actually see within a person’s body and clearly see their organs and bones and make accurate and confirmed medical diagnoses. She is a Wonder, with a capital W. The Holy Spirit is working through her. She has a gift that perhaps no one else in the world has at this time, and the Holy Spirit chose a WOMAN for this miraculous gift. And so she is healing others, healing others through the Holy Spirit.
Now suppose a church decided that women could not be healers, could not do diagnoses. What would be lost? Jesus has an amazing healing gift, and history is filled with examples of remarkable female Christian healers.
Similarly, history has provided some stunning examples of women preachers — the Holy Spirit was working powerfully through them. They were truly inspired witnesses to Christ. I am thinking of people like Lucretia Coffin Mott (d. 1880), Mary Baker Eddy (d. 1910), and Aimee Semple McPherson (d. 1944). These women were twice as controversial as any male preacher solely because they were women. But they worked, watched, prayed, and preached the Word. The Holy Spirit was working through them.
Finally, I still think it strange indeed that Mary Magdalene was at Calvery at the Crucifixion, was the first to go to Jesus’ tomb, and was the first to be visited by Jesus after he was resurrected. Clearly, Mary was not just a family friend or a girlfriend. Mary was Jesus’ beloved DISCIPLE, as He chose her first to appear to in resurrected form.
Adam says it best: This should be a NON-ISSUE. It’s a tragedy that women are still being treated like children by male leaders, many of them young and vital. Those sexist young male leaders will grow old someday, and then their conversative philosophy will no longer seem interesting and novel, but simply worn out, bitter, and mean, as in small.
January 30th, 2004 at 12:03 pm
I can’t believe we are still talking about this. It is a heart issue not a plumbing issue. Sorry.
January 30th, 2004 at 12:16 pm
It’s not that I’m not willing to stand up for my sisters. More that I see it as a silly arguments to begin with. Hence, it should be a non-issue. This is where I have to agree with Paul, specifially his second sentence in this quote from his letter to Timothy…
2 Tim 2:22-26
Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
January 30th, 2004 at 3:25 pm
This is a non issue. Whether or not we declare it to be so, doesn’t alter the fact that it is so. Pastor Draven has quoted the appropriate verse. Paul knew that endless debate only leads to more of the same and total distraction off the LORD and the work at hand.Paul said that there is no gender,socio-economic, or cultural differences in the Body. Gal 3:27-29. However there is an order. Another topic for another day. I am a bit more concerned with Martha’s unqualified acceptance of this young Russian girl as a divine instrument,not to mention Sister Aimee. Nothing has been proven either way that this girl even has the gift she claims to have;not even from the Russian media.All the same people are lining up at her front door seeking a sign,something JESUS said only a wicked and adulterous generation asks for. This is Jesus in a tortilla or the virgin in the upstairs window type stuff. Signs and wonders follow the believer and are solely for the glorifying of GOD, not the apparent betterment of mankind. They are not proof of GOD rubber stamping women in ministry. Mary Magdelene ( a good example of a true believer) was never reported to having done a miracle.She only had the simplicity of faith and devotion in her Master. Since even Satan appears as an angel of light, I can’t trust that this young woman is operating in the power of the HOLY SPIRIT.As for Aimee Semple McPherson and her pre-tbn extravaganzas she would be beyond acceptance even if she were a man. The question is not can women minister ;it is, are they called to a ministry by GOD. A standard that applies to men also.
It doesn’t matter who is he instument of the miraculous,only that it is the LORD performing it!
Chris P.
January 30th, 2004 at 10:06 pm
Chris,
If it is a nonissue to you, I must assume that you have decided women cannot be pastors or elders, therefore the issue is closed. Am I correct? Or do you think they should be allowed to teach and preach?
The debate about this will indeed be endless because it is wrong to exclude people on the basis of characteristics they are born with. As long as you and other males continue to discriminate against women, women and men alike will have to confront you, because frankly, you’re not living as Jesus commanded.
Hmm, so there is “an order.” I take that to mean: men within positions of power, women at the side, assisting. Is that the order you refer to? If not, please come out and say it, Chris. What is “the order”?
As for the Russian healer, in fact she was just in Britain and her power has been verified and proven. I imagine it must distress you to think that God would grant such a powerful healing gift to a mere girl. And yet He has. If you want to call it the devil’s work, fine, Chris, but this young woman is serving people now, healing them, and wants to go into medicine so she can continue her healing work.
The people lining up at her door are not seeking a “sign,” they are sick people who need help. Shame on you for twisting this into something evil and wrong when God has clearly given this girl a gift to heal! I suppose all those who are suffering and afflicted, those poor souls who are in pain and only seek help, are “wicked and adulterous” to you. Yep, we can assume that this women who is healing so many is an instrument of SATAN. How can you call yourself a Christian when you are so hardhearted to deny to the suffering and afflicted the healing gifts of this Russian woman? I do not call that loving-kindness, Chris!
“Signs” are not for the apparent betterment of mankind? Then what was Jesus, doing? Showing off his healing gifts just for the heck of it?
For the record, Chris, I never asserted that Mary Magdalene had healing gifts.
I am not affiliated with the Pentecost church, so I have no personal stake in Aimee Semple McPherson. But if she is “beyond accepance,” then why is one of her sermons included in the Library of America’s prestigious scholarly collection American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King Jr.? Forever, apparently: “This volume will be kept in print by the Guardians of American Letters Fund, established by The Library of America to ensure that every volume in the series will be permanently available.” Strange, no? Aimee Semple McPherson is now immortalized in the America’s most renowned series of literary classics — beating out hundreds of mediocre male pastors who preached a gospel of intolerance!
Her published sermon, by the way, is entitled “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Oh, what a rich irony! Thank you, Jesus!
January 30th, 2004 at 10:18 pm
Pastor Draven, with what church are you affiliated, if any?
And if this is a “silly” issue, then why have all the major denominations taken it up seriously and devoted years of work to it, revising their statements and principles to reflect their views?
If it were reversed, and men were excluded from being pastors, would you call it “silly”?
I hope you will answer these questions in a straightforward fashion instead of merely dodging them by claiming scriptural authority. Anyone can claim scriptural authority.
Please address the two great issues at hand:
1. Is it a reflection of Jesus’ greatest commandment, to love others as ourselves, if you appropriate an office or position to yourself that you would deny to a whole class of people?
2. Is it correct for mortals to restrict the power of the Holy Spirit by proclaiming and limiting how the Holy Spirit may work in His servants?
If you are truly a pastor, you will address these questions seriously instead of dismissing them as “silly.”
January 31st, 2004 at 12:25 am
i bet the male-only club is upset by the russian girl cause paul says miracles and signs are proof that the worker is an apostle. but how can an apostle be a girl??? a girl cant be an apostle, therefore she must be the devil! what stellar reasoning.
January 31st, 2004 at 1:00 am
Thanks, Christy, for a thoughtful and even-minded reply to my input. For what it’s worth, I agree with almost everything you’ve said (and our potential disagreements aren’t even worth a mention here). Specifically, I think you’re right that individual churches must choose one side of the fence or the other on this issue. I can sympathize with the intentions of a church that tries to sit the fence, but you’ve correctly diagnosed the inevitable breakdown in that scenario.
My clarification (and I don’t know that it’s necessary) is that, thus far, when we talk about Emergent in particular and “pomo / emergent / missional / whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-be-called Christians” in general, we’re not talking about a particular church or any type of organization or convention that governs or officially guides local churches. We’re talking about a loose collection of people who share some common interests, passions, beliefs, and even suspicions when it comes to life, church, community, and following Jesus. It’s not a functioning church requiring functional boundaries; it’s a conversation. It’s not a denomination; it’s a friendship. In my mind, that means the threshold is different when it comes to “taking an official stand” on non-core issues. And yes, I recognize that we all define core and non-core differently.
I think that’s really the crux of this discussion – is this a core issue? For some it is; for others (even many egalitarians) it isn’t. I’m wondering if significant disagreement on that point might reinforce the notion that it’s not yet time to declare this a “case-closed” issue for anyone who wants to be a part of a pomo / emergent / missional - ish conversation or movement. What I mean by that is this – the reality seems to be that some who are comfortably settled in the egalitarian camp are ready to declare anyone with other leanings on this issue ineligible for everything else emergent. Not only does that seem a bit premature given the demographics, but it effectively turns away some folks who need this conversation in a thousand other ways (and maybe in this particular way). And, frankly, I’m not sure that’s what’s best for the conversation itself, including those for whom this is personally a non-issue.
I’m not saying this needs to be a debate at the forefront of the conversation. I don’t want that, and I doubt anyone else does either. I think it’s fine for individuals in the conversation to be firm and clear about their conclusions on this issue. I think it’s fine and necessary for local churches to follow their convictions. My discomfort is with declaring who’s in and who’s out of the broader context of “emergent type people” (to abbreviate the description).
That seems to be the difficulty in all of this – deciding what emerging means, qualifying who it describes, and reconciling individual convictions and local communities of faith with broader contexts of conversation and ministry. I’m even okay with most of Steve’s bounded-set/centered-set idea, though I wonder what you do with people who might just be dots without arrows in that diagram. I suppose one might argue that there’s no such thing – that we’re either moving toward the center or away from it. In my mind, that would be a theoretical simplicity that doesn’t reflect many folks’ reality. The beginning of emergence for most people is a state of “stuckness.” I also don’t think it’s unusual in this particular conversation and movement for there to be a wide range of beliefs and convictions on even very important issues or for many of us to be really working through some uncertainty on some very important issues. Frankly, that seems to be part of what defines emergent types and what makes us uncomfortable in many existing manifestations of the church (and makes those manifestations uncomfortable with us).
I just don’t want us to be too hasty in determining what questions we will let people ask and what questions we won’t; what issues we’ll allow people to wrestle through and what questions we won’t. And as a supplement to that phrasing, I think it’s important to recognize that, even while internally wrestling with issues like this, many people tend to externally cling to familiar (and maybe old) notions. For me, the question is can we deal with that, even on an issue (like this one) that we feel strongly about? The people I’m talking about aren’t asking to be affirmed in every caveat of their theology (again, let’s acknowledge the knuckleheads and agree that they aren’t my focus), but they sense enough common conviction and purpose when it comes to God’s Kingdom to want to share a meal or two (figuratively and literally) with you.
I don’t disagree with Steve’s point that a movement like “emergent church” must stand for something and hold some values. I just wonder, especially for a movement that’s been pretty intentional in not drawing premature exclusionary lines, if it’s best to start turning people away on this one quite yet. At the very least, you’ll have a lot of folks who are disappointed to be told they don’t fit in and who feel misled about why this conversation is taking place…folks who are willing to fellowship with, learn from, and affirm brothers and sisters with some different perspectives but can’t quite understand why that openness isn’t being reciprocated. Maybe my gauges are set too high, but that seems to be the onset of the kind of “us and them” mentality that drove many of us from our old homes.
A final, sort of separate note: these “I bet that” and “I’m sure that” comments are cynical assumptions that don’t do anything to enhance a dialogue or benefit the Kingdom. I’m a smartass sometimes too, but take a deep breath and work on your timing. I don’t know Chris, I don’t know his position on the role of women in the Body, and I have no idea if we’d agree about that, but he explained pretty clearly why he’s skeptical of the healing claims. Disagree with that theology if you like, but part of the reason these conversations are so exhausting and divisive is because people on both sides start attaching labels like “all-male club” to the front end of their (often) bad stereotypes and assumptions.
January 31st, 2004 at 3:13 am
Martha,
Why the attack? I didn’t say anything to offend you. I think my words were horribly misunderstood, and slightly twisted. I said the *argument* was silly, and the scripture reference was to show that an argument like this, which I call silly because it’s going nowhere, should be avoided, or approached in a different manner. Specifically, “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”
If this argument is going to get anywhere, it must be done in gentleness, patience, and meekness, not through argument and emotional uproar, or accusatory statements. And we’ve seen a lot of the accusatory side take place, both here and abroad, over this issue.
I hope that clarifies what I meant by calling the argument silly.
Yes, I am a “real” senior pastor, but my credentials are a moot point. I’m suprised by the notion that my answers could determine if I am truly a pastor or not. Heheheh… I wonder how many pastors are “truly” pastors when put to that test. Sorry, I’m not laughing at you; just that the thought tickled me a bit. I hope my reason for using the word “silly” helped clear all tha up.
My words were quickly taken wrong, probably because I’m trying to calm down a fight. You would probably be suprised that I agree with you. My wife is even a pastor in our church, and not just a “women’s pastor”; in fact, she would probably be a senior pastor along side me if the law allowed more than one. She is just as much pastor as I am.
Frankly, I’m suprised that Mark Driscoll takes the stance that he does, with all the 1st-century Jewish culture studies he seems to have done( at least from what I’ve heard). 1st-century Judaism has been my main course of study for the past 10 years, and if there is anything I’ve learned, it would be to interpret scripture within its proper cultural context, and probably even moreso within context of not only the culture and background of the one who it was written by, but especially of who it was being written directly to. From my findings, I see no problem with women being in leadership. Men need just as much accountability as they do. And I see no scripture that when contextually interpreted would restrict women from being in leadership in the current times.
I called it a non-issue because this entire thread has moved beyond discussion and into accusations, personal attacks, and heated argument. Me being attacked, and my words used as fuel for something I don’t adhere to, only helps my point that things are getting out of hand and should probably be approached differently. At this point, there hardly is an issue to discuss… unless we all want to take a deep breath, relax, and try to approach this in a gentle and meek manner.
Should our focus be on who is “up front” anyway? Is it not for each community to decide their own interpretation of scripture, with accountability, and guidance by the Spirit? I believe that we should not have unlearned interpretations, but even the highly-learned don’t agree on everything. I think we must then unite on the essentials of the Faith. Love God, love others; God, His creative power, and His royal power (trinity); our Messiah, the perfect and final sacrifice, and His ressurection; our covenant betrothal/marraige relationship with Him, and our call to cultivate perpetual students and followers of God through His Messiah. All else seems to be non-issues, or at the very least, non-essential details that can be agreed upon according to the community or tribe. If one is in disagreement with a community on one of the minor details, perhaps they do not belong within that particular community. Heheh… there are not many things that I agree with the more traditional church communities on. But I can love them, laugh and dine with them still, because we are united on the essentials of our faith. There are still those who don’t understand or agree with the way our community lives out what we interpret to be a true church community, and treat us as outcasts. I feel sad for them, as they refuse to see past the silly details, and have closed themselves off to the unity the Church (big C) could have. Some have even found themselves in a performance based trap. I only hope that our little community can make a difference. On one side, to be a refuge to and a voice for the downtrodden, and on the other side, to be the translator between the two cultures that are evident in the Church today, and in that begin to bring unity.
–wow, and I was trying my best to keep from posting long entries in this blog. see what you made me do? heheheh ;)
January 31st, 2004 at 10:41 am
I agree with a lot of what everyone is saying here, but I want to express two things:
1. It’s not reasonable to put forth blanket expectations that conversations on this issue must proceed in “gentleness” and “meekness.” There is too much pain and hurt involved, and there has to be allowance for the expression of anger. It’s too easy for men to call for a patient, open, calm conversation. Our status as a human being hasn’t been called into question.
2. I’m committed in principle to dialogue and conversation among differing views. But this issue is tricky, because facilitating a dialogue on this issue means allowing people to openly voice stereotypes and derogatory statements. So the mere act of allowing the conversation can serve to perpetuate pain and injustice. I don’t know the answer here. I think there’s a difference between complementarians who enter the conversation with questions and doubts about their position and a willingness to hear alternative viewpoints and complementarians who have no intention or desire to change their mind. I don’t see a lot of use for dialoguing with the latter, but I think the conversation has to allow for the former.
I think there is tremendous need for discussion of this issue, and that it shouldn’t be swept under the rug or treated as a bygone conclusion. But I think the conversation, in general, must take the form of repentance towards women, not debate.
January 31st, 2004 at 2:48 pm
I think this is a wonderful conversation, and I have been glad to read along.
Can I add my thoughts as a woman?
I was in full time children’s and youth ministry for over ten years. I loved it - the only thing I love more is staying home with my young son. :-) I love seeing other women in ministry - so many of my friends are amazingly gifted in ways that men around them are not. Its a wonderful thing. Women have some intuitive gifts that men just dont have.
Having said all that….I would never be part of a church where a woman is the senior pastor. There are just some ways, in my opinion, that God has gifted men which serve that role better. I believe this based on my experience in ministry and on how I read scripture. Its my conviction. There is nothing old fashioned or ignorant about following conviction. Others are free to have their opinions, but it is not helpful to marginalize people out of the conversaion because they are holding to their view of scripture.
January 31st, 2004 at 10:30 pm
It is quite difficult replying to an argument based solely on emotion as there is no use debating facts with anyone who thinks they win by shouting you down, but here goes anyway. I simply ask that you read it carefully as to what I am actually saying and I suggest you re-read my previous comment since you have seen fit to tear portions of it out of context and also insinuate meaning that is not there nor intended. This also seems to be the way you treat the few verses of Scripture that you care to acknowledge.
First I say thank you to Thad as he is the only one who actually had read, and understood, what I had written. However, as I do not agree with the premise that the ec is the current “move” of GOD, an arrogant assumption on the part of some emergents, I say who cares if the ec won’t allow you in because you hold a contrary view? Everything emergent is all about everything emergent. I see no one expressing concern for the mind of the LORD or the revelation of the Word on these matters. My prayer is that the ec would sit down and take a good objective look at themselves. Did I say objective? I’m sorry. Dirty word, dirty word…….
As for Joey’s comments; what male only club are you talking about? I belong to no such group. As matter of fact I avoid anything that looks like a good old boys situation. I never mentioned anything in my comments that would indicate my position on the current topic one way or the other. Both you and Martha are making some incredibly long stretches to arrive at the conclusions that you are stating. Also I never said a woman could or couldn‚Äôt be an Apostle (obviously you are assuming that the russian girl is), or that this young girl is the devil. I am questioning the blind acceptance of her supposed ‚Äúgift‚Äù as being from GOD when you or I have no way of knowing that. I would question this if it were a 40 year old man making these claims. (2Cor 11:12-15) So Joey, while I find your thought processes to be fascinating, I find your reasoning, or shall I say lack of it, to be less than ‚Äústellar‚Äù, and Martha, I doubt that you would even care about this person, if it happened to be a man who was given this ‚Äúgift‚Äù, as my point is, you are simply grasping for anything to prove your point. This is why the manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit include discernment. This is also the reason we were given the Scriptures, sorry Martha, the scriptures are authority. In your rant against Pastor Draven, you said anyone can claim Scriptural authority. That is not true. I don‚Äôt believe you can claim authority as I don‚Äôt believe you have any real knowledge of Scripture, other than the one quote that you and Terry, (who is commenting on the Mars Hill post on this blogsite), keep posting i.e. ‚Äúto love others as ourselves‚Äù. In fact, the two questions you pose to Pastor Draven are suspiciously identical to the ones that Terry poses, which smacks of some sort of organized effort on your part. (as if that would matter). Anyway, Jesus did not say that the verse you use as your mantra is the greatest commandment. If you took time to study the WORD you would know this. That particular commandment is subordinate to another. (Matthew 22: 34-40 and Mark 12:28-34) Jesus‚Äô words not mine. ÔÅä
As for the your unfounded accusations that I am not living as Jesus commanded and that I do not have loving-kindness; how can you possibly assume that, as you do not know me at all? How would you know if I discriminate against women? This boils down to the same old trick which is, if you repeat any baseless accusation enough someone will believe it. Anyone who unjustifiably accuses the brothers, joins the work of the accuser whether purposely or in ignorance. (Rev. 12:10 and Isaiah 58:9b) I am worship leader and small group leader at a church of about 250 on the Navajo Reservation. I am one of five white faces in a church of native Americans. I would give my life for these brothers and sisters, and they happen to love me and my family also! We deal with real problems, not the feminist agenda. Traditional Navajo culture and religion is matriarchal. The women rule in the home and in the culture in general. Unfortunately with the coming of western culture also came the full emasculation of the men. Our church is full of women; single moms, grandmas, and divorcees. The majority of men are into substance abuse, peyote religion, have left the home, or are abusing their wives and children. The women in our fellowship i.e. the Christian women, are in constant prayer and travail for the men to return to the LORD and take their place as “heads” of their homes. I am not adding my bias to this, as I and my wife join them in their intercession on a regular basis. (Gen 2:20-25) Blame the LORD for making us the way we are.
As to your other points;
1. Read John 9:1-7 and Mark 2: 1-12. In these verses Jesus plainly states the reasons for HIS performing signs and wonders. Of course he wasn’t doing things randomly. All of HIS actions, words, and deeds were designed to display the perfect plan and will of the FATHER. So sorry Martha; GOD does not exist for our pleasure, we exist for HIS. All this Russian lass claims to be able to do is see internal organs. How is she healing anybody?
2. I never asserted, that you asserted, that Mary Magdelene had healing gifts. This is what happens when you read into what’s actually there. My point was, that she stands head and shoulders above the other wonderful examples of womanhood you cited, and apparently without the plaudits and credentials of Ms. McPherson. Which brings me to;
3. First of all, Aimee McPherson founded the Foursquare Church. Even most of my Foursquare friends won’t acknowledge her much. I suggest you read some books on her life. (Matt 7:15-20) Second, we are not to show partiality to anyone as the LORD shows no partiality. (James 2:1 and Acts 10: 34-35, slightly out of context but the principle applies.) Therefore I am not impressed by the fact that her sermon is immortalized or how many hundreds of mediocre pastors who preach intolerance she beat out. (Do I detect some issues here?) My guess is that there are hundreds of more mediocre men enshrined in the Library of America. Is this what we are here for? Do we live for the kudos and plaudits of man? Is this a competition? The Library of America will burn with the rest of the earth after HIS return. (2 Peter 3: 10 and Rev. 21:1) Based on this I fail to see the “rich irony” in anything that you have written.
So, back to your original question. I have no problem with women in leadership. The only issue is, are you called individually into ministry and what ministry would that be. I consider it a non-issue as the argument will never be resolved. Each church, denomination, and individual will act on their own conscience in this. This not a matter of Salvation. My suggestion is for you to study Matt 7: 1-5; 12-13;21-23. I will meditate on verses 6 and 15-20. We can ALL focus on verses 24-27.
January 31st, 2004 at 11:04 pm
Pastor Draven,
Thank you for your wonderful response. I was not attacking you, I merely found it disturbing that you used the word “silly” to describe this conversation. I don’t think you can possibly understand just how painful it is to women to still be denied positions of leadership solely on the basis of their sex. To be marginalized and made small by a group of men. To be told by complacent men that they are absolutely certain just what their God has allowed to my sex and just what their God has denied to my sex. And then to be told that their God is my God, and that their theology is the only right, true, and authoratative theology.
I personally love the sermons of Mark Driscoll and would love to be a member of Mars Hill. I also love the Puritan preachers and love reading the Scriptures.
It greatly pains me that my potential full gifts, gifts that only the Holy Spirit can bestow, would not be welcome at Mars Hill and other conservative Reformed and Baptist churches.
But that’s the reality of the situation for me as a woman. To call the pain I feel and the passion I am putting into this discussion because of that very real pain “silly” was quite excruciating to read. Perhaps you cannot possibly understand.
I am not trying to be a “victim,” it’s just that purely on Christian principle, I find the exclusion of women from pastorship really disturbing, as it is exactly opposite to what Jesus taught.
And yes, if Mars Hill allowed women to be elders, I would join that church, and I would have a lot to offer. Not as an elder, but in other roles. It’s purely on principle that I cannot join that church, even though in just about all other respects I am in agreement with its theology.
It’s just old-fashioned discrimination. I grew up in a church that was extremely hostile toward women, and spent a girlhood observing and eventually growing up to understand just how that hostility and discrimination played out in the real world. (Yes, institutional discrimination has real effects — on souls, on hearts, on peoples’ lives.)
Then to find a church you really like, a pastor you can get excited about, a theology presented that comes alive and feels compelling…. and then, to learn that the leaders of that church are all male and can be only male — what a shock that was to me! I was so excited by Mars Hill, so happy to find that church, and so hopeful about joining it. What a blow to learn this about a church I felt ready to join, as a new Christian, someone who was discovering Jesus in a new way. I am not lying when I tell you that even writing this right now brings tears to my eyes because this experience was and still is so sad and disappointing.
I take this very solemnly because I have spent my adult life recovering from being in an religious environment that taught me again and again that I was deficient in the eyes of God. It is difficult to describe what that does to your psyche over time, especially when you exposed to it when very young. I don’t believe men can fully apprehend it, even if they are supportive of women in roles of leadership (which I deeply appreciate — it still surprises me after growing up as I did).
Jennifer, perhaps you feel marginalized from this discussion, but I am marginalized from full participation in your church. For what? For something I had no control over or say in, something that God alone chose for me: my sex.
I am not ashamed of being a woman. Why do Mars Hill elders and other male elders want to make me feel ashamed of being a woman?
If my pain and passion bothers some of you here, I apologize. I approach this topic from the background of growing up in a church that seemed to delight in humiliating women, and on top of that, the recent personal history I have recounted in going to Mars Hill before I fully understood their “policy.” I know I am not the only woman who was shocked to learn that. Shocked and very, very sad to be singled out as deficient to God, and left out … again.