an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Community (Page 3 of 3)

3. Observations on the Two Positions

There are a number of observations that are important in setting a context for considering the matter of women’s leadership in the church.

Let’s begin with one of the most striking. The observation is this: both today’s complementarians and today’s egalitarians are radical reformers compared to nearly every traditional position in the history of the church on the nature and role of women. Church tradition has been nearly uniform in affirming patriarchy as the God-ordained order of things in all areas of life, including home, society and the church. (While Quakers, among others, have been a notable exception, one can observe areas of Quaker practice that differ substantially today from practice in centuries past.)

Complementarians are careful today to argue that women are of equal value before God – a proposition that directly contradicts teaching in church tradition. Egalitarians tend to focus on the idea that women should be eligible to minister in official capacities in a manner equal to how men are eligible for those same ministries. This idea also contradicts nearly all teaching in church tradition. No matter which position one holds, it is surely an innovation compared to the traditional patriarchal practice of the church through most of the course of Christian history. The writings of the church fathers and other leading figures in the history of the church are often so biased in favor of men and against women that they are embarrassing to read today.

Consider Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes.”

Or, read Tertullian’s “On the Apparel of Women”. (This is the writing in which he infamously refers to women as “the devil’s gateway”.) There are, in addition to these, many unsubstantiated quotations of Christian leaders on websites intending to decry the attitude of the church or Christians toward women. It is unsafe to trust in the truth of quotes for which no primary source attribution is given; some seem to be fabricated and repeated for shock value. (That is, if the site does not tell you how to find the quote in the original writing of the author who is quoted, don’t trust it.) And yet the attitude of historical leaders of the church toward women is easily shown to be compatible with neither complementarian nor egalitarian positions of today. Rather, a rather condescending patriarchy was the norm; women have generally been considered inferior to men even in the church.

I do not write to denigrate those who have held such opinions in the past, but rather to show that deeply significant and beneficial change has occurred. The prevailing attitudes of the past have not always been biblical. The attitudes of great leaders in the Christian tradition were bound up in their time and culture.

We must consider that all are bound in some ways as prisoners of culture and society, accepting with little question attitudes and opinions that will someday prove to us that God’s ways and thoughts are indeed higher than our own. In fact, we must be grateful that God does us the grace of not revealing to us all at once the full extent of our entanglement with sin and ignorance that give rise to thoughts, habits, and attitudes that make us (to be diplomatic) not as good as God designed us to be. A bruised reed he will not break, indeed – and let us give praise for God’s love and mercy that it is so!

In addition, I would argue, that in spite of embarrassing attitudes expressed at times by many of our Christian forefathers, that the place Christians have played in improving the lot of women in the world has been of vital and central importance, leading societies and cultures toward what Helen Barrett Montgomery termed “the emancipation of women through the gospel of Jesus Christ”. Christians have led in changing society toward attitudes and opportunities that more fully honor the image of God in women. Today, both egalitarians and complementarians take for granted attitudes toward women and opportunities for women that were nearly unthinkable merely a few short generations ago – except in the mind of God and those whom his Spirit had guided toward his more perfect will and ways. Those who have led the way to improving the treatment and attitudes around the world toward women have come primarily from among God’s people. They have acted to bring about positive change precisely because they believed that God called them to this work in faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Both complementarians and egalitarians argue today that women are not inherently inferior to men – that men and women are equally valued by God. Women are no longer seen as lacking sense and judgment, as being a sinfully seductive distraction to men, or as essentially inferior and incapable. The surprising thing to us these days is that so many church leaders in the past argued for restricting various types of ministry to men because they viewed women as inherently inferior. We find this surprising and distasteful because the general attitude of Christians toward women has improved. As a consequence, following upon God’s work among and through his people, the attitude of our society has changed, too. Praise God!

However, the attitudes of people in our society and others have not changed enough. Official policies are often good, but practice lags behind. Unfair and demeaning treatment of women remains common, both in the church and in wider society. The incidence of tragically poor treatment of women by powerful men remains so prevalent that it seems to warrant recognition as a system of oppression that remains in existence, in spite of much progress. It is a fundamental calling of Jesus’ followers to stand against oppression and injustice. Such patterns of sin directly oppose Jesus’ mission to bring fullness of life to God’s children.

Jesus, in his first reported sermon after a 40-day time of tempting in the desert, quoted Isaiah to define his ministry:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
(Luke 4:18-19 NIV)

Upon considering the place of women in family and church, there is work to be done in the name of Jesus. There is past oppression to be lifted and there are prisoners to be freed. There is blindness to be healed. There is good news for those who are prisoners of unjust patterns in this fallen world. Jesus’ people must lead the way in releasing the oppressed into the fullness of life to which our Lord beckons.

Next: 4. Oppression

2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family

Among evangelical Christians in the United States, positions on women in leadership are polarizing into two main camps, most often labeled complementarian and egalitarian. Both camps can at times be uncharitable toward the other, and caricature is not uncommon. Both camps use scripture to justify their position; both are serious about respecting the authority of the Bible.

In short, complementarians believe that certain roles should be filled only by men. The complementarian view is that women and men are equal in value and personhood before God, but have different roles to fill in the church or family. One-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in marriage and family, while two-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in family and in the church. In particular, certain roles such as pastor and other leadership roles are not open to women, and (generally) women are not allowed to preach or teach in public worship if the meeting includes men. There are variations in practice, with more or less tolerance of exceptions for particularly gifted women with high-profile public ministries. Wayne Grudem and John Piper are leaders among two-point complementarians who are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. On occasion, complementarian thought is referred to as hierarchicalism by egalitarians; though this terminology seems not to be preferred by leading complementarians.

Also in short, egalitarians believe that ministry roles are interchangeable between men and women who are equally gifted. (This position is also known as biblical equality.) The egalitarian view is that all people are equal before God and have the responsibility to obey any God-given calling to exercise the spiritual gifts God has given them. Gender alone does not prevent any believer from exercising their spiritual gifts in obedience to God’s call to a ministry in the church or home; Gender alone does not grant privileges to any believer; no position within church leadership is reserved for one gender only. Those who hold this view do not believe that women and men are identical with no differences between them. Somewhat ironically, an expression common among egalitarians is that God has designed men and women to complement one another. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee are prominent egalitarian writers. An organization representing this view is Christians for Biblical Equality.

It is important to note that both of these groups are conservative and Protestant. Both believe in the primary authority of scripture as standing above any church tradition or human tradition; for both groups, scripture takes precedence over anything that seems to contradict it. Both groups exhibit a serious desire to be faithful to both God and scripture. (Of course, there are some holding either of these positions who do not match this description. Disagreement with those who are not committed to the authority of scripture is not addressed here.) Those with whom we disagree on a particular issue but who otherwise show every indication of being faithful followers of Christ deserve our charity and respect. This is a disagreement between followers of Christ – children of God. We must approach it with humility and love for God, for one another, and for truth.

Sarah Sumner, in her book addressing this issue, Men and Women in the Church, writes:

God has not called me to enter the debate and settle the matter conclusively. He has called me to something higher and more painful. He has called me to repent from my sins, speak the truth, suffer for his sake, love other people and entrust myself to him who judges righteously. This is his call to all believers. In the past we have failed to follow in his steps. But that’s no excuse. It’s not too late now to make a better decision.

May we heed this advice.

Addendum: There are two additional views worth mentioning for the sake of completeness. One, which has some traction among conservative Evangelicals is called Biblical Patriarchy. This view might be characterized as “three-point complementarianism”. According to this view, males should be in leadership in church, home, and society; that is, women should have no leadership in society and indeed, should not work outside of the home.

A fourth view is “Christian Feminism”. This view distinguishes itself from the egalitarian position in that it seeks to redefine God in terms that contradict biblical teaching, giving contemporary feminist ideas precedence over scripture.

It seems to me that both the Biblical Patriarchy and Christian Feminism views are quite extreme. The Christian Feminism view seems not to take seriously the teaching of scripture. The Biblical Patriarchy view is a more extreme form of complementarianism that need not be considered separately. In my view, these positions have glaring deficiencies and are rarely considered viable options for evangelicals today; they will not be considered further in these articles.

Next: 3. Observations on the Two Positions

1. Introduction to Women in Leadership in the Church

I’d like to consider the Christian question of women in leadership, particularly as it pertains to leadership in the church, but also briefly touch on the relationship between husbands and wives in a Christian marriage.

Much has been written on this topic, so why should I write? Well, there are two specific reasons for these articles. One is to stake out a place in the territory of Christian opinion on this matter. Careful, intelligent Christians dedicated to following Christ under the authority of scripture differ on the topic of women in leadership in the church and in how Christian marriages should be ordered. This is a matter with practical implications for church and family. Even when one is charitable towards those of differing opinion, there is the issue of how a particular local church will order its affairs and teach. Thus, there is need to explain a position for the sake of clarity in practical application.

Secondly, there remains a need for more general discussion and consideration of this topic. The last word has not been written, and many of the key ideas that one should consider are scattered across a broad range of reading material. Since this is a matter of practical importance and of more than passing interest to many, it is worthwhile to summarize some of the ideas relevant to the matter at hand and share references that interested readers might like to pursue.

Next: 2. There are two major positions on women in the church and family

Way Down in the Hole

Way Down in the Hole
by Tom Waits

When you walk through the garden
you gotta watch your back
well I beg your pardon
walk the straight and narrow track
if you walk with Jesus
he’s gonna save your soul
you gotta keep the devil
way down in the hole
he’s got the fire and the fury
at his command
well you don’t have to worry
if you hold on to Jesus hand
we’ll all be safe from Satan
when the thunder rolls
just gotta help me keep the devil
way down in the hole
All the angels sing about Jesus’ mighty sword
and they’ll shield you with their wings
and keep you close to the lord
don’t pay heed to temptation
for his hands are so cold
you gotta help me keep the devil
way down in the hole

And now you know what I’m watching on video these days. Fall, 2011, that is. So far, despite the R-rated visuals and language, I’m thinking it is pretty real. Serious television. Not for the kids. Definitely for the thoughtful.

Independence and Community

Recent experience has reminded me again of a difficult issue. The issue is independence. And how independence intersects with community. Americans, and perhaps westerners in general, value independence. We expect people to “pull their own weight” – to “contribute to society”. And there is merit in that, dignity even. Of course, we make exceptions. We make exceptions for the very young, the disabled, and sometimes for the elderly.

We also make exceptions for the healthy. Sometimes these exceptions are damaging and symptomatic of unhealthy relationships. The fashionable term for these exceptions is “co-dependency”. My point here is not to define this term or explain how to identify when relationships are unhealthy, but rather to note that there are dependency relationships that are unhealthy, and in what I write I am not intending to defend these. It is also my point to say that there are many types of dependency that are healthy, rewarding, and integral to healthy family and community relationships. I am dependent on my wife for many things; I love her and I love our relationship. I would not describe our dependence upon one another as unhealthy or undesirable. It is mutual and good for us both.

The difficult issue is that there are many members of our communities that are deeply dependent on others to live a reasonably healthy and constructive life. This is particularly true in urban areas of Long Beach where there are many group homes and sober-living homes. Many people are dependent in ways that are exceptional or even demanding – sometimes very demanding. This dependency is not balanced. That is, if I am engaged in a relationship with one of these people, I apparently have to give much more than I can ever hope to receive in return. When this imbalance becomes too pronounced or “unprofitable”, it seems that human nature is to cut the relationship off. It’s too much trouble.

Let me give an example or two. There are people with emotional or mental health issues that are very difficult. They are in some way “out of control.” They have difficulty with normal life choices. They are a drain on family and acquaintances. In our ministry at LBFC, we encounter many marginalized people, often homeless, who might meet this description. (Note that word: “marginalized”!) These days, reaching out to the homeless and otherwise needy is “in”. The pattern usually goes like this. A person wants to get involved. They reach out. They discover that a relationship with the person to whom they are reaching out is costly, particularly in time and emotional resources. The first instinct is to work with the person to help them get treatment or training that will enable them to become more self-sufficient. There is a flurry of activity as the marginalized person finds someone who will pay attention to them. This flurry of activity gradually dies down as the well-meaning one who is reaching out concludes either (1) “this person is never going to be independent and I am in over my head!” or (2) “it is going to take a long time and a lot of effort to sort through the problems in this person’s life”. Discouragement sets in. Expectations go unmet on both sides of the relationship, and it fades or crashes.

The (non)solution that our society has adopted is to institutionalize relationships that the “normal” members of society find inconvenient. Mental illness. Homelessness. Unemployment. Criminals. Too often we pay people to keep them from disturbing the rest of us. For good reasons, one of the goals of these institutional relationships is to help the inconvenient person to at least become able to live “on their own” and to function as a “normal” part of society as much as possible. One possible advantage to this is that institutional relationships can be professionalized. Sometimes there are real advantages in this, but I question whether professionalized relationships can ever replace authentic community. (There are institutions that are making a valiant effort at this, with some success. But ask them about budget…)

I also question if professionals can devote the time needed to each relationship. While I’m not the person with the most capacity for this, I can say that I find these relationships very draining. It is hard to manage more than a very few of them at a time, and I need support for even that. Most professionals I know have a case load that leaves minutes per week for each inconvenient relationship. It is possible to make trade-offs and increase here and decrease there, and sometimes effort is valiant. However, if it takes a village to raise a child, how many does it take to “raise” one of these inconvenient ones? What if they don’t show up when scheduled and must be pursued?

It seems to me that there are more than a few people in our society who will never really be “independent” in the way that we hope everyone can be. There are others who can be, but the relational cost to get there will be very high – effort measured in man-years. Our society is generally not willing to foot this kind of cost when it comes to paying professionals. I’m not convinced that it should, if this is a way to avoid personal responsibility for inconvenient community. Whatever you did for the least of these…

In a talk from a recent TED conference, Nicholas Christakis discussed social networks. He ends his talk with “social networks are fundamentally related to goodness, and what the world needs now is more connections”. And that’s just for us regular folks. Where is the church – where are Christians – when there is so much need for community? Where am I?

Many of us live in neighborhoods where the inconvenient are not allowed. NIMBY. In my uncharitable moments I think these should be called “goat neighborhoods”. Goaterhoods? (Is this griping? Or prophetic? Perhaps some of both.) Sometimes it just gets to be too dark for me. I’m looking at the problem, and not lifting my eyes to the Giver of hope and strength.

The cost of community is high. It is not convenient. Giving is, well… giving. And yet, the act of loving others is ultimately life-giving. It changes me. It breaks me. It’s a kind of death. I don’t always like it… Let me rephrase. I don’t like it when I am called to love others… again, and again, and again… seemingly without end. I need breaks. I have to get away and re-charge. Will it always be this way?

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone. But its death will produce many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives. Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity. Anyone who wants to be my disciple must follow me, because my servants must be where I am. And the Father will honor anyone who serves me.

Newer posts »