Wednesday, March 08, 2006

International Women's Day

I just wanted to remind everyone that today was International Women's Day. As one who firmly believes in the idea of Biblical Equality and that women should be able to fulfill any role in ministry that God calls them to, I applaud those who actively take up this cause as a justice issue and gospel issue for the people of God. Check out Rachelle Mee-Chapman's Grid Blog list about IWD for links to more thoughts on the status of women in the church.

Interestingly, I find that I have personally become even more of a feminist since the birth of my daughter Emma. I hate the thought that anyone would tell her that she can't pursue the calling God lays on her life simply because she is female. As far as I'm concerned she can grow up to be whatever God wants her to be.

39 Comments:

Blogger dan said...

I had the privilege to learn from two women professors when I attended seminary. I realize not everyone felt the same as me, but they were both very instrumental in my spiritual development. In fact, I've often thought much of what they both taught was really very much in line with the emergent-type theology and practice I see today. And that was 7-10 years ago.

I am glad that our denomination is an equal opportunity affirmer (right?).

3/09/2006 10:30 AM  
Blogger bill Sloat said...

Dan,

My fuzzy recollection from my dissertation days is that THE CHURCH ADVOCATE ran editorials in the 1870s in support of the ordination of women.

3/09/2006 5:18 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

It's good to hear that the CGGC has a long history of affirming women in ministry. I think too many conservatives have a false impression that the women in ministry issue has arisen because of the modern feminist movement (not that I have any problem with feminism, but to many conservatives it's one of many great "liberal" evils). In reality women have had active roles in ministry leadership throughout the history of the church; from the saints and abbesses of the medieval period, to the Methodist and Pentecostal revival preachers of early American Christianity.

3/09/2006 9:50 PM  
Blogger dan said...

Mark,
Is this the Mark of the Shawnee tribe? Welcome to the conversation!!!

Yeah, you bring up a good point. I don't know anything about the GLC (except that they accepted you!) :), but I would guess it's that way all around. I have friends who fall on the other side of the issue - and it is frustrating. Is a generous orthodoxy accepting both sides, or is it saying that one side is not generous???

Re the question "Is it healthy for a denomination to affirm both groups?"

Have we really affirmed either? I don't know. I would hope something has been written since 1870. Personally, I would like to see us take some kind of stance (as long as it supports my view). Maybe we have and I'm just unaware.

3/10/2006 10:15 AM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

I used to think it was healthy to embrace the differences in perspective and for complementarians and egalitarians to agree to disagree and simply coexist. However my wife has convinced me that gender equality is a justice issue that must be stood up for. Would we be comfortable in saying, for example, "Well, some people in the CGGC believe that black people shouldn't be allowed in church leadership, and even if we disagree we should just learn to coexist?" I doubt we would let those kind of openly racist opinions remain unchallenged within the denomination, so why are we okay with openly sexist opinions? Are we willing to let 50% of the human race be marginalized and stifled in their ministry callings simply to preserve unity?

I'm all for agreeing to disagree when it comes to debateable theological issues that don't really affect anyone; but when we're dealing with justice issues that are about the oppression and marginalization of whole segments of society, I think our theology becomes practical and we need to begin taking a stand.

3/10/2006 10:44 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

I was looking at the cggc.org website and didn't find anything about inclusivness of women, even in the study papers. I do remember one of my professors writing a paper for the CGGC giving Biblical cause for the equality of women in ministry. Experience has shown that there is open opportunity for women in ministry in the CGGC but it has also shown that there is some hesitancy in many of the local churches.

Mike's comparison to the issue being the same as not allowing blacks in our churches is intriguing. I'm sure at the time, many thought it wasn't so important an issue. But I do tend to think it is a debateable issue at this time.

If the debate in the New Testament was a cultural issue, surely we have to continue to ask if it continues to be a cultural issue. In many of our regions of the country, it is certainly a cultural issue. Internationally, I have to believe it is often a cultural issue.

3/10/2006 5:24 PM  
Blogger dan said...

I attended a "District Leaders Meeting" for the Midwest Region/East District last night. Out of 20 people there were 2 women - one a pastor's wife and one a lay person. Hmm.

It was a great meeting, by the way. Lowell Burress led a discussion on missional churches. I am always disappointed by the lack of pastors at these events though. :( (that's another issue)

3/11/2006 6:28 AM  
Blogger dan said...

To add to the previous post... I should point out that there probably would have been more women "lay leaders" there had they not been at the cggc women's retreat. But I don't think it would have added any pastors.

3/11/2006 6:31 AM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

I agree that the New Testament passages that seem to restrict women in ministry need to be understood in their cultural context. However, I don't think that means that "Well, women had a lower value in New Testament times, and the NT commands are accomdations to that cultural value, but they don't apply as much today in our society which values women more highly."

Rather, I think that we have mistranslated and misinterpreted the relevant passages altogether. I don't think those passages were ever actually intended to restrict women in ministry, not in New Testament times and not today.

In fact, as I study the NT more wholistically I find that the early Church was more radically inclusive of women in leadership than most of the church is today. The New Testament bears witness to women as prophets (Acts 2:17-18), apostles (Romans 16:7), deacons (Romans 16:1), and teachers (Acts 18:26), not to mention all the women that Paul mentions in Romans 16 and other places as "workers for the Lord", and the fact that women like Mary sat at Jesus' feet along with the male disciples.

If this was the norm in the early church, then I think it's poor hermenuetics to interpret Paul's difficult and unclear statements about women in such a way as to directly contradict what was clearly practiced in the early church. I don't think Paul's first readers would have understood him to be restricting women's roles in church, and I don't think we should understand him that way either. "Complementarian" views, IMHO, are a modern cultural corruption of scripture. They read our culture's own patriarchal assumptions into the text.

3/11/2006 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a difficult issue and I think that we should be cautious in approaching it. I would like to see applicable passages of scripture (both OT and NT)interpreted in this forum. Mike Clawson has given us a start and I am looking at the passages he has sited.

The Acts passage referred to is a quote from Joel 2:28-32. I would not argue with women as prophets because we have clear examples of such women in scripture. Anna in Luke 2:26-38. Deborah in Judges 4-5.

Rom 16:1 Your reference to women as apostles is incorrect. There are only fourteen men who could possibly lay claim to the title of apostle: the original twelve, Mathias, and Paul. This passage could rightly be interpreted that these women were noted or were well known among the apostles.

The teaching done in Acts 18:26 is informal and is the coteaching by both Priscilla and Aquilla, a husband and wife team.

I would be greatly encouraged to see what others of you discover as you search God's word on this issue.

3/12/2006 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in my previous post I mistakenly referenced Romans 16:1 when I meant to comment on Rom 16:7.

The Romans 16:1 passage is based on the translation of a Greek word that is also used to mean 'deacon' but is often translated 'servant'. It is not completely clear if Phoebe held an official position in the church. However, if she did, then we then might have to ask what the biblical definition of a deacon(ess) is.

3/12/2006 8:23 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

I'm curious, why do you view apostleship as a closed category? We are told of 14 original apostles, but I don't see anything in scripture to indicate that new apostles could not be added. 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 references apostleship as a spiritual gift, so I don't see why there couldn't have been many apostles in the early church (as well as today).

In that light I think it's appropriate to assume that Junia (the woman mentioned in Romans 16:7) was in fact being referred to as an apostle. (If this wasn't the original intention, then why would the later, more patriarchal church have bothered to corrupt the text by changing her name to the male form "Junius"? It seems pretty obvious that they were trying to cover something up that they didn't like.)

As for "diakonoi", I don't think there are two uses for the word at all. Either it should always be translated "servant" or always be translated "deacon", because either way, it's the same word in every case (and I lean towards the former). And that same word is used the same way for both men and women in the NT. I think it's absurd to act as if the word is referring to a formal position of authority when connected to a man, but is somehow merely referring to generic "servants" when talking about women. Those kind of false distinctions are what I mean by reading our patriarchal assumptions into the text.

3/12/2006 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My intention was not to upset you, Mike. I was simply interested in discussing what the Bible says. My post was an attempt to clarify and discuss the texts that you referenced.

I hope that a complementarian and an egalitarian would be able to both seek the truth found in God's word together. I hope that we might both be humble and loving while seeking to edify the other.

Your statement about apostles interested me so I did some research. It turns out that other men were mentioned as apostles. Among them Barnabas (Acts 14:14)and James, the brother of Jesus(Ga 1:19).

However, to assume that Junia is a woman and an apostle, without leaving for the possibility that this is either a man or that the reference could mean that these two were well known to the apostles is overstating one's case based on an inference from a single verse.

Whenever I make a case from Scripture I try to find at least two clear texts, so that by two or three witnesses every word is established.

As for the translation of words; when you say you 'lean towards the former', do you mean to say that you lean towards always translating the word to mean "servant"? If so, then you have undone your whole case for the woman being a deacon.

It may or may not be biblical for a woman to be a deaconess, I was simply pointing out that the word is not always translated as such.

"Always" can be a dangerous word. From what little I know of language translation, there are times that words do not translate exactly from one language to the next.

Is a bright light heavy or light?
same word-different meaning. Not only the word, but the context must guide our understanding of the text.

You may or may not be correct in your translation of the Greek, regardless your methodology is lacking.

It is important when we discuss the issue of women in ministry, or any issue, that we carefully search the Scriptures.

3/13/2006 8:15 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

Andrew,

I wasn't upset. Sorry to give the impression that I was. And I didn't mean to imply anything about your position. In other words, I wasn't trying to call your position "absurd", I simply meant that if one were to split the use of the word "diakonoi" into two meanings depending solely on gender, then that position would be absurd. But I was not meaning to accuse you of making that argument in particular.

As for Junia, I suppose the possibility exists for your alternative renderings, but why should I assume that those alternatives are any more likely to be correct than the rendering that presupposes that Junia was a female apostle? And even if she was not, there is still no evidence that a woman could not have been an apostle. No where in scripture is there any hint of a gender restriction on this role within the church.

As for the translation of diakonoi as servant, I did not mean to say that I don't think that women or men did not hold specific positions of authority in the church as "diakonoi". I just meant that I favor rendering the word as "servant" rather than the transliteration "deacon", since I think transliterations in general are misleading. The term deacon implies so many different things depending on what kind of church tradition you come from (for example, in my Baptist church growing up "deacons" pretty much were the same as "elders" while other churches make these two separate categories), that I think we're all better off just going back to a more literal rendering of the word in the first place. But my point was that however you render it, it means the same thing for women as it does for men.

I agree with you that when considering this issue it is important to search the scriptures carefully. It is because I have done so that I personally find no support whatsoever for the complementarian position. As I said before, I think the key texts in question (i.e. 1 Cor 14:34-35 & 1 Timothy 2:11-15) have been mistranslated or misinterpreted, and that once we understand them rightly, there is no longer any biblical reason at all to restrict women in ministry.

For some good alternative readings of those passages check out this article by NT Wright, or this one by Catherine Kroeger. Also check out this book by Catherine & Richard Kroeger for a fuller treatment.

I am all for humbly and lovingly seeking truth together. But at the same time, I don't want for us to merely discuss this as detached (male) theologians without reference to how these issues affect real people. It's far too easy for us as a men to simply pontificate and parse greek words without feeling the true immediacy and importance of these issues in the lives of real women. We are not the ones being marginalized and devalued by the patriarchal assumptions of the church over the centuries. Before we assume that our perspectives on the text are purely objective, let's trying looking at it through the lens of those who have most often been marginalized and excluded by our traditional readings. The world and the Bible looks very different when you're not one of the ones who has the power to impose your views on the lives of others. As I said before, I don't come at this as an abstract theological issue. I come at it as a justice issue.

And again, I'm not upset, just passionate for justice. :)

Peace,

Mike

3/14/2006 12:20 AM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

I have one other comment about this whole issue, and that is that we should not get so lost in trying to pick apart the meaning of particular greek words, that we lose sight of common sense and real life experience.

A big part of why I am not a complementarian is that it just doesn't fit with my real life experiences. Its claims don't match my reality.

Reality is that I have experienced several excellent female leaders in the church. Women who are much better leaders and pastors than I am. Women whose wisdom and leadership ability I can only hope to aspire to. Women whose ministries are bearing great spiritual fruit for the Kingdom. Women whose ministries God is clearly blessing.

Reality is that I have been taught many important truths by excellent women preachers and teachers. Women teachers and preachers have opened my eyes to the truths of scripture. They have revealed new aspects of God and his world to me. I find no evidence that women cannot or should not teach men the things of God.

Reality is that women in their personalities, abilities and callings are just as diverse and unique as men are. There are no universal female roles any more than there are universal male roles. We are all unique individuals, shaped in part by our gender, but not solely defined or restricted by it.

Reality is that having a penis has absolutely nothing to do with being a pastor. Why do we judge people by their external biology rather than the "content of their character"? How is it any different from racism? All we see is the outside and from that we assume that we "know" what's inside? How does that make any sense? How is that just?

I'm not saying that we should ignore scripture in favor of experience. I'm saying that God reveals truth to us both in scripture and through experience and they should be in harmony. So if our experiences start to contradict our own particular interpretations of scripture, then maybe we should take that as a clue that perhaps we have misunderstood what scripture was trying to tell us.

Peace,

Mike

3/14/2006 12:42 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

The top leader in our church is a woman who came out of a Lutheran church where she could not vote and in fact wasn't allowed in the kitchen by the older women. She is a fantastic leader and is amazed at the freedom she has to lead in our church.

At the same time, my wife has buoyed my abilities tremendously by becoming my biggest supporter. (I am also her greatest supporter.) My experience has been that by her taking a complementarian role, she has made me more who God has made me, and at the same time, become more who God has created her to be.

John Eldredge has written a lot about men being men and women being women. They are certainly different. The areas we have become muddy are in defining "submissive" and "helper," as God described Eve as Adam's helper.

It is interesting that while women are open to be ministers in the CGGC, I can't find it anywhere on their website, including no position paper, of which I'm sure there was one written. It would be helpful if a resource was available establishing the CGGC position.

3/14/2006 9:58 AM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

I guess I should clarify. If by "complementarian" one simply means that men and women often can and should complement each others gifts and personalities, then by all means I agree.

Rather it is the official "Complementarian" position (as held by folks like the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood) that I disagree with. That view, as I understand it, is that men and women are restricted in only being able to fulfill certain roles in ministry according to their gender. Or, rather, women are restricted in their roles. I'm not sure whether there are any roles that are actually off limits to men in this view.

I'm a big fan of John Eldredge too, and found that many of his ideas about men were true of me. However, many of the other guys that I read his book together with said that they didn't identify as much with his statements. Our consensus was that his categories were broad generalizations that were probably true of many men but certainly not all men. For my wife's part, she identified with some parts of Captivating, but also said that other parts of it were not really true of her personally as a woman.

Men and women are different, but generalizations are always just that, generalizations. Of course, there is always the question of whether differences are inherent and universal or whether they are the result of socialization and enculturation when we are young. I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I mostly lean towards the latter. :)

Peace,

-Mike

3/14/2006 6:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike, I looked at the 2 articles that reflect your position.

The first is written by a man who doubts that Paul even wrote I Tim. This letter to Timothy begins with Paul naming himself as the author. If this man can't aven get the simple facts right, why should we trust him in more complex matters?

The second article came from a website hosted by three ordained women. There is a definite bias there to defend their postion.

You said "we should not get so lost in trying to pick apart the meaning of particular greek words, that we lose sight of common sense and real life experience." yet that is alot of what these two articles do. They spend most of their time picking apart the Greek to tell us that whoever translated the Bible into English did it wrong. They think we should believe their personal interpretation of Scripture.

I am more concerned about how we view Scripture than I am of how we view women in ministry.

I believe that a woman can be anything that God calls her to be, but she must learn to discern the voices that call to her and recognize which one is God's. To do that she must remember that God will never contradict what He has already said in Scripture, and she must trust the Scripture.

3/14/2006 8:14 PM  
Blogger Julie said...

so I don't know if I am "allowed" to post here as a woman, but the last post bugged me enough to give it a go. I'm sure what I say doesn't matter much here and will be picked apart and derided, but here goes... :)

Um, Andrew, NT Wright is one of the most respected new testement scholars around, and very influential in the Emerging church. Most american evangelicals might not be comfortable with him because he actually takes "liberal" arguments and positions seriously. Unlike evangelicals who look at those positions and brush them aside as stupid liberal ideas not worthy of intellectual engagement, Wright approaches those ideas in an intellegent manner and respects the ideas of the academic world. So in acknowledging to his audience that he is aware of what many scholars say he gains credence as an acedemic biblical scholar (and loses it with the typical evangelical literalist).

Secondly, dismissing a persons position because they might have a bias is a bit naive. everyone has a bias. truth is truth no matter who believes it. if someone is promoting the truth I wouldn't dismiss what they have to say because they might have a bias when it comes to promoting that said truth. Would you accept a site created by three ordained men?

I respect scripture, but I do not place it above God. I also care about people and do not place esoteric ivory towers above holistic ministry. If God honestly calls a woman into ministry and the way the evangelical church interprets scripture contridicts that - is the problem with God or with the interpretation?

3/14/2006 10:55 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

My wife has said pretty much what I would have said in reply, so I'll defer to her. However, I will add two additional comments:

1) NT Wright doesn't say that he doubts Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy. In fact he says the opposite. His exact words were: "I leave completely aside for today the question of who wrote 1 Timothy. It is more different from the rest of Paul than any of the other letters, including the other Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians. But I do not discount it for that reason; many of us write in many different styles according to occasion and audience." Wright explicitly says that he does not discount 1 Timothy as a Pauline letter. He's acknowledging that some people do doubt Pauline authorship of the letter, but he doesn't at all say that he necessarily agrees with them.

And 2) why should I trust that your translation and interpretation of those texts are any less biased than that of Reverend Kroeger's? If her view is biased as a woman in ministry, isn't yours biased as a male in ministry? As my wife pointed out, none of us come at scripture in an unbiased way, so why should I necessarily assume that your bias is the correct one?

Just wondering...

3/14/2006 11:41 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

BTW, I just wanted to say that I didn't intend for this post to turn into such an intense debate. I hope I'm not offending anyone too much by arguing my position so staunchly (not that I apologize for my position).

Honestly I was surprised to find such a range of disagreement on this blog. I guess my understanding coming in was that, as Brian has stated, the CGGC was officially open to women in ministry. I didn't realize that the issue might still be up for debate in these circles. So when I posted my original post about the International Women's Day I guess I assumed that we were all mostly on the same page with this issue.

I guess I was wrong.

3/14/2006 11:48 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

One more thing (sorry, I don't mean to overwhelm this whole discussion with my flood of comments), I just wanted to share with you a blog post from a woman (and yes, a leader) within my church about how these issues affect her personally, not on a detached theological level, but in an immediate, real-life kind of way.

Again, lets not get so immersed in the debate that we forget that we're dealing with real people's lives here.

3/15/2006 12:20 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

Wow. I think we've been misrepresented terribly. Julie assumes she'll be picked apart, and really, only Andrew (of who I'm not sure who that is) is the only one digging in, but even there, I think he is just asking good questions. He just happens to be coming from the other side. And his views are being picked apart.

Mike, you seem to be jumping around arguing from Scripture, then experience, and as people challenge you in these areas, you jump back to "Don't forget. We're dealing with real people." I don't think anyone here has forgotten that. When I gave examples of experience and real people, you told me that wasn't your experience.

Most people here have chosen not to engage in the debate. Most people here are very generous. Most people are listening to the arguments and giving them serious thought. Most people here are very supportive of women leadership and that is why they don't feel the need to enter the debate. I certainly am. Most of my top leaders have been women.

Julie, I apologize that it wasn't obvious that your voice is safe here. I know most of the people who post here and they would defend your right to be heard.

3/15/2006 8:04 AM  
Blogger Shawna said...

Personally, I'm enjoying the debate very much. I have not been offended and hope that the two of you are both ok with each other. That would be my only concern.

Even though I'm a woman, I have not ever given this topic much thought. In both the churches I have been privileged to serve in, gender has never been an issue--only a personal issue for me to work through on my own as to how I believed and how I interpreted scripture. Both churches always support(ed) me to be who God calls me to be.

So I'm pretty naive to the whole debate and appreciate hearing from people who do know about the topic and who passionately express their opinions.

3/15/2006 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realize that some men twist God's word in order to hold power over women. This is wrong. Selfish men will quote Scripture saying that a wife should be submissive and conveniently forget that in the same passage, Paul tells husbands that they should love their wives like Christ loves the Church. Christ lived and died for the Church. Men ought to put the needs of their wives ahead of their own. This is servant leadership on a daily basis.

This type of leadership in the home should be mirrored in the Church.
We often have a worldy view that positions of leadership in the Church are positions of dominating power. Sadly, in many churches they are. Women then, are often viewed as having secondary status.

Both men and women are created by God with purpose and a calling to fulfill their God given roles in ministry. And ministry is much broader than an hour on Sunday morning.

My desire in this blog is to seek what God's word says about women's roles in ministry.

If what I believe disagrees with what God has already said in His word, then I must change what I believe. Christians live by the word of God.

Experience is important, but it is secondary to Scripture.

3/15/2006 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally have been encouraged that there are men who are seriously considering this topic. Not just brushing it off. I just find it surprising that there are men who are more adamant about this than some women. Where is that coming from? Anyway.

I've been there and I've heard the negative comments from men about a woman in the preacher/speaker/pastor role. I've also heard positive comments from men about women in the preacher/speaker/pastor role. To be fair, I've heard both from women as well. And after I finally acknowledged that God had placed a call on my life to preach/speak/whatever you want to call it, for him, I really struggled with all of those comments that I heard. It seems that the pendulum swings hard in both directions. Those who opposed it told me I could not, or at least not to men. Those who supported me told me I should be ordained. When I did not feel the call to be ordained at all. I wanted to be in the 'right' of God's word, and so I really struggled to reconcile the call on my life and the scriptures which are very clear about women remaining silent, or teaching men, etc. Grrr. What do I dismiss? My call, that was affirmed time and time again? Or the scriptures, which were affirmed by men of God years ago?

I am letting you know that, yes, I too am figuring this out, as a woman and as a disciple of Christ. I am not quick to jump on the bandwagon and say I should be allowed to do anything just because I am a woman and because I had an experience or many experiences. What is our word from God? The Word of God i.e.- Bible? Or our life experiences?

This much I know: One,I have a call on my life to speak God's truth, as of right now He has yet to specify that call, but I have said "here I am Lord, send me". And two, the scriptures contain truths that are yet unknown to men and women, things we are still discovering. Thank God we have not exhausted His supply of wisdom and knowledge.

3/15/2006 6:56 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

Brian,

Sorry if my tone came across too argumentative. I don't mean to be picking people apart. I've just posted a lot because I have a lot to say on this issue.

And I don't think that I've been evading direct questions by switching arguments. I've referred to both scripture and experience because both are important. I don't want my arguments to focus too heavily on one or the other. If I haven't responded in detail to the scriptural arguments, it's because I prefer to let more learned scholars speak for me, rather than try to give the impression that I've figured it all out on my own (hence my links to the articles).

And I certainly didn't meant to dismiss your own experiences. I'm sorry if I seemed to do that. My response to your post was simply intended to explain that I did affirm your experiences and to clarify that I thought we were using the word "complementarian" in different ways. In other words, it felt to me like we were saying the same thing, just using different words.

And my differing experiences with Eldredge's stuff was not at all intended to dismiss your own. In fact, my own experiences have been similar to your own. I do resonate with most of what Eldredge writes, I just happen to know some guys who don't.

I am glad to hear that most people here are supportive of women in ministry. I know Andrew has been the only one so far actively arguing the other side. I just didn't know how representative he was of the larger CGGC, especially in light of Mark's assessment (comment #4). I'm still just getting to know the CGGC, and to be honest I was starting to get worried about what I've gotten myself into. There are just certain battles I'd rather not have to fight anymore, and this is one of them.

Please forgive any further offense or ill chosen words.

Peace,

-Mike

3/15/2006 7:21 PM  
Blogger Momentum Church said...

Hi All!

I haven't been paying much attention to the blogg lately, family issues, ministry and other incidentals have kept me very busy the last few months, go figure :-)

The interaction on this subject is one that I have wrestled with for years and churches I have formerly attended said that the Pauline letters clearly show that women are not to be in pastoral/teacher roles in the church, at least not over men.

Well here is where I stand on this issue. The only support that I have ever heard or seen for the exclusion of women in pastoral roles comes from the epistles of Paul, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now with that said let me ask this. IF I was writing Mark a letter concerning an issue he was facing in his church would you expect that answer to be fitting to Brian's church with other issues as well?

I hope not, one area that seems to be forgotten here is that these are letters to individual churches with individual circumstances, individual needs and individual needs for handling the problems they each faced.

Yes, these letters were included in the Bible, and I do not dispute their inclusion. What I do dispute is that we look at the words and forget about the context and cultural setting that they were applied in.

How do I know the propper understanding of a text if I'm unaware of what it meant when it was written. How can I justify my position as being right just because I see it in black and white? I can't.

Here is a simple illustration.

NO TURN ON RED

How do I read this?

no turn on red.

OR

no, turn on red.

the truth is either way is correct, if we don't know the context. One interpretation tells me that I can't turn on red the other tells me I can turn on red. neither is wrong in the interpretation... or is one wrong?

As unfortunate as it has been, the US Constitution has been used to push agendas for those seeking their own desires. I think it is just as true in the church with the Bible and our use of the verses for our own dsires. Paul's letters were directed to real peope with real issues. I don't think they were intended as a blanket statement for every people and every issue or he wouls have included the information in every letter. Just my understanding of how we are to carefully use the Word of God.

3/16/2006 12:57 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

Excellent point Rob! I'd also point out that many of the references to women in leadership come in Paul's letters as well, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to interpret certain parts of his letters in ways that would contradict other things that he says elsewhere in his letters.

3/16/2006 1:52 PM  
Blogger Momentum Church said...

That'll preach!

3/16/2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So do we take some things of what Paul says (and other parts of the bible) at face value and not other parts? And how do we decide what we take at face value and what we don't? I realize that it may and probably does have a cultural context to it, however, it still is the living breathing Word of God that is very relevant to today's world. Picking and choosing what fits is a very dangerous practice. If we can't trust everything in the word of God, then what can we trust?

3/16/2006 6:21 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

It's not about picking and choosing, or ignoring the parts you don't like. It's about trusting that God's word doesn't contradict itself, so that therefore, if it sometimes seems to contradict, the problem must be with our understanding of the text and not with the Bible itself. If two parts of the Bible seem to be at odds then we have to assume that we have erred in our interpretation of one or the other (or perhaps both) of the passages.

The idea is not to disregard parts of the Bible; the idea is to come to a better understanding of what the Bible is really saying. If we truly respect scripture, shouldn't we want to know what it's really saying to us, and not just what our traditional interpretations have told us it is saying? Doesn't it show a greater disregard for the Bible to tenaciously hold onto our traditional interpretations even when those interpretations are in conflict with other parts of scripture?

Can't we realize that our choice is not between trusting scripture or not trusting scripture, but between accepting one set of interpretations over another? We all trust scripture... but whose version of it?

Or to put it in terms of your own experience, I don't think you have to choose between obeying your call or obeying the Bible. You don't have to dismiss either. I think it's possible that the Bible itself doesn't conflict with your call, and you've just been misunderstanding those passages that seem to conflict. In fact, personally I think the Bible not only doesn't conflict with your calling to preach, I think it actually supports and encourages it (e.g. Acts 2:17-18).

Hope these thoughts are helpful...

-Mike

3/16/2006 11:56 PM  
Blogger Charlotte Wyncoop said...

Brothers, Detached male theologians (I smile as I type that), let me preach at you. Let me add several thoughts to your discussions that you have not touched on yet.

First, I am a woman and I really don't mind guys that take a literal view of the scripture - if they apply that literalism consistently. If they want to apply 1 Tim 2:8-3:13 to me as a woman and ask that I hold to the literal standard, then I expect several things. Like Andrew mentioned, sacrificial serving love applied to my wifely status. Literally, I expect that the leaders of the church are "the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well." Which would disqualify women literally, but also divorcees, singles, married with no children, people having gone through bankruptcy, those in deep debt, parents of disobedient or defiant children, disorganized individuals...should I go on? "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) If we exclude women based on verses that say "man" instead of "people" or "person," then we should also apply the same level of literalism to the rest of the verse. Really, I don't mind if the same standard is applied in biblical interpretation, as long as it is applied to everything, not just to "women."

The debate over women in ministry is unfortunate overall. It places the gender of an individual as more important than the personhood or the ministry of that individual. If God does not care whether a person is Gentile or Jew, slave or free, if their situation in life does not matter, why do we suppose their gender does? To some degree, when men desire to learn to pastor, or preach or lead, we guide and test them and see if this is truly what God is enabling them to do. Why wouldn't we do the same to women? Why isn't someone's spiritual qualities more important
than their physical qualities? When God placed Deborah as the spiritual, political and military leader of Israel, it certainly suggests that He wasn't going to read 1 Timothy or 1 Corinthians 14 very literally.

Feeling called to ministry, I often feel two violently compellingly arguements at work in and around me (perhaps Kathryn you feel the same). If we acknowledge that there are two equally valid viewpoints, "complementarian" and "egalitarian" as this discussion has labeled them, and if we choose to live in tension with them, how do live this out? Do we do what we believe is right, because we believe God is calling us to do that - and like the old testament prophets, go against societal norms...or, do we follow Paul's advice (as is often brought to my attention) if by exercising what I believe to be my freedom, I cause another to be emboldened to do so as well and wound their weak conscience, then I have caused another to sin and myself sinned against Christ. (1 Cor 8:9-13) The problem with living in dynamic tension in this particular debate is that it is not a theological issue. By that I mean that the issue between the individual and God is a personal one - "are you really asking me to do this, Lord?" That isn't up for public debate (though some might claim it is). What is up for debate is the relational issues - can a woman do this to men, can this person do this to those people? I would suggest that while the church may have theological issues that can exist in tension, relationship issues should not. If blacks, women or children or any other physically defined group cannot speak the truth with love to their fellow believers, what kind of church are we? My experience has been that when we live in "tension" with this issue, those who think women can minister keep silent in deference to the other viewpoint, and those who think women shouldn't make sure their position is clear. I don't call that dynamic tension, I don't call it living with both views.

Let's get down to the nuts and bolts- I'm in a CGGC congregation right now. I feel that God is shaping me into a preacher or pastor. I come to you and tell you I want to learn how to preach. How do you respond? (whether this is theoretic or real, you decide)

3/21/2006 12:21 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

Charlotte,

The fact that you are a woman would not be a determining factor for me.

If I determined you were of appropriate character (not based on gender, and in fact I would be excited to have someone of minority status in our group be able to step up), I would try to help you determine the best course of training.

As I've observed with men in churches, sometimes the best track is within the church and sometimes it is in an institutional setting.

I had a man in my congregation that decided he should be our Pastor of Visitation. He didn't have the right characteristics and I told him he was more than welcome to visit people, but he couldn't be the Pastor of Visitation. In my determination, I didn't sense the same call that he sensed. He left the church.

So there is a subjective element involved. I recognize that, but the leadership has an equal responsibility to listen for God's call and to equip the people appropriately.

So it is difficult to answer your question specifically, having not known you for an adequate amount of time.

3/21/2006 9:07 AM  
Blogger Charlotte Wyncoop said...

Brian,

Let's imagine for a moment, that you knew me. That I had "appropriate character."

How would I know that I was welcome to learn to minister in your church? Have you preached on the subject to your congregation? Have there been any bible studies led by non-women leaders that have taught that women can take up that kind of role? Have you ever had a woman preacher come in and speak?

How would I know that "in fact I would be excited to have someone of minority status in our group be able to step up."

3/21/2006 9:59 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

Charlotte,

This is a good reminder to make me think about the future, but as for now, here is what I have done.

1. I have preached very specific sermons supporting women leadership in the church.

2. Our vision team (our top leadership team) was made up of two women and myself for about three years. They attended the Glocalnet conference with me in Dallas TX. They were very visible as the top leaders of the church.

3. We don't have a ton of Bible Studies so I doubt that has happened.

4. We don't have many guest speakers but we did have a joint Good Friday service with our sister church in town and Pastor Pat Major (a woman) preached a fantastic sermon. We also had a young lady who had taken a missions trip to Brazil speak. I would have no opposition to having a woman speak at The Crossover, and though I haven't pursued it, I will keep my eyes open.

5. Our sister church in town had a woman pastor for four or five years. She recently moved to Kentucky when her husband took a job there. People in our church were somewhat aware of this fact, and I have always spoken favorably about her in leadership conversations.

If I offended you with my "quotes" (and I'm not sure I did, but just in case), I apologize.

It isn't just a women's issue at our church. It would also be a racial issue. I have brought an African American in to speak to our congregation at the church I previously pastored. We have a young Mexican couple, who have real potential in ministry and I'm trying to support them as heavily as I can. My wife and I have talked favorably about team preaching some topics, but haven't been able to pull it off due to time constraints. We have several leaders in their twenties, who I would say in many churches have been marginalized. We do have some homosexuals who attend, but I would restrict their level of leadership, which is another topic all together.

While The Crossover is in a Midwestern town, certainly with some male dominant tendencies, I think I have been a champion of women in ministry.

Would you have further suggestions for how we could improve this openness at The Crossover?

3/21/2006 12:05 PM  
Blogger Shawna said...

Charlotte,

Great points.

I have the privilege of serving alongside Brian at The Crossover and while I have already admitted my somewhat naivete to this issue, I do feel qualified to comment on our church and the overall impression we (as a church) and Brian (specifically) give.

Honestly, Brian has really bent over backward to make sure women feel comfortable leading in our church. He is the one who really helped me to see the God given gifts and abilities that I have that should be used in leadership.

On our announcements each week are listed 14 different leaders, of the 14- 4 are men, 10 are women. If you look around on a Sunday morning we have women serving in various roles. We have a female worship leader, a female bass player, a female administrative assistant, a female in charge of our benevolence ministry, a female treasurer, females run sound, females run media--honestly the list could go on and on. If anyone might feel (on first impression) out of place it would be a guy! (ha ha)

Seriously though, the one thing that I believe Brian has stressed at The Crossover more than anything is that if God calls you to do something--do it! If you want to do it through The Crossover then we ask that you find a team of 4 or more people and do it together with them and that you make sure it falls within the vision of The Crossover--which is Building Bridges To God and Helping People Across.

The team helps the ministry stay alive and stay focused and at the same time helps build community. And making sure the ministry idea falls within the guidelines of our vision makes sure that each ministry is focused on God and accomplishing His purposes.

The push is for EVERYONE to do what God calls them to do--whether they are male or female, mexican, white, african-american, or whatever.

The idea is to create an atmosphere of encouragement that God really does love His people and He really expects them to do what He calls them to do. I think when we focus solely on one group (whether it be male, female, white/black, etc) people can sometimes think, well that doesn't apply to me. God's word and His desire for us to serve Him applies to each and every one of us.

And if you were to say to Brian (or any other leader for that matter), I feel like God is calling me to (fill in the blank), the first thing any of us would say is--Great! How can we help you get started?

3/21/2006 3:25 PM  
Blogger Charlotte Wyncoop said...

Brian, I wasn't offend by anything you had said - I was just quoting you.

It does sound like you have done a rather comprehensive job of integrating women into leadership roles. Shawna, I have to envy you your experience there, because I have not ever been exposed to the type of environment you have described.

In all honesty, the cry of my heart is to be seen for whom God has made me as an whole individual first and foremost, and my various attributes as subsets of that. Thus, the gender issue is similar to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and cultural issues where those factors are allowed preeminence over the unique wholeness of the individual.

An older, but still interesting article on women in leadership within the Nazarene church might provoke some thoughts on ways the Crossover can further develop its minority leaders. The discussion of mentoring and leadership styles particularly resonated with me.

If you'd like more of a glimpse into some of the discussion that Mike, Julie, Matt (my husband) and I have been having on the women in ministry issues, you are more than welcome to visit and comment.

While your church culture may be more open, the broader culture is certainly less so. Tonight, I was discussing with an agnostic friend the FX channel's new series "Black White." We identified strongly with Brian's (the black father) perspective that racism was all around him whereever he looked. My friend related an incident that had happened to her yesterday. She called for an appointment to get a bathroom repair quote. The female scheduler did not ask for her name as she was gathering information, but rather her husband's and whether he would be present at the appointment time. My friend firmly informed her of her own name and after the appointment was set, said "and yes, my husband will probably be there, his name is Jim." Our culture is not just men patronizing women, but women being demeaned by other women as well. Some of the most painful comments I have received have been spoken in a teasing tone by women I know. My sense is that the men have been educated to know better, no matter how they feel, but the women feel free to say whatever because they are women.

Our surrounding culture cannot help but pervasively invade our churches, since this is what we live in on a day to day basis. Thus, if the church is to go counter cultural, it must just as actively be combating the trend. It is a justice issue - do we treat our women as partners in God's work or second class citizens?

Perhaps since Crossroads has attempted to implement a comprehensive inclusion of women in ministry, your church may be uniquely suited to carry the justice issue beyond your doors and into your community. Someone like my agnostic friend would certainly appreciate the help.

3/22/2006 12:12 AM  
Blogger Charlotte Wyncoop said...

Shawna,
In direct response to your comments, a lot of the complaints about women in ministry is not that we are not included - because in most cases we are - whatever the interpretation of Paul comments. It's that we often have a glass ceiling. We are not allowed to go beyond a certain point in the churches. For some churches, we can only be involved in traditionally female roles - supporting services, worship or children's ministry. In others we can teach and work beside men but are not included in core leadership like elders or whatever group would be there should something happen to the senior pastor. Some churches welcome women pastors, some cannot or will not. Many churches don't have a problem sending women to the mission field to do the things they will not allow them to do within their own church.

Generally speaking, while it is important what a pastor does or does not do with regards to this issue because it sets the tone for the church, it is the attitudes that surround a woman at the congregational level that determines whether she feels free to pursue what she feels God is leading her to do. When she first begins to express interest in leadership, teaching, pastoring or whatever, if she is met with disbelief or derision, she is unlikely to pursue "that still small voice" of the Holy Spirit. If she is taught that women, despite Christ's work of redemption, are meant to be "silent in church," "submissive" (in the modern american sense), "not allowed to teach men," then she is unlikely to ever become a Deborah, an Esther, a Tamar or a Rahab, even if that is what God created for her to be. Of course, each of these biblical women acted out against their culture in pursuit of righteousness, as should we all.

For me, The question of women in ministry boils down to this:

Does Christ's work mean that we have been redeemed back to the relationship established in the garden? Men and women working side by side, equally and individually responsible in their relationship to God, with complementary gifts that create something bigger and better than we could do alone...

Or does it mean that women are meant to serve men, that our duty is lift men up and men are crafted to do God's work. That men should care for us, but God's vision, God's purpose comes to us through men and our purpose is to carry these things out through service.

I think one of the reasons that this debate ranges on is that there are so many passages supporting either view.

3/24/2006 9:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home