The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

Thoughts on the PCUSA Denomination in Regard to the Ordination of Women

Filed under: Female Preachers, Gender Equality, Local Church, Personal Story — Guest at 12:38 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2007

The following article is a guest post submitted by Anita Bell, ordained pastor in the PCUSA Church. Rev. Bell offers the following reflections on her denomination in hopes that her critique would continue to call believers to solid scholarship surrounding the empowerment of women and men in ministry and encourage her denomination to clear and cohesive action as they strive to live out their statement of faith.

Some of my friends are thinking about leaving our PCUSA fellowship for EPC pastures. They plan to go as a whole- men and women, lay and ordained. They offer to circle the wagon in this new denominational home, through non-geographic presbyteries, to protect and uphold their women called to ordained leadership. Yet, it is not hard to imagine the established EPC gazing over those protective shoulders with a less-than-approving glare. Imagine women being ghettoized, unable to move to new churches and ministries, because the larger denomination does not offer them welcome. The prospects for women in this move, even with the initial protection of the non-geographic presbyteries, are less than encouraging.

Yet, lest we become too judgmental of our brothers and sister in the EPC and those who would join them, we must take a moment of honest self-reflection in our PCUSA fellowship. Ordained women, especially those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, know full inclusion in the ministry life of the PCUSA in name only. After 50 years, women still face the “glass ceiling” across the theological spectrum of the church. “Our church is not quite ready for a woman pastor…” “Perhaps as an associate, but as the senior pastor…?” “If the senior pastor is a woman, how will our men relate…?”… And so it goes… One glance at the larger pulpits of our denomination proves the point.

Margaret Bendroth, in her article for the Presbyterian Historical Society detailing the historical roots of women’s ordination in the PCUSA, offers a clear observation of the stagnant evolution of women’s ministry in the Presbyterian Church. Bendroth cites studies done in the 1980’s and 1990’s that find an “over-representation of women in small, part-time, often poorly-paid positions, and their virtual absence from large and influential pulpits.” My experience often mirrors these studies- from search committees whose interest in my candidacy focuses primarily on their need to interview a woman, to pastors with less experience than I, who ask me to consider serving as their associate. Recently, a group of clergy in my district of the Philadelphia Presbytery met for lunch. At this particular clergy gathering none of the sisters in ministry were in attendance. The conversation meandered around to the question of why women were not in our larger pulpits. The conclusion of this gathering of well-meaning brothers was that women just did not really want those pulpits.

I could go on about the “good old boy” network, and the unintentional, and at times intentional, patronizing of my sisters in ministry. Personally, I would prefer to encounter opposition to women in ministry from conservative Christians who stand against my calling as an ordained woman based on their understanding of Scripture, rather than come face to face with the nebulous opposition of my PCUSA brothers and sisters who say in veiled or direct manner, “Our church is just not ready for a woman yet.” This response begs the question: Why are our churches still not ready, after 50 years, for women in ordained leadership throughout the church?

This lukewarm embrace of women in ministry by the PCUSA and the “local option” approach of the EPC both find their roots in the original decision made by our denominations’ predecessor to ordain women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament 50 years ago. Here again Bendroth offers us helpful observations about the decision made by the Presbyterian Church concerning women’s ordination. Bendroth notes that the Presbyterian Church was motivated to consider women’s ordination by the secular question, “Why should Christian ministry be the only profession barred to women on the grounds of their sex?” Moved by concerns of human rights and “fairness”, our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of Christ. Bendroth writes, “Empowering women was a way to make good institutions better- more democratic, more inclusive, and more faithful to American ideals.” It made sense. It was the right thing to do. Yet, such well-intentioned social correctness has not transformed the heart and mind of the church to embrace fully the leadership of the sisters in our midst. Rebecca Prichard in her article on Reformed women in ministry observes, women’s ministry “has been permitted but not promoted, tolerated but not preferred.” Perhaps our inability to transform the heart of the church concerning women in leadership stems from our decision-making process based on social convention and not Biblical calling. Using Jesus’ imagery, we have built our understanding of women on the shifting sands of political correctness, rather than the bedrock of Scripture.

Scripture teaches us that the question of women in ministry is not an issue of equal opportunity and justice, but rather one concerning the wholeness of the body. Paul writes to the Ephesians, “From Christ the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work”(4:16). The potential for the body to be healthy and vital relies on the ability of each individual member of the body to do their part. Thus, when we minimize the ordained leadership of our women, we weaken the whole of the body. (The same argument could be made about how our marginalization of our racial ethnic brothers and sisters weakens the whole of the church, but that discussion is for another paper.) Our church documents say that we welcome the ministry of women, but we have yet to recognize the essential nature of their participation in all areas and levels of ministry. The church needs the voice, the talents, the perspective of women in order to live into the whole ministry to which God has called the church. When Jesus commissioned Mary to be the first evangelist to carry the good news of the resurrection, he taught us that women are needed in the church to do more that just to fill the positions that men are unwilling to take. To reach a world in darkness, we need men and women of faith, lifted up into positions of leadership and influence by the church, to lead the faithful in declaring the good news given first to Mary.

One of the roadblocks that often hampers the church in welcoming women into such positions of leadership is our secular understanding of ministry as a “career”. We expect our ministry candidates to have a resume that demonstrates the development of such a career, from lesser positions of responsibilities to greater ones. We value the traditional climb up the ladder. Yet, women often do not follow such traditional paths. My nearly 24 years of ministry experience is peppered with such non-traditional career experiences as raising four children, volunteering as the Girl Scout Cookie mom, and sharing in carpools that would stretch from Philadelphia to San Francisco. My teaching and preaching comes out of the heart of these experiences. My pastoral sensitivity has been honed in the halls of schools and on the sidelines of sporting events. My official church resume has been crafted around these responsibilities, so that I could honor my calling as a wife and mother, as well as my calling to ministry. Thus, when a search committee considers my PIF, I do not look like a “traditional” candidate. But, I do look like the Biblical model of ministry- those raised up out of the main stream of life into positions of leadership with the people of God. From a fishing boat to a pulpit, from the paths of a lost woman to the calling as the first evangelist, from a shepherd’s field to a king’s throne, repeatedly God has raised up leaders not with credentials, but with calling.

The time has come for the church to begin to “think into” a Scriptural understanding of women, called and gifted to lead the people of God. Women are called by God as prophetess (Anna) and leader (Deborah), as teacher (Priscilla) and evangelist (Mary), as pastor (Lydia) and worship leader (Miriam). Each of these women strengthened the body with their leadership. Our biblical history would be much different and much poorer without them, just as our body is poorer and less vital today for the limitations we place on the gifted women in our midst. The time has come to lift up women in leadership in our church as we have never done before. The time has come for our search committees to consider the Scriptural calling of women, not as an issue of opportunity for women, but as an essential for the wholeness of the church. Our search committees need before them examples of women already in positions of leadership and influence, to stir their imaginations to the possibilities. The time has come for our larger churches to offer leadership to the whole of the body, by lifting up women into visible areas of leadership and teaching. The time has come for that “good old boy” network to work diligently to lift up “good old sisters” as viable candidates for our larger pulpits. The time has come for the church to yearn for Anna, Mary and Deborah, for Miriam, Lydia and Pricilla to be at the heart of leadership in the church. Imagine the church, growing and building itself up in love, as each one is welcomed to do the part they are gifted to do in Christ.

Rev. Anita Miller Bell
Minister at Large/Philadelphia Presbytery

28 Comments »

Comment by Catherine+

April 8, 2007 @ 6:49 pm

Hi, I found you through A Voice Crying in the Wilderness blog. I would like to know, for me an Episcopalian, what the EPC is as opposed to PCUSA? Thanks so much. Happy Easter. He is risen! Alleluia!

Comment by Elizabeth

April 9, 2007 @ 5:53 am

I grew up as an evangelical in the PCUS/PCUSA, and I am a supporter of CBE and women’s ordination. Your essay’s ref. to Bendroth’s comments on the roots of the PCUSA’s decision to ordain women as having secular, rather than Biblical foundations, explains a lot. Particularly, I believe, it helps explain why a disproportionate number of ordained PCUSA women now seem to serve in Presbytery and Synod positions, where they help make decisions for the denomination without much day-to-day contact with parishioners.

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

April 9, 2007 @ 10:49 am

The EPC is the “Evangelical Presbyterian Church,” a denomination that formed when the PC(USA) was formed in the early 1980s by merging the two predominant Presbyterian denominations of the time. Bascially, the churches that became the EPC felt that the resulting denomination was too “liberal,” and chose not to take part in the merger. The main issues seems to have been a desire to hold to traditional Trinitarianism, as opposed to a particular minister that did not affirm these traditional Trinitarian beliefs (see this link to the Wikipedia entry). It allows for ordination of women to certain offices (although I can’t verify that the allow women pastors), which sets the EPC up as at least somewhat less conservative than some other denominations that splintered out of the PC(USA) merger, such as the PCA (although the PCA formed before this merger was finally completed).

Comment by Lori

April 9, 2007 @ 1:50 pm

Thank you, Mark, for your primer on the EPC. However, I’m still confused. How is moving to the EPC “circling the wagon”? What are nopn-geographic presbytries, and how do they help women? How do the opposite hinder women?

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

April 9, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

A fair question. I’ll have to defer to whoever wrote the article for that one….

Comment by Todd Goudy

April 10, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

You forgot about Jezebel who took it upon herself to call herself a prophetess and was not. I find it very suprising to see someone try and make a case that women should be in leadership roles in the church when you must distort the scriptures to do so. I would fear pride is rampant in the heart of anyone seeming so full of self-promotion as this woman does.

Comment by Rachel

April 10, 2007 @ 8:24 pm

You’ll find a greater and more grievous distortion of the Scriptures coming from those who use it to disable half the body of Christ than you will from those who dare to challenge tradition in favor of God’s truth. Take some time to look critically at the inconsistencies and fallacies of complementarian hermeneutics and you’ll see what I mean.

As for self-promotion, it never ceases to amaze me how patriarchalists will talk up the virtues of humility and submission when addressing women, and yet consider submission and obedience “emasculating” and “wimpy” when addressing manly, conquering men, even as Christ “submitted” even unto death. I’ve had conversations with patriarchalists to this effect. So it seems, Philippians 2:5-11 only applies to women. The belief that men are to rule and women are to obey was historically constructed, preserved, and advocated by a theological community dominated by men, and is one of the best examples of a self-promoting doctrine you are going to find.

Comment by Sarah

April 10, 2007 @ 8:58 pm

This article was very appropriate and encouraging tonight. I also found the blog through A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, but I have attended CBE events in the DC area before. This article is appropriate because I just heard one of my friends express that she is extremely irritated to hear of women pastors (she clarified to a woman being the only pastor or head pastor and not on pastoral staff of a church). I understood part of her conundrum (because she was also irritated by passive men), but the knot in my stomache tightened and I decided to take a little bit of a different approach highlighting the dysfunction that occurs in churches where all members are not encouraged in their gifts and women are tempted to manipulate the system to be influential-that this does not help anyone because they are not accountable or discipled. I think she accepted that to a certain extent. I also felt that I need to brush up a little on my Bible since Bible teaching is her profession and my perspective is a little more on the socio-linguistic side of things. But, this encourages me. I believe that that a holistic theology is sufficient to promote the calling and giftedness of individuals that embraces their gender as part of the whole person, rather than an anthropology that dimishes the imago dei in a person.

Comment by Mary

April 10, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

Hmm…Were Philip’s four daughters “jezebels”? The *Bible* calls *them* prophets, as it does Miriam, Huldah, and a number of other women (not least of whom was Jesus’ own mother, who was “full of the Holy Spirit” when she poured out her prophetic song).

It’s a pretty basic logical fallacy to claim that women who prophesy are doing so outside the will of God, simply because a woman described as “Jezebel” falsely called herself a prophet. God is certainly sovereign to call and equip both men and women to prophesy. We even have commendable biblical examples of such male and female prophets, if we’re willing to accept them.

As for leadership in the church, we have nothing in all of Scripture that says it’s in any way sinful for women to lead in the church. It’s a distortion of Scripture to claim otherwise; again, we have plenty of examples of women in the New Testament church who were undeniably leaders. Perhaps it’s rampant pride that motivates some in the church to denounce the women whom God calls and equips for leadership, as “jezebels.” It’s quite probably pride that convinces some men among them that it’s OK to refuse to be led or taught by women. Paul shows us a very different model: he named and commended the women AND men who worked alongside him as apostles, teachers, leaders of house churches, missionaries, and so forth.

Comment by Lori

April 11, 2007 @ 8:09 am

Ah, yes. The plain truths of Scripture.

Here where I live in York, England there are the remains of a castle. If you visit there and read the plaque, you will see that back in medieval times, the Jewish population of the city fled into the sanctuary of the castle. Why? Beccause the “Christians” in the city had started a riot and were intent on blaming the Jews for it and massacring them. Unfortunately, the Christians were overwhelming the castle so, like Masada, the Jews chose to kill themselves rather than be captured and die a terrible death at the hands of their enemies.

And then, of course, there’s the Crusades. The Jews and Muslims had lived at peace with one another in Jerusalem, until the “Christians” came. The Jews and Muslims fled for sanctuary to a church, but to no avail. The slaughter was so great that contemporary chroniclers say the bodies ran up to the knees of the Crusaders’ horses.

And why did the Christians behave this way? Because they were just following the plain truth of scripture.

What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!” 23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” 25 All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:22-25

So there you go. They forfeited God’s grace. We know God doesn’t love Jews because the church taught that all the way into the 20th century. Surely we can’t overturn 2,000 years of tradition and just change our minds, can we? Well, how, then, are we supposed to interpret those scriptures?

And how about this? Tell me when this was written.

God created ____ to fill different roles than ____ . To do so, he gave them different physical characteristics. This helps ____ to fill their role better than _____ could.

We know this is how God intended things, because it says so in His Word. The story is told in Genesis ___, where God says that _____ is supposed to be subordinate to _____.

The quote comes from the first chapter of Philip Yancy’s book, [em]Soul Survivor[/em]. Yancy is describing how his pastor back in the 1960’s was telling the congregation how black people are inferior to white people. Why, it says so right there in Genesis 9, where Noah puts the curse on Canaan! And of course, “Canaan” means “dark skinned,” so there you go. God has cursed black people and intends for them to fill the role of servant to white people.

What, that’s not what the “plain truth of scripture” teaches? But the church has taught that for two hundred years! Why, slaveowners and segregationists appealed to the Bible to justify their position. The Baptists in the South even split from the Baptists in the North because they wanted to keep owning slaves. Surely we can’t just overturn such a long-held church teaching like that! It’s tradition.

If the church ever moves beyond oppressing women, I wonder what other group the “plain truth of scripture” will tell us to oppress.

Comment by LJR

April 11, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Ah, yes, calling Godly women who dare to stand up for their faith “jezebels”. Funny, last time I checked, that wasn’t what ol’ Jezzie was about at all. I don’t know of anyone at CBE advocating killing people to get their property, worshipping false gods, overdoing the makeup, or any other such nonsense. It’s all about taking the Great Commission seriously, and I have a hard time seeing how increasing the number of Godly workers would negatively affect carrying out Jesus’ commands to spread the Gospel.

Back in my bad old comp days (praise God for His forgiveness), I used to get the “jezebel” label for speaking out against abuse of power in the church. (I’m sure speaking out against ignoring the abuse of women and children would really have been up Jezebel’s alley, but I digress.) My favorite comeback eventually became “… but I don’t even wear makeup!” ;)

Comment by Kathryn

April 11, 2007 @ 11:22 pm

Re: comments # 6 & 7: And sadly, let’s not forget that “self-promoters” are going in one direction-down. Remember our Lord said that whosoever exalts himself will be abased. If women have to be “humble” and men do not, which ones will be promoted in the Kingdom of God? The answer is found in I Peter 5:6. In Acts 2:17 & 18, we are told that the Lord will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, and that men and women will both prophesy under His anointing. Early Christian women did prophesy under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Rachel, I agree with you. Patriarchy is a self-promoting doctrine.

Comment by joanna

April 13, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

Having grown up Presbyterian, and then moving as a young adult to a more conservative denomination (long story), I am saddened but not surprised by this article. It is a pattern that has been repeated historically and across denominational lines. My recent doctoral work on women clergy at midlife found that the practical acceptance of women clergy has not increased, and the resistance that was found 25 years ago still remains for the most part, even if more subtle. The stained glass ceiling may have a few cracks, but is holding up pretty well. I’ve been ordained for nearly thirty years, and find it hard to believe that change has been so slow. “Imagine the church, growing and building itself up in love, as each one is welcomed to do the part they are gifted to do in Christ.” I, too, Anita, long for this kind of church, but have come to realize that, while I continue to work towards awareness in the larger church on this subject, I have the precious gift of a local congregation where this must - and can - be lived out.

Comment by Whit

April 15, 2007 @ 2:34 pm

The EPC deals with women’s ordination on a “local option” basis, meaning that one presbytery can decide to ordain women and a neighboring one can decide not to do so. As a result, the ministry standing of a woman duly ordained in the EPC has not been recognized equally throughout the denomination. This alone created complex circumstances for ordained women in the EPC (whose numbers were understandably few). Now, how can the denomination assimilate the influx of former PCUSA churches (and their female pastors) from locations scattered throughout the country? The situation has made it necessary to create a presbytery that is not bounded by geography. A “non-geographic” presbytery recognizing ordained women has been proposed as the solution to the denomination’s dilemma. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the EPC as a result.

Comment by Tom McCarthy

April 16, 2007 @ 12:29 pm

As a CBE and EPC member I would like to offer the following observation: The EPC does allow, as mentioned in the post by Whit, the “local option” of choosing weather or not to ordain women as ruling or teaching elders. The common misconception is the local congregation or presbytery get to decide weather or not the actual ordination is scripturally right or wrong. By default the EPC has decided it is right since they allow it and practice it albeit disproportionally. The majority being ruling elders not teaching elders. That fact is lost on many of the more conservative members who feel they can and should activly resist the ordination of women because the feel/believe it is wrong.
This, to me, is a self-inflicted handicap in the EPC. They have waited 25 years to re-address the issue and are now being driven by the circumstances of the PCUSA. I would have hoped the EPC would have on their own made a clear endorsement of women in ministry and been more intentional in their efforts to deploy gifted women in ministry across the denomination. Much of what they do now will inevitabley look like an afterthought.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

April 16, 2007 @ 4:42 pm

Guest:
“If the senior pastor is a woman, how will our men relate…?”… >>>.

How is this question answered? I would be interested to know. How could you make your churches more male-friendly if there is a female pastor?

Women don’t mind going to a male-run church, in general. Men do mind going to a female-run church, in general.

No, this issue of men not wanting to attend churches that are too obviously feminine does not prove us complementarians correct in and of itself, but it is a challenge for women head pastors, I would think.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

April 16, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

Lori:
And why did the Christians behave this way? Because they were just following the plain truth of scripture. >>>>

Hmmm. Then why bother “fixing” the translations in order to make the plain truth of Scripture sound more pleasing to women?

I don’t mind the TNIV, BTW, but it’s not my first choice. Don’t you folks want to follow the plain meaning of Scripture?

Besides, are there any “plain meaning” traditionalists who are calling for the death of Jews and Muslims because they are Jews or Muslims?

The radical Muslims are the only ones crying for the death of the Jews at this time. Many are crying for an end to terrorism, at the same time making a careful distinction between peaceful Muslims and the relatively small group of people who have hijacked their religion and culture.

So, maybe you are stuck in the past with your cultural analysis, Lori?

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

April 16, 2007 @ 5:49 pm

Women don’t mind going to a male-run church, in general. Men do mind going to a female-run church, in general.

I think you’ll find more women who have issues here than you might think, but since the cultural “default” has always been male pastors, most women have never felt they’ve had an option before, whereas any man in a “female-run” church know that they can always go to another church somewhere else.

As to the “plain meaning” question, I think that’s a red herring. People who advocate women’s ordination aren’t trying to ignore any “plain” meaning, so much as they think that Scripture has been actively misinterpreted in these areas over the centuries (not incidentally most often by those who think they’re simply following the “plain” meaning of Scripture). Translation is not a simple task, but involves many nuances (not just cultural, but certainly including cultural) that are often missed by advocates of “plain meanings.”

The previous poster’s comments asking if there are any “plain meaning” traditionalists who call for the deaths of certain groups obviously fails to recognize the not-negligible numbers of Christians who have believed exactly that. Not just historically (painfully common), but even today (thankfully less common, but still very existent).

Comment by Kathryn

April 17, 2007 @ 12:21 am

Re: comment # 18: It might be instructive for someone to compile a list of all the times Christians have condoned, even preached, injustice against people throughout Christian history. Certainly not all have done so, but too many have. I think one of the reasons we have so many “complementarians” (read “patriarchs”) today is because too many Christians know little about our history after the close of the New Testament and think that “Christians could never be guilty of that!”. The Spanish Inquisition, persecution against Baptists and Quakers in colonial America, and American slavery are only a few examples. All because they took Scripture too literally and did not apply good rules of interpretation. I am not being a pessimist, but as the old saying goes, they that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe it is time for Christians to learn that members of any faith, including ours, can be guilty of abusing or killing others in the name of religion if they feel morally or spiritually justified in doing so. It is in that moment when we believe that we could never be guilty of that that we may be the most vulnerable. We will not always agree on every point, but will get better interpretations by studying Scriptural nuances and weighing Scripture with Scripture.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

April 17, 2007 @ 2:22 am

Thank you for your comments and responses. I appreciate the time you gave me.

Donna

Comment by Liz

April 17, 2007 @ 9:44 am

I would like to endorse the comment re women being content with only men pastors. Since that is mostly what people have experienced, then how would they know otherwise? However, once a person has been ministered to by a women who faithfully and carefully teaches scriptural truths they have at least the option to choose to endorse that person fully as one who is gifted and called of God.

It reminds me of when I was in high school and the only options presented to girls as possible carrers were secretarial work, teaching or nursing. We didn’t consider that we could be lawyers, bank managers, engineers, mechanics because it was not modelled or suggested to us. Probably it would have been said that women (and men) were perfectly happy with the choices they had before them and if anyone had thoughts otherwise, they would have been scorned and treated as traitors to their gender. What a shame !

Comment by Liz

April 17, 2007 @ 9:57 am

In reply to #16, it was stated that women in general don’t mind going to a male-led church. In our experience there are an increasing number of women who do not feel comfortable sitting in a situation where men are perceived to be ‘in power or authority’ . This is often because of the abuse of such authority by the men in their lives. This is not to say that women cannot lead by power and authority but the biblical injunction is one of servanthood and working within one’s giftedness with no praise to the person but all glory to God who gives the ability to whomever he chooses.

Comment by LJR (for a few more days anyway)

April 17, 2007 @ 11:49 am

I have to disagree quite strongly that women don’t seem to mind going to a male-led church or that men can’t relate to a female pastor.

The second issue is easy. It is far easier to find women who know a thing or few about stereotypically male things like sports or car repair than it is to find a man who understands the stereotypically female stuff. A female pastor who understands this would easily be able to use examples in her sermons that would help both sexes more easily understand her point. If anything, hierarchal men take an enormous amount of pride in _not_ being able to “think like a woman” and so would have no reason to use illustrations which appeal to both sexes. If a man can’t deal with a female pastor who at least makes an effort to speak his language, that’s really his problem. Women have had to force ourselves to deal with men in church leadership who don’t even try to speak our language for years, and we’re still here. *shrug*

The first issue is trickier.

As several others have said, most of us have never had a choice in the matter about the sex of a pastor. Especially for us theologically conservative and moderate Southerners, a female pastor would be nearly impossible to find. (I’ve heard rumors of one somewhere in my town, but I don’t know.)

I have known many sexual abuse survivors over the years, the vast majority female. Male pastors teaching about, say, sex or relationships have no clue that some things they say from the pulpit are actually harmful to the survivors in their congregations. Sometimes the treatment of these survivors away from the pulpit is also inexcusable.

I went to a church in which there was an obvious double standard about infidelity or abuse and divorce. One guess which spouse was free to leave if they were the “innocent” party. Hint: Not the wife. I know of domestic violence victims who have been sent back into the fists of their abusive husbands, and some of these women didn’t live long after that.

For these girls and women, there’s no safety in an all-male pastorate or other authority structure. There is no security in knowing that they have nobody speaking for them in church matters or concerned about their interests. “Get over it and submit” is not an appropriate answer for these people. Shared leadership would be far better. Demonstrating that men and women can behave in a mutually respectful manner can be a powerful healing tool for these people. Also, if, as hierarchs claim, men really can’t “think like a woman”, then they desperately need women beside them who can handle these difficult situations in an appropriate manner and minister effectively to these people.

Comment by Lori

April 18, 2007 @ 4:34 am

From #22:

In reply to #16, it was stated that women in general don’t mind going to a male-led church. In our experience there are an increasing number of women who do not feel comfortable sitting in a situation where men are perceived to be ‘in power or authority’.
Why do you think The Da Vinci Code and the whole cottage industry of books claiming the Chuch has concealed the presence of women are so hugely popular? Primarily because women know they are not represented in the mainstream churches and want something different. That also explains why Wicca/The Goddess movement is one of fastest growing religions among teenage girls.

For a really great perspective, read Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd. She grew up Southern Baptist, and even married an SB pastor. She admits that her marriage was good. (”My husband never made me submit to him.”) One day, though, she just got tired of it all. She got tired of sitting in a male-run church hearing men tell her what she was supposed to believe about God and how she was supposed to follow the rules to be a good wife/mother. She even felt oppressed by the church itself, since it had stained glass windows that portrayed men from the Bible. Where were the women? Where were their voices? Kidd felt completely left out, so she simply left, and began her own spiritual voyage that led her to Goddess worship.

Along the way, she tells some very vivid stories. For instance, one year during Vacation Bible School, the boys in her class were teasing the girls. “You have to do what we tell you! The Bible says so!” The girls ran inside the church and asked their teacher, a woman, if this was true. “With a defeated air, and look on her face as if to say, What can we do? she admitted that it was true. Men were in charge here.”

And there was the time a guest pastor came to her childhood church. He illustrated on a whiteboard how God was on top, men were next, then women, then children. As the pastor put it, women were the “second created and the first to fall,” thereby justifying their subordination.

As I read her story, many times I was moved to tears. The only difference between her and me is where we ended up spiritually. I am still a Christian but, if I had not discovered people in the church who valued women, then I would have felt as confined and unhappy as she did. While I feel sorry that she ended up leaving Christianity, I can totally sympathize. What did she have in the church? A gospel preached by men for men. Men are in charge. Men make the decisions. Men tell women what to do and what to believe. Women are accepted as long as they follow men’s rules. Reading her story, I wanted to shout “Amen!” because I had the same feelings that she did.

And that’s why her book is so valuable, and why I think every Christian should read it. As Kidd herself confesses, she had felt these misgivings for years, but never did anything about them because she was taught not to speak out. How many women are there like her sitting in America’s pews, afraid to speak out? I bet it’s a lot more than the male leadership of these denominations would like to admit. I know because I’m one of them. I would have stayed with Christianity because I didn’t want to go to Hell, but I would have been miserable.

From #23:

If a man can’t deal with a female pastor who at least makes an effort to speak his language, that’s really his problem.

I’m sorry, but really I have to agree. If a man simply cannot deal with a godly woman who is clearly speaking God’s truth, then it is an attitude problem on his part.

My husband and I are both local preachers in the Methodist church. My husband was the one who encouraged me to follow in his footsteps because he saw the same gifting in me. He attends every service I take and has no problem with it. Here in our district the vast majority of LP’s are women, yet in the years I’ve been here I’ve never heard any grumbling on the part of the men in the congregations. (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it’s not an open and vocal issue like in America.)

Because we both come from more charismatic backgrounds, hubby and I attend a non-denomiational church on Saturday nights. This church has women on the worship team and has even had women preach before. Again, no grumbling from the men, just a lot of praise. In fact, just before Easter, the pastor pulled people from the congregation to illustrate a biblical truth, and he used a woman to represent God! The reason? “The Bible says that God has both masculine and feminine characteristics, so why not?” Nobody seemed to mind, least of all the men. To be blunt, I have found far more acceptance of women in British churches than I ever did being raised in patriarchal American ones.

I really think it is a pride issue. “I’m the man. I’m the head of the household or the church. I can’t let any woman have any authority over me.” Not only does that completely contradict Paul’s admonishment in Eph 5:21, it is also in complete contrast to the attitude I see here in the UK. Here I see a great deal of humility in the men, and I have seen the Spirit moving in ways I rarely saw back in the States. I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.

Comment by Mary

April 19, 2007 @ 10:44 pm

Donna, you said that translations–she did not specify which ones–were “fixed” in order to make the “plain truth” of Scripture more “pleasing” to women.

That’s a religiously popular claim in some circles, made by people who cling to the masculine generic in language and to masculine preeminence in church and family–often in society as well. You apparently believe those who make that claim, which is unfortunate because they’re simply not telling you the truth. Translations which do not use the masculine generic exclusively, are simply more accurate to current English than those which were made with an a priori, published intention to keep the masculine generic. Repeating their inaccurate statements about translations they don’t like, doesn’t make the statements true.

As for men who would stay away from a church because God calls and uses a woman as the pastor there, well…the argument would be with the One Who did the calling and placing. Either the men are willing to submit to God’s will, or they’re not. If they’re sincerely not willing believe that God DOES call and equip women to be church pastors, the world is hardly lacking in churches where they won’t be pushed out of that particular comfort zone. God is not going to stop calling women as pastors, nor should those churches in which God places those pastors, seek to silence or limit them in order to make a few men happy.

I worship with plenty of men who are challenged every week to obey God and follow Jesus Christ. (We women are, too, of course.) In addition to both lay men and women who lead and teach, the pastor who leads and preaches is female. Her gender neither threatens the men’s masculinity nor diminishes their faith, nor does it compromise the faith or femininity of the women. And the congregation is growing, praise God. It’s no easy-answer false gospel or plug-into chain-of-command that’s being taught and preached, either. God regularly steps on our toes and often issues a shove in the right direction through our church leaders, the pastor included. They’re the vessels; the word comes from God. Keeping the focus on God, rather than fretting over whether the pastor is the “correct” gender, is pretty essential for all of us Christians, it seems to me.

Comment by JLP

April 20, 2007 @ 12:31 pm

Many years ago in another part of the country I attended an independent Pentecostal church in which the senior pastor was a woman. The church was about 50% male. Before that, I’d never seen such a high percentage of male attendance at a church.

The men really appreciated her. She was a motherly type woman and believe it or not, I think the younger men related to her as a mother.

This woman has probably passed on to heaven now. She was one of the most kindest Christians I ever met in my life. She cared for many people other Christians don’t care about. She was truly an example of a Godly Christian.

Comment by Rev Sherry Elliott

November 7, 2008 @ 4:11 am

Sitting here in the very early morning light…yes, there are few places int he PCUSA for women ordained in word and sacrament. I couldn’t be more disappointed to be rejected without a phone call, interview or even a letter of acknowledgement. Princeton where I attended seminary should provide a truth in study clause…”don’t expect anytime soon for a position to come your way.” What are the options?

Comment by faith

November 7, 2008 @ 10:34 am

Hi Sherry, i hear your disappointment. Do not give up - keep on seeking a position. God has a place for you… i really believe that.

Never-the-less, it is a difficult wait. No doubt lots of emotions accompany that wait.

i will pray for a miracle for you.

(God you know Sherry’s heart and desire to follow after you and the call that tugs at her heart–the call you placed within her. Move on her behalf and open a door that is right for her and just right for a congregation. Even now, prepare a congregation to receive her with great welcome and opportunity. In the meantime, provide her with ministry friends who will keep on praying for a miracle with her. In the name of Jesus, Amen)

I will keep praying.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>