The CBE Scroll

Comment by indie

January 3, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

I grew up in a conservative church where women couldn’t be ministers and went to a conservative Christian college. I’m now in the Episcopal church in a somewhat conservative parish. One of the most liberal old men in the parish was talking to me about going to Bible college and he said, ‘Did your husband want to be a minister?’ I was thinking um, no, that was me, but I was speechless. Plenty of people have figured out that I want to do ministry even when I don’t say anything about it and it seems pretty obvious that my husband does not. The man then went on to try to tell me that I should be a teacher, which is what my husband actually is and is definitely called to. It seemed so weird that the most liberal member of this church was making all of these gender-based assumptions.

Comment by B-W

January 3, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

My wife is in the ordination process to become an Episcopalian priest. I used to be in the ordination process to become a Presbyterian minister (process was stalled long before I met my wife). I still consider myself Presbyterian (never have been able to get used to the Episcopalian high liturgy), and occasionally consider getting back into the ordination process. Despite being fairly confident of her own call and abilities, and despite receiving tremendous affirmation in her own church, she is still scared to death that any church I might serve will expect her to be ‘the minister’s wife.’

Such a sad commentary on our churches that she may actually have a valid reason for these concerns despite her own call and its affirmation.

Comment by RevMel

January 3, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

…you’ll be a minister’s wife someday…

I have been ordained for about two and a half years, and it does require a good sense of humor. My response would be to point to my husband and say: ‘Oh, he already is!’

Bless him, he gets introduced as ‘the minister’s wi… uh, spouse, uh husband.’ And, he takes it in stride and has adopted the title for himself: minister’s wife! But, he’ll never play the piano, sing in the choir, or teach Sunday school. But he’s great in the kitchen!

Comment by Lori

January 3, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

I had to laugh when I read this article. When I was growing up, my friend’s father was a minister. I remember once when they had returned from visiting a church that was thinking about calling her father. ‘They’ll probably hire my dad,’ my friend confidently told me. ‘Why?’ I asked. She replied in all seriousness, ‘because my mother can play the piano!’ Since my own father is a pastor, I shared this story with my mother, and she confirmed that she had been asked this question by prospective congregations.

As for your situation, Mary Ann, I would just laugh it off with good grace. As you can see, this attitude is simply a holdover from the past. The people making this assumption are probably not trying to be offensive. You might even consider it a form of honor. After all, these people aren’t assuming that you’ll sit silently in a pew. They envision you working with your husband to make an active contribution to the service. I would simply make some sort of joke, say, about your lack of piano-playing ability.

Comment by fjs

January 4, 2008 @ 12:04 am

In my church they hired me as pastor partly because my husband plays the guitar. We make jokes to one another about the piano thing, largely because I play piano.

We are a two-for-one deal. Sometimes members of the church call him pastor too. He leads worship and is very present in the service and ministers to others in caring ways. I’ve learned that some folks just don’t really think that hard about titles and roles and misapply them base on what they have experienced.

Sometimes folks get confused because more often men are pastors. They don’t really have a problem with my being a pastor, but need to get used to the idea and used to my female voice, etc.

In the service he calls me pastor… to affirm that role for others. He will often say when people ask him theological questions, ‘talk to my wife, she studied that.’

Some folks have asked if he would preach sometime, and he generally says, ‘my wife does that… I lead worship… and I would not want to preach.’

All of those comments help define our gift-based roles for people and help them get used to having a female pastor. Sometimes folks will ask how it works having his wife as a pastor… he says, ‘she’s my wife not my pastor.’ (Some are genuinely curious, others patronizing.) He gets his spiritual needs met in other ways. We are clear about our roles with one another also choosing to be spouses to one another and not pastors to one another in the formal sense (encourageing one another in spiritual growth is important). We have boundaries that help us and the church learn.

Comment by theologien

January 4, 2008 @ 2:52 am

The easiest way, of course, is to simply say something like ‘and this is Sam, who is married to Annie’ or something along that line. That is a bit more egalitarian, I should think.

Titles are little more than markers to help people know where they are in the pecking order.

Comment by Cheryl

January 4, 2008 @ 8:25 am

The roots of these gender-biased reactions go very deep. I sincerely wish that the information I have provided through the following video presentation, and the website here (to which I have no connection), will be shared as far and wide as possible this year. Will you help?

The video is ‘God has Given the Church Bible Women to Preach and Pastor.’ It can be found at Google Video in one part (24 minutes) or at YouTube in three parts. You can find these with their search engines, typing in ‘Church Bible Women Preach.’ Look for me, I’m the long-haired lady in the pink sweater in the video still.

All these comments confirm to me that this video message, which I only uploaded last week, is very important to share. Love to all.

Comment by Cheryl

January 4, 2008 @ 8:27 am

P.S. After you watch the video, please leave a comment or write me at encroisade@yahoo.ca.

Comment by Deb

January 4, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

My best friend and I are second career seminarians. Our kids are older (mine are still in school, hers have graduated from high school and are in college.) And, our husbands call themselves ‘pastor’s wives.’

People are taken aback when they say it. Yet their role is to be a spouse to the (future) pastor.

My mom, who is eighty-nine, commented to me recently that people had this same gender stereotype when she was a young woman, except it was for the careers that were ‘hard’ science – engineer, doctor, etc. Everyone assumed that a woman in medical school was there to get a husband. Many women in medical school were discriminated against by their professors, just because they didn’t want to ‘waste their time’ teaching women the craft of medicine.

I play a mean piano, but I don’t really like the art of making a coffee hour go smoothly or care about organizing a bridal shower or wedding shower. The pastor’s wives I know are bright, articulate, caring, and committed. Some of them are pastors in their own right.

The change will come. Of that I am certain. I am trying to explain by example, teach gently, and be the pastor God has called me to be.

Comment by Chris

January 4, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

Most times I would chicken out and not be honest about the fact that I disagree with the stereotype. It’s so much easier. In my better moments, I would smile and politely disagree. Since I am a husband, I would not be in your situation exactly, but I have had to make the same assertion about my cousin, a woman and ordained minister in the Reformed Church of America.

Comment by A. Lin

January 5, 2008 @ 12:48 am

In seminary, I was one of two women in a class of about fifteen when I took ‘Life and Work of a Minister’ – a class that was required only of those people planning to be pastors. The other woman was not married.

One day we were discussing how the pastor’s wife should not be a ‘catch-all’ and how a church should not assume it is a two-for-one deal anymore. I raised my hand and asked if that old assumption would change even more if the pastor has a husband instead of a wife. One of the men in the class made some comment to his neighbor, the whole thing was shrugged off, and I never got a straight answer from the professor or any of the other students. What do you think?

Even after almost seven years, I still feel that the class discounted what my experience would be.

By the way, my husband is certainly not called to church ministry in any area besides some visioning or administrative task. And, neither of us play the piano.

Comment by Liz

January 5, 2008 @ 2:06 am

I was going to answer a few days ago and say ‘I could write the book’ (maybe I will) and these sorts of comments are what show that some people really believe that women are somehow less equipped and spiritually unable to be pastors.

I have had people want to talk ‘to the pastor’ when I have answered the phone and then all they wanted was an address or something similar. After some time, Trevor didn’t answer the phone at all and I fielded all the calls, insisting they talk to me and only passed them on if it particularly concerned my husband.

I have had men refuse to continue with a prayer meeting because I turned up to lead it rather than my husband and another time home group leaders (all men) would not consent to my taking them through some preparatory study for the coming home group topic. And so on and so on…

Even when we had progressed to the stage where I was known as the ‘associate pastor,’ there was still the assumption that my husband was the ‘real’ pastor and my title was just an accomodation in the minds of a few.

Sometimes it is just the title. One guy once said ‘I just love what you do and how you do it, just don’t call yourself an elder.’

My responses? Many times I just let it pass, but as the years went on and I became more mature and Trevor realized what was happening and encouraged me to speak out (he did too) I would sometimes be more insistent, but it was most often not taken well. There is an assumption that women couldn’t possibly be capable of being wise and visionary in church matters.

Now I nearly always say something (and so does my husband – sometimes more so than me) because we’re concerned with the younger generation and making the way easier for them than it was for us. It’s always easier to stand up for others than yourself, I find.

By the way, I do play the piano and love being involved with music but don’t fit the traditional minister’s wife role in most other ways.

When I was first married I made the decision to obey God in what he required of me and not to be intimidated by expectancies. It was hard at times and at one time I had a visit from a couple of guys from Trevor’s college encouraging me to support my husband. What we assumed they meant was that I should be more involved in the women’s work of the church. I’m happy to say that my husband didn’t urge me to do that and I didn’t succumb to the subtle pressure.

That’s enough for now, but I can sympathize totally with the comments which will come your way, Mary Ann. Sam’s support will go a long way to helping people take notice of what you have to say. Years ago, before it was popular to include wives in the recognition of pastors, Trevor always asked me to stand with him in public places and made comment that we worked together. It wasn’t fully understood but it was a start.

Comment by Erica

January 5, 2008 @ 2:58 pm

This is the first time I’ve ever responded to a post, here or on any other site. I just had to comment this time. Mary Ann, I am a ‘minister’s wife,’ but I’ve never been asked that famous question because my husband is a music pastor (Pastor of Worship and Arts Ministries, technically), and he’s one of the finest piano players you’ll ever find!

Our church, sadly, is not as egalitarian as we would like, but I must give them credit for not having stereotypical expectations of staff wives. Unfortunately, though, if a missionary couple visits and is scheduled to preach a sermon, I can guarantee it will be the husband in the pulpit. I thank God for what progress there is (slow as it may be) – at least I know the couple will be introduced together as ‘missionaries,’ not as ‘a missionary and his wife!’

As for how you might have responded to the older gentleman’s comment (unfortunately, there’s a good chance you’ll hear it again), I always try to keep in mind that a remark that is offensive doesn’t always require me to ‘take offense.’ I can speak the truth in love, even when I might be tempted to fire the truth in anger. You might consider something like: (laughing) ‘Oh, music is definitely my husband’s area, not mine. I’ll be sure to pass your suggestion on to him! My giftedness is more along the lines of…’ Smile. Show your appreciation of any positive thing (in him or in the church, etc.) that comes to mind. Ask the gentleman about his own gifts. Be engaging. For the moment focus on this one person (rather than the gender issue – you can’t debate him there, anyway), and choose to ‘minister’ to him just as he is. If he leaves the conversation feeling positive, uplifted, cared for, etc. then you’ve made a friend. And, friends tend to be far more open to having their ideas challenged than are those who have been corrected, insulted, or ignored. Some people will never change, of course – but if we are gracious and gentle (while still being truthful), we can rest in the knowledge that we gave them no justification for their choice. But it’s not for us to judge whether the person we are speaking with is one of those or not. Always assume the best, and you never know when you just might be planting important seeds of change.

Comment by Liz

January 5, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

Hi Erica. So glad you decided to write as you have many excellent things to say. Your suggestions for conversation are the very best way to go that surprisingly yield good results. I have also found that when I answer positively in love, the person isn’t as dogmatic as first appeared. It gives a person ‘room to move.’

Comment by Judy

January 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

My husband, too, uses the title ‘pastor’s wife’ (and neither of us play piano). It is hard for people to remember that not all the pastors are men. Most people are pleasantly surprised when they find out that I, not my husband, pastor and want to know more. If they don’t want a woman pastor, that’s okay too. There are plenty of Bible-believing churches with good men at the pulpit. I am not here for the old-school Christians. They already have churches and a relationship with Christ. I am here to help lead the lost to Christ. Some of them need the comfort of a ‘mother in Israel,’ – a Deborah. And, for the authoritative part, I handle that just fine since I ran my own karate club before God called me into full time ministry!

Comment by Mary Ann

January 6, 2008 @ 5:04 am

I am so appreciative of everyone’s comments thus far (and look forward to hearing more). I have been realizing as I have been reading everyone’s input that it has been very difficult for me to follow your examples of just laughing off gender-stereotyping comments such as this – to be gracious and forgiving. Instead, I am too easily offended, taking these kinds of comments so personally.

Today I was reading in Mark where Jesus asked Bartimaeus, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ and I wondered what I would say if Jesus posed that question to me. I realized I wanted to ask him to forgive me for being so unforgiving. It seems almost unforgivable that I would be so unforgiving when Jesus has forgiven me so much. It brings me to a place of wanting desperately to forgive as he forgives…

I am sure this is the place I need to be right now in order to learn how to extend the kind of love and grace that you all have mentioned – to be able to persevere in the ways which Liz has shared and engage in loving conversations like Erica described.

Comment by Maria

January 6, 2008 @ 8:37 am

I read the posts and related to so many of those commenting. In our denomination the pastor’s wife is referred to as the ‘first lady.’

I am the preacher, not my husband. He also can’t even carry a tune in a basket, though my two sons are dynamic musicians. My husband is a great usher and gifted in biblical studies, but has not expressed any ‘call’ to preaching or pastoral ministry. We are in the process of planting a church which I will pastor. Our dilemna is this: Do we call him the ‘first man?’ It sounds like that title should go to Adam!

I, too, am in seminary, and am an ordained elder/reverend. There have been heated discussions in some of the classes because ‘both camps’ are in attendance. I’m glad to say that my ‘pastoral ministry’ professor recognizes that God calls both male and females into divine service.

I’ve been challenged by those opposing this call for years! It wasn’t until I became fully pursuaded within myself that God uses whom he chooses, that the comments of others lost their negative effects.

I pray for my sisters in ministry everywhere and for all of the ‘first men’ and ‘minister’s wives’ who are secure in their manhood and are so supportive of their ministering wives.

Comment by Theo

January 6, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

The change will come. Of that I am certain.

Perhaps in specific denominations, yes. Yet it’s not clear to me that the ordination of women is a certainty for the church as a whole. I myself have always favored the ordination of women to the church offices, and there are certainly many denominations that embrace this.

However, it appears to me that most of those that do so are losing members over the long term and will eventually be relegated to the sidelines, e.g. the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and so forth. On the other hand, growing bodies, such as the Presbyterian Church in America and the Roman Catholic Church, do not ordain women as pastors/presbyters and likely never will.

Sheer demographics cause me to wonder whether the ordination of women really is the wave of the future or whether it will one day be viewed as a brief episode in the 2,000 year history of the church. However much we may favor it, I think the jury is still out on the issue.

Comment by Darcy

January 6, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

Hello. I’m new to posting, but have been nodding along in agreement for months. This discussion really hit home for me.

My father is a ‘pastor’s husband’ but I’ve never thought of him as that because my mother didn’t become a pastor until I was an adult and by then my father was already on his way toward retiring from the profession he held my whole life. I, and most others, think of him as a ‘retired police officer’ before we think of him as a pastor’s husband.

Another thing to consider is that traditionally, far more ‘pastor’s wives’ do not work outside the home than husbands. This is a contributing factor to classifying the wife with a handle related to her husband more quickly than the husband, who is often categorized first by his profession.

Human tendancy is to categorize and generalize in order to feel more comfortable with the world around us. We like to know what people ‘are’ in order to have clues about how to interact with them.

Although I’m not allowed to be a pastor in our denomination, I come as close to that role and title as any woman ever has at our church. I have people quietly nod ‘pastor’ in greeting as they pass me in the hallways.

My husband often feels slighted when we are in groups, not because of what I’ve been called to compared to him, but because I get warmer greetings. (Of course, primarily by people who have worked closely with me at church or who have felt the impact of my ministry.)

A question: Do men whose wives are pastors find themselves less warmly greeted than women who are married to pastors? Again, people are more comfortable with what they can put a handle to. For many, it might be more difficult to connect with a pastor’s husband simply becuse they’ve had far less experience with them. What do you talk about with them? Hospitality opportunities or the Packers?

Comment by Darcy

January 6, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

I guess I’m on a roll now…

In addition to working at the church, I homeschool our daughter. Recently I was reading a homeschool mom’s review of math curriculum. One program received low ratings because the word problems ‘portrayed women in non-traditional roles and other off-the-wall propaganda.’ I suppose she would have picketed the company’s headquarters if one of the word problems included a woman as a pastor or a man as a pastor’s husband!

Since we’re training our daughter up in the way she should go, at age eight, she already pipes up if any of our school books are overtly traditional regarding women and men.

I’ve been encouraged to see Susan Wise Bauer’s presence on this board. She’s a name I already respected from the homeschool side of my life. (There I go categorizing!)

Comment by Lolly

January 6, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

Again, people are more comfortable with what they can put a handle to. For many, it might be more difficult to connect with a pastor’s husband simply becuse they’ve had far less experience with them. What do you talk about with them? Hospitality opportunities or the Packers?

I think you’ve summed up the issue, Darcy. And it’s not just within Christianity, either. If Hillary gets elected this year, then we’ll have the same problem with Bill Clinton. What do we call him? ‘First husband?’ What exactly will his role be? People are used to having men take charge and fill leadership roles, so they simply don’t know how to relate when the traditional roles are reversed. To be blunt, they think husbands who let their wives become leaders (unless the husbands also have a high-powered job) are somehow less masculine, so how do you relate to a man who’s not really a man? I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but it’s just the reality of our culture. That’s why I counsel being patient with people who question these things. You can’t overturn cultural notions that have been ingrained for 2,000 years overnight.

I’d also like to correct the assumption that most Christians make, that pastor’s wives just stand around smiling all the time and don’t do ‘real ministry.’ The flipside of this is that only husbands with fancy titles do ‘real ministry.’ Far from it! I grew up in a pastor’s household, and let me tell you, my mother was extremely active in church. Over the years, she has taught Sunday Schools, helped lead Bible studies, worked with the children and teenagers, and led the worship – and that’s not counting being involved in countless people’s live. I’m not trying to discourage any women who want to become pastors. I, myself, am a lay pastor with the Methodist Church, and I’m glad my husband supported my calling to it. I’m just trying to say that we need to get away from the worldly notion that only people – men or women – with fancy titles are important. Everything a person does for the kingdom of God is important, and we are called to serve one another.

Comment by Lolly

January 6, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

Perhaps in specific denominations, yes. Yet it’s not clear to me that the ordination of women is a certainty for the church as a whole. I myself have always favored the ordination of women to the church offices, and there are certainly many denominations that embrace this.

However, it appears to me that most of those that do so are losing members over the long term and will eventually be relegated to the sidelines, e.g. the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and so forth. On the other hand, growing bodies, such as the Presbyterian Church in America and the Roman Catholic Church, do not ordain women as pastors/presbyters and likely never will.

Sheer demographics cause me to wonder whether the ordination of women really is the wave of the future or whether it will one day be viewed as a brief episode in the 2,000 year history of the church. However much we may favor it, I think the jury is still out on the issue.

You are correct that traditional denominations who favor women are dying out. To be blunt again, those denominations that try to keep women in the home are outbreeding those that aren’t. I’m not trying to be crude, but as Theo said, demographics show that families in patriarchal denominations tend to be larger than less restrictive ones.

However, not all is lost. I think the wave of the future is in the megachurches. I have yet to hear of any megachurch that restricts women. In fact, the more famous ones make a point of showing that women have more freedom. Since these churches attract lots of unchurched people who come from a secular background where women are considered equal to men, then I think they will gradually transform our culture. It will be a long, hard fight, though, because the patriarchalists won’t go quietly. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the battle is still being fought when the Lord comes back.

Comment by Sandy

January 6, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

One of the situations like this that amused me the most was when we had a guest at the church my father was Pastor at. This church had ordained me and I served part time as their minister of music and education.

Anyway, my father introduced me to the speaker and said that I was planning on going to seminary. The guy made a comment about asking if I was going to be a youth and children’s minister. Before I could respond, my father looked at the man and said, ‘no, a minister of the Word,’ and there was such pride in his voice that all my anger at the other man faded completely. (I realize that a minister of youth and children is still a minister of the Word, but I knew what my father meant by it, and that was someone who would preach the ‘Word.’)

Comment by Brenda

January 6, 2008 @ 11:54 pm

Actually, in my experience (as a worship pastor), most megachurches do restrict women’s roles. Although they make a point of including women in their ads, on their websites, and on worship teams, etc. if you look into their doctrinal statements, very few of them allow women to serve on leadership boards, as pastors, or as elders. I have been amazed at how many professional women choose to attend these megachurches without even considering, much less asking about their position on gender roles. Women principals and CEOs attend churches that won’t allow them to sit on decision-making boards, and they usually don’t even realize it!

It’s important to keep asking questions. Even if you already know the answer, most of those around you don’t. By asking the question, you help inform those around you.

Comment by LMcC

January 7, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

I’m going to have to back up Brenda in comment 77526. The megachurches in the Southeastern United States are most often Southern Baptist and charismatic churches that have embraced more hierarchal views toward women. I’ve sadly watched my former Southern Baptist megachurch crack down on women’s freedoms over the last ten years until it got to the point where I had to bail. There may be one United Methodist church in this town that might count as ‘mega,’ but other than that the big churches are complementarian country.

My hope for women lies more with the emergent and home churches, but even then they’re a gamble.

Of course, I’m still happily shocked and amazed after more than a year that my strict Independent Fundamental Baptist ex-church now has a female music minister; so, I’m willing to believe that advances for women’s ministry can come from anywhere.

Comment by Liz

January 7, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

Went to a ‘New Frontiers’ church this last Sunday with friends. This is a new church plant with beginnings in the United Kingdom house church movement. After the meeting we asked what their stance was on women since they were talking about using people’s gifts in the new year and everyone seeing where they fit, etc.

The answer was that they have great freedom for women to use their gifts but don’t believe that women can be elders (I guess that means pastors too).

This is what would be termed an emerging church group. Seems like equality is not an issue being seriously considered in Australia just now. The lobbying from group which are strongly hierarchical continues to have a huge impact with books, magazines, websites, etc. Mostly from the United States along with the strong group of Anglicans from one of our eastern states. These people make it all sound so ‘biblical’ so that if anyone questions, they are questioning the word of God.

Comment by LMcC

January 7, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

Liz (see comment 77561), stories like yours are why I say emerging churches are a gamble. The one I’m in is good so far, with a pastor who believes in mutual submission and has had women bring the message – even if he has never came out and said where his sympathies lie. Other emerging and house churches get pulled into hierarchy almost immediately, or hierarch leaders change their church planting styles in order to attract a younger crowd. It really makes church hunting a painful process – even more so in a town controlled by the Southern Baptist Convention.

I’ve actually seen more progress for biblical equality among Fundamentalists (wait, what?) than I have in evangelical groups. Before anyone gets too excited, that progress is one friend changing her views, one female music minister, and rumors of someone working at my alma mater quietly supporting biblical equality. Evidence of progress among evangelicals I know personally in the last few years? Zilch.

Comment by Liz

January 8, 2008 @ 7:52 am

I think you may be onto something, LMCC. So often in the churches which ‘seem’ to be embracing equality, they are also taking on board some questionable beliefs and practices which will sooner or later see them come undone.

The more conservative churches, on the other hand, may come at it slowly, but when they see that equality is really biblical they will be solid and supportive.

As I’ve said in other places, sometimes folk are not as convinced as we think they are and a word here or there may mean the difference between their staying as they are or considering that what we say may indeed be true.

Conservatism is our background and working life for over forty years, and although we have fellowship with Christians of many persuasions, we still hold out for these ‘bible-believing’ groups to have their eyes opened.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 8, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

My speculation is that the emerging churches are getting so much flak for their untraditional, seemingly radical methods of ‘doing church’ that they don’t want to seem too radical, so they are holding on to some conservative theological traditions. For example, the megachurch Mars Hill in Seattle (led by Mark Driscoll) are staunchly hierarchical in their position about women and men in the church and the home. Driscoll has a large following. Mars Hill might be considered by some as ‘radical’ in terms of being an emerging church – and though Driscoll defers to John Piper for his theological beliefs, Piper has actually criticized Driscoll for his methods (sad!).

There is another emergent megachurch called Mars Hill Bible Church located in Grandville, Michigan (leading pastor is Rob Bell). This church is exploding – and the encouraging thing is that they have openly stated their position is egalitarian. Bravo.

Comment by Christy

January 9, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

The growth of conservative denominations over some of the more liberal ones is not due, in my opinion, to their rejection of egalitarianism, per se. Too many of the liberal denominations have blatantly watered down the gospel message and have rejected the authority of Scripture as their measurement of truth. Conservatives who are ignorant on the subject of egalitarianism (and most are), just assume that to hold the egalitarian position one must do the same watering down of Scriptural truths as the liberals have done.

However, it was through looking more closely at Scripture that I became convinced of egalitarianism. If we patiently continue to present our position based on Scripture and keep proclaiming the gospel faithfully without compromise, I believe many more conservatives will one day come to change their thinking. I am one who has.

It will be devastating to our cause if we praise groups who embrace egalitarianism but who also undermine the authority of Scripture and the gospel. The gospel is of first importance. If we rightly understand it, the truth of egalitarianism will become revealed. Egalitarianism is justified through embracing Scriptural truth more accurately, not through compromising it or praising those who do.

Comment by Mary

January 9, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

One problem is a simplistic ‘either-or’ litmus test applied to denominations/churches/groups concerning their acceptance or rejection of biblical equality. There are people who wrongly accuse large numbers of Christians of ‘watering down the gospel’ or ‘apostasy’ or any of a number of dire judgments on the basis of their stance on biblical equality.

In other words, we egalitarians are often judged heretics or something else equally false and pejorative for accepting the biblical truth of equality in Christ. And, speaking as a Christian in one of the frequently maligned ‘liberal denominations,’ we’re generally maligned for similarly simplistic and false reasons. It’s one of those easy ways to refuse to accept the Christian faith of others rather than do the hard work of understanding and accepting different opinions and perspectives on non-salvific issues.

Meanwhile, we ‘liberal’ Christians keep on seeking to witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, and trying not to do to others what is so often done to us: denial of our very faith in the Christ we seek to serve.

Comment by Liz

January 9, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

This conversation points up the fact that there is no definitive dictionary definition of what words mean such as ‘evangelical,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘fundamental,’ etc. We have seen some of these adjectives change meaning over decades and it often depends on who you keep company with as to what is meant by certain titles.

Trevor has been called a heretic by some even though we would be labelled conservative by others. I guess we’ll never be free of other people’s labels for ourselves but can be careful to not label others too readily.

Comment by Christy

January 10, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

I agree that it can be wrong to use labels to generalize groups, especially when there is no consensus of how those labels are defined. However, by identifying oneself as a liberal, one has already assumed a litmus test of some defined standard by which one disqualifies himself or herself from being called a conservative. Litmus tests are normal ways of defining our world. They are only bad when they are misused.

I was taught that the consensus of conservatives is that faith and truth is defined by Scripture alone (as originally written). How Scripture is interpreted is where the differences begin and the debates begin. Conservatives (to my understanding) define liberals as those who do not hold the Scriptures as the final authority of truth – liberals either add to the Scriptures (traditions given equal authority) or reject all or certain texts as being in error. This is the litmus test that many conservatives use. When once-conservative denominations begin to reject the Scriptures as their final authority, the conservatives among them often leave to join denominations that do.

To convince conservatives of egalitarianism, one must use Scriptural arguments. Most have not personally studied the issue and have blindly accepted the patriarchal teachings preached to them as the only faithful interpretation of the texts. Too many have wrongly equated egalitarianism with the rejection of Scripture. That is why anyone who believes in egalitarianism is automatically labeled a liberal and assumed to also embrace homosexuality as well. This presumption of course is mistaken and unfair.

CBE states as a core value, ‘the Bible teaches the equality of women and men.’ Therefore CBE promotes articles that argue from this perspective. An excellent article written by Catherine Clark Kroeger entitled ‘Does Belief in Women’s Equality Lead to an Acceptance of Homosexual Practice?’ uses Scripture to dispel the myth that these positions are logically joined together. This type of material is what conservatives are willing to consider and may cause a change in their thinking.

But when egalitarians publicly cheer and praise groups who are ‘liberal’ (label used only as defined specifically above) because of their embracing egalitarianism, conservatives are automatically turned off. The issue is over the acknowledgment of Scriptural authority, not egalitarianism, per se. Through their ignorance, conservatives will then equate egalitarianism with undermining Scriptural authority.

Without some basis of consensus, dialog is almost impossible. If Scripture is not used as the final measurement of truth, then we fall into relativism with no means by which to discern truth from error; it becomes just my opinion verses another human’s or group of humans’ opinion (traditions). When Christianity can no longer be defined, how can we know it from what it is not? This misty fog creates a spiritual insanity – the inability to discern reality from unreality.

Defining truth is not evil but necessary in knowing Christ more accurately. The only true evil is loving darkness more than light. Who then is to say what is light? That’s the real question. How we answer that question is the real litmus test. The only label I use is Christian, since I don’t exactly fit in with any of the current denominations. Scripture is my final authority and I believe that Scripture teaches egalitarianism. I cannot favor one position over the other because, to me, both must be embraced in order to genuinely reflect Christianity. You may disagree with me but to convince me you must prove it by using the Scriptures.

Comment by Mary

January 10, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

Sorry, Christy. I’m talking about the very common untruth lobbed at me and my fellow United Methodists, concerning ‘watering down Scriptural truths’ and ‘rejecting the authority of Scripture.’ We do nothing of the sort, yet people make such assertions because, apparently, they feel free to make them against our ‘liberal’ denomination.

The false judgments against mainline denominations are common and they’re highly detrimental to the body of Christ. As I said, meanwhile, I make every attempt not to do to others what they do to me as a supposedly ‘liberal’ (pejorative, their own definition) who may or may not, according to them, even be a Christian simply for being what they think is ‘liberal.’

In other words, lobbing ‘liberal’ at groups of Christians means the lobbers get to write off their brothers and sisters as not worthy of their consideration as members of the same dear body of Christ. It really needs to stop.

Comment by Christy

January 10, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

The same can be said of any group being mislabeled. Conservatives view me as a liberal because I believe in egalitarianism and those who do not hold to Scriptural authority think I am too ‘doctrinal’ and rigid in not embracing contradictory views as equally valid. So, though I don’t like it, that’s just life.

My answer to both groups is, ‘Show me in the Scriptures where I am in error.’ If a mainline denomination is not ‘liberal,’ let them use Scripture to prove the rightness of their positions to those who are mislabeling them. I wish we would all desire more the label and behavior of the Bereans.

Comment by B-W

January 10, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

Whatever definitions are used will have some problem. For example, I would argue that many people who are (or who at least feel fine identifying themselves as) ‘liberal’ do indeed feel that they define faith and truth ‘by Scripture alone (as originally written).’ But here’s where the debate comes in. Who’s to say whether they’re right or not? Conservatives? I don’t think so. The problem is that people of honest intention can look at, say, 1 Timothy 3, yet come up with very different interpretations of what that Scripture meant to the person who wrote it down (or had God speak the words to him, if you prefer), much less what that passage means for Christian faith today.

That’s not to say that all ‘liberals’ (or even all ‘conservatives’) use ‘Scripture alone,’ but assuming that they don’t is unfair. For many, to be a ‘liberal’ means nothing more than open-mindness to changing the status quo, while ‘conservative’ means nothing more then defending the status quo. That’s not to say that all people use this definition, either. In any event, I’d certainly agree that these labels are often used wrongly, and tend to generate more heat than light when used.

Comment by Mary

January 10, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

If my fidelity to Jesus Christ is insufficient proof to a would-be accuser, then it says far more about the accuser than it does about me. I live out my Christian faith in a community of brothers and sisters who, like I, find that they can best live it out in a congregation of United Methodists. Labelers can say whatever they want, but the burden of proof for their accusations of our infidelity to the gospel or to the Scriptures is on them, not on us.

Comment by Mary

January 10, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

And if we are going to have a ‘sola’ war, we have some real maneuvering to do.

Christ alone? Scripture alone? Faith alone? Tradition alone? Some combination of the above?

Really, what it always comes down to, is a (fill in the blank) contest when somebody doesn’t like it that some group doesn’t exclude quite as many people as the accuser wants them to exclude, or exclude them on the grounds that the accuser wants them to, so the group gets labeled the nasty religiously-popular ‘L’ word and has false accusations lobbed against them. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ is still Lord and, last time I checked, the accusers are not.

Comment by Carrie

January 11, 2008 @ 1:00 am

I am a single woman and moving toward a life of missionary service. A few years ago after sharing my heart for overseas work with a group from my church I was ‘counseled’ by a man who was also an elder in my church that I should wait until I was married before I ‘became’ a missionary. It was very disheartening to hear from a church leader that I would have to put God’s plans for my life on hold until I got married, something I’m not even sure is going to happen. Fortunately my pastor and others have been more than supportive and the man who doesn’t believe single women should be in ministry isn’t around anymore.

Comment by Christy

January 11, 2008 @ 8:45 am

Carrie, if God has called you to the mission field, you should obey him. Some go married, others go as singles, and still others find their mates while serving on the mission field. The important thing is to have some relational support with other missionaries where you are going. It can be very lonely out there and it strengthens our spirits when we have other believers to talk to and work alongside.

Mary, it is obvious you have been hurt and offended by those stereotyping you and your denomination. I’m sorry, I know how it feels. But you are stereotyping others as well, assuming evil motives that most conservatives do not have.

The majority of conservatives that I know are not trying to exclude or mislabel anyone. Their focus is on understanding faithfully what the Scriptures say about truth. They are sincere, humble, generous, and loving people. Are they always right? No. ‘They’ are not even a uniform group but a vast diversity of differing positions. Our main consensus is that the truth is found in the Scriptures. By this standard, you are a ‘conservative’ too – though ‘Christian’ is the real term. We all have errors and need to be humble and teachable enough to listen to one another. It’s a two-way street.

But there are those who openly challenge the Scriptures as their standard, yet still choose to still call themselves Christians. They redefine Christian terms giving them new unbiblical meanings. Christ becomes a ‘cosmic force’ or ‘one of many gurus that leads us to God.’ Some deny that we are sinners that need a savior, but rather we just need to look within to find God already there. Others deny that Jesus even needed to die on a cross for our sins. Some say it is unloving (and narrow-minded) to condemn homosexuality as a sin or insist that there is a real heaven and a real hell. Others declare that all religions worship the same God but just give Him different names like Allah. And the list goes on and on…

I can’t tell you how many ‘self-called Christians’ have challenged me just by my summing up of the gospel as ‘Jesus saves sinners’ as defined in 1 Timothy 1:15. If ‘Christians’ can even reject the gospel message, then when can we cease to acknowledge them as being Christians? It is this group that I was specifically referring to as ‘liberal.’ Obviously, after this conversation I probably will avoid the word altogether. However, just picking up what others in this blog had said about mainline denominations decreasing in numbers while the so-called more conservative denominations are growing being a supposed death knell on the advancement of egalitarianism is what originally made me jump into the conversation in the first place. My whole point was that many of those coming into the conservative denominations are doing so because they say they want to keep the authority of Scriptures as their standard for defining truth. They say that embracing practicing homosexuals as valid candidates for church leadership violates the teachings of Scripture.

Comment by Mary

January 11, 2008 @ 9:10 am

Show me my stereotyping, Christy. I’m talking about direct experience of unsubstantiated, false accusations about me and my denomination. I never said or implied that ‘conservatives’ do such things. I don’t know or care about how to label false accusers. I just know their accusations are unfounded. It’s interesting that they do what they’d be outraged if I did back to them. But, being who and what I am, I wouldn’t dream of denying their faith simply because they lie about mine, or because of what I might presume about their beliefs.

The nebulous unfounded accusations, as I said, need to stop.

Comment by Mary

January 11, 2008 @ 9:16 am

And how many times have we egalitarians been told that we’re egalitarian just because we’ve been ‘hurt and offended’ by people (men, non-egalitarians, parents, whatever scapegoat-du-jour the accusers choose for the finger-pointing). The implication, of course, is that we’d be good toe-ers of the patriarchalist line if we’d just ‘forgive and forget’ the hypothetical hurt. It’s as if we have no brains of our own and no Holy Spirit discernment to choose the truth.

I think the ‘you’ve just been hurt’ deflective is inappropriate.

Comment by Christy

January 11, 2008 @ 10:35 am

There is my point of stereotyping. I am not deflecting anything; it is not my motive or my point. I did not imply you hold your position only because of emotional reasons. I was just sympathizing with you. I consider you a friend, not an adversary.

Comment by Mary

January 11, 2008 @ 11:05 am

I’ve done no stereotyping, Christy. I continue to believe that the nebulous labeling and false accusations against whole groups of Christians is wrong. I had hoped you’d realize how condescending and deflective ‘you’ve been hurt’ is, especially considering it’s a common tactic used against egalitarians by those who oppose biblical equality. It’s wrong against egalitarians, and it’s wrong against ‘liberals.’

I’m heartsick from all the needless, false divisions in the body of Christ. It’s a matter of tearing apart the body of Christ and it must stop! And yes, the ‘L-word’ accusations are a part of it all.

Comment by Lori

January 12, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

I’m going to have to back up Brenda in comment 77526. The megachurches in the Southeastern United States are most often Southern Baptist and charismatic churches that have embraced more hierarchal views toward women.

I should have clarified what I meant. When using the term ‘megachurch’ I meant the really big non-denominational churches like Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston and Bill Hybel’s church (can’t remember the name of it).

Osteen’s wife is listed as a ‘co-pastor’ at his church. I’ve watched his services on television and I’ve seen his wife get up and expound on the Word with as much authority as Osteen himself. In fact, there have been times when I’ve liked her preaching better than his. As for Hybels, his wife has a book available from CBE’s bookstore, Nice Girls Don’t Change the World. I seriously doubt that Bill Hybels would allow his wife’s book to be sold by CBE if he didn’t agree with their viewpoint on gender relations. I’ve also seen that they’ve had women listed as ‘pastor’ on his church’s staff.

Because these two churches are the biggest in the United States, I have hope for the future.

Regarding Rob Bell and the emerging church movement, he’s actually been called a heretic for his egalitarian views. In fairness, the accuser listed other points that he thought pushed Bell out of the mainstream of Christian thought. However, egalitarian views were listed as being one of those points. Shows you what a low point we’ve reached in Christianity (at least in America) when affirming the freedom of women is regarded as denying God.

Here is the link where I saw the article talking about Bell being called a heretic. Actually, it’s a blog post and the egalitarian part is buried in the comments below.

Comment by Lori

January 12, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

Regarding liberal churches, that’s a thorny issue. I think when most conservatives throw that term out, they are talking about how some denominations champion the rights of homosexuals. I think that, more than anything else, has hurt the egalitarian cause. Because those same denominations also ordain women, it all gets lumped in the conservative mind, just like they think most secular feminists are lesbians – who of course are angry because they couldn’t catch a husband (I say these things having been raised in conservative/fundamentalist churches all my life).

I had to chuckle, though, because reading these comments reminded me of an experience from childhood. My dad was a Methodist minister in the South, and I remember hearing some church members say once, ‘Why, I heard that those liberal Methodists up North are even ordaining women now!’ Sadly, this was one of the reasons I buried my call to ministry and didn’t ‘come out’ until I was an adult, despite having known I wanted to be one since I was much younger. Hearing comments like that convinced me that there was something wrong with me, that confessing my desire would make me one of ‘them,’ the heretical Christians. That’s why I’m so passionate about the egalitarian cause now.

Comment by Liz

January 13, 2008 @ 5:56 am

Just for the record, Willow Creek is the name of the church of which Bill Hybels is senior pastor and this is one group which began on the basis of equality and continues in that way. It is reported to be one of the requirements of leaders that they endorse the belief of biblical equality and people are chosen for their giftings, not their gender. Gilbert Bilezekian was one of the original group who founded the church and he is a strong supporter of CBE and has written books on the subject of equality as well as invited hierarchalists to debate the subject.

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2008 @ 10:10 am

Christ Church of Oak Park in suburban Chicago is another egalitarian church. About fifteen years ago it appeared to be complementarian. But, in the meantime it has changed and now has one woman pastor and several women elders.

Comment by Watcher

January 13, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

Liz, it is so funny you brought this up.

Today our Sunday school just finished up the ‘Becoming a Contagious Christian’ series put out by Bill Hybels and a couple others. And the closing video segment was, I believe Bill, or one of the others, talking about the church Bilezekian started to reach people. I read Bilezekian’s book ‘In the Spirit We Are Equal’ many years ago but never knew he was associated with Hybels or anything.

I go to a wonderful church that leans more toward egalitarianism than complementarianism but it still has a few complementarian attitudes in a few small areas. I’m wondering if I could find Bilezekian’s book and give it to my pastor to read. They are already rather egalitarian in many areas, but a bit of complementarianism clings to some of their thinkings, while I’m sure they are completely unaware of the huge debate that rages between the two. It’s just a simple country church that wants to love Jesus, serve him, and encourage the people to use their gifts.

Guess I’m just really glad to make that connection today. Thanks all.

Comment by fjs

January 13, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

I’ve found that often simple country churches lean more egalitarian simply because there are so few people to participate. Everyone has had to pitch in or the ministry would not get done. There are also a lot of women pastors in country churches who provide excellent leadership and ministry. I’ve learned that because the Lutheran church down the road has a female pastor and they like her real well, then well, maybe it’s okay for us, too. It’s based on a local experience, which I think is often the case… one experiences and then begins to adopt a belief that supports it.

Comment by Liz

January 13, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

Hi Watcher. I have enjoyed your contributions recently and it’s good to hear you enjoyed the book by Bill Hybels. There are two other books by Gilbert Bilezekian which are sold by CBE(cbeinternational.org) through their Equality Depot bookshop online.

One is Community 101 which is about life together as Christians and the other is Beyond Sex Roles, which he has recently revised, and so would be a very valuable book.

Comment by Lori

January 13, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

Just for the record, Willow Creek is the name of the church of which Bill Hybels is senior pastor and this is one group which began on the basis of equality and continues in that way.

Thank you! I always get him mixed up with Rick Warren. By the way, what’s the name of Warren’s church? Are they egalitarian?

Gilbert Bilezekian was one of the original group who founded the church and he is a strong supporter of CBE and has written books on the subject of equality as well as invited hierarchalists to debate the subject.

Seriously? I know him through his books, but I didn’t know he had anything to with Hybels. Cool!

Comment by Kristi

January 14, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

I have to back Mary up completely here in her frustrations at the slander that Christians so frequently throw at ‘liberal’ Christians. As a self-proclaimed liberal Christian myself, someone who in fact does back the rights of homosexuals as well as the rights of women, but still believes firmly in the truth of Scripture and the saving power of Jesus Christ, I am sick to death of fellow Christians and fellow egalitarians determining that I am somehow not Christian enough for them.

I am especially sick of some egalitarians throwing homosexuals under the bus in their misguided attempts to convince conservative complementarians (who, let’s be frank, aren’t likely to listen to them anyway) of the legitimacy of their position. God has given me a heart especially for the plight of both women and gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered people in the Christian church today, and I get angry when I see either group unthinkingly denigrated.

I realize that this blog is chiefly about discussing egalitarianism and women’s roles in the church, and not about other ‘hot issues’ such as homosexuality. I also realize that it’s highly likely that just about everyone else posting here disagrees with me regarding what the Bible has to say about homosexuals. I also want to make clear that I certainly don’t have a problem with my fellow Christians who disagree with me on this particular issue – I’m used to it, and I have many wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ who do not believe as I do about this. But still, I would hope that people who are constantly having to defend themselves and their interpretation of Scripture against complementarians and patriachalists would recognize that other hot button issues are equally as misunderstood and nuanced as that of women in the church. I hate to see any group of God’s people not allowed to participate fully in his church.

Comment by jlp

January 14, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

I don’t believe the homosexual union is God’s will, but I never denigrate homosexuals. I have worked with some openly gay people who were great co-workers. And, I believe the Christian community has a long way to go in improving their treatment of them.

Comment by jlp

January 14, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

And I never discuss the homosexual issue with complementarians (or the abortion issue). I consider each one its own separate issue. So if a complementarian does bring in the homosexual issue, I ignore it.

Comment by Kristi

January 14, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

Yikes, I just went back over my post and I do come off a little strident. I apologize if anything I’ve written causes offense to anyone. I want to make sure it’s clear that I’m not really angry at any of the posters here. I’m also not angry at people who have prayerfully and deeply considered the Scripture and still disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality. I’m just frustrated at people who are willing to delve deep and consider other meanings and alternatives to the complementarian view of men and women, but either haven’t done the same for homosexuals, or try to paint gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered people and their lives in a false and denigrating light.

Comment by jlp

January 15, 2008 @ 7:10 am

Don’t worry, Kristi. I may have a different view of the issue than you, but I understand your concern.

Comment by Liz

January 15, 2008 @ 7:45 am

Rick Warren’s church is Saddleback and as far as I know they are not particularly egalitarian – probably what would be called complementarian.

Comment by LMcC

January 15, 2008 @ 10:45 am

A few years ago, Rick Warren came out pretty clearly as complementarian. Granted, maybe more time with the more progressive wing of Christianity might yet make him rethink things, but I’m not holding my breath since he still identifies himself with the SBC.

Comment by B-W

January 15, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

Kristi and others, although I probably disagree with Kristi on certain matters of biblical interpretation (for example, I often say I ‘can’t get around’ what I understand the Bible to say about homosexual behavior, ‘as much as I’d like to’), this is a great example of what I was saying about how the accusation the ‘liberals’ ‘throw out Scripture’ is unfair.

I see no indication that Kristi (for example) ‘throws out’ passages she disagrees with. She interprets those passages differently than I do, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t take them seriously, or that she doesn’t consider them God’s Word.

If we could avoid accusing people of things that they may well not be guilty of, we might be able to have more productive dialogue on such differences of interpretive opinion.

Comment by Christy

January 15, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

We don’t know what Scripture texts Kristi is using to support her present position on homosexuality. The fact that she uses Scripture does not, by itself, justify her position. Cults also use Scripture to support their positions. The issue is to look at the texts themselves and examine if they are being interpreted in context and within the framework of other scriptural themes. This is what Bereans do. This is what we should all do, whether in the ‘liberal’ labeled or ‘conservative’ labeled camps.

Sometimes we are right, but sometimes we are dead wrong. To embrace positions (doctrines) as a ‘package,’ whether the ‘liberal’ package or the ‘conservative’ package, is a foolhardy practice. Every teaching and doctrine in its own right must be tested.

As egalitarians, we would desire patriarchalists to reconsider their interpretations of certain relevant texts that they are using to support their position. But are we willing to do the same in other areas of disagreement? How much are we willing to sacrifice to follow after truth? Patriarchalists are not wrong on everything – neither are liberals. This is why I resist connecting egalitarianism with the acceptance of practicing homosexuality. They are different issues, as unrelated as apples are to oranges. (In my mind, the Christian acceptance of slavery and women’s subordination are much more closely related issues.)

Painting those we disagree with by derogatory name-calling (whether liberal or conservative) does not benefit anyone, nor does our zeal justify what is right or true. I have great compassion for the lost, but God is still right and justified to send the majority of the lost to hell. However, in so doing, God is still more compassionate than I will ever be. He alone is the standard of what’s right and wrong. Rather than accuse others of lacking compassion or harboring evil motives because they disagree with us, a better use of our energy would be to closely reexamine such teachings against Scripture.

Other truths are extremely important and ought not to be sacrificed for the sake of a superficial unity with those who agree with egalitarianism. I have paid a dear price socially for embracing egalitarianism, having become convinced of its truth. How then can I now compromise other essential truths in order to ‘belong’ somewhere? Truth matters more to me than even belonging (my heart’s desire) to a welcoming group.

Comment by Mary

January 15, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

Perhaps the key is to examine the fruit being produced, rather than insisting that because of some guilt-by-association vague accusations of rejecting the authority of Scripture on some group’s part, they ‘prove’ the orthodoxy of their beliefs.

In other words, what produces results in Christ’s kingdom: fruit or beliefs? And, who gets to decide who’s authorized to conduct the investigation of those supposedly questionable beliefs, anyway? Are we going to operate under a ‘not a Christian until you prove to my satisfaction that you are’ suspicion, or extend at least a little grace so that cooperation in spreading the gospel can happen?

The violent segregative efforts of the body of Christ are a travesty of the unity for which Christ himself prayed on our behalf. In my opinion, ‘standing for truth’ is far too often merely a means of refusing to work with those with whom we might not even have major disagreements, if only we’d tried cooperation prior to inquisition. Is that body of doctrines the most important thing, or is serving in Christ’s name to gather in the lost? Who’s remaining lost while we’re busy with determining to our own satisfaction who’s orthodox enough to work with?

Comment by Kristi

January 15, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

B-W, thanks for your comment. I would never advocate just ‘throwing out’ Scripture that is difficult to deal with, and I don’t know any liberals of my stripe who would, either. That’s the kind of accusation from fellow Christians that is very hard to take, and I appreciate the acknowledgment here of the damage such slander can do.

I have paid a dear price socially for embracing egalitarianism, having become convinced of its truth. How then can I now compromise other essential truths in order to ‘belong’ somewhere?

You know, that is exactly how I feel about the beliefs I have come to. I’m not going to reject what I feel is the truth just so other Christians will find it easier to accept me and my beliefs. If they don’t, that’s fine, but anyone who attempts to do so should consider whether they are adding to the gospel by insisting that I don’t hold the proper beliefs to be a real Christian (Again, to clarify, not that I think anyone here is doing that, but I can’t count the number of Christians I’ve talked to who have).

Comment by Lori

January 18, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

See comment 78058.

This is why I resist connecting egalitarianism with the acceptance of practicing homosexuality. They are different issues, as unrelated as apples are to oranges.

Although I don’t agree with Kristi’s interpretation, I share her frustration. I grew up fundamentalist/conservative, and brother, I know all about the ‘package mentality.’ If you can’t tick all the boxes and have the right positions on all the issues, you’re pretty much beyond the pale. I agree with Christy, though. Gay rights are an entirely separate issue and it really twists my knickers that certain segments of Christianity lump everything together in order to dismiss you.

(In my mind, the Christian acceptance of slavery and women’s subordination are much more closely related issues.)

Absolutely. I am convinced that the egalitarian movement is the new civil rights movement.

See comment 78061.

The violent segregative efforts of the body of Christ are a travesty of the unity for which Christ himself prayed on our behalf. In my opinion, ‘standing for truth’ is far too often merely a means of refusing to work with those with whom we might not even have major disagreements, if only we’d tried cooperation prior to inquisition.

Again, based on my experience, I entirely agree.

Comment by Lori

January 18, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

See comment 78030.

A few years ago, Rick Warren came out pretty clearly as complementarian. Granted, maybe more time with the more progressive wing of Christianity might yet make him rethink things, but I’m not holding my breath since he still identifies himself with the SBC.

That’s a shame. Now I’m glad I never wasted my money on Purpose-Driven Life. I do have a copy of his wife’s book, Dangerous Surrender, though. It’s all about Kay Warren’s advocacy on behalf of AIDS orphans in Africa. I’m surprised Rick allows his wife to have such a high-profile role. Methinks he’s very careful not to push his complementarian view too forcefully so as not to alienate his congregation.

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2008 @ 7:44 am

Just for the record, the Purpose-Driven Life book has not even a remote reference to hierarchy. It is full of Scripture verses and moves from the assumption that we are all driven by something in our lives so why not be driven by God’s purposes.

This book could be used very effectively by egalitarians, as we did, without having to adapt anything. It just doesn’t ‘go there.’

Comment by Lori

January 19, 2008 @ 10:04 am

I never said that Purpose-Driven Life was a complementarian book. Since it has sold all those millions of copies, I knew it couldn’t be. No complementarian book would ever be accepted by mainstream America that way.

However, if I had purchased a copy of it way back when, I would now be seeking to get rid of it. I have lost all respect for Mr. Warren. If I tried to read his book now, all I would be able to think about is that he thinks his wife is subordinate to him.

I have even less respect for him since he won’t be open about his complementarian beliefs. I don’t particularly like other patriarchal leaders like James Dobson or Al Mohler, but at least they’re up front about it. Warren’s attempt to hide what he believes in order to appeal to the mainstream reminds me a great deal of Huckabee (see other thread).

Comment by Watcher

January 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

Lori, I guess I take a little different view than you.

Complementarians come in varying degrees. Some only have trouble with a woman being a senior pastor and otherwise give women a great deal of freedom in both religious and secular settings. Even Dobson promoted his wife Shirley in ways expressing a deep and sincere confidence in her. Shirley Dobson was (maybe still is – I dunno) in charge of the National Day of Prayer or some such thing. It’s been long enough ago I can’t remember exactly.

But my point is, though I don’t agree with him on everything, I can respect how in the limited confines of his more restrictive beliefs, he still honored, promoted, and respected his wife, which included her giftings in leadership.

And whatever is going on with Rick Warren, (again – I dunno) if his wife has a book out, that is a pretty good indication that she is not under some deep complementarian oppression. She has certain amounts of liberties within the complementarian movement that women in more represive situations would only dream of.

So bottom line for me, I want to keep in mind that there are varying levels in complementarianism just as there are in egaliatarianism and feminism. I do not want to be guilty of judging all complementarians and determining that all their men are horrible, repressive goons. But rather they suffer from a tradition and teaching that I cannot fully agree with. If they want to judge me and cast me off as a heretic or man-hating, baby-killing she-ra because they refuse to look into what I really represent, that’s between them and God. I will still respect them as fellow human beings and believers and acknowledge what I recognize as strengths and gifts used for the body of Christ.

(For the perfect picture of a horrible, repressive goon, please look at the link on LMCC’s post about the Bassenco blog. It’s on the ‘Women Shaped the Early Evangelical Movement’ thread. Then listen to the podcasts call the ‘Lambs of Culpepper.’ LMCC’s post is near the bottom of the thread. Thanks.)

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

Lori, I think it would be a shame to miss out on everything a non-egalitarian said because they don’t agree with what we believe. Particularly this applies to areas like evangelism which are not initially concerned with family or church relationships. There are many great historical and living people (women and men) from whom we can learn a lot even though they have not yet come to an egalitarian belief.

One example would be Billy Graham, who is one of the most used evangelists of all time and yet as far as I know he still maintains that the husband is the head of the home. Surely we can recognize that God uses people of all persuasions and beliefs about many issues in the Bible.

On the other hand, if a person is writing or speaking about relationships in the home or women’s areas of service in the church, then it would be best to take notice of people who have an egalitarian view. It could make a difference as to whether we were reading the book for our own edification (and could pick and choose bits we didn’t agree with) or if we were recommending it or lending it to others who may not be able to discern some of the questionable statements.

Comment by Lolly

January 20, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

Let me be clear that I never particularly cared for Purpose-Driven Life. Even in its heydey, I thought it was just a fad like that Prayer of Jabez thing, and so I had no desire to spend money on it. Also, from the bits of it I did read, it seemed too shallow for me. I’m sure it helped all those people who bought it, but since I’ve been a Christian for most of my life, I need something a little deeper than Christianity 101.

I should also clarify my remarks about James Dobson. I actually respect him a great deal. I have some of his books, and I used to listen to Focus on the Family all the time. To his credit, he has spoken out against domestic violence. In fact, I even defended him a while back ago here on The Scroll when somebody here accused him of tolerating violence against women.

However, when I think about gender issues, I think about an interview that Mimi did for Christianity Today several years ago. The interviewer asked her if the egalitarian and complementarian movements could ever be reconciled, and she said no. They hold diametrically opposing views about women, so how can they? That’s how I feel. I don’t care if you’re a ‘soft patriarch’ or whatever they call it these days.

The bottom line is they believe that God created one half of the population of this planet and meant from the very beginning for them to be subordinate to the other half. That’s not a loving God, that’s a capricious and cruel one. It would be like asking Harriet Tubman to work with an unrepentant slave owner, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton to work with a man who never apologized for believing that women were inferior and therefore shouldn’t vote.

Comment by Lolly

January 20, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

Could one of the moderators contact me? I’m having trouble formatting my posts correctly. I tried to contact Marissa Cwik, but the letter got bounced back. Has she changed her e-mail address?

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

Good point, Lolly. It’s like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is just not able to understand why anyone associated with CBE wouldn’t just jump at the chance to issue a joint statement against spousal abuse, while it’s obvious to anyone who read CBMW’s statement that it runs absolutely contrary to biblical equality. How could an organization that upholds Scripture’s teachings of the equality of all believers ally themselves with an organization that was formed specifically to refute those teachings and uphold the inequality of men and women?

Comment by Judy

January 21, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

I get pretty simple on this point. Why would God give me an outstanding IQ – making me well suited to study his Word – if he only wanted me to sit at home and perhaps clean the church occasionally (which I am ill-suited for, as I get bored easily… not that I won’t pitch in when needed)? Is it just so I could marry a high IQ man, and hopefully produce high IQ sons, so that his Word could actually be preached by them? I know I have provided no Scripture for this, and it is not a sound argument, but the argument amuses me. I hope it brought a smile to your face as well.

(By the way, we belong to a home school group that is run entirely by women. If a man does enter the room, the women may not pray to open or close the meeting, and must ask the man to pray for them… My husband refuses to do so. Every time he is there – rare – there has been one other man present as well. One of these days it will be only him. It will be fun to see how they handle it if he won’t pray or leave the room so they won’t be praying in front of him!)

Comment by fjs

January 21, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

Judy, I like your argument. It’s an argument from science and from creation. It makes a lot of sense defys the idea that women are not suited for ministry, leadership, etc. I dislike the arguments on difference… somehow difference suggests that they mean incapable. I believe difference only means that we do those things as people who are different. It does not mean incapable.

We are first of all human.

Comment by fjs

January 21, 2008 @ 10:30 pm

Judy, I also think your argument is rooted in Scripture in the distribution of spiritual gifts… ‘There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit is the source of them all… as the Spirit determines.’ (1 Corinthians 12)

Scripture doesn’t differentiate between which gender gets which gifts in all of the texts that speak about gifts. The Spirit is the distributor of gifts – I think so we humans don’t mess it up according to our anxious little heirarchies.

By the way, I can’t believe your group won’t pray in front of a man… that’s really extreme.

Comment by Mary

January 21, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

If that ever happens, Judy, I hope your husband makes a point of telling the group that he’s not their leader and his being a man does not negate the women’s privilege to be able to pray directly to God, and wouldn’t one of the women please pray… and then bow his head and wait until one of the women does pray.

That unreasonable paradigm might start to change if men insisted that it needs to, instead of teaching the false notion that a man must be the designated pray-er regardless of the gifts of the women in the room.

Comment by Watcher

January 22, 2008 @ 11:01 am

Am I understanding clearly?

CBMW wrote a statement against spousal abuse and wanted CBE to sign it along with CBMW in agreement, but CBE couldn’t sign it because the statement, itself, flies in the face of what CBE stands for. Or was it CBE couldn’t sign it because of what CBMW stands for regardless of whether the statement was good, bad, fair, whatever?

I’m only asking because I want to keep my facts straight. Thanks.

Comment by LMcC

January 22, 2008 @ 11:11 am

FJS (see comment 78515), actually, I also grew up being taught that women didn’t pray in front of a man. It’s more common than many evangelicals realize. One time, a choir assistant caused a minor scandal when he asked my mom to do the closing prayer in choir practice. She did, but she knew some people were going to be rattled about it.

When I got to college, I was surprised to learn that it was okay there if women said opening prayers in class. That said, the professors knew that some of us were not raised that way; and so women had the option of saying no. I always said no, not because I thought it was a sin to pray aloud in mixed company, but because I hated speaking in public. That was my only benefit living under complementarianism, and now I don’t believe said ‘benefit’ was worth it in the long run.

Comment by fjs

January 22, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

That’s terrible! LLMC… If we are so equal, especially before God, why make such a big deal about praying? I don’t see any verse that says women should not pray with men present. Prayer is not even remotely about teaching but asking for God’s help (among other things)… What does it have to do with gender?

It’s really not about equality between two people created in the image of God… it’s really about fear or pride. Makes one wonder what their picture of God is… some angry rule keeper waiting to judge?

They really have father issues…

Comment by Mary

January 22, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

CBMW’s statement on domestic abuse shows several rationales for ‘headship’ and ‘differing roles’ in marriage. CBE’s position is that these things are not scriptural in the first place. Subscribing to CBMW’s rationalizations would be confusing at best and a betrayal of the biblical principles of equality.

Comment by LMcC

January 22, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

It could have been much worse, really. I could have lived with my dad instead of my mom. Not only did he wind up in the same type of church, he wouldn’t have been willing to help me go to college. Even as patriarchal as college was, it was the first place where I was exposed to the idea that different churches could treat women different ways and not have both sides screaming ‘heretic’ at each other.

I have no idea what verses are used to justify women not praying publicly, FJS, unless you use the stuff about keeping women silent in 1 Corinthians. Of course, that means ignoring verses just a few chapters back telling women how to behave when they pray publicly. That really didn’t matter, though, because I grew up pre-complementarian and women weren’t equal under that system.

As far as the picture of God being taught: you nailed it. Of course, that image is only meant for everyone but the people in charge. The people in charge think they’re A-okay and doing what God wants them to do.

Comment by Judy

January 22, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

What I am seeing in this group that does not allow the women to pray in public is that the women are also lacking in basic knowledge of how to handle disagreements biblically. I believe that this is because the men do not listen to the women and therefore do not address problems with the women in church. The women are therefore not taught, and some get stuck at a teen relationship level. The women also seem to be overworked and a bit frazzled. Male headship, as taught here, does not seem to include giving the wife breaks, or ‘spoiling’ her in any way.

By the way, my husband is a very large man and an ER doc, used to being in charge. If the situation does present itself where he is the only man present, I am sure he will not pray and be very vocal about it. Maybe that’s why God brought us here?

Comment by Liz

January 22, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

Another scenario which really happened. A couple who were new to a particular church asked one of the older single men around for a meal. The wife began to say grace as was her usual habit and the visitor corrected her and said that since he was male he should have prayed. Our friend was shocked and I’m sure it didn’t help her husband who had only just made a profession of faith after many years of alcohol addiction.

And then there was the one I mentioned a few posts back where I went to a Women’s Aglow meeting and there was a guy there as a ‘covering’ (whatever that meant). I sent a few emails to the leaders of this group asking about this but didn’t get much help apart from ‘this is what the original women felt led of God to do,’ so there you go… can’t argue with that!

Comment by Judy

January 23, 2008 @ 9:14 pm

For your information – a Christian men’s fellowship dinner in our area is having a woman speaker!

How’s that for progressive? (Yes, this is the same area where the home school group won’t let women pray in front of men. We recently moved and I haven’t figured it all out yet… Truthfully, they are making my head spin. Thankfully the church I preach at is wonderful!)

Comment by fjs

January 23, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

Pretty shakey hermenuetics they are using to keep women from praying in the presence of a man. The whole thing is sort of revealing… It’s an agenda driven hermenuetic.

I’m erring on the side of freedom.

Comment by Mary

January 24, 2008 @ 12:24 am

I always think when these artificial prohibitions present themselves, ‘What harm results from ignoring the alleged prohibition?’

What harm would result from a woman praying aloud in the presence of a man? Honestly, I can think of no bad thing whatsoever. Now if said man were to define his manhood or his spirituality or his self-worth by keeping women from praying in his presence, then such flawed measures of manhood might well be harmed. But again, I find no potential harm of any kind. That’s the sort of consequence that needs to happen, in my opinion. If you only get personal strokes from keeping an entire gender silent in your presence, then you need to forego those personal strokes.

It is interesting all the ways that people find to create so-called Christian law codes out of this world’s unbiblical traditions. It’s plain old ugly misogyny, wrapped up in religious trappings.

Comment by Mary

January 24, 2008 @ 12:26 am

For the record, it would be equally as wrong (but way less likely) if men were told they are not permitted to pray in the presence of a woman. Men would quite rightly challenge such a ridiculous notion, and so should right-thinking women.

Comment by fjs

January 24, 2008 @ 8:03 am

I agree with you, Mary… it is misogyny quoted with Christian-ese.

In 1 Corinthians… Paul talks about one bringing a song, another a word, etc… there is so much more mutual sharing when God’s people gather. They didn’t even do church like we do… our model is based on the synagogue model.

With my small group we do prayer that everyone can participate in… popcorn prayers, everyone adds and someone is appointed to open and close. Prayer is a communal thing – why make it about one person having more authority than another and then ranking who should do it when?

Such ranking diminishes prayer and robs believers of their own authority. It all comes from the umbrella theory of authority by Gothard… that stuff just never dies.

Comment by Paula

January 24, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

I have felt ‘called’ (compelled? led?) to take a hard look at ‘church-ianity’ as well as how women are treated and viewed in Christian circles. I see a strong tie between them. Much of what male supremacists object to concerns contrived ‘positions’ and nothing that really exists in the New Testament.

I read the New Testament about how believers behaved, remembering that the earliest were all Jews and would not just suddenly drop everything, but even so there is little that resembles what has been traditional practice since Constantine. People just got together to share their lives, their meals, their gifts. Some were elders because they knew the Scriptures well and lived them out. Such were to teach the others and bring them along side as elders someday, or at least to an acceptable degree of maturity.

This is in stark contrast to the typical Sunday school student who never graduates, the child who never grows up, the eternal dependent. The sight of a young seminary graduate teaching the ‘senior adult’ class just has ‘wrong’ written all over it. But most of all, ‘church-ianity’ is built upon hierarchy. It has to be; a business must have layers of management and a CEO at the top.

But Jesus didn’t set up an organization, he set up an organism. We are parts of one body, not employees or worker bees. The ‘pulpit’ (find that in the New Testament), raised platform, theater seating, stained glass windows, robes, programs, chants – it’s all from ancient Greco-Roman society.

Sadly, though, house churches seem to have thrown off all those pagan trappings but one: misogyny. Some of them are even stricter than the SBC. They recognize ‘the priesthood of all believers’ – well, all except you. All the males can do what we see in the New Testament, but the females must remain silent in the ‘services.’ How they can see one but not the other just defies all reason.

What is it about misogyny, over all other sins, other practices, other traditions? Why is it the universal quality of societies and religions worldwide throughout history? Genesis 3:15.

Ultimately, the common practices of ‘church-ianity’ and misogyny have hierarchy in common, the control of the ‘greater’ by the ‘lesser.’ It’s all about control, about who is in charge, about defining limits for other people.

Comment by Paula

January 24, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

Sheesh, how embarrassing…

That should read ‘the control of the lesser by the greater’ or ‘the control of the greater over the lesser.’

Aw, you know what I meant.

Comment by Judy

January 26, 2008 @ 6:17 pm

I agree with Paula, and would like to see the church return to a more ‘New Testament’ style of worship, where more people could participate. The question is: how?

I think part of the problem is that we are not maturing up enough believers to do this well. I have seen problems with people who attempt to interject in the service, who obviously do not know their Bible, and the main problem is that not enough people know their Bible well enough to realize that the pastor is not upset that the person is interjecting, but rather trying very hard to prevent the person from teaching something false without offending.

How do we get people to want to mature, rather than snore, during the sermon? (Obviously empowering women frees up half of the congregation that is not always encouraged to use whatever knowledge they have attained in many church settings… Actually, perhaps more knowledgeable women would help encourage the men to do the same?)

Comment by Paula

January 26, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

Good point, Judy. It is so ingrained that we ‘go to church,’ we forget that the stated purpose in the New Testament is ‘to build each other up.’ In many churches, people don’t know most of the other members beyond their own Sunday school class. And, I could write about about Sunday school (well, I kinda did here).

It’s true, people aren’t trained to do much more than sit and listen and sing along. That’s all fine, but it should never have become the extent of our Christianity. The real ‘meat’ is in personal growth, and that won’t happen with the typical quarterly lesson book or devotional guide. We’ve lost the model Jesus gave of a mentor, an internship. Generations have been raised on Christianity lite and pop psychology.

It takes time, but there’s no reason we can’t get the few who really know the Scriptures to each take a small group and slowly get them used to participating. And we need to re-learn that ‘building each other up’ isn’t just a theological exercise, but a life. The first believers shared their lives, not like many in the churches who invite a new family for lunch when they first ‘join,’ and then only ever see them in their ‘spot’ in the sanctuary each Sunday.

I’m being ‘schooled’ about this right now. We left the Institution and I’m giving family Bible studies. It’s kind of a challenge to find topics that work for an adult, a pre-teen, and a nine-year-old. We just take it one week at a time. Above all, I want my kids to learn that being a Christian means an active life of interaction as well as personal study.

Comment by Andy

January 28, 2008 @ 7:34 am

Good points about the New Testament church. I think a lot of people my generation (twenty and thirty somethings) aren’t really debating whether women should be standing at the front lecturing everyone. They are debating whether anyone should be up there lecturing everyone.

Personally, I like the idea of elders leading small groups. And I mean really elder, gray hair and all – both male and female. I’m kind of bored/burnt out on age segregation in Christian circles.