I am so sorry this happened. For everyone involved.

Although I confess that I was so frustrated and angry the first time that I read it, and the second time that I read it, etc., that I could not even have begun to respond. It is still sounds to me that so much of the problem, in *some* cases–in this case, certainly–is that a woman is free to do the work, so long as she is not given the title. Argh.

Thank you for sharing. It is a lesson that I needed to hear, that change is slow, and that what I yearn for (while righteous) is going to take time. God’s time is NOT at all my own, in this matter. Which I guess I do find strange, as it is the slander of God’s own character, for anyone to say that God does not want women speaking in his name to men (though women are free to speak in God’s name to children and to other women).

When our son commenced ministry there she was most helpful in the transition process and no-one seemed to mind at all. Her long history and obvious giftedness and knowledge of the people seemed to cancel out any objections in the absence of a male leader. However, when our son became established in ministry her ‘up-front’ role ceased, though she continued to encourage, advise and offer directives to the new minister.

With this valuable experience in the background our son, who is egalitarian, assumed that it would be a relatively easy matter to lead the church into seeing women as equals and thus utilize their giftedness in various, visible forms of ministry within the church. He undertook this gently and other gifted women soon emerged and were employed in various ways. The next move was to push for constitutional change to incorporate what was acceptable in practice.

But, when push came to shove and the potential for such a (what seemed to the male elders) radical departure from the norm was suggested it was vigorously opposed by a former, wealthy and influential elder. This elder had recently stepped aside because of marriage difficulties and was in the midst of a trial separation. Even so, he threatened to resign membership and withdraw substantial financial support if the proposed amendment went ahead.

Even though the existing church elders remained unconvinced of equality and did not pursue the matter further at that time they did not close the door on the possibility either, offering to study the matter at greater length. This apparent compromise and inaction sufficiently disturbed the former elder enough for he and his wife to go ahead and resign their membership.

The church was thrown into a tailspin from which it never recovered. The lady of whom we spoke originally was very involved in the fallout, attempting to negotiate and have reason prevail despite the differences between the parties concerned. Our son was burnt out and demoralized in the process and felt that his resignation was his only recourse. The church plant was financially crippled and, on the recommendation of the elders, formally closed its doors.

There are many examples of this sort of thing where complementarians ‘break the rules’ without even realising it. Let’s celebrate these happenings without any sense of finger-pointing and be glad that people get to experience a taste of equality.

Others may think of similar things they have observed.

Sorry, I misread your question. I don’t know what the topic of the sermon was.

As far as I know, that was the only sermon my Grandmother ever gave. She was complementarian through-and-through. Interestingly, she would lead Bible studies. It’s something about that pulpit. It makes me wonder when the pulpit got started, when we made an “altar” for someone to preach from.

Judy, my father, a minister, told me several times an old saying about ministers. “You keep ‘em humble, Lord, and we’ll keep ‘em poor.” He was part-time and made $15 a week preaching back in the 60s-80s. The proper term is “tent-maker minister” after Paul’s other profession.