Entrenchment, Anger, Offense and Respect in the Gender Debate

Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee

As I've continued to explore the topic of gender equality in the church, I've been amazed at just how much material is out there - in the news, on blogs, in conversations with old friends. I'm overwhelmed with the information and sophisticated arguments that are available to the masses, and I'm also overwhelmed with hope. There is a strong international community of Christians who are working toward the ideals of gender equality that have not lost their faith or their faithfulness in the process. The godliness, intelligence and integrity with which this view has been advocated has won it a valid place within the ranks of evangelicalism. At the end of his chapter on "Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality," Ronald W. Pierce concludes this way:

The 1990s into the beginning of the twenty-first century found biblical equality advocates functioning as a mature force within evangelicalism rather than fighting for a right to survive as in the preceding decades. Their literature reinforced their theological heritage, while at the same time developing it and expanding its influence in both theoretical and practical terms. (74)

The most discouraging part of this chapter was the deepening entrenchment that has occurred amongst the two sides. It seems there is very little room left for helpful dialogue, and that makes me sad. I always feel like truth must win out if only the two sides press on hard enough to see the discussion through to the very end (unfortunately, the church tends to be better at dogma than dialogue). And yet, there are many godly and intelligent women and men of integrity on the other side of the fence, too. So how do we agree to disagree as a people who are called to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3)?

The best I have been able to come up with regarding my own attitude is to think about it in terms of the already/not yet context: I truly believe the kingdom of God is leading us toward the freedom and shalom of racial, social, and gender equality of Galatians 3:28, and we are called to begin living out that reality now. However, some have a different understanding and are not yet able to acknowledge or live out that truth in the same ways, because of hermeneutical, social, or cultural constraints. Whatever it looks like when the already meets the not yet, we'll all finally be able to agree, thank God!

In the meantime, I will continue forward on the path to gender equality, encouraging people to love God and to follow his calling, regardless of their gender. I will try to resist cynicism, stereotyping and oversensitivity. And I hope that those in the patriarchal camp will live out their convictions with sensitivity, humility and excellence. I trust that somewhere in between there is room for respect, if not agreement, and it is each of our jobs to find that place: not only to respect others but to be worthy of respect ourselves.

~~~

Well, this blog didn't go where I thought it would go! My original point was this: all of the superior material out there on the gender equality debate has made me wonder if I'm reinventing the wheel by trying to write too much about DBE - my strongest conviction as I've read it has been that others should read it in its entirety and think through the views on their own. I have found the arguments complex and convincing, but even if others disagree, I hope they will be moved to a deeper level of respect for those who advocate gender equality.

However, I will be continuing to share snippets of what I'm reading and learning, from DBE and other sources (and experiences). For starters, I wanted to post a few links for what I've been reading online lately:

1.   Jennifer Danielle Crumpton wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "Femmevangelical: The Modern Girl's Guide to Sharing the Good News", in which she tells her own story of being a young woman on her way to seminary who hears a patriarchal sermon on 1 Timothy 3:1-13. She writes, "That sermon changed the way I went to seminary. You might think it burned enough to seal the deal -- that any sentimentality or lingering value I held for the evangelical religion of my youth had been scorched. But actually, it lit another kind of fire inside. Instead of turning away, I decided to take back my tradition." She offers thoughtful insight on words like evangelical and repentance, and goes on to discuss what she identifies as the "the important role of underdog women in the story of God and humanity."


2.   The post entitled "Love and Respect (Part 1)" on Chimaera takes a look at love and respect and challenges as sexist the complementarian view that separates them according to the genders. Is love (primarily) for women and respect for men, or are we missing the point? She asks herself the question of whether she'd prefer - if she could only choose one - love or respect, and her answer is honest and thought-provoking.

3.   It might be worth directing you to Chimaera's part 2 article as well, noting that Steve and I had quite a spirited discussion about whether it was helpful or too snarky, and whether there is a place for snarkiness, or even downright anger, in the gender equality debate. Her post begins, "If you aren’t convinced that Love and Respect Ministries is sexist, read on until you are." My first response was to laugh. Steve's was to be turned off by the cynicism. In the end we both agreed that while it may not always be conducive to dialogue, there is much anger with regard to this topic, and it needs to be heard too.

4.   A friend challenged me to read a complementarian's blog series on women in the church and pointed me to Thabiti Anyabwile's blog. His purpose in writing is to focus on what women can do within a patriarchal framework instead of what they can't do, an appreciated gesture meant to affirm women. In one post he plugs an upcoming conference (now past) which will seek to equip women to teach other women. I think it is great for more women to be trained in biblical exposition and equipped to know their Bibles better, so that they too can be teachers of Scripture. Indeed, there are some great women involved in this conference. But I can't help wonder why women and men must be segregated in such a way. Is it because women are a bit of a minority in this area and therefore worthy of a special female-themed conference? Or is there some perceived difference in what and how we teach women versus men? Further, Anyabwile quotes an organizer of the conference:

Over the last few years, the Charles Simeon Trust has been challenged to consider training women to teach the Bible to other women.  We have asked ourselves several questions: Is this a good idea?  Does the Bible commend it?  What would it look like?  How would it best be accomplished, especially given our complementarian theological convictions?  In answering these questions, we are convinced that God would have us play a part in this aspect of pastoral ministry.

I'm not sure offended is the right word for how I felt (thankfully, the organizer does go on to strongly affirm from Scripture that women should indeed be allowed and equipped to teach other women), but the fact that it could even be in doubt startles me. The offense part comes in when I begin to imagine what other things such people might question about women. But maybe that's just my pride speaking, and I should respect their commitment to the authority of Scripture. Read for yourself and let me know your thoughts.

5.   Lastly, a friend emailed me a link to "10 Reasons Why Men Shouldn't be Pastors." Just in case you want to throw my own words back at me ("I will try to resist cynicism, stereotyping and oversensitivity"), I will add that there is always room for humour, especially when it makes you think, and this one's a good one.

I'd love to hear your thoughts...
~B

Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers: Swim On

Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee

progress: 151/507

The first few chapters of the book discuss the historical widening and narrowing of women's ministry roles. Although the tradition of the Christian church has been overwhelmingly patriarchal, history provides consistent examples of exceptional men and women who modelled or worked toward equality in the church - from martyrs, monastics, and reformers, to quite a few mainline demonminations at the turn of the twentieth century. I was quite intrigued to discover the role my own alma mater played - on both sides of the fence. Two different circulations (Alumni News and Moody Monthly) from Moody Bible Institute in the 1920s celebrate the stories of female alums who who ministered in roles that the Moody of my era (1990s) would have met with clear disapproval. The first woman to graduate from the pastor's course in 1929 accomplished a feat that would've been impossible during my time there in the mid-90s, when preaching classes were not open to women. Such stories as these compelled the author of this chapter (Janette Hassey) to conclude, "Consequently, the early MBI stands as an appropriate educational symbol of 'fundamentalist feminism.'" (42)

!

Such egalitarian attempts didn't last long. The latter half of the chapter discusses the reasons for the rise and fall of women's ministry in the last century. The rise of women in the church was due in large part to three factors: 1) Eschatological interpretations of passages such as Joel 2:28 and Psalm 68:11-12 among evangelicals emphasized the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering people - men and women - to meet the needs of reaching the lost in the "last days." 2) "Charismatic church leadership" maintained that Spirit-gifting was the primary qualification for leadership, rather than gender, and allowed women the opportunity to train and work as lay leaders, often alongside their husbands. 3) Social activism allowed women the opportunity to become public church leaders, and as they spoke out on behalf of slaves and other victims, they found a voice to speak out for themselves. (50)

For a while, women enjoyed a great amount of freedom to serve within the church. So what changed it all, and so quickly? Hassey provides four explanations: 1) Fundamentalist subcultures arose as a response to the modernist theology that had infiltrated the mainline denominations between WWI and WWII. Some of these exhibited separatist tendencies that narrowed the role of women. I found it interesting that one of the major movements of the latter variety was the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary, whose "southern conservative social values" limited the role of women in the church and society. (53) A significant contributor to the tightening of women's opportunities at Moody Bible Institute was the influx of DTS graduates onto MBI faculty. (53-54)

A second reason for the decline of women's roles in the church was 2) its institutionalization. An increased emphasis on professionally-trained rather than lay-trained ministers and its focus on specialization edged women out. One unfortunate consequence was that "educational attainment and credentials often replaced spiritual gifts as the essential leadership qualifications." (53-54) Another reason was 3) the fundamentalist reaction to social change. As women's roles in society expanded with the increase of secular feminism, the church reacted in fear by narrowing the sphere of women in the church. The author's mention of a 1940s book entitled Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers made me laugh despite the ominous undertones of how Christian gender perspectives were changing. Hassey summarizes those changing perspectives this way:

"Convinced that the survival of the traditional family and of the entire social order was at stake, many evangelicals tightened their approach to women in ministry." (55)

Finally, 4) fundamentalist exegesis resulted in a revised understanding of women's role-limiting passages such as 1 Timothy 2. A narrowed understanding of biblical inerrancy led to a literalism which prevented such passages from being understood as occasional or culturally specific, and instead emphasized the instructions presented as the enduring standard for all women for all time.

I found it fascinating to observe the ebb and flow of women's roles over the course of a century, and the varied reasons for the changes that took place. What a bunch of reactionary folks we humans are, changing our minds as often as our world changes. I might be discouraged if not for the fact that I have confidence in the Holy Spirit's ability (passion?) to work through and in spite of our human tendency to complicate most everything with questionable motives and imbalanced perspectives. These are muddy waters to navigate, but closing our eyes and treading water accomplishes nothing, so we swim on.

~B

P. S. Click here for an entertaining history of the bob haircut. The most astonishing line I read: "Men divorced their wives over bobbed hair."