A Sobering Responsibility: A Guest Post by Rosie Perera

The following is a guest post by Rosie Perera, in response to my recent request to share a bit about her journey as a woman in the Church. I met Rosie at Regent College but it wasn't until I'd moved away and joined Facebook that I've really started getting to know her - one of those all-too-rare cases in which Facebook has facilitated the deepening of a friendship beyond cyberspace, to phone chats and the occasional coffee date when we've crossed paths in Vancouver, and even a side-trip to out-of-the-way Niton! I have appreciated her informed perspectives - and her willingness to discuss them with me in a way that models grace, not condescension - on a wide range of topics, including politics, spirituality, technology, and anagrams, to name a few! A prolific writer, speaker, teacher, and photographer, you can hear (and see) more from her on her blogs Space for God and Faith and Technology and Iambic Admonit. She has two stories to share here: one an observation from her childhood, and the other a more personal glimpse into her own journey.

--

I grew up in a very conservative Congregational church, where women were not involved in anything except playing the piano, minding the nursery, and teaching children’s Sunday School. Even the offering was always collected by men. I’m not sure whether the latter was a conscious decision or just a default because nobody had ever thought of doing it differently. But certainly the fact that there were no women elders or deacons was due to what they believed to be biblical principle. When I was growing up, I never questioned it or even noticed it as odd, since I’d never been exposed to anything different. Many years later, the church had dwindled to the point where there were only two deacons serving a congregation of about 40. One of the deacons died or moved away, and there were no other eligible men in the church available to serve. The leaders reluctantly asked my mother, a pillar of faith and long-time member of the church, whether she would be willing to serve as an interim deaconess, until another eligible man joined the church. She initially said no, because she felt it was forbidden in the Bible. But since there were no other options, they prevailed upon her. She finally agreed, but with strong reservations, and insisted that it only be temporary, until a man came along who could take the position. As soon as the other deacon heard that she’d agreed to serve, he resigned, because he didn’t want to serve on a deacon board with a woman. Thus they had to ask another woman in the church, who agreed to serve. And so, ironically, the church went overnight from not allowing any women deacons to having nothing but women deacons. And lo and behold! It worked out, and they did a good job, and the church’s compunctions about women serving as deacons faded away.

--

I have been attending a little lay-run Mennonite church in Vancouver for 14 years. About half the preaching is done by laypeople in the church and the rest is by guest preachers. My first few years at this church, I was studying theology at Regent College. Thus it wasn’t surprising that after a couple of years I was approached by one of the leaders in the church asking whether I would be willing to preach for them sometime. The church is very welcoming of Regent students and likes to give them an opportunity to grow by giving them preaching and leadership responsibilities. And they are very forgiving of people who aren’t all that good at preaching (yet). I was not studying to become a pastor. In fact I actively did not want to ever preach. I’d been brought up to think it was wrong for women to preach. Besides that, I was afraid of the responsibility it would entail, and of the possibility of misleading people to their eternal damnation. I had by that time been exposed enough to biblical equality both in my previous church (where I’d seen women preach) and at Regent, where I was at the time just finishing a course on Gender, Sexuality and Community. I’d read Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen's Gender and Grace, Gretchen Gabelein Hull’s Equal to Serve, and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’s Women Caught in the Conflict, and had found them all reasonable and convincing, while the readings in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that we were assigned rang hollow. Still, I was afraid to try preaching myself, so I said no, I wasn’t ready yet. A number of months later, the same leader asked me again. The church was preparing for a sermon series on 1 Peter and he wondered if he might be able to slot me in somewhere. This time, I reasoned that perhaps God was nudging me to do it, since it was certainly not coming from my own desire. I told the leader that I might be able to have my arm twisted if the passage that included 1 Peter 2:24-25 hadn’t been spoken for yet, as I’d just written a paper on those verses for my exegesis class. It turned out that was the only passage that hadn’t yet been assigned to anyone. Again it felt like maybe God was nudging me, so I agreed. However when the time drew closer, I panicked and got cold feet about it, and backed out. Another year went by and I was asked again if I would preach. I said “yes” and went ahead with it this time. But oh, what a torment!

I got to pick the passage I was going to preach on. I was given a huge lead time (a few months). The situation couldn’t have been more ideal for my first time preaching, or so I thought. But both the freedom and the lead time proved to be difficult challenges. I spent all but the last three weeks dithering over what passage I would preach on. I finally settled on Genesis 22, the “Sacrifice of Isaac,” because I’d done some work with it at Regent. I had translated the whole chapter for my Hebrew class, so I knew the text pretty well. I relied on all my great exegetical skills that I’d learned in class, prepared lots of geeky notes about what various words meant in the Hebrew, and the inclusios and other poetic devices used in the story. I was getting nowhere on coming up with a main point to craft into a sermon. I had not taken a homiletics class and felt woefully inadequate to the task. My anxiety grew the closer it got to that Sunday I was to preach. I procrastinated and stressed out. By the Saturday night, I had about one or two paragraphs of un-crafted words towards a sermon, nowhere near enough to fill up the 15-20 minutes that was allotted to me. In a profound state of panic, I called up a Regent friend of mine late at night and asked for prayer and wisdom. I told him how I was dreading this appointment with the pulpit the next morning. He had the brilliant insight that my journey towards that hour kind of paralleled Abraham’s trudging approach to Mount Moriah. His steps must have been heavy during those three days, as he knew what awaited him at the top. Ultimately, it was God who provided the ram for the sacrifice. My friend told me to be myself, be transparent, tell my own story and link it with Abraham’s. So that’s what I ended up doing. I didn’t use much of the material I’d prepared, and mostly spoke off the cuff. It was probably less than 10 minutes in all. But thankfully my church has a time of discussion and response after the sermon in our worship service, and the people took up what I’d said and riffed on that for quite some time, and the whole became better than what I’d humbly offered. Indeed, God did provide the ram.

Since that time I’ve been invited back to preach on a dozen or more occasions, and it has gotten easier with time. But it is still a sobering responsibility, and I hope and pray that it will never be something I feel nonchalant about. That lesson I learned my first time about trusting in God’s provision, and seeking him rather than entirely relying on my own intellect, has never left me. Of course I know that I do have to do my homework; I can’t just “wing it.” And I do still struggle with procrastination most times. But I’m not nearly as panicky about it, and I’ve completely gotten over the fear that I might be doing something terribly sinful by preaching.

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."

The Gender Debate: Terms and Definitions

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

progress: 151/507

I've been having a hard time deciding which words to use when writing about gender (did you know patriarchalism isn't listed in the Oxford Dictionary?), so I thought it might be worth defining a few terms here as one (final!) aside before we jump right into this meaty book.

Two Convictions
As a starting point, the book emphasizes the two convictions which are the foundation of the book: "That the Bible is the fully inspired and authoritative Word of God, and that it teaches gender equality in church, home and society." (11) The first conviction I agree with wholeheartedly, and this is what makes me willing to hear and consider the arguments for the second conviction. The authors go to great pains in the introduction to the book to point out that their convictions are primarily biblical, rather than cultural, personal or societal (17).

Two Definitions

The authors offer two definitions for their viewpoint:

1. "The essential message of biblical equality is simple and straightfoward: Gender, in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails one's ability to be used to advance the kingdom or to glorify God in any dimension of ministry, mission, society or family." (13)

2. "Egalitarianism recognizes patterns of authority in the family, church and society - it is not anarchistic - but rejects the notion that any office, ministry or opportunity should be denied anyone on the grounds of gender alone." (13) This position is based on the fact that men and women are equally

• made in the image of God
• fallen to sin
• redeemable by Christ
• participants in the new-covenant community
• heirs of God
• able to be filled and empowered by Holy Spirit (13-14; see the book for Scripture passages, which will mentioned in detail later in the book)

Clarfifying Terms
There are also quite a few terms used to express the two views on gender in the Church:

Male leadership is also referred to as patriarchy, hierarchy, headship, authority and tradition. This view "restricts women from full participation in certain ministries and decision-making responsibilities. The emphasis is on male leadership rather than shared leadership in the church and home." (15)

Gender equality is also known as evangelical feminism, egalitarianism and biblical equality.

Further, the authors note that both views have employed the term "complementarity," with the difference being in the implications of complementarity between the sexes. Thus, this word can offer some amount of common ground as a starting point for dialogue.

A Final Word on the Debate
"The debate between those who promote male leadership and those who promote gender equality cannot be rightly settled by name calling, issuing propaganda or evading this divisive issue. It can be approached with integrity only through careful scholarly investigation of what the Bible teaches about the nature, gifts and callings of women and men. To that end this book is offered." (17-18)

A Change of Mind and Heart: An Article by John Stackhouse

I just came across an article by Regent College professor John Stackhouse, Jr on his blog. It's an excerpt from a new book entitled "How I Changed My Mind About Women In Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals," which includes personal stories of people such as Bill and Lynne Hybels, I. Howard Marshall and others regarding their conversions to egalitarianism. I was intrigued by his reasons for the change, as some of them are quite similar to the ones mentioned in my last post. He ends with suggestions on how women and men can work towards change. It's worth a read in its entirety, but if you're unconvinced or short on time, here are a few quotes to chew upon:

"So let’s recognize immediately that any deep change in us, such as the change from patriarchalism to egalitarianism, results only from the transformative power of the Holy Spirit of God."

"But this important breakthrough for me in my thinking about gender resulted also as a general theological principle: our task as theologians—and, indeed, the task of any responsible Christian—is to do the best we can to understand the Word of God in its multifarious complexity, even as that will sometimes result in an interpretation that does not fit every piece of the puzzle together without strain, leaving no pieces on the table, and certainly not pocketing the inconvenient ones, hoping no one will notice! No, all we can do is what we can do, namely, to submit to the Word of God as we understand it while remaining open to improvement of our interpretation later on."

"I needed to feel something of the pain of patriarchy: of being interrupted or ignored in conversation; of being passed over for recognition and promotion; of receiving condescension or suspicion instead of welcome partnership. And I needed to be confronted with their anger, with their refusal to be treated this way anymore."

Incidentally, the comments are also well worth reading, where differening views are eloquently expressed.

~B

Patriarchy - My Personal List of Ifs, Ands or Buts

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee
progress: 151/507
  

I began reading this book last summer, and now I'm at the point where I've got to re-browse my notes before I can really get moving on this topic. Nonetheless, the topic has been at the forefront of my mind all this time, and has become a lens through which I have been re-viewing my world. My last post of 2010 was a bit of an introduction to the topic of biblical gender issues by way of a personal story from my own journey. However, I find I'm still not quite ready to dive into writing about the book itself. As I've been confronted with this topic in recent discussions and experiences over the last few months, I've been thinking about the reasons why I am willing to challenge traditional patriarchal views of leadership in the church. How did I get to this point? Of course, opinions, feelings and experiences cannot be authoritative; however I think it's worth mentioning them, if for no other reason than to let you know where I'm coming from and where my biases lie.

Judging Another's Spiritual Calling
How can I challenge definitively the way God chooses to work in another mature believer's life? This idea can certainly be abused: we have only to look at the news and the history books to see the way that Christians have used "God told me" to justify all sorts of unquestionably wrong behaviour. But what do you do when a woman, whom you personally know to be a godly, mature believer, tells you that she feels "called" to be a pastor? I was confronted by just such a person during my year abroad in Scotland. Even though I was much less comfortable with the idea of a female pastor back then than I am now, I was hesitant to pronounce it wrong. Was she mistaken, deluded, sinful? Or was she simply an honest woman trying to be available to God's call on her life? I couldn't say for sure, so I deferred judgment. Fourteen years later, I am looking for a more definitive answer.

Inconsistencies in the Practice of Patriarchy
As mothers and Sunday School teachers, women are given huge influence over the spiritual training of young (girls and) boys. But at some point in their development into young men, that influence is transferred from women to men. Why is female spiritual influence over a male okay at one point and not at another? Isn't the shaping of a young mind one of the most powerful influences that mind will ever experience? What does this say inherently about women as leaders, or about some men who are content to let women do all the "lesser" work of raising children until the diapers and flannelgraphs are done?

Even as a teenager, I was bewildered by the fact that in churches where women are not to have any spiritual leadership over men, it was still okay for missionary women to have leadership over men (Lottie Moon and Elizabeth Elliot are two historical examples of missionary women who are respected by traditionally patriarchal denominations). Are the unreached equivalent to the little boys, able to be taught by women until they reach a certain point of maturity? Is there a special dispensation for a woman to lead when a man is unavailable or unwilling to do so?

Impracticalities of the Patriarchal Position
In comparison with previous centuries, the twenty-first century affords women extraordinary freedom. We have access to education and jobs (among other things) like never before. All else being equal, I wonder how many universities would hire a man with a BA to teach a subject when a woman with a PhD in the same field is available (although perhaps the wages might not change much - there is still more progress to be made). Wouldn't they want the most qualified person they could find to impart the highest level of knowledge to their students? And yet, when it comes to many churches, a woman is barred from even applying to teach simply because of her gender. In this model, Bible training, teaching experience, even spiritual maturity, can be a moot point simply because of her gender. Is this what God meant when his inspired authors wrote about divisions between men and women - that it is better for any man to teach than one well-trained and godly woman?

Negative Effects of the Patriarchal Position
One of the worst examples of patriarchal ignorance I have ever witnessed was when famous missionary and author Elisabeth Elliot came to speak at a conference at my Bible college. It was a conference, mind you, not a church service, and yet, as she got up to speak, handfuls of young men got up and walked out as witness to their disapproval. I am still offended by their rudeness. Sometimes, men who believe that women should not teach men can fool themselves into thinking that they have nothing at all to learn from any woman. Although I don't believe it is inherent to patriarchaly, its practice can lead men to view women as inferior, forgetting that every time Jesus speaks about spiritual power and leadership, it is in terms of submission and self-sacrifice.

Another area I have wondered about is how a strong division between the genders can negatively affect a community of believers. In my own experience, I have found that the wider the divide between men and women, the weirder I feel around men. I try to be normal, but some won't even make eye contact with me unless perhaps their wives are near. I feel cut off from half of my community, both in the areas of receiving and giving. In contrast, in churches where gender is not such an issue, I have enjoyed the rich friendship and camaraderie of both women and men without that same sense of awkwardness.

Another negative effect that can occur with gender divisions is the effect it can have on the spiritual maturity of the women themselves. A woman once remarked to me on what a relief it was to have her husband as the spiritual head of her home - she could just sit back and let him make the decisions! She meant well, and perhaps spoke hyperbolically, but I was dismayed. I wonder how many women are content to take a more passive role in their own (and others') spiritual development, simply because they feel that someone else (ie, their husbands or pastors or other male leaders) are ultimately responsible for it.

Positive Examples of Female Leadership
Some of my first experiences of women in leadership were negative, and reinforced my discomfort with the thought of a woman behind the pulpit. Some were either extremely liberal in their biblical interpretations, and/or biased in the opposite direction - women with something to prove. Others were just fluffy, not really preaching at all, but sharing their thoughts in a devotional or sentimental way.

It really wasn't until I went to Regent College that I began to witness positive examples of godly women preaching before the whole body of believers. Spirituality professor (and dear friend) Maxine Hancock spoke in Chapel with passion, conviction and academic excellence. She taught alongside her mostly male colleagues not primarily as a woman but as a learned, prepared and gifted speaker. (You can find a few talks here.)

We also had the privilege of hearing from many other Regent profs and their wives as well as male and female Regent students at our church in Vancouver, which was located on the University of British Columbia campus. Deriving its roots from a Brethren background, the church's leadership was shared amongst men and women from within the congregation and beyond, and I felt enriched by sitting under so many different members of God's household.

These are just a few examples from my own experience, but they exposed me to the great gifting that God has bestowed on men as well as women to teach and to preach. It made me question whether my initial discomfort with women preaching was due more to my own background and experience than to a black-and-white scriptural mandate.

Room for Another Interpretation in the Bible
Ultimately, the above questions, experiences and observations must bow to what the Bible says on the subject. I know that this is where I will lose many of you, and for different reasons - some of you won't recognize the authority of Scripture, others won't see room for an alternative, sound interpretation of the Bible's teaching on gender roles. As for me, I felt freed to pursue this topic further after I read an academic, evangelical article on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters which made room for a more egalitarian viewpoint. Tears came to my eyes as I read, and it was then that I realised just how deeply this topic has touched me. How encouraging it was to know that there are others who love God and the Bible who have been able to maintain their integrity while holding such a view.

Understanding of What it Means to Be Human
I have come to believe that it is in the community of men and women that we most fully live out our humanity. We look like God when we live in harmonious community with each other, because He is His own community - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No man or woman alone can bear God's image to the extent that men and women together can. Adam-Eve-God. Husband-Wife-God. Mother-Father-Child. God of course has no gender but has imparted masculine and feminine characteristics to each of us, which reflect different aspects of His divine character. He is described in Scripture as both a protecting, providing, and disciplining Father, and a nurturing, wise and helpful Mother.

Men and women need each other. Just as a child needs a mother and a father (I am speaking in terms of ideals here, I mean no disrespect to the amazing single parents who do their best with the cards they've been dealt), just as a business or even a country is best run (in my opinion) when there are many voices - men and women need to hear from each other. So how should this play out in the church, which Paul described this way in Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, 

neither slave nor free, 

nor is there male and female, 

for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  

If each gender (and indeed each individual) bears God's image in a unique way, how can the church afford to effectively silence half of its members? If men and women in community reflect God's image, what is lost when only men can lead? Just as a child is ideally raised by a mother and a father, isn't the church best served when men and women can share their diverse and complementary strengths in raising up a mature church?

Final Thoughts
I know that I've thrown a lot out here. Please understand, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything at this point - I'm just trying to articulate my thoughts so I can critique them as I proceed more deeply (and academically) into this topic. Just the act of having to write out my ideas has been helpful in challenging the validity of my logic or exposing my tendencies toward cynicism or overgeneralization.

I'm excited to explore further, but also a little nervous. This topic has a powerful tendency to divide, turning our opponents into heretics or oppressors or - even worse - liberals! I am happy to have many friends on each side of the fence, and just about everywhere in between. I pray this will protect me from reducing any person, made in God's image, to a one-dimensional caricature.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. - Ephesians 4:2-3 

Share

Back to Bookmeal

Hello again, faithful reader(s)! It's been a long time, but I have a good reason for going AWOL: I have been delivered! Our fourth child arrived just in time for the new year and we have been settling in quite well. We rejoice in this new little life, already so dear to us.

You might also have noticed that I didn't reach my goal of reading twenty books for Bookmeal in 2010. I don't feel like I've failed because I've gotten so much out of what I have been able to read and write (I hope you have too). I'll continue along this year, without being too specific on a timeline.

Even during my absence, I've noticed some new flags on my visitor list - welcome, and thanks for stopping by! Introduce yourselves sometime and get in on the conversation...

Share

Finding My Voice: A Turning Point at Calling Lake

By way of confession, I thought I would share the following story before I jump right into my next book on gender roles. It was an especially meaningful chapter of my journey to discover my place as a woman in the kingdom of God. I know that it is simply an anecdote, and therefore doesn't prove anything with regard to what the Bible says, but I hope it will convince you of my good intentions: that I am not grasping of leadership, not closed to God's leading in this area of my life. My experience in this story also gave me the permission I needed to continue my quest for understanding in this area.

***

(c) Becky Bonham

My husband's extended family (about 25 of us) got together over Father's Day weekend earlier this year to spend some time together at my sister-in-law's cabin. In advance, an email had been sent out by the same (very organized) sister-in-law with a proposed schedule for all the basics: dishwashing schedule, meal sharing, etc. There was also a request for a volunteer to lead the Sunday worship time. I wouldn't have responded except that she had specifically clarified that she was looking for a "man or woman" to lead. So, I responded that "if nobody else is interested" in doing it, I'd be willing.

That is how I ended up being in charge of the informal Sunday service at Calling Lake this June.

As it was, I was nervous, as very few if any of my extended family have seen me teach. The confidence with which I normally lead was overshadowed by insecurity at this new audience, in front of whom I would feel especially vulnerable. Not only was I the youngest of the adults, I was a girl. And most of these were Baptists. And one of them - Steve's dad - was a Baptist pastor. By this time, I'd already been reading my Biblical equality book for awhile and had become uncomfortably aware of the differing view of the roles of women in the church. Would I offend anyone by leading, simply because I was female? Or worse, would I speak as a representative of women and screw up?

I revamped a Sunday School talk that I had given at our church a few years' previously on Matthew 16:24-26, on what it means for us in our daily lives to take up our crosses and follow Jesus. I felt good about it the first time I'd taught on it, so it seemed like a safe bet to use again. But then I thought about my Baptist-pastor-father-in-law and I was plagued with doubts: Had I got my facts right? Were my hermeneutics correct? I checked and double-checked my notes and attempted to calm myself.

Then, the night before I was to lead, I lost my voice. Only one out of every three syllables I spoke was audible. I was sniffling nonstop. All I wanted to do was sleep. Well, that and teach, which was why I didn't ask Steve right then to see if anyone else would be able to take my place. Despite my fears, my nervousness, and my second-guessing of myself, I wanted to do this. Teaching is in my blood. So, I went to bed and hoped for the best.

(c) C. Derkson

During the course of the night, I woke up many times to cough, blow my nose, or suck on another cough drop.  In my half-sleep I prayed, "Please let me get over this by morning." As I tossed and turned, a thought occurred to me: What if God was trying to tell me something by this sudden, poor-timed illness? What if I wasn't supposed to teach tomorrow? Or ever? And so I prayed a second time, "Lord, if you want me to do this, then please, let me get well. But if you don't, then...don't." I drifted back to sleep for awhile, only to wake up again, with the thought of how painful it would be if God responded by choosing not to heal me, how hurtful if his answer was indeed, "Despite your passion, despite your preparation, and despite your desire to share my own words with others, I don't want you to teach - because of your sex." Unable to bear the weight of such a thought, I released it to God and drifted back into a fitful sleep.

I woke up an hour before the service was to begin and my voice was completely gone. Surely now was the time to find a replacement. Still, I resisted. In my stubbornness, I got up, looked over my notes and went to the kitchen to make myself some honey and lemon tea. Within minutes, I began to find my voice.

And so, with a quiet but steady voice, I shared from my heart that Sunday morning in the presence of the entire Bonham family. And I believe God blessed it. Several family members jumped into the discussion. At one point, a brother-in-law responded to my comment about how I felt recently that I was "living in the 'no' of God" and I was given a brief opportunity to share a bit more personally a few details of my struggles over the last few years that I'd never gotten to share with any of them before. The discussion was lively and continued until, getting nervous that I was letting it go on too long, I asked for a volunteer to close in prayer. At this point, another brother-in-law interrupted and asked if he could share a few more thoughts, and the discussion continued for another half hour or so. My father-in-law never spoke, but in the end he prayed and mentioned me by name, thanking God for what I had to share with everyone this morning.

Afterward, several family members approached me to thank me for sharing. My sister-in-law commented on my obvious passion for teaching. My brothers-in-law told me how much they enjoyed the discussion. Even my teenaged nephew said, "That was really good, Auntie Becky." (!!) I didn't even think the teenagers in the group would even be listening to what I had to say! A short while later, my father- and mother-in-law came over and gave me hugs, telling me I'd done a good job. The apprehension I had felt earlier was washed over with relief and a profound sense of joy - because I'd done what I love, I did it well, and I felt affirmed in doing it, both by my family and by God, who healed me just in the nick of time.

With respect for the private details of these real people and my relationships with them, I'll simply say that it was a turning point in some of those relationships. I felt that a few misconceptions fell away that day and my loved ones got a truer glimpse of who I really am. Doors were opened in relationships that had remained closed up to that point. Discussions have since been enlarged, to cover more topics and embrace deeper passions. In the end, I have felt more known by my family than I had ever felt in the past, and to my relief, that was a blessing and not a curse.

Share

Thoughtful Christianity, Part 4: Empty "Threats" and the End of Knowledge

Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life, by John Stott
progress: completed

Mindless Witness

Someone once shared a story she had read about the immediacy of the need for witness. The main point was a question, "What if you knew your neighbour's house was going to burn down this very night - wouldn't you warn them?" I've heard similar metaphors before, and of course I understand that the main point is that we need to take matters of the soul seriously. But that particular day, my mind took a different turn. I couldn't help but ask myself, "But would they even believe you?" If someone came to me and said something along those lines, my first thought would probably be, "How do you know?" and, depending on who was telling me, I might even wonder if they were trying to threaten or intimidate me. Whether I took the risk of believing such an apparently outrageous suggestion would depend on who was telling me, and how well he or she knew me. If a stranger said it, I would likely consider them a quack, and perhaps even a threat to my safety. If a family member or close friend said it, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out.

A person will rarely accept even the well-intentioned advice of a complete stranger, at least not without sufficient information to make an informed decision of their own. And that requires both the advisor and the hearer to exchange and evaluate ideas in order to make wise choices - namely, to use their minds.

(c) Becky Bonham

Instead, what we as Christians can sometimes fall into is what John Stott describes as "an emotional, anti-intellectual appeal for 'decisions' when the hearers have but the haziest notion what they are to decide about or why." (66) It seems to me that the street-corner preacher with the sign "Believe in Jesus and be saved!" has very little hope of attracting any real interest, because he has so little to say about who this Jesus is, or why anyone should believe in him. When Jesus is reduced to nothing more than a pithy slogan or appeal, he is thereby stripped of his identity and rendered meaningless to the hearers. Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 is the consummate example of a thoughtful, thorough sermon that spoke right into the hearers' realm of knowledge and experience, giving them all they needed to accept his message (or refute it, as they did in this case; well-reasoned evangelism doesn't guarantee a well-reasoned response).

As much as we can heartily acknowledge the Spirit's ultimate role in preparing, softening, and turning hearts toward God, that doesn't change the fact that our role is to reason with unbelievers. This, as Stott points out, is made clear in the abundant use of words throughout the Acts especially that intertwine evangelism with the affairs of the mind: "persuade," "argue," "explain," and "prove." He writes,

To set the Holy Spirit and a reasoned presentation of the gospel over against each other is a false antithesis. (72)

and then goes on to quote Gresham Machen from his book The Christian Faith in the Modern World:

There must be the mysterious work of the Spirit of God in the new birth...Without that, all our arguments are quite useless. but because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence. (quoted on page 72)

I risk getting a little quote-happy here, but Stott's closing comments for this section are worth repeating in their entirety:

Our objective is to win a total man for a total Christ, and this will require the full consent of his mind and heart and will.

I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the gospel; who will relate the one to the other with freshness, pungency, authority and relevance; and who will use their minds to reach other minds for Christ. (73-74)

Amen! May I grow more and more into just such a person.

Conclusion

Stott sums up his little book with a reminder that believers are not to view knowledge as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. "Knowledge," he writes, "carries with it the solemn responsibility to act on the knowledge we have, to translate our knowledge into appropriate behavior." (80) The appropriate behaviour, the end of knowledge, is expressed in four main areas of the Christian life: worship, faith, holiness, and love ("For by itself knowledge can be harsh; it needs the sensitivity which love can give it." (83)). He concludes with a warning:

Knowledge is indispensable to Christian life and service. If we do not use the mind which God has given us, we condemn ourselves to spiritual superficiality and cut ourselves off from many of the riches of God's grace. At the same time, knowledge is given us to be used, to lead us to higher worship, greater faith, deeper holiness, better service. What we need is not less knowledge but more knowledge, so long as we act upon it. (84, emphasis mine)

Learn and grow in knowledge, and in wisdom act upon it.

--
So ends my journey with John Stott - for now at least. I've been coming back to these themes again and again, being challenged and convicted in my own life as I seek to live out my knowledge and my faith with intentionality and integrity, and I trust this is only the beginning of the journey. Further up and further in!

~Becky

Share

Engaging Culture: Faith and Film

I just finished reading an article written by my friends and fellow bloggers Steve and Julie Golding-Page. They are an Anglican priest-couple currently living in Saskatchewan and former Regent College alumni. They are self-professed film fanatics who see movie-viewing as an effective way to engage culture and their Christian faith. I especially enjoyed their discussion of Acts 17, where Paul demonstrates an active and thoughtful engaging with the pagan culture of first-century Athens. It's worth taking a look at this interesting article, which also gives ideas for how to start your own film group:

http://www.anglicanplanet.net/canadian-news/2010/11/3/film-faith-meeting-god-at-the-movies.html

When I was at Regent College, professor Loren Wilkinson hosted weekly film and discussion evenings. I loved taking a deeper look into films that I knew some Christians might boycott altogether, and finding my own faith enriched in the process, as well as an increased ability to engage the world around me in a more thoughtful way.

What are your thoughts about faith and film? What movies have challenged or changed you?

Share

Thoughtful Christianity, Part 3: Transformed Minds and Common Sense

Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life, by John Stott
progress: completed

(Note: Sorry for the stupid breaks, etc. Blogger is being very annoying and changing all my formatting, and I am not the HTML-genius type. Grrr.)

The Place of the Mind in the Pursuit of Holiness

How is our mind related to our actions? How does it contribute or distract from our pursuit of the holiness to which we were called? Stott answers that it is a neglected but essential component. For, how can we know the will of God without using our minds to discern it from His word? Further, the battle for discipline begins in our minds:

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but 

be transformed by the renewing of your mind. 

Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—

his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Romans 12:2

It is the many Scripture verses such as this one that lead Stott to conclude that "self-control is primarily mind-control." (58) The battle for our character is usually won in the mind, as it is renewed by the grace of God. (57) Conversely, the opposite is also true:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile 
to retain the knowledge of God, 

so God gave them over to a depraved mind, 

so that they do what ought not to be done. - Romans 1:28

Those who live according to the flesh 

have their minds set on what the flesh desires; 

but those who live in accordance with the Spirit 

have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. - Romans 8:5

A renewed mind set on what the Spirit desires will live according to the Spirit. A depraved mind set on what the flesh desires will live according to the flesh. As believers who still struggle with the flesh, this is the battle we fight, the tension we live within. And we are doomed unless we allow our minds to be engaged and transformed by the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Stott reminds us that "we are to consider not only what we should be but what by God's grace we already are. We are constantly to recall what God has done for us." (59) We are to preach these things to ourselves "until their truth grips our minds and molds our character." (60)

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, 

set your hope on the grace to be brought to you 

when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. - 1 Peter 1:13

Guidance: General Will versus Particular Will 

I really liked what Stott had to say here. I've struggled sometimes with the way others speak so assuredly that "the Lord told" them that they needed to do such and such. It sounds much more spiritual than my usual, "I thought about it, prayed about it and finally decided to do such and such, and in retrospect, it seemed like God was definitely leading me on that path." Even when I do have an inkling that God is speaking an idea into my mind, I am hesitant to declare it, because I am unsure of what is me and what is Him, and I am aware that I may be subconsciously using spiritual language to defend a human idea.

During a Bible study on 1 Samuel, I came across two different types of situations that David encountered in his adventures with King Saul. At times, God gave him a specific command: go here, do this. Other times, David was seemingly left to his own to make a decision on act it. In both situations, God blessed him. In one situation, God was direct. In the other, God allowed him to make his own decisions about what to do. The following two quotes from Bill T. Arnold, author of the NIV Application Commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel, have given me comfort as I struggle to discern God's will for my life without direct, specific words from God:

“David is doing what seems logical, walking through the doors open to him. God honors what he does.” (363) 

“Rarely do the saints of the Old Testament have direct confirmation of their actions, though they hold resolutely to the belief that God is involved. Such examples remind us to submit our entire decision-making process to God and trust him to enlighten our God-given reason and logic and to guide us in our important decisions in life.” (364) 

John Stott affirms this idea. He does so by differentiating between God's general will for all of our lives (be holy, be righteous, love one another) and his specific will for our individual lives (Whom should I marry? What career should I choose?). The Bible is our source to know and discern God's general will - "for all people...at all times" (61), but not so for God's particular will, which

is not to be sought in Scripture, for Scripture does not contradict itself, and it is of the essence of God's particular will that it may be different for different members of his family. Certainly we shall find in Scripture some general principles to guide us in our particular choices. And I do not deny that some of God's people down the ages have claimed to received very detailed guidance from Scripture. Yet I must repeat that this is not God's usual way. (62-63)

He uses the example of choosing a life partner. While we can draw out principles from the Bible of what sort of person we ought to marry, we will not find a name or an address of The One! Instead, he argues, we are to  use common sense, "trusting that God will guide you through your own mental processes." (64) I can verify that this is the manner in which I firmly believe God led me to pursue theological studies, to study abroad in Glasgow, to attend seminary even thought I had to go into debt to do it, and to marry the man I did (to name just a few).

In the course of my decision-making, I trusted him to close the doors that weren't in his will, as he knew that I sought to do his will. I considered the advice of those wiser and more experienced than I. In this way, I took ownership of the inherent difficulties of any choice, even while I enjoyed the blessings that he poured out on me in the following of them. Perhaps we are being a bit lazy if we just expect him to spell out every step of our lives, without having to engage our God-given brains:

Although God promises to guide us, we must not expect him to do so in the way in which we guide horses and mules. He will not use a bit and bridle with us. For we are not horses or mules; we are human beings. We have understanding, which horses and mules have not. It is, then, through the use of our own understanding, enlightened by Scripture and prayer and the counsel of friends, that God will lead us into a knowledge of his particular will for us. (64-65)

It is just one more way that God lends us what CS Lewis called "the dignity of causality."

--
Did I mention this tiny little book was filled to the brim with profound insight? I guess I'll have to cut this short once again, so I can keep this post (relatively) short and get it posted today! More to come...
~Becky

Share

A Mindful Hymn

As I was writing about mindful worship this weekend, I was thinking of the hymn "And Can It Be That I Should Gain," by Charles Wesley, as a specific example of such intelligent praise. To my pleasant surprise, we sang it in church on Sunday. It bears repeating here, as it's worthy of more meditation than I can muster during one sing-through:

And Can It Be That I Should Gain
by Charles Wesley, 1738

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Wow! As much as I enjoy some of the contemporary songs out there, the old Christian hymns are a rich heritage I hope we never forsake.

Share