While I’m still open to reading books from solid Egalitarians, some of what I’ve read is just as troubling as being from those “legalistic traditionalists” that are so opposed to women that they can’t stop from reading their gender biases into the text. For those unfamiliar with the terms of this debate, allow me to give you two quick and simple definitions: (1) Egalitarians are those that hold the view that men and women can both hold the role/office of Pastor (Bishop, Presbyter, Elder, Overseer), and (2) Complimentarians are those who believe that the “senior” leadership role of the church is reserved to men only. Both positions believe theirs is the most biblical and both use scripture to argue their points. Anyway, I came across an example of a horrible way that an Egalitarian ended her response to an opposing view. She writes,
“Perhaps when we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we will learn that in the eyes of our Lord, women through the centuries have been the real leaders of the church.” (Alvera Mickelsen, Women in Ministry: Four Views, p. 169, emphasis mine)
I think it is quotes like this one that cause some Complementarians to consider a lot of Egalitarians as being driven by “radical feminism.” It sure seems like there is an ax to grind. It’s similar to how some Complementarians make the charge that Evangelical Egalitarians don’t really honor scripture or hold to it’s sufficiency and inerrancy, when in fact they do (in their minds, at least!). I can’t judge Mrs. Mickelsen’s intentions, but the way this reads is as if most of men church leaders haven’t been really doing the leading. It seems like a subtle insult against both Complementarians and with the church’s past male leaders. Maybe that wasn’t the intention, but it sure read that way!
What do you think? Got any examples of Complementarians doing the same, or do I need to dig up my own? This is such a fascinating subject to discuss, and yet so little discussion actually seems to take place!
I’m still a “soft complementarian,” but like I said, I’m equally open to further study. The essay that Mickelsen offered just simply seemed more about “agendaneutics” than offering her hermeneutical methods and solid exegesis. But maybe my agenda is to read into her writing another agenda… errr.. wait… what?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I always find myself shaking my head when I read something like this: “I think someday, when we’re standing before God, we might find that [enter premise here]…” This is in no way an argument for or against anything. Rob Bell seems to be fond of this technique as well.
I’ve seen some felonious eisogesis on both sides of this debate. In this corner, we have “Women should stay in the kitchen with their heads covered.” In the other, we have “Jesus loves all women, and some women are extremely gifted, and therefore it’s definitely good for them to be in senior church leadership.”
Seldom does the discussion actually center on looking at relevant Biblical texts and deriving our theology from the text alone, Sola Scripture style.
I’m really not sure what I think about the comment of having an ‘ax to grind’. What exactly would that hidden agenda be? That men were never the leaders in the first place? I have read that book, it has been a few years, but I do not remember ever thinking that about her portion of the book. In fact quite the opposite. It felt pretty freeing to me (this was way before I’d even thought of being a pastor) to know that God uses men and women to be pastors or leaders.
Perhaps it is because Mickelson has had to ‘fight’ against people who have made it challenging for her as a woman pastor/leader? Maybe the pain from her past is coming out in her writing as though she may have to prove herself? I don’t have my book anymore to read the context of her writings…(lost in our moldy home).
But I can tell you from experience that if I do not let go of some of the things people have inadvertently said to me or Brian, I would have an ax to grind against those who have hurt us. One pastor wouldn’t even look at us or barely acknowledge me in our pastoral meetings (and there were only 4 of us in a meeting). Well meaning people have told Brian that he should put me down, take control of the church, and wear the pants in the family. I could go on, but the Lord is doing a work in me to help me let go and move forward with His plans for my marriage, family, life and ministry.
Am I against others who do not believe as I? No way. I think we are all a part of the family of God and should be treated as such. Is the Lord working on me to let go of hurtful things said or unsaid so that I do not hold onto those and carry that pain in the ministry or in my life? Yes. Hopefully this can be true for both sides of the argument.
Debbie,
Hey! Good thoughts. I’m sorry to hear about your experiences… they bring up a lot to reflect upon.
Regarding the “ax to grind,” I can’t speculate on whether she had/has an ax to grind, because I can’t read her heart. But I can offer what it sounds like (from a Complimentarian perspective). When I read that comment, I was wondering if she really thinks that the “real” leaders of the church have been women, to the point of subtly suggesting that men haven’t been leading at all. Why not write something like this:
That makes her point without devaluing the leadership role of men.
My point is that both sides of the debate tend to try and elevate their own view by lowering or misrepresenting or demonizing the other’s view. It happens across the spectrum, and I don’t like it.
Now, I have a question for you to weigh in on regarding your role as a pastor and your interaction with others who do not hold to the same conviction regarding women pastors.
Can a church have multiple pastors (with different genders) serve alongside each other in a way that doesn’t violate their conscious? As in, I am a Complimentarian and you are an Egalitarian… so could we work together on staff at a church and what would that look like?
Sorry about your moldy house! Every book I mention, Brian tells me it got thrown out 🙁
Thanks – I just sent you an e-mail in response. I think it can be done through the leading of the Holy Spirit, but people need respect, and to be taught what community is through the process.
Based on my own studies, I believe it’s perfectly biblical for women to teach. As long as they are teaching other women.
It’s hard to know w/o the context, but when I read it I thought she was saying something along the lines of affirming how so much of the work in the church is (ideally) done by legwork in the pews and acknowledging that women are often doing a disproportionate amount of that quietly and softly (but leading nonetheless). Certainly I’ve heard pastors say many times that their congregation is the real ___ (what-have-you), and so I immediately filed it into that paradigm of talking. It’s good to hear the way you read it to help egals be more self-aware should we say something like that (not that I think I have).
Although philosophical considerations have been important to me in the continuing study of this issue, my early steps were all completely about Scripture, and if I read an egal writer who did not seem centered on the same, I’d get frustrated or scared and put the topic aside for awhile b/c w/ my particular Scripture-centered predilection it bothered me. I just really needed to wrestle w/ the Scriptures apart from the backstory for awhile b/c I was determined to submit to whatever they actually did say. But egals do have a lot of backstory things to talk about and a lot of stories that need to be told. Sometimes I think I can’t think about the topic of gender disparity too often b/c the more aware I am of what’s really happening around the world and what’s really happening in marriages around me once the romanticized veil was taken off and the more I register the things that have been done to me as a woman, sometimes in the name of God, the more I think I don’t have the strength to even take it in. But the same is PART of what impassions me re: the topic; scripture meets life. That’s not such a bad thing, is it ;)? So, yeah, sometimes we’ll rage against injustice or cast vision, and sometimes we’ll be focused on exegesis. Different peops are ready to process different aspects of the message, so it’s good that there’s variety in the writing.
I’m not sure I want to start sharing comp examples, and I wonder if those who aren’t egal could even hear the patronization, etc. when it is so part of our culture/evangelical sub-culture. I’ll just say “Peace.” 😉
Hmmm.
I don’t think saying that any gender is the “real leaders” is helpful. , be it men or women. I bet there would be a fire storm if a guy said that the “real ministers” in the church were men.
Complementarians are guilty for sure. When they start the whole “women are just way more gullible” argument, my eyes roll back and I want to throw a couch at them. If I recall, some of what Culver said took that tone too… but I am not a traditionalist like him…
These issues need to start in Scripture (exegesis) with honest in interpretation (hermeneutics) and careful consideration for application (contextualization).
I bet there would be a fire storm if a guy said that the “real ministers” in the church were men. –Oh, but I have heard exactly that many times but, granted, not from pastors who are accustomed to having any opposition or a national face. Anyhow, now that you point it out, unless the context of the quote excuses it, I would agree that it was not the smartest choice of words, although I doubt she meant by it (I could be wrong) what you took from it. It is indeed unhelpful to say anything that sort of pits the sexes against one another. Egalitarianism is supposed to be about the joy and freedom of the sexes working side by side. I agree that these issues need to be grounded in exegesis but was just saying that not every presentation of them is going to focus as much upon that as you or I might like. And I think that can be a good thing, so long as the exegesis has been thought out and is also presented in another meeting or book or whatever.
Speaking as an egalitarian, I am very often struck by the inherent sexism of some of my fellow egalitarians. Instead of making the case that men and women are equal, it is sometimes taken to the extreme where women are considered to be of greater importance than men. Oddly enough, this sort of claim is often subtly rooted in old patriarchal archetypes. For instance, you will sometimes hear that women should be in church leadership because they are more pure/innocent/emotionally-oriented/empathetic/nurturing. Rather than undoing the effects of chauvinism, this line of argument suggests women really are the way they were described by Victorian men, but that men failed to recognize those qualities for their leadership potential.
I would suggest that all Christians (comp and egal) stop repeating the same old stereotypes about the different sexes. Some women are nurturing while some aren’t. The same goes for men. Some men are very protective, some aren’t. The same goes for women. Scripture never tells us (I am open to documented correction, though) that particular personality traits belong to particular genders. We would do well to remember that the curse at the end of Revelation applies to those who add to the Book too.
Samuel, I know I’m hearing more of this stuff from the classrooms of Div school friends at “liberal” institutions, but I find that among the evangelical egalitarians I speak w/, they usually have been so burnt by proclamations of gender differences that they want to avoid the topic of there being difference (I’m usually one of the few peops pushing for more recognition of differences, however slight they might be, since our differences are really two overlapping bell curves). Anyhow, I’ve heard much of this from the radical Christian feminism, not from egalitarianism, and I am saddened that you are finding that much of it in your circles.
Thanks, Deborah. I am glad it is not present in all circles.
I think that among evangelicals there is sometimes a propensity to emphasize different personality traits and characteristics among the genders out of a fear that if they cannot be easily distinguished, then the argument against homosexual practice is reduced to “plumbing issues.”
Among other possible responses, I tend to think that we do a disservice to downplay the biological differences of the sexes. Genesis makes it clear that we were intended to be embodied beings, the Incarnation puts an exclamation mark on that statement, and the doctrine of the Resurrection proclaims that our eventual glorification entails embodiment, so we are unwise to be afraid of “mere biology.”
Yes, Jonalyn Fincher’s book Ruby Slippers is a helpful conversation starter in this regards, and her husband has been desiring to write a book about the masculine too–both from an egal perspective (they are a young apologetics team). The premise is that our embodiment, not just our sociology, has to have an effect on our souls, although there will be many variations of the same. And so how do we celebrate and honor any differences that may be there w/o pigeon-holing and falling into corrupt ideals.
I will say that as a very devoted Christians for Biblical Equality member I am not infrequently dismayed by the exegesis/hermeneutics in the Arise newsletters (but even more frequently dismayed by the exegesis among the comp stuff) but also by the attitudes of some of the guest writers. For instance, I felt like a cheap shot was made at Beth Moore recently. So sometimes I do feel like there are attitude and presentation issues among the conservative evangelical egalitarian camp, but I haven’t really seen this particular one much.
Yes, I think it is extremely important to recognize that our bodies have an impact on our souls. We already know this inasmuch as we experience the world around us through the mediation of our bodies, but for some reason we have difficulty accepting that our own chemical-psychological makeup impacts who we are as well. The fact that testosterone and estrogen (as well as many other hormones) actually affect our thoughts, emotions, and actions says a great deal about the ways in which the sexes differ according to God’s creation, and yet it also leaves plenty of room for the recognition that they provide no basis for universal proclamations about male or female personality traits.
I am not familiar with CBE or Arise, so unfortunately I can’t make a response there.
Yes and yes. CBE is the main face of evangelical egalitarianism and could always use more scholars, especially men ;). Membership includes a yr subscription to their academic journal Priscilla Papers as well as their simplistic magazine Mutuality (strokes for both folks). Mimi Haddad is the president now, and she is such an awesome humble servant: http://www.cbeinternational.org/