Forum on Women in Ministry at WTS
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 5:29PM Today I attended an “RCA Advocacy Forum on Women in Leadership” and so thought I'd drop a few notes about it – it was an excellent day and while there was a good turn out, I wish more people could have been there.
They are intending to make a DVD out of it and I encourage everyone to pick up a copy, especially of the two morning sessions.
For the record, the following post is from my own notes and observations, not everyone would agree nor would I argue that I am the best nor most accurate note-taker in the world!
Morning Session #1:
Rev. Dr. Lynn Japinga on the history of women in ministry in the RCA
I started off the session a bit nervous. Within the first few moments into the first presentation of the day, I thought I noticed a disturbing trend of judgmental laughter from segments of the audience. Surely you know the kind of laughter I'm talking about. It isn't laughter merely because something is funny (although the presentation did include some humor), quite the opposite; it's laughter that quietly, but clearly, suggests anyone who who would would disagree or argue oppositely must be an ignorant buffoon. I don't have a lot of patience for that kind of thing – especially in settings that should be focusing on reconciliation and forward movement, and especially on topics that are biblically and hermeneutically difficult. Mockery isn't ever a good way to get someone on your side.
Having said that, I did not think the general tone of the day continued along those lines (nor am I suggesting that it was a result of any action/etc. on Lynn's part). As a whole, it was a healthy day of conversation, theology, stories, observations, and hopes.
Anyhow, back to her presentation; it revolved around three questions:
-
Why is there so much resistance to women in church leadership?
-
How does change occur?
-
How do we implement that change?
Why is there so much resistance?
-
Biblical hermeneutic: we, in the RCA, do not have a universal biblical hermeneutic. This, among other things, leads to divergent interpretations of the Bible's message on the topic (and others!)
-
BCO Requirements: there are polity issues surrounding the ordination of women including, but not limited to, the church's interpretation of whether or not the archaic use of the word “men” is a comment on gender-qualifications and whether or not the potentially-accidental use of the word “persons” includes women.
-
The question of whether or not it's “good” for the church: this revolves around the question of whether or not the church is “ready” for women in ministry or if it's “the right time.”
-
The question of whether or not women are “fit” for ministry: in other words, is ministry an “appropriate” thing for women to engage in or is it only appropriate for men. (i.e. are only men “made for” ministry, whereas women, then, would presumably be “made for” dishes and pregnancy.)
The fourth point, she wisely observed, is often a quite argument but powerfully pervasive and may truly be at the root of our historic difficulties on the matter.
How does change happen?
Ironically, much of the change that initially happened on this front was done by men. (Obviously! women weren't allowed voice or vote on that, or any, matter until relatively recently.)
One key date: 1955. The General Synod formed a study committee (of 5 men) who came back with a determination that the Bible does not prevent the ordination of women nor does the argument from “tradition” hold water. This historic report, although not approved by the Classes, has been frequently cited.
Another key date: 1978. Three women (Valerie DeMarnis, Louise Ann Hill-Alto, and Klaire Miller) were ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. The ordinations were upheld by judicial action at Synod by a vote of 150 to 115. (Within a year of this decision, 275 women were elected to Consistories across the RCA – clearly it was a decision that many agreed with!)
One interesting observation, that I'd never really thought of is that the desire to “maintain peace” on both sides of the issue has often been problematic here. She (later in the lecture) reminded us that “there is no peace without justice” (MLK?) and similarly the Rev. Dr. Renee House, later in the day, noted that it's not fair for those who are oppressed to carry the load for unity and peace on their backs. WOW! What a powerful observation.
A few stats:
-
Approximately 65% of the members in the RCA are women (although 75% of Consistory members in the RCA are men).
-
Only approximately 5-15% of the delegates to General Synod are women.
How does change get implemented?
There are two key concerns that have to be recognized: First, a denominational culture that says “you can't make me do anything I don't want to do,” and secondly, a denominational fear of splitting (which she discussed in interesting detail but I'm not capable of doing justice on).
Some closing questions/observations:
-
Are we willing to do what's right even if it makes some people unhappy?
-
Polity, at times, can be either a blessing or a curse (my words, not hers)
-
Experience plays an important role in biblical interpretation – what that role is is controversial?
-
What is does it mean to be “RCA?” Who are we? What is our biblical/hermeneutical/theological/etc. identity?
One last note: We were given a wonderful time line of the key movements and actions on the topic. I don't feel it's my place to re-present it here, but watch for it. I'm sure it'll be printed and distributed extensively.
Later, a few notes on the 2nd Session, but I'm sick of typing right now...
Grace and peace,
`tim
Reader Comments (41)
Thank you for the summary, Tim. I grew up in a church that did not allow women in leadership positions and to this day continues to battle over the issue. As a young woman with deep interest in theology and a heart for justice, this relegation of women to the nursery and kitchen was nearly enough to destroy my faith. Thankfully I met models of strong Christian women in college. These women enabled me to encounter a Jesus who calls people according to gifts, not gender. I fear for the young girls who continue to grow up in congregations like the one I did. I hope that they, too, will someday hear the call to leadership in their own lives, and that they will be free to follow Jesus in the path of discipleship to which they have been called.
Julie Vermeer Elliott
Lecturer in Christian Ethics
Eastern University
Tim,
I also am interested in the DVD and will be ordering it (if it is made available to non-conference attenders) but until that blessed moment, I would be curious to hear you expound on a couple things that you wrote briefly about here. You (or Dr. Japinga) said that one of the concerns about implementing change was “…a denominational culture that says “you can't make me do anything I don't want to do.” Is cloaked reference to the conscience clause or is there more to that statement/concern? If this is in reference to the conscience clause, is the writer/presenter suggesting to do away with it?
Secondly, you asked the question, “Are we willing to do what's right even if it makes some people unhappy?” What is right?
Paul...
I'm sure the DVD will be made fairly publicly available. I don't know the specifics but expect Journey will send out mailings to let people know about it.
As for the question of "you can't make me" -- I it was referenced in the context of the conscience clause but with an eye toward a bigger picture. In other words, that our culture is one where we don't take it kindly when others "tell us what to do." I think she made a very accurate observation on that point. The relationships between congregations/Classes/regional Synods/Synods seem heavily influenced by each body (and members of each body, for that matter) being very clear about their own rights to self determination.
I won't presume to speak for Dr. Japinga about the conscience clause, I don't recall her specifically making a statement on the issue. I will, however, speak for myself. I don't believe the conscience clause is either helpful or faithful. Indeed, I believe it forces women into a second-class status that is neither biblically nor theologically appropriate. I also believe that it's been misused. The conscience clause was created to enable those who have a conscientious objection against women in ministry to refrain from participating in their ordinations without obstructing them. Instead, my observation is that, rather than protecting women from those whose consciences will not allow them to participate in such ordinations, it has been used to close women out. Rather than protecting women, the conscience clause has created further injustice.
As for your final question. It wasn't actually my question, it was Dr. Japinga's. The question arises out of our other cultural tendency to try to maintain "peace" even when it involves being silent when we shouldn't be. Again, she didn't answer the question, she merely asked it. I will tell you what I believe and why: The right thing is to embrace women into the fullness of the ministries that God has been calling them to since the earliest days of Christianity (and before). Not doing so suggests that the image of God is somehow lesser in women than in men... Not doing so ignores the fact that Christ came to (re)abolish such distinctions in the church... Not doing so promotes cultural (rather than biblical) injustices from 20-some centuries ago that we should have moved past in these "latter days."
Dr. Japinga's presentation was more academic. She presented the history. Since you asked, a bit of my own commentary. :-)
Grace and peace,
`tim
Anyone looking for serious study on this issue (Egalitarian vs Complementarian) must visit and read the following. The list is SHORT because the following items are NON- NEGOTIABLE for entering into this discussion. The following items represent the core of the Complementarian viewpoint. (Could someone provide a “must read” list for the egalitarian point of view?)
Web:
http://www.cbmw.org/
Books:
1] Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood-A-Response-to-Evangelical-Feminism-p-16791.html
2] 50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood *Free PDF!
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/2375_50_Crucial_Questions_About_Manhood_and_Womanhood/
3] God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation by Andreas Kostenberger. *This is a must read before entering into a theological discussion on gender issues*
http://www.amazon.com/God-Marriage-Family-Rebuilding-Foundation/dp/1581345801
4] Freedom and Boundaries: A Pastoral Primer on the Role of Women in the Church by Kevin DeYoung of the RCA.
http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Boundaries-Pastoral-Primer Church/dp/1414106114/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241149902&sr=1-3
Please read these books before dying on a hill that you have not taken the time to comprehend. I’ve become increasingly alarmed at the amount of emotion in this debate as directly opposed to the amount of biblical thinking, prayer, and searching of God. I trust these resources will serve you well regardless of where you find yourself on this issue. May God give us eyes to see and ears to hear, as we search for faithfulness in the RCA.
Blessings,
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Be careful when you demand people read your list of resources before even entering into a conversation.
I am not "dying on a hill" nor am I entering the conversation with an "increasing alarm[ing] ... amount of emotion." Neither is anyone else -- indeed your post is the most demanding and least gracious of the posts I've seen on this board related to the topic.
The fact of the matter is, if you care, I'm not really dialoguing or conversing at all. My mind is made up. I have no question that the matter is biblically, theologically, hermeneutically and practically clear. I have studied the issue frequently and deeply at times and come to the conclusion that the church should welcome women fully into all areas ministry.
Don't, for a second, try to suggest that anyone who comes to a decision different than your own must somehow be working out of an unbiblical, unthoughtful, or unprayerful process.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
I am increasingly impatient with the Complimentarian's habit of assuming that anyone who holds to the Egalitarian interpretation of Scripture is Biblically illiterate. I find the lack of respect in that assumption alarming, not to mention spiritually arrogant.
I would be honored to provide a "must read" list of resources that base their Egalitarian position on the Bible.
I also find it amusing that a blogger would hold such strong views, but would refuse to attach their full name to their opinion???
WEB: http://ww.cbeinternational.com
BOOKS & ARTICLES:
First of all, the RCAs own theological position paper "The Role and Authority of Women in Ministry"
at http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=3838
1) Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy The best scholarly work that is comparable to "Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood"
http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Biblical-Equality-Complementarity-Hierarchy/dp/083082
2) FREE PDFs
What is Biblical Equality by Alan Padgett http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/PPWhatIsBiblical.pdf
The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church by N.T. Wright http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/wright_biblical_basis.pdf
3) The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight
Excellent and readable book on interpreting Scripture
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Parakeet-Rethinking-Read-Bible/dp/0310284880/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241187458&sr=1-1
4) Beyond Sex Roles by Gilbert Bilezikian Classic work now in it's third edition
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Sex-Roles-Womans-Church/dp/0801031532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241188189&sr=1-1
5) 95 More For The Door by Austin Stouffer Short "primer" for egalitarian position
http://www.amazon.com/95-More-Door-Austin-Stouffer/dp/1897373198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241188009&sr=1-1
====
Tim and Joanie,
First, let me begin by apologizing for coming off as aggressive, arrogant, and offensive. In no way was the previous post meant to be demeaning or belittling of anyone. I actually wrote the post in the spirit of trying to gain a better understanding of the egalitarian point of view. [which is why I asked for a list of must read resourced on that view (thanks Joaine)] I wanted to offer up the “must reads” from a Complementarian perspective for those interested in this topic.
After the provided list my comments were directed at both sides of the issue. The comment was meant for the general reader and not Tim specifically. Most people who discuss this issue rarely read the core material from BOTH sides of the debate. In no way was I attacking you (Tim) as someone who has not studied this issue. Again, my comment was to the general reader…this is why I asked for a list from the egalitarian side so we can ALL (this includes me) be fully read in a difficult subject.
Again, sorry for the lack of clarity…I had no ill intention at all and was shocked by your response! I should have been more careful when addressing such a sensitive issue.
Jeremy
Side note- Tim, you said, “The fact of the matter is, if you care, I'm not really dialoguing or conversing at all. My mind is made up.” In my understanding that is the definition of “dying on a hill”. The issue is closed for discussion and any attempt at reversal or change is unacceptable. That’s all I meant when I said “dying on a hill” and this goes for people on BOTH sides of the issue. All of us must do our homework before we can say what you said. My fear is that very few of us actually do the hard work!
Jeremy,
Just a quick response my understanding of "dying on a hill" must be very different from yours. To me, the phrase refers to someone who is willing to hold to a particular viewpoint no matter what it costs them or what the implications - a dogmatic martyr, if you will.
Such is not the case for me. For me, the question is merely closed. It is not a matter of standing my ground in the midst of a battle, it is that I have studied the issue, prayed about it, come to a conclusion and no longer feel the need to continue fretting about each new book or attempt to re-present a position on the matter.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim,
I publicly apologized for any misunderstanding and all you can do is offer a critique. In addition, I began my first comment saying, “ANYONE looking for serious study on this issue…” the term “anyone” should have tipped you off that I was not attacking or advocating any malicious sentiment in your direction. I know you gave a “quick response” but I think the apology is a bit more important than a definition. Apology accepted?
Jeremy
Oh heavens... apology accepted. I'm not that easily offended :-)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
I just want to thank Tim for being strong on this issue! I belong to a church that is about 90% against women in any office. I'm a small voice in support of women in every office.
Question for Tim,
How many woman in office do you have at your church and how did the transition go if you were there when it happened? Have you had any women preach at your church and if you have how did that go over.
Thanks Steve
Steve,
Ah... you ask the million dollar question... One that, I'm afraid, I'm not particularly happy to answer. The congregation I serve in does not fully welcome women into the ministry. It never has. In my time here we have elected one woman to office (Deacon) and she was the first to hold office in the congregation ever. (She was well-received but not re-elected, yet.) It has been a slow (sometimes glacially slow) process that has also required the congregation to think seriously about what ministers/elders/deacons are -- in other words, ministers don't "run the church;" elders are not "mini ministers" and deacons are not merely collection takers. As the congregation as begun to learn more and more about what the various offices are, we've seen increasing numbers of women nominated.
Regarding preaching, I have specifically not asked women to do pulpit supply. First, because it is technically the Consistory that is in charge of filling the pulpit, according to the BCO and secondly because I do not know of a woman minister I would put in the position of having to deal with the few (from what I can tell about 15%) but vocal and quite powerful (almost all men) who are against it.
Finally, the one thing I'm certain of is that the transition, though important, needs to be done with care and love. Forcing change can often be more harmful, in the long run. I fear, at times, I've been too gentle. I don't know -- time will tell.
Grace and peace,
`tim
Tim and others,
Tim, so glad to hear you are taking a respectful approach with your church, even though I disagree with your end-goals, I respect the way you go about it. You've always struck me as honorable in that way. I was quite dismayed during a discussion of this topic in WTS when students and faculty began discussing ways to "force" churches into accepting women in leadership. This is consistent with discussions to remove the conscience clause.
I think Jeremy's concern about the emotion in the debate should be taken into consideration. It's inevitable that there will be emotions--people and their sense of calling, career, etc. are involved. But SOME people on BOTH sides are letting emotions determine their thinking with little concern for the Biblical witness, prayer and an honest search for God's will. Let's not accuse any individuals of being that way until we know the facts, but it's clear to me that it's a problem.
The egalitarian side wants others to acknowledge that they have searched the topic prayerfully in submission to God's will as revealed in Scripture. Many egalitarians indeed have. I would like the egalitarians to acknowledge that many complementarians have done the same, and not accuse all of misogyny, hypocrisy, territorialism, listening to only traditions, etc.
The more strident and emotional we are in the discussion, the more we force people who disagree (with the majority, or the leaders' position) into silent resentment. How much better to discuss issues openly and respectfully.
On a final note, I just want to share with others how they come across with the use of terms like "not ready". I'm glad you did not use the term yourself, Tim. You probably understand that it will not help your cause. Saying a church or individual is "not ready" implies a superiority of position for you and immaturity and lack of engagement with the issue for the others. It sounds patronizing. It implies that, if people would only think with open minds, open Bible, a seminary education, or whatever else you have, they would certainly agree with you. Well, they might not. This is the differing hermeneutics Dr. Japinga spoke of. Again, I am not singling you out Tim, but I've often heard this type of language from people.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Mark...
Thank you for your kind words. I don't tend to use the "not yet" language, although I will honestly and willingly admit I believe that. You are correct, however, in general it is unhelpful, even destructive.
However, I do not believe that all positions are equal nor that all conclusions, no matter how well thought out or how prayerfully attained are accurate. This is a difficult, but necessary, stance. Part of a minister's job is to pastorally deal with the inaccuracies people believe. (Ex. It is bibilcally necessary that I educate my congregation on the fact that being Christian is more than merely being "saved from hell" or even "saved to heaven" even though much of the American, Evangelical subculture would tell them otherwise. Similarly, it would be a dramatic abandon of my calling to stand by without saying something when hungry people are not fed and wealthy people have never-ending pantries.)
I have often chose peace in an attempt to be pastoral, but I will readily admit I may have occasionally (the current discussion inclusive) used peace as an excuse to be silent - and there is no true peace when injustice prevails. There are some issues that can rightly be declared adiaphora, injustice is not one of them. I do believe it is a matter of justice when we refuse to welcome women into the full breadth of ministerial offices.
Since, by now you may have noticed I tend to be honest about such things. Let me admit that I frequently pray that God will be gracious with me for sometimes being overly gentle in situations I simply didn't want to "stir up." I don't know. I hope the general gentleness I take on the matter is virtuous rather than weak; only time will tell.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim,
You have every right to stand for what you believe, especially as you believe it is an issue of justice. I'm letting everyone hear how it sounds from the other side when they use certain language. It's unkind, and I think it actually discourages discussion of the real issues, rather pushing people inward and unintentionally encouraging them to cling to their own ideas, and then sometimes out of spite. Then again, there certainly are times when a little more fire and emotion is called for.
So, I'll continue to maintain that I disagree with your end-goals but respect your manner of working toward change. May we all, in whatever change we seek to implement, be gracious and tactful yet clear and unwavering at the same time.
Mark
Tim,
Earlier you told Jeremy, "Don't, for a second, try to suggest that anyone who comes to a decision different than your own must somehow be working out of an unbiblical, unthoughtful, or unprayerful process."
My question to you would be, do you believe Jeremy to be working out of an unbiblical, unthoughtful, or unprayerful process? If not, then do you believe the issue to be unbiblical?
One of you is clearly being unbiblical, either that or it is not a biblical issue. If Jeremy is studying his position and coming to what he believes to be a biblical position then I think it is fair of him to assume that you are unbiblical.
This is clearly a biblical argument and one side is wrong and the other is right. Since the Scriptures are for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith, there is no other foundation by which this argument can be made. That which is biblical is right, that which is not is wrong.
Joshua,
I have no intent to be argumentative but my guess is that my previous posts have made my position pretty clear. Although I believe it is possible for someone to be thoughtful and prayerful and come to the conclusion that women aren't to be welcomed into the full ministry of Christ's church, I do believe such a position is unbiblical. I believe it reflects a faulty hermeneutic (specifically of Paul's writings) but also of creation, fall, and curse.
The statement you quoted was, perhaps unclearly, a more generic statement. All-too-often people make the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them must somehow be unbiblical, unthoughtful, etc. and while that is certainly sometimes the case, it is not always so. This is particularly true, in my experience, with those who take pride in their conservative credentials -- just my experience, I'm certain Jeremy would say the same thing about those he considers "liberal" (a group which, humorously, a number on this board would probably put me in.)
I hope that makes sense... :-)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim,
I appreciate your explanation. When I read your first response to Jeremy that statement came across as extremely relativistic. Your clarification helps quite a bit. I disagree with you, but there is no benefit in any discussion if there is not a clear right and wrong. However, if you believe Jeremy's viewpoint, and indeed mine also, to be unbiblical and unjust, then why is it that you would allow that viewpoint to continue in your church. It seems to me that it is the job of ministers of the Gospel to root out injustice in the Church. It surprises me that you would take a call to a church that allowed such an unbiblical practice to take place, especially since it's rooted in a "faulty hermeneutic." This would imply that the current leadership in your church, particularly the consistory, is making decisions based on a faulty hermeneutic and leading your church in what would be heretical directions if it is true that their hermeneutic is wrong.
I don't like your use phraseology when you say those of us who hold a more traditional and conservative view of men's and women's roles conclude "that women aren't to be welcomed into the full ministry of Christ's church." If men and women are filling the roles, in my church, that I believe God has designated for them, then they are welcomed into the full ministry of Christ's church. If a woman is filling a role that God has forbidden to her and has not created her to fill, then she is filling an extra-biblical role and she is then actually participating in less than the "full ministry of Christ's church."
As far as the argument that my view represents "a faulty hermeneutic (specifically of Paul's writings) but also of creation, fall, and curse," I'd love to discuss the hermeneutic you use that allows you hold your view. Just guessing, without having heard your argument, my guess would be that your hermeneutic is far more culturally conditioned than mine is, although I'm sure you'd make the same claim about my hermeneutic. Based on my discussions with and readings of those who hold your position I believe that to get to your view you have to lower your view of a literal interpretation of Paul's arguments and raise your view of cultural understandings of the arguments. To do this you have to rely largely on your reason and your ability to determine what was meant to be taken literally and what must be taken as a cultural construct. I do not personally trust that my reason is so unaffected by the fall as to set it against the inspired words of Scripture. There are clearly passages in the Bible that are dealing with cultural issues and I think that there are usually clear indicators of that. I don't want to suggest there is no need to bring application of what was written to first century Christians into the 21st century. However, Paul's statements about the roles of women are based in creation and not in something that was cultural.
I'd love to hear your response to this line of reasoning and understand your hermeneutic better.
Joshua
Joshua,
I will do my best to respond to your questions, although I hope you'll extend some grace to me. I would have never (in a million years) thought to be standing on the side of trying to explain this position so intricately. There are far better minds than mine working on the issue. But the scriptures rightly call us to be ready to give account for our beliefs so I will attempt to do them justice, I merely wish the conversation were taking place over a cup of coffee or a pint of ale... :-)
...if you believe Jeremy's viewpoint, and indeed mine also, to be unbiblical and unjust, then why is it that you would allow that viewpoint to continue in your church.... It surprises me that you would take a call to a church that allowed such an unbiblical practice to take place, especially since it's rooted in a "faulty hermeneutic."
My current setting for ministry is has been a wonderful place to serve God's church. I believe they have problems, but then I believe all congregations have problems (as do all people!) The question is not whether any congregation has reached perfection, none have. A minister's job is always to preach the extensive grace of the gospel while, at the same time, fight against heresy and injustice. That happens, in a congregation the same way that it happens in an individual: slowly and one step at a time.
As we grow and develop in the faith we recognize areas of weakness or darkness that need to be adjusted. Each of us experiences that as individuals. That famous passage about “when I was a child” addresses this directly. As we mature we are brought to a fuller understanding of what God calls us to and asked to change things that, previously, we would have been unable to accept or even, often, recognize. On top of that, as we all know, some issues never come to the fore in some people's lives. That doesn't mean they're not important issues, it means that in God's plan they weren't the issues for that person at that time. (I know this sounds a lot like the dreaded “you'll get there eventually” argument, and I don't intend it to, but my understanding of sovereignty suggests that, at some level, that is the case.)
This would imply that the current leadership in your church, particularly the consistory, is making decisions based on a faulty hermeneutic and leading your church in what would be heretical directions if it is true that their hermeneutic is wrong.
That would be true if all of life and ministry could be boiled down to a single issue. It cannot. Unquestionably there are times when I disagree with our consistory (in general... and the Elders, specifically). That is healthy and to be expected. In our polity ministers are expected to have extensive training in Bible and theology, but the leadership of the local congregation is fundamentally a consistorial thing. That creates a certain balance. The idea that a minister has the right or the authority to impose his/her stance unilaterally upon a congregation, while accepted by some (and often referred to as “prophetic” or “visionary” in order to justify it) is usually an abandonment of our tradition's ideals as well as the biblical doctrine pouring priesthood upon all believers. That said, one of the reasons ministers hold their “membership” at the Classical level is that it gives us a certain amount of protection when preaching the difficult aspects of the scriptures as faithfully as possible, even when the local Consistory may disagree. In other words, it encourages us to preach radical grace and condemn injustice even when it is not well received – both of which I try to do (I speak generally here, for what it's worth although I've preached on God's gifting of all people, I have not preached specifically on women in ministry.)
Relatedly, it's a faulty conclusion to suggest that the Consistory is heretical or faulty merely because aspects of its selection have been influenced by faulty thinking. In other words, just because some members of a congregation nominate and vote from a perspective that isn't consistent with our denomination's stance on women in ministry doesn't somehow invalidate the whole process or render the election/ordination/installation/ministry of said elders and deacons illegitimate.
I don't like your use phraseology when you say those of us who hold a more traditional and conservative view of men's and women's roles conclude "that women aren't to be welcomed into the full ministry of Christ's church." If men and women are filling the roles, in my church, that I believe God has designated for them, then they are welcomed into the full ministry of Christ's church.
I don't mean to be harsh, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you like it. Either we welcome women into the “full” ministry (i.e. all of it) or we only welcome them into part of it. If you'd like to argue that women aren't suited to particular aspects of ministry, that's your prerogative, but in the end, it's still an argument for something less than all... less than “full.”
As for “traditional” and “conservative.” There are merely catch phrases with little meaning. I consider myself both traditional and conservative, my guess is that you would apply neither adjective to me. They're terms defined by particular contexts. In some Classes I'd be considered “liberal” in other's “conservative.” “Traditional” is even more subjective – it refers to nothing more than what a particular individual considers to be the important aspects of the past. “Traditional” worship, for example, means a very different thing in the congregation I grew up in than in the the congregation I'm not a part of. Our histories and “traditions” are different. Usually it's a term we use to give credence to the positions we've developed throughout the course of our own lives or, at best, the lives of our parents.
If a woman is filling a role that God has forbidden to her and has not created her to fill, then she is filling an extra-biblical role and she is then actually participating in less than the "full ministry of Christ's church."
This would be true if such were the case, but as I've tried to explain above (re: “fully”), and will try to below (i.e. God did not create us as unequals), it is not. For the record, in this case, the argument of “difference” is, whether admittedly or not, an argument of “lesser.” In the end, I can find no compelling way of reading the complementarian position as anything other than “different and unequal.” I don't mean to offend you with that... but well... there it is.
As far as the argument that my view represents "a faulty hermeneutic (specifically of Paul's writings) but also of creation, fall, and curse," I'd love to discuss the hermeneutic you use that allows you hold your view. Just guessing, without having heard your argument, my guess would be that your hermeneutic is far more culturally conditioned than mine is, although I'm sure you'd make the same claim about my hermeneutic.
Actually, my argument for the full inclusion of women has little or nothing to do with the prevailing culture of any particular time. I believe inequality entered into the human picture as part of the fall, and that curse leveled against women is as equally to be overcome as that leveled against men. It is not a fundamental part of creation. To make a long story short, that curse is abolished by the gracious work of Christ, through his death, resurrection, and ascension and it is to be fought against. It is appropriate for us to use herbicides and pull weeds (counteracting part of the “male” curse) and equally as appropriate to use painkillers at deliveries and seek to re-establish created equality (counteracting part of the “female” curse). Male and female both are called to minister fully (see above definition) as God calls them to, which I believe does mean “fully.”
Your question, I'm guessing, is how to interpret Paul. Or perhaps even more extensively, what is the fundamental hermeneutic I believe we should take to matters of holiness, faithfulness and biblical interpretation. To me, it's simple although I'll admit it has been a long time in the making and it's been a distinctly personal journey rather than an academic one. (I.e. I've developed it through a decade of study, preachign and teaching and cannot really point you to books or resources on the matter. I do believe it's simple enough to understand and it extends beyond the current question. Which are both important.)
I believe most people misuse Paul and much of the New Testament to eisegetically affirm their predisposed positions (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not). Many great theologians and writers have said many stupid things over the centuries turning to Paul as their “biblical” antecedent. It isn't unlike the way theologians have often used Augustine. Augustine, through the course of his career wrote so many things that it's possible to quote him on both “sides” of any number of issues. Paul, too, can be viewed similarly (although not nearly to the same extent as Augustine.) Which isn't to diminish Paul's integrity nor his inspired-ness. It does, however, require that we exegetically seek out Paul's underlying understanding of right and wrong... of appropriate and inappropriate. I believe it's absurd and unChristian to suggest that Paul was typically working out of a belief that he was setting up fundamental rules for the rest of time or for the church universal. Instead, Paul was working out the belief that he was writing to specific congregations, in specific contexts with specific problems. He goal was to tell each congregation how to best live faithful lives.
His general hermeneutic, then, was one of “beneficiality and constructiveness” (i.e. “all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial....”) rather than a re-baptized legalism. Notably, this is not an “anything goes” approach. Indeed “beneficiality and constructiveness” is, in many ways, far more specific (and far more difficult) than any legal system. It is, however, less easy to codify, and thus mistrusted by those who like things “black and white.”
Many in the church have tried to codify Paul into a sort-of New Testament law-giver. Paul isn't my favorite NT character, but I'm pretty sure he'd be offended (I almost said “appalled” but thought the better of it!)
The question, then, isn't whether or not Paul told certain contexts that certain roles were appropriate or inappropriate for certain people. The question is “what is beneficial and constructive?” Again, note this is not an “anything goes” approach nor is it fundamentally an individualistic one. “benefical and constructive” has to prayerfully and discerningly take into consideration individuals, congregations, regions, etc. What you or I may want in a particular situation is, frankly, irrelevant. The question is what is most consistent with the gospel of grace and reconciliation God accomplished through the work of Christ.
To touch on the culture thing. I think Paul's instructions often reflect a culture sensibility. You have pegged me correctly there. But, in the end, I don't believe Paul was setting up universals. (I know, it's easy to make a slippery slope argument against so much freedom... but freedoms, of course, are held faithfully in check when honestly reckoned against “beneficial and constructive.”)
I do not personally trust that my reason is so unaffected by the fall as to set it against the inspired words of Scripture.
Point well taken. But I'm not suggesting we place reason against scripture... I'm suggesting we interpret scripture consistently and according to it's own guidence.
Anyhow. I hope that all makes sense. I need to go – I have a wedding in about an hour and a half :-)
I'm sure of only succeeded in muddying the water further...
Grace and peace,
`tim
The large amount of dialogue on this issue is very interesting to read. In a very simple theological position, my comfort is interpreting scripture to say that men and women are equal under God, but with different roles, and as a result, women are not biblicallly called to have spiritually headship over men in homes and in churches. Role differences does not mean "superior" . I wonder if the bigger area that the RCA struggles with on this issue is making sure that women are allowed to be pastors, versus being allowed to have spIritual authority over men. Nevertheless I have seen some women strive to snatch spiritual authority and men respond either agressively or passively at times to this.
So, I am confused. Does the RCA leadership want women to have spiritual authority over men in churches and also in their homes or just in churches but not in homes.
Can someone provide some clarity on this. Its confusing to the average church-goer.
Bruce...
I'm afraid I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but I think I can guess what you're aiming at. I can't speak for the "RCA leadership" -- I'm not even exactly sure who that refers to. But I can tell you this: from a biblical perspective, spiritual authority is not gender based. At times spiritual authority is given(by God) to men (Samuel, for example, or Peter) at times women (Deborah, for example, or Hulda). It doesn't take much to recognize that the same is true in contemporary times. I know of many families (you surely do to) where the men are more spiritually mature and lead the household in that area and many others where the women are more spiritually mature and therefore are the leaders. One's gender does not give them spiritual authority in any arena family or church.
Touching on another part of your comment - my experience is that anyone who attempts to "snatch" spiritual authority is working out of self-interest rather than divine blessing. I have known both men and women in that category.
In a nutshell: God gives spiritual authority to whomever God decides. It varies from context to context, from family to family, and from church to church.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Thanks for the reply.....by RCA leadership, I was referring to “RCA Advocacy Forum on Women in Leadership" and RCA denominational decisions on the roles of women and men in leadership in the last 20 years.
Regarding your statement:
"In a nutshell: God gives spiritual authority to whomever God decides. It varies from context to context, from family to family, and from church to church"
Obviously in marriage, a couple has many significant decisions to make and sometimes they will disagree. Tim, do you counsel couples about to be married, to discern who God has given spiritual authority to so that in their marriage they have a clear idea of spiritual authority in their homes? If so, what happens as spiritual maturity grows in one persons life, equaling or surpassing one who may have perceived that he/she had spiritual authority? I am trying to figure how how to work out this spiritual authority.
Bruce,
The counsel I offer to couples in pre-marrital sessions varies from couple to couple depending on their backgrounds and particular situations. But, in general, I counsel them to take seriously that "the two shall become one." This means that neither of the two are "in charge." Marriage is meant to be a partnership... the scriptures refer to Eve as Adam's "helper" - but the word is a word used throughout the OT in a variety of situations... some of which apply to God! Clearly, then, it does not imply that the individual has some kind of authority "over" them.
I believe any serious disagreement is best dealt with as a couple. In the 10 years of my own marriage, and the 3 years of being parents, and the several years of being foster parents before that, I have never experienced an event where it was appropriate for one of us to "trump" the other. There are some areas where my wife's gifts make her the natural person to defer to.... in some situations it's me. That's a different story.
"Clear authority" is neither necessary nor, do I believe, does it usually play itself out in a healthy way -- usually it's merely a religious facade for either one person taking too much control or the other shirking responsibility (or, often, both).
9 years ago, I was graduating from seminary and my wife had a year left of studies with her Master's program. Some would have said it was "within my rights and responsibilities" both as a man and as minister (almost) to decide that my vocation was more important than hers. That is, of course, fundamentally absurd (vocation is vocation, whether it is as a minister or something else). It didn't come, in the end, to any kind of dramatic disagreement but could have. I hold now, as I did then, that a marriage is a partnership of equals with God as the authority and with God capable of dealing with any marital disagreement. For a husband or wife to weild "trumping" authority creates animosity, inequality, un-partnership and, in the end, is unhelpful and unhealthy.
To be certain, such control is not foreign to many relationships; many husbands and wives have claimed to thrive in such settings. In the end, however, I believe it is a misunderstanding of both the message of creation and the message of salvation.
I'm sure, any moment now, someone will disagree and present a "man as the head of the household" and "males created for spiritual authority" argument for you.... Obviously, although I understand the argument, I completely disagree and would end up giving nothing more than a caricature, so I'll leave it up to them. :-)
Grace and peace,
`tim
Bruce -
I am one of those that Tim is referring to. You need to know that Tim does not represent the whole of the RCA (nor has he claimed to do so). There are many within the RCA who would respectfully disagree with his statement, "But I can tell you this: from a biblical perspective, spiritual authority is not gender based."
From looking at Genesis 1 - 3, I see from a biblical perspective that 1) man and woman are created in God's image to rule the earth for God, 2) that man is created first and is given ultimate authority for the marriage relationship, while woman was placed alongside the man as his "suitable helper, and 3) the fall of humanity entails negative consequences for both man and woman.
Yes, Tim does bring up quite an interesting point regarding the word "helper" (Heb. ezer), however, I think he is missing a critical point. The mere application of the expression "helper" to God in the OT (Ex. 18:4, Ps. 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11, 121:1-2, 146:5) does not obviate the woman's submission to the man in terms being his "helper". Rather, all that these instances prove is that God, as humanity's helper may at times chose to subordinate himself and his interests to those of human beings by caring for them, providing for them, and so on. This does not affect his divinity or his "role as God", however, just as Jesus' divinity was not diminished by his incarnation. Nor is the HS's divinity compromised by his service to and indwelling of flesh-bound humans like you and me.
This one thing that I am sure of: I am sure that this hot button debate will continue on and on. Both sides will claim a more pure or reformed or "biblical" hermeneutic than the other and each side will fling more mud. At some point someone or some group will call the question and expect the other side to concede the battle and "submit" (although I am sure that language will never be used as it would then be an issue of injustice). My prayer for the Church and the RCA is that there is enough mutual respect found in both camps to truly work side by side with each other for the sake of the Gospel. Not sure that will happen within the RCA, but that is my prayer.
Paul
Tim and Paul:
Thats for all your comments and insights.........mutual love and respect plus prayer will go along way on this issue.