Church Voices

I’ve got a secret. Oh yes, a deep dark secret. If I could I would believe that all levels of church leadership are open to women as well as men (a position commonly referred to as egalitarianism), however, when reading the scriptures I just can’t take that position (I subscribe to the view known as complementarianism which in a nutshell means male only eldership). And it seems like every time this issue kicks up the blogosphere the egalitarian arguments rarely actually deal with scripture. This latest dust up with Mark Driscoll really drove the point home. As I trolled the blogosphere for reasoned commentary on both sides of the issue the one thing I didn’t find on the egalitarian side of the aisle was an honest parsing of scripture. Mostly what I found was a lot of outrage, and mis-characterization.

While this post is a bit more militaristic its pretty much in-line with the egalitarian outrage at Driscoll. Check it out:

So, I was in a bit of a tizzy today and was talking with a friend - asking if I’m off base on what I’m going to say here. She responded that once upon a time she heard a woman Pastor make the statement that “gender equality isn’t a theological issue, it’s a justice issue”.

I was a bit surprised to be see this tact taken, after all we’re dealing with the structure and operation of the church. What could possibly be an issue that should be more grounded in theology? Also, does anyone else find it at least a little bit odd that a “justice issue” is placed as a greater priority than a theological one? Unless the term “theological” is being used in a sense other than the study of God it seems that the author is implying that justice exists apart from God, and is greater than God (or at least a greater urgency). Frankly, I’m at a loss to even begin defining actions as just or injust without studying God, so I’m not sure how filing this in the J file does much to advance the egalitarian argument.

As I continue to read it strikes me there’s not just a difference of interpretation of scripture, but completely different sources of authority. While I’m looking for appeals to scriptures (as a way of accessing God) for the basis of how the church operates, the author of this piece doesn’t bother even mentioning scripture (in face, as far as I can tell she simply takes it on faith that her position is correct, no need for discussion, or scripture), and as I continue to read the hermeneutic being employed is so foreign I can’t see how there’s any chance of agreement:

Now, I’m a great proponent of can’t-we-all-get-along theology in the cases of Baptism, liturgy, worship style, etc., the non-essentials, as I see it.

I’m almost at a loss for words here. Calling baptism a non-essential makes me think I’m missing some of the scriptures here (or have extras, what with Acts 2:38, Romans 6, etc). I mean the idea that a reading of the scriptures can lead to a conclusion that baptism is optional, but that female leaders are a requirement is just mind blowing. But again, as I pointed out I rarely see egalitarian views in the blogosphere actually using scripture. Driscoll quotes from 1 Timothy and his detractors largely take it as a statement of faith that he’s wrong.

Honestly, the more I read egalitarian spleen venting, the more I think this comes down to a difference in the way leadership is viewed. Egalitarians seem to view church leadership as an extremely authoritarian, almost master/servant relationship. Check out the comments. Almost right off the bat we get a comparison of complementarian views to black American slavery. Apparently egalitarians believe that those in church leadership are supposed to lead in the same way white masters lead the people they enslaved.

But that’s not how church leadership should be. Check out Luke 22.24-30

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is why I have such a hard time getting all worked up about the “injustice” of male only church leadership, if church leadership is actually the way its meant to be there’s no lording of power over an oppressed class. In fact, it works exactly the opposite way, it means the all-male leadership will be the greatest servants in the church, they will, by definition and necessity, be servants of the disproportionately female congregation.

Flashback to Jesus’ comments in Mark 12 (and Matthew 18). The disciples are arguing about who is the greatest. Jesus’ response is that the greatest in the kingdom of God will be the least. When I read egalitarian outrage about the injustice of it all I don’t see this view towards leadership. What I see is a view that leadership is a highly coveted position, a prestigious call-up to the big show, and sure, with that view I can see why you’d be all pissed off that women would be excluded from eldership. But that’s not the attitude towards leadership any Christian should have, and that’s not the type of leadership that men are called to.