Why evangelical complementarians and egalitarians mustn't work together.

[Gordon Cheng]

I thought I might raise this question because it seems a pity that it be held as a foregone conclusion that evangelical complementarians and egalitarians ought to keep working with each other in gospel ministry.

Theologically, evangelical complementarians and egalitarians approach scripture differently. Egalitarians look for ways to avoid the plain application that women ought not to teach or to have authority within a church. Evangelical complementarians see that scriptural teaching ought to be applied, no matter how difficult it makes their personal situations.

Pragmatically, an attempt to work together can't succeed without one group, the other group, or both groups sacrificing their integrity.

That's my take on it, and I thought I would open it up for broader discussion.

[Jereth]

[Jereth]

Gordo mate, you might have better success with this thread if you reworded your second paragraph.

And the title.

Actually, on second thought, maybe just get rid of the second paragraph?

[Gordon Cheng]

The second paragraph, confusing as it is, is the most important one Jereth.

It won't be easy for some to believe, but the intent of it is not offensive and it should be read accordingly.

[Jereth]

Fair enough Gordo, but I think that the previous 3 weeks of intense discussion on this forum has already made it clear that there is a difference in the way the 2 sides approach Scripture. It probably doesn't need to be stated again does it? Particularly when you seem more interested here in the pragmatic question of whether the 2 sides can work together.

I also feel that the question needs to be asked a little more carefully. For example:
- Can comps and egals exist in the same diocese?
- Can comps and egals cooperate across churches?
- Can comps and egals exist together within a single church?
- Can comps and egals work together within the leadership of a single church?

See, there's actually a range of questions and it probably won't be "yes" to all or "no" to all.

The question of whether or not we can co-exist may well be an important one to ask, but I don't think you're getting any potential discussion off to a good start with an OP that many people will read as provocative. My suspicion is that many of our egal brother and sisters will read that 2nd paragraph as an accusation, and be turned off from the discussion rather than feeling encouraged to participate in it.

It's also a bit funny that you say "I thought I might raise this question" when actually the thread title is not a question, but rather an assertion!

anyway, just some thoughts from a forum-weary person...

cheers,
Jereth

[Jereth]

In an attempt to steer this thread in a more productive direction, I will quote an article by Professor Gerald Bray, which gives one perspective on how two "integrities" (as he calls them) might co-exist within a single church.

Whether the current pattern of Anglican episcopacy is theologically justifiable is a complex question, which perhaps ought to be addressed more seriously than it has been before any changes to it are adopted. But as long as we have the system which we have inherited, it is obvious that the bishop functions within it as a focus of unity for the ‘local’ (i.e. diocesan) church, of which he is the recognised head.

One aspect of this form of leadership, often neglected by modern commentators, is that the Clementine episkopos had to be acceptable to the entire congregation. Clement did not mean by this that absolutely everyone had to be content; he certainly had no intention of pandering to cranks or troublemakers, whom he clearly censured. But the elders of the church were expected to choose bishops who could command the general assent and respect of the congregation. In a church which permits two ‘integrities’ over the matter of women’s ordination, it must be obvious that in applying this principle today, bishops must command the respect of both if the unity of the church is to be preserved.

Those who favour women bishops are not opposed to having men, but those who do not will not accept women, which means that if the two integrities are to be held together, only men can be appointed as bishops. To appoint a woman would be to split the church by denying the legitimacy of one of the integrities. The principle that this should be avoided has a precedent in the New Testament, in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3). This was imposed on him by the Apostle Paul, in spite of the latter’s well-known and frequently articulated opposition to circumcision as a theological necessity, in order to make Timothy more acceptable to Jewish Christians, who were the other integrity of their day. Timothy had to be acceptable without question by everyone, which was enough to mandate a practice which the apostle would never have justified on theological grounds.

...

The current debate over the suitability of women bishops is one which finds equally sincere people holding opposing and incompatible views. The minority traditionalist ‘integrity’ knows that it has little chance of persuading the majority,»20 but continues to hope that time will show that it has been right to maintain its stand. Its position is rooted in an understanding of Scripture and tradition which is not eccentric or cantankerous, and may yet succeed in winning over the majority to its views. Certainly there is little sign of its dying out in the course of time, or of its becoming restricted to one group or type of churchmanship.

Traditionalism on this issue is widely spread across the church, and is present among women as well as men. If it is wrong, as those who favour the consecration of women as bishops clearly think it is, it should be allowed to die of its own accord (as Jewish Christianity did) and not be expelled from the church by a majoritarian imposition of a form of leadership which the minority cannot accept. This willingness to wait for a consensus to emerge is known in theological parlance as ‘the process of reception’.

As long as there are two integrities officially recognised in the Church of England, the process of receiving women’s ordination must be regarded as incomplete, and in those circumstances, the consecration of women bishops can do nothing but divide the church still further. The way forward is unclear, but supporters of women bishops should at least understand that unless and until they can persuade the other integrity of the rightness of their own position, the way of charity dictates a willingness to forgo it for the sake of peace in the church as a whole.

The full article is found here: http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/bishops_presbyters_women.html

[Luke Isham]

OK, leaving for a moment the theological dynamics of the debate and focusing on the practical application.

This in a sense relates to broader application about co-existing with other Christians with different theological views.  I don't mean the essentials or the completely peripherals but the tricky middle ground.  The leadership of women in the church is extra tricky given the direct practical applicability of the topic.  Alternative Episcopal oversight begins to address this issue practically. (I heard a professor at Ridley say you have to jump one way or the other on this issue because of it's practical nature.) I'm not sure how it looks in practice, it would be good to hear some ideas.  

I think this breakdown helps Jereth:

- Can comps and egals exist in the same diocese?
- Can comps and egals cooperate across churches?
- Can comps and egals exist together within a single church?
- Can comps and egals work together within the leadership of a single church?

(How would you go with these four questions Gordo?)

[Justin Denholm]

Gordon,

I suspect I'm not the only person to feel a bit insulted by this suggestion. Over the last few weeks, this site has seen a number of godly, committed people trying to take the Bible seriously and determine how we should live in light of it. Some people disagree with you - fine. As someone largely watching from the sidelines, though, I've seen little evidence of people trying to duck the issue or avoid taking the Bible seriously. The people I want working in gospel ministry with me are those people on both sides of this debate who I have seen wrestle faithfully with God's word.

Clearly the pragmatic issue is a furphy, since churches across the world manage to work together in gospel ministry despite having different ideas about women's ministry (and pre-millenialism and sacramentalism and all sort of other things that most of us manage to reconcile with salvation).

I must admit to being a little confused as to why you would want to come into what I have seen as largely healthy and useful Christian debate and try to argue that people should refuse to work together for the gospel. This "question" strikes me as very unhelpful and needlessly divisive.

Justin

[Jereth]

Justin Denholm wrote:

Clearly the pragmatic issue is a furphy,

I wouldn't quite say that. I've interacted with quite a number of complementarian male clergy (and clergy-in-training) who are having a really hard time with their consciences. People say things like "it makes me want to go Presbyterian", heck I've even heard someone say he would consider the Orthodox church!

Laity have a hard time too. Complementarians worshipping in chuches where women preach have to endure a lot of pain and guilt. Egalitarians worshiping in churches which don't allow women to preach have to endure frustration.

Gordon's OP was poorly expressed, but I think he's right that there is a sacrifice of integrity on both sides. It's inevitable because both sides believe their position is morally right and the other is morally wrong.

Jereth