Women in Ministry (WOMEN ONLY THREAD)

[Rachel L]

Hi women of God!

I've noticed that on this forum it's mainly men writing about the issue of women in ministry, and that they have all thought through and decided on a position. It occurs to me that many people are still undecided, or unsure. For women especially, it's a sensitive issue. We need to tread carefully with each other, listening, praying and speaking the truth in love.

I welcome women to contribute to this forum - especially those women who are not yet sure what biblical ministry looks like for women. Thinking and talking it through is important. Let's discuss this apart from the men for a while. (Brothers, please restrain yourselves from contributing to this thread!) It may be that the issues for us are different from those being raised on the other posts.

Perhaps we're still unsure. Perhaps we have more practical questions than theological questions. Perhaps we can't see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps we've not been to theological college and don't get some of the complicated stuff on the other posts. Perhaps we're wondering how to work with others who we disagree with. Perhaps we're hurting.

May God bless our discussions and guide us by His Spirit.
In Christ,
Rachel

[Jenny George]

Thanks for this Rachel - great idea.

I've been contributing (a little) on other threads already so you can see some of what I think there. Happy to interact here as well though.

Jenny

[Rachel L]

Thanks Jenny!

I've been reading what you had to say on the other threads too. But it was all getting a little bit too blokey for me!

R

[Rachel L]

To start things off, I'll give you my story...

I grew up Christian, with a strong view of the authority of the Bible. I never had much problem with the idea of different roles for men and women. I went to Christian Union at uni, was encouraged to think about my faith more deeply, but was still not really challenged on this issue as I felt comfortable with the "Complementarian" position I was taught. I haven't felt a particular call to minister to mixed groups, and was always more interested in ministry to women.

The challenge for me came when several close female friends became convinced of an "Egalitarian" position. More than one have become Church ministers. I love and respect these fellow Christian women. So I decided I was "undecided" on the issue. Looking back, it's interesting that nothing about my Biblical view changed to make me undecided. It was entirely because of my friends.

I was later convicted that I shouldn't sit on the fence, especially not for social reasons! I still can't say I agree with the Egalitarian view. I certainly sympathise with it, but I can't reconcile it with the Bible. The more I've read books and looked into it, I'm still not convinced, which has, I guess, convinced me more of my original view. I've gone back to considering myself Complementarian.

But I'm open to reading what others have to say - I'm willing to be convinced. And to hear people's thoughts in general.

I hope this inspires you to share your thoughts too!
Blessings,
Rachel

[jane churchland]

Thanks for this Rachel I agree that the other threads did seem a bit blokey to me as well (and of course this is an issue for men as well, and they are perfectly entitled to have and express opinions. But I think it is a different order of question for Christian women. So it is nice to have some space to think in.)

I may as well introduce myself as well: I became a Christian as a teenager, and from the very beginning reading the bible was my main Christian input... I didn't find church for some years, and I skipped the whole 'youth group' phase. I still have my first bible, and it has purple highlights through a number of the NT 'women' passages... I found them by myself, and must say that I didn't like them from the word go. Not a very 'cc' (Christianly-correct) attitude, but there you have it. I didn't know at the time that there were 'positions'. I did know that women were not priests in the church historically, but that in some churches they now were starting to be ministers. I thought about becoming a minister then (as a fifteen or so year old, in a fairly abstract way. I was also thinking about being a radio DJ and a little later, a nuclear physicist). I must say that since I actually found a church to belong to and saw what church-leadership ministry actually looked like, it has never actually struck me as something I was 'called' to do (I have some reservations about this terminology), or even that I particularly wanted to do. Although, I do wonder if part of this is because of the fact that I know as a woman I couldn't ever hope to have the thorough going support of all her fellow Christians. On more than one occasion it has been suggested to me that I pursue ordination. Mostly by people who don't believe that scripture allows for women leading churches.

My introduction to the 'politics' of women in ministry was a bit of a rocky one. No need to bore anyone with this. Suffice it to say that I am now well acquainted with much of the rhetoric on both sides. I have read numbers of books on the question, listened to talks, and thought about it at some length. I have male and female friends who I respect on both sides of the question. There are also people on both sides who's tactics I find odious.

Up to this point I honestly can't say I am convinced. I hope that this is not merely a product of me being dishonest, wanting the answer to be one way and finding the strength of the argument another.

I found out this week that the locum appointed to our church (our vicar has just resigned, and this Sunday is his last week) is a woman. This will be the first time that I have belonged to a church led by a woman (even if it is only temporary. But who knows how long it might be for?) I feel a little strange about this. Of course, she may be fantastic (I hope and pray she is), but that's not really the point, is it?

Anyhow, I have to stop now, because my son has just woken up.

[Jenny George]

I think one of the things I find depressing (and I've been surprisingly depressed all week while reading this debate) is when there are arguments made about womanhood - as created - being fundamentally flawed. So there were some arguments being made in other threads that women are inherently deceivable - or so nice that we can get taken for a ride - or something.

That's the argument that says that the 1 Tim passage that alludes to Eve being deceived, not Adam should be interpreted that there's something about womanhood that makes us all susceptible to the Devil in a way that men aren't. Don't you guys just reel when you think that God might have created (i.e. it's not the result of the fall) us all with a design fault?

Now knowing me and Jane (sorry Rachel, I don't know you) I think we're both by way of being suspicious people and more likely to be regarded by colleagues as tough than old softies who'll let any old argument through because we're so gosh-darn-it nice. Now I don't think experience of one or two people is enough to settle an argument, and certainly not if the argument is about what people should do. But when the argument is from creation and so should be evident in "the way the world is", it does seem odd that it doesn't look like the world is to me.

Fortunately I don't think the rest of the Bible supports the argument at all anyway - which is why I think that it just doesn't stand up to sustained analysis. But it really makes me depressed/sad when brothers in Christ make this argument in all seriousness.

[jane churchland]

Jenny George wrote:

But it really makes me depressed/sad when brothers in Christ make this argument in all seriousness.

I can't agree with you more, Jenny. It is also such an unanswerable point. If someone (a man) tells me that women are more susceptible to deception and I try to rebut it, I always feel I can hear them thinking 'well, you would say that, wouldn't you. vested interest + created irrational'.

[Rachel L]

Thanks Jane,

It's great to hear your journey and where you're coming from! Praise God for revealing the Gospel to you, and for sustaining you as a young Christian even without a church to attend!

I agree this is such a hard issue - the Bible texts are very challenging. I've often hoped I'd find a way to be egalitarian - it would be so much easier! I'm very willing to be convinced, which is why I'm keen to read what others say. (Always trying to weigh it against the Bible.) But without that conviction, I'm just going to obey as best I can within the roles the Bible gives women.

I'm not surprised people (even who don't believe in women leading a church) have encouraged you to pursue ordination. There's such a great need for more godly men and women to serve in the church! Thankfully, even those of us who don't feel called to a career in ministry can use the gifts we've been given to build up the body.

Personally I would find it a great challenge if a woman locum were appointed at my church - I hope it won't offend too many people in your congregation.

God bless you,
Rachel

[Jenny George]

There was something said in one of the other threads and I wondered what you all thought about it.

for me Christ's maleness (and sonship, etc.) is integral to the complementarian position.

Just some very, very brief statements for now:
Agreed, God's "Fatherhood" and "Sonhood" are not biological.
But why can't human biology reflect something (non-biological) of God? Aren't we made in His Image?
Agreed, Adam and Christ are human first, and male second.
But Christ is a male human now and forever, and to say that this is just a consequence of 1st century culture is (IMHO) theological suicide. How can an aspect of the person of the eternal perfect Son incarnate be a mere product of "culture", and a sinfully distorted misogynist patriarchalist culture at that? [i.e. Christ became a man rather than a woman for no other reason than that patriarchalist 1st century Jews could have never accepted a woman messiah]

I'm reflecting on this partly because I've been reading a book on Women in the Episcopate, put out by Forward in Faith in the UK (so it's anti on the question). There the maleness of the priest is seen as very important because the priest is taken to be representing Christ when celebrating the eucharist. And of course, Jesus was male. Now I think their theology of the sacraments is a bit screwed up if they think that the gender of the celebrant is that big a deal (Forward in Faith is generally Anglo-Catholic in theology). And actually it all gets a lot wackier than that. I might quote some stuff if I have the time later. But it was interesting to read the argument and then interesting to read the comment quoted above.

If women are made in the image of God just like men then how can there be something about maleness that is more in God's image? Why was Jesus male?

I guess my only quick thoughts here (because I have a lot more thinking to do) are in relation to How can an aspect of the person of the eternal perfect Son incarnate be a mere product of "culture".... I would say that if we truly believe in the incarnation, how could we not expect the person of the eternal Son, when incarnate, to be thoroughly part of the culture. Surely, if it means anything, incarnation means that God immersed himself in the world - culture, society, physicality, emotions, the whole kit and caboodle. I suppose that there were certain foods that Jesus preferred - because to have tastes is to be human. We don't say that Jesus' food preferences necessarily imply something about the person of the eternal Son. We are happy to say that there were plenty of things about Jesus that were merely the product of culture, were part of what incarnation really means. Now that's a trivial example and gender is a much bigger one. But while it is certainly possible that gender has some transcendent characteristics that mirror something in the eternal Son, there is an argument that gender is an aspect of the incarnation that is also just about what it means to be human. I don't think we can start by ruling out that as a possibility, whatever view we come to in the end.

But what do the rest of you think?

Jenny

[Jenny George]

Rachel L wrote:

I've often hoped I'd find a way to be egalitarian - it would be so much easier!

Really? I find being an egalitarian very tiring - especially a "public" one. Witness this forum where essentially there are only three egalitarians writing and having to reply to about 15 complementarians.

Then there's the feeling that I get where I'm always wondering at the back of my mind whether I'm kidding myself into it because it's what I want to believe. In some ways I think being complementarian would be easier because although it would be a pain (and to be consistent I reckon I should probably give up my job etc.) there would be the satisfaction of feeling like I'd covered my backside a bit. You know the feeling? "Maybe I'm wrong but at least I'm wrong at great personal cost so clearly I haven't been acting from selfish motives". There's a certain comfort to that. And often a sneaking sense of self-righteousness at being in a beleagured minority which is misunderstood but faithfully sticking with the unpopular truth.

I suspect that this is very much a female issue/reaction because males have very different sets of struggles, temptations and difficulties with this question.

In the paragraph above I talked about my job. I can't get past the fact that if you read the texts the way most complementarians seem to, you can't separate out the church from the secular world. I mean, if the argument about women in authority is from creation, and if it means something immutable about maleness in relation to femaleness, then surely Christian women should not be in secular authority roles just as much as they shouldn't be in authority roles within the church.

Unfortunately for me, my personality and gifting just cry out to be used to run organisations. It's what I do, it's what I love, it's what I'm good at. I have people reporting to me, both men and women, and I am set in authority over others. Taking responsibility is deep in my bones.

Am I usurping God's plan for the order of creation and the world? Cause I have to say that it doesn't feel like it. There's a gaping chasm between the way the world is at work and the way complementarians would have me understand the world was created to be. I had a friend who tried to maintain a belief in literal 7 day creation while studying geology at university. In the end something had to give because he just couldn't keep the two things in his head at the same time. That's a bit how I feel about this web forum and its discussion in general. On the one hand I have my observation of myself and my colleagues in my workplace. On the other I have arguments on this forum about women's capacities and roles. They are very hard to hold together in my brain.  

Oh dear - very stream of consciousness. It's midnight, please excuse me. Would love to hear your reactions to any of this.

Jenny

[Hannah]

Hi Jenny,

Actually this is something I have been thinking about quite a lot lately - although I haven't really got very far.


There was something said in one of the other threads and I wondered what you all thought about it.

for me Christ's maleness (and sonship, etc.) is integral to the complementarian position.
....

I'm reflecting on this partly because I've been reading a book on Women in the Episcopate, put out by Forward in Faith in the UK (so it's anti on the question). There the maleness of the priest is seen as very important because the priest is taken to be representing Christ when celebrating the eucharist. And of course, Jesus was male.

I think I've seen this argument - or something like it - somewhere on this forum as well.

The question it raises for me is:
If priests have to be male because they represent Christ, does that mean that men can be more like Jesus than women can?
And if so, doesn't that significantly cheapen discipleship for women?  Not to mention, quite possibly undermine Paul's words in Galatians 3:28.
Now, I don't usually like to rush to that passage in the egalitarian/complementarian debate because I think it's more about equality in terms of 'access' to salvation than about removing all distinctions between people (as there is still obviously distinction between male and female).  However, if the complementarian argument implies that men can be like Jesus (represent his role as 'priest' or mediator) in ways that women can't then it does seem to me to be becoming about something quite central to the gospel and no longer just a secondary issue.

Now, I don't know if this is really the implication of that complementarian argument, or whether that is a popular complementarian argument, but I agree that it is deeply troubling.

Might try and answer your actual question a bit later!

- Hannah.

[Hannah]

Sorry,
That was meant to be a response to your previous post.
The quoting thing I tried to do didn't really work.

I'm still not all that adept at this forum thingy.... but I thought I'd start trying.

[Hannah]

Jenny George wrote:

Rachel L wrote:

I've often hoped I'd find a way to be egalitarian - it would be so much easier!

Really? I find being an egalitarian very tiring - especially a "public" one. Witness this forum where essentially there are only three egalitarians writing and having to reply to about 15 complementarians.

Then there's the feeling that I get where I'm always wondering at the back of my mind whether I'm kidding myself into it because it's what I want to believe. In some ways I think being complementarian would be easier because although it would be a pain (and to be consistent I reckon I should probably give up my job etc.) there would be the satisfaction of feeling like I'd covered my backside a bit. You know the feeling? "Maybe I'm wrong but at least I'm wrong at great personal cost so clearly I haven't been acting from selfish motives". There's a certain comfort to that. And often a sneaking sense of self-righteousness at being in a beleagured minority which is misunderstood but faithfully sticking with the unpopular truth.

Mmm.  And at least as a complementarian you can never be labelled a liberal.

But seriously, I agree that being an egalitarian in this climate certainly takes it's toll.  Constantly second guessing yourself (due to constant reminder) lest you are wrong and are unwittingly pursuing a life of disobedience to God.
I find that quite frightening to be honest.  
And though I feel called to ministry and to teaching and preaching, and have been encouraged by the church that God has gifted me for that ministry, and am convinced that the egalitarian position is faithful to scripture - I am at the same time regularly discouraged.
I think that is a very hard position to be in.

- Hannah.

[Rachel L]

Hi Jenny and Jane (and Hannah!),

Jenny wrote:

"I think one of the things I find depressing (and I've been surprisingly depressed all week while reading this debate) is when there are arguments made about womanhood - as created - being fundamentally flawed."

I agree, it's a very depressing view. We're all subject to our faults, both men and women, and it's dangerous to generalise about which things will tempt or trap women (or men).

I laughed at Jenny's *gag* at the mention of the book Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus in one of the other posts. Personally, I related to a lot of stuff in that book, but wouldn't want to use it as the basis of a theological argument! I think the historical stuff Matt posted (eg. stuff written at times when women weren't well educated) shows how easy it is to generalise based on what we see around us, instead of getting our ideas from the Scriptures. This can be particularly hurtful for people who don't fit the mould!

However, I still find it's important to take heed of both the warnings and exhortations given to women in the Bible as I've noticed myself lacking in some of these areas (that's not to say men wouldn't sin in these ways too). If these were problems pertaining to women back then, it's likely they could still be particular problems for women today. Sins like gossip, idleness, etc. And encouragements to be reverent, love and submit to our husbands, etc. So the fact that men and women are sometimes addressed specifically does seem to show we might be susceptible to different sins. But surely not that women are more susceptible in general?! There's some stuff men talk about struggling with that I've honestly never found a problem. So surely we're just different!

I suspect that Eve was blaming the serpent for deceiving her (Genesis 3:13) even though she knew she was doing the wrong thing. Therefore, it was more that she knowingly sinned, then tried to pass the buck, than was innocently deceived because she was a woman! (I don't know, maybe she really was convinced by the snake - it doesn't really say one way or the other - I could be reading too much into it. Maybe she was deceived (after all, it does use that word in 1 Tim 2) and that's why Adam is blamed for committing the first sin?)

I do see general differences between men and women, in the ways they think and reason, the ways they explain themselves. But I think these are complementary differences, and both are in the image of God. I think the idea that women were created flawed is repugnant! (And it doesn't seem to say that in the text.) Our brothers probably need to be careful if they're assuming their "male" way of reasoning and avoiding deception is the best!

Having said all that, for me, obeying 1 Timothy 2:12 (this verse seems to be the one everyone's majoring on!) doesn't hinge on understanding verse 13, or 14, or anything else. There are lots of bits of the Bible I don't understand completely, and I'm ok with that. I just (try to) obey it because it's God's word, and seems to me to be a general principle for the church because of 3:14-15.

I sincerely hope you won't continue to be depressed about this "fundamentally flawed" nonsense - I don't think it can be substantiated from the Bible, so please don't worry about it! I notice that even when people are trying to explain the Bible as faithfully as they can, they often add stuff to it. Sometimes they add a really wise application that's relevant to the church - maybe the Spirit leads them in this! But other times they add something that doesn't help us. Praise God we can look at the word for ourselves and receive comfort from the Spirit in these times.

Blessings,
Rachel

P.S. I know you'll be patient with my slow responses - as you would appreciate, I have some semblance of a life outside this forum :)

[Hannah]

Jenny George wrote:

If women are made in the image of God just like men then how can there be something about maleness that is more in God's image? Why was Jesus male?

I guess my only quick thoughts here (because I have a lot more thinking to do) are in relation to How can an aspect of the person of the eternal perfect Son incarnate be a mere product of "culture".... I would say that if we truly believe in the incarnation, how could we not expect the person of the eternal Son, when incarnate, to be thoroughly part of the culture. Surely, if it means anything, incarnation means that God immersed himself in the world - culture, society, physicality, emotions, the whole kit and caboodle. I suppose that there were certain foods that Jesus preferred - because to have tastes is to be human. We don't say that Jesus' food preferences necessarily imply something about the person of the eternal Son. We are happy to say that there were plenty of things about Jesus that were merely the product of culture, were part of what incarnation really means. Now that's a trivial example and gender is a much bigger one. But while it is certainly possible that gender has some transcendent characteristics that mirror something in the eternal Son, there is an argument that gender is an aspect of the incarnation that is also just about what it means to be human. I don't think we can start by ruling out that as a possibility, whatever view we come to in the end.

But what do the rest of you think?

Jenny

Hi Jenny,

I think you're certainly right that we can't rule that out as a possibility.

I think that the suggestion that there is something about maleness that is more in the image of God than femaleness is a very troubling one indeed.  It seems to imply either that God is male (or at least more male than female), or surely makes men and women unequal?

What can we conclude from the fact that Jesus was a male?
Surely the key factor in the incarnation is Jesus' humanity not his maleness.  Christ in his humanity represents both men and women - thus both can be saved through him - just as the sin of Adam affects both men and women.

God is Father and Son, but not male.
Male and Female are a part of humanity, human fathers and sons are male - but the maleness comes surely from their humanity not from the image of God that they represent.
Or, once again, we make women a lesser image of God.
Human fathers and sons are a way by which we understand something of what God is like but they neither perfectly reflect him, nor adequately describe him.

Still don't know if that really answers the question....

- H.

[AmyI]

Hello women,


I am very intersted in everyone's perspective here.  I think we are all coming to the bible and to church with a deep desire to serve and to do God's will, using our different gifts and abilities.  I think we are all aware that there are risks in revealing our different positions.

Jane talked about the possibility of being labelled a "liberal" by choosing to identify herself as an egalitarian, Jenny mentioned she thought it might be easier to be a complementarian ( despite the possibility of taking it to a full expression and completely changing her job!) and Rachel said she thought it would be easier to be an egalitarian.  So, in a sense, we all feel like our position on the issue exposes us to disapproval or difficulty.


This is my abridged story....

I grew up in a non-christian home with a strong, gentle father and a fairly dominant but loving mother.  I have always respected my father and liked the idea of being "looked after" by a man but am by nature pretty outspoken and have some feminist tendencies.

When I became a christian, part of my journey was grappling with the issue of how women are to serve in church.  I remember teaching my youth group about the scriptures, what they said and inviting them to try and figure out how to serve without choosing to take leadership and responsibility for an entire church.  They were all presbyterians so they were very comfortable and embraced an opportunity to figure out creative ways to serve.  I did NOT encourage wallflower behaviour though!! I encouraged criticial thinking and didn't give a sewn up perspective on the issue either.

Later I met my curent husband, who was an egalitarian at the time, mainly due to a loving backlash against the abuse of the scriptures he had seen- women had been misused and undervalued by men who had clumsily enforced the scriptures and he was ( and still is) a deeply self-sacrificial and gentle person.  

We read all these scriptures together and he became convinced of a complementarian position ( to my delight).  Learning "submission" looks different for every couple and I think we are both happy with the way I "submit" and he "leads".  I don't think we impose onerous responsiblity on each other in this. Our relationship keeps growing stronger and I like the way our different roles work in this. But I am not sayng that this interplay is essential for a happy marriage...

It is interesting to see where I have come to, I obey the scriptures simply because I believe they are right, it doesn't necessarily suit my 'personality'. I like to talk and am comfortable talking in front of large crowds ( as long as I have prepared obsessivley!).  I have chosen only to give women's talks but have been told I have a speaking "gift".  While I have definately changed since embracing the whole "equal but different" idea, I don't think I have changed any more than the other ways that obeying Christ changes me... If that makes sense. I think I have become calmer and gentler - but I don't think that is indicative of an egalitarian or complementarian view ( although it certainly makes it easier to trust and obey my husband as a calmer person!)

As Jenny, Jane and Rachel have expressed - I also have felt frightened to speak up for my position.  I came from a church where most people held my position, but had engaged in many debates about the issue with others from different perspectives.  Moving to melbourne has been frightening as I found myself surrounded by more people who held the egalitarian position than the complementarian one.  As I understand how deeply it strikes at the heart of womens sense of self ( and also there my be other emotional issues in play)- I have been reluctant to "push my barrow". The last thing I would want to do would be to hurt others!

Thanks you for how gently you have expressed your beliefs.  I really appreciate it as I have felt crushed and hurt by some people expressing their views strongly.  I hope I haven't inadvertantly offended anyone with my statements.

Thanks,

Amy