What about women in pastoral ministry?

God can and does use all sorts of people (some very unlikely at face value) to fulfil his purposes, the question perhaps though is 'can and does God call women to Teach or have Authority' to which I'm not sure I've heard a satisfactory answer that confirms YES.  I'm inclined to agree with John Piper’s/Wayne Grudem’s reasoning that [authoritive] leadership is male, and hence since preaching conveys ‘at least a notion that a person is sanctioned to address the church gathered in ways which would not preclude them from leadership/eldership of it' such a task is prohibited to women, notwithstanding that I also infer that the literal interpretation of the relevant verses (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, 1_Cor 11:5 and others) makes the most hermeneutic sense. [I should clarify that I don’t think Paul’s intention was that women are totally silent, given the advice in 1 Cor 11:5]  more on these two themes here.

Now because I have a wife and daughters, I am mindful too of the effect of this position, and mindful too that no-one (especially not anyone who belongs to a body that believes in 'freedom') likes to be told that they *cannot* do something.. but if God does not call women to preach, then what (is it that they are being barred from that) causes them some notion of distress? It would be as ludicrous to me as being distressed that I am barred from giving birth or giving a child suck..  But even if I was certain that God does call women to Teach, why does that seemingly automatically follow that such calling need to be exercised within a pastoral context, and not say, within evangelism, women's ministries, missionary activity...? What drives the need to 'preach to the church' when they are prohibited (at least as far as I am currently concerned) with leading it...? The two things appear incongruous to me unless you also remove the prohibition to leadership which would be a next logical step, [and a step observable within several other denominations as one of the next lines..if preaching then why not leading, if leading then why not eldership?]. Whilst we are to employ logic, we may be on dangerous ground if we attempt to extend scripture on logic alone to suggest that scripture a + scripture b MUST LOGICALLY MEAN scripture c applies to whatever agenda we wish it to affect.

To be wonderfully vulnerable and transparent on this matter, and mindful that I may find few who agree with me, I, personally, would be more comfortable with exclusive male leadership within every serving and leading team within a body, not because of in-capabilities but because the kingdom order of headship appears to be male led within the family, and the church. Let me be clear though I am not a proponent of any form of subjugation of women, nor am I suggesting that they are unequal in respect of status in the kingdom of God. They are no lesser saved nor lessor inheritors...  far from it... but we really must distinguish function and authority from equally saved and equally heirs according to promise. Is Jesus greater than God the Father?  Do they fight among themselves secretly wishing that they can function as the other is doing?  If Jesus understood this key concept of submission, why don’t we?

Do I believe that men are infallible as a virtue of their sex.... far from it and I am (thankfully still living) testimony to that fact! Also I have great sympathy for those ladies who have had such poor examples of male leadership whether in the home or church that they have felt it necessary to step up to lead in the vacuum, but however understandable or mitigating it may be, I believe that practice to be in error and never enables either male or female to reach their full potential in Christ.

That there are some women preachers who are eloquent (and seemingly effective) speakers, does not imply retrospectively that they have been given authority to preach nor infers therefore an understanding of scripture that permits that activity.  Scripture must be a higher authority than our own wants, observations, or social cultural bias surely?  And of course eloquence is not the domain of either sex and I am certain that I have heard enough poor, uninspired, life sucking, sermons to fill many days from men! So it is not 'the sex' of a person that determines this but other factors which are not the subject of this post.

I recognize that this is a sensitive and topical issue for not just women but for men and indeed the [newfrontiers] church.  I welcome opportunities to examine my convictions in light of biblical argument, but I'm cautious of arguments based predominantly around attempting to negate biblical instruction as 'societal/cultural' emphasis....as we seem to have a habit of revising history to fit our uncomfortability with scripture!  In the meantime, I sit where I have outlined and because of the need to guard my heart against every wind of doctrine and a desire to test and approve what God's will is I cannot at this juncture submit myself to the teaching of a woman or to someone who suggests I must.

Ephesians 4:14-16
New Century Version (NCV)
14 Then we will no longer be babies. We will not be tossed about like a ship that the waves carry one way and then another. We will not be influenced by every new teaching we hear from people who are trying to fool us. They make plans and try any kind of trick to fool people into following the wrong path.15 No! Speaking the truth with love, we will grow up in every way into Christ, who is the head.16 The whole body depends on Christ, and all the parts of the body are joined and held together. Each part does its own work to make the whole body grow and be strong with love.

Marriage: Mark Driscoll

I’ve been a bit disappointed with Mark Driscoll's latest series on Marriage. 

Really Good bits:

It would be remiss of me to not mention right at the outset that there is much to be thankful to Mark for in this series: his head on tackling of the need to be friends, the openness about his journey with Grace, the emphasis on working through issues - not working a way out of the relationship, the Q&A sessions at the end of each sermon, having the book in advance to read and work through, and a complementarian view of the husband and wife dynamic within a Calvinist perspective.. not to mention making the sessions free online.

The sessions are set up to be very helpful. The intent is that as the particular component of a marriage relationship is examined corporately, sin is repented of, commitments are made and communion is shared between couples within the corporate meeting.   I suspect that it provides an opportunity to commit semi-publically to change tack whilst still preserving intimacy within a couple. As an example of corporate couples ministry it seems helpful.

Here’s where I find the problem:

In this weeks session – The respectful wife - if I was a woman I’d struggle to have heard any message other than ‘put up and shut up’, and it sounds a lot more like a description of a dominant/submissive set up than mutually submitting to one another as to Christ – which I don’t think he really means to communicate. I’m all for strong men, leading strongly, but we also need to stress that there’s a mutual belonging to each other, not (as Mark seems to espouse) that women are (property and) merely a husband’s ‘helper’.

And why chose ‘respect’ rather than ‘follow his lead’? I can imagine he didn’t want to use submission because its an emotive word and often misunderstood, but respect?  I agree with many of his observations, but it’s not ‘disrespectful’ for a wife not to submit to her husband but sinful! (just as it is sinful for him not to be submissive to her). Mark also suggests that it’s not a wife’s job to ‘love’ her husband, but isn’t submission all about ‘following the way of love’ (Eph 5:1)??  but Mark doesn’t mention this so can’t communicate his helps to women within the context of loving and mutually submitting to each other, and barely mentions that following his lead is first modelled by him as he follows Christ.

I can imagine that as this was one of Grace’s chapters in the book, and given Mark’s character, perhaps this was a big issue for them..  and it’s not that I disagree especially with the points he raised.. but how he presented the session leaves me uncomfortable.   Mark’s usual style of ‘I shout at you cos I love you’, and his presumptions that because (as he seems to see it) the baggage in his relationship with Grace was more from her than him (and ergo his presumption that this is the same for every other marriage) make it difficult to see how his advice to women to respect their husbands can be received open handed.   Often he doesn’t sound very gracious either, and though in the previous session he spoke with Men to realise their responsibilities and deal with their sin, I find myself being more offended by the delivery than the message and having to re-tread the ground later to try to hear the principle behind the smash and grab.

Personally:

I guess what I’m saying is that unlike several of his other series I will be very cautious about who I would recommend this series to, and especially cautious to recommend to anyone whose relationship is in a fragile place.  The writing in the book is a little softer though and perhaps it might be better to read his book and hear the whole discussion in context than attempt to follow in sessions.

Thinking about marriage

There’s always been a bit of a furore about marriage and sex in Christian circles. I wonder is it possible that we confuse our biblical understanding of marriage, betrothal, engagement and responsibility when looking the lens of [western] legal marriage concepts and societal expectation and if so how easy is it for us to separate what we have practiced as the norm from what the bible actually says?

For a whole host of reasons, I’m not offering an answer to that question – this is after all a blog which captures some of my struggles to understand and live right and I wouldn’t want to knowingly or unknowingly [Rob Bell like] lead any reader to conclusions I don’t support - but I share below some of the questions that have challenged my assumptions/perspective…

• Hypothetically: If it could be proved that Jesus had a sexual relationship (with Mary Magdelene ) would that challenge His divinity, or our understanding of sex[ual sin]?
  • If Jesus did ‘kiss Mary on the mouth’ (as suggested in gnostic gospel of Philip), and ‘loved her more than the other disciples’ (as Philip and gospel of Mary Magdelene suggests) does that redefine what we might see as appropriate loving contact ‘prior’ to marriage [if we assume that had Jesus have been married it surely would have been recorded?]
• Might the growing trend towards co-habiting, civil partnership and alternative lifestyle choices in our communities require us to redefine how we speak about marriage so that we are clear about what we communicate is God’s plan? If indeed God has but one blueprint for the way in which each of us should live.
• In cultures where plural marriage is permitted by law would we define God’s understanding of marriage differently? (Does God actually care how many wives/husbands we have (or had?). Is it important that the Trinity is 3 not 2 persons? Do we speak of responsibility to wives rather than singular wife? Do we promote divorce as a method of ‘making right’ something which is ‘wrong’?)
• In cultures where there is no marriage ceremony but where there is an understanding of ‘belonging’ would we define sexual activity within that relationship to be sinful?  If not, how do we respond to co-habiting couples in the West? – ie what exactly are we communicating is biblically sinful? (sex without legal contract? sex without clarity of exclusivity?)
• Is it right to conclude that faithfulness is not about how many wives or concubines a husband might have, but how you care for them? 
  • Is marriage then more about faithful responsibility (provision and offspring) not sexual monogamy?
  • What then is the biblical definition of adultery? Since if one even looks with the eye at another he has committed adultery in his heart (even before a sexual act has taken place!)
• Paul seems to suggest [1 Corinthians 7:32-33] remaining single is preferable to marriage, and that marriage is reserved for ‘if you can’t control yourself’… [1 Cor 7:36] So is God for marriage or against it?
  • For elders and deacons is it essential they are married?…
  • or if they ‘are’ married essential for them to only be married to one woman (presumably at once)?  
  • What then do we make of ‘it is not good for man to be alone?’
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of men available to sire children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, wives and sex subtly change?
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of women available to bear children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, husbands and sex be different than if men were in short supply?

 

What I’m pretty certain of is:

• Marriage is a good thing for lots of reasons. Some biblical, some practical. some personal
• Taking responsibility for each other is serious and important.
• Providing stable environments for child rearing is essential.
• Loving relationship (as an antidote to brokenness) is always on God’s heart.
• How we speak about how people live demonstrates to them what the kingdom of God is like.
• I don’t think Song of Song’s is primarily about God and us,  nor am I certain (from the text) that the sexual activity was exclusively post marriage. [but then I voted for the Alternative Vote so what do I know :) ] .

You may find some answers to the questions above in some of these links: (* determine for yourself their validity to speak on the subject) better still do your own research / ask your elder..

• http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/whats-wrong-with-sex-before-marriage.htm
• http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
• http://www.thelivingwordtbc.com/1cor23.htm
• http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/07/is-john-piper-okay-with-polygamy/

Is Newfrontiers abandoning it’s commitment to Male Leadership?

 

In 2008 Mark Driscoll addressed the Newfrontiers leaders conference and commended our movement for holding to the biblical principle of male Eldership. Following the conference a critique of Newfrontiers position by a methodist minister, Dave Warnock suggested that our understanding of scripture on this matter was incorrect and several of our newfrontiersbloggers attempted to clarify and explain the position.

To answer my principle question, I do not believe at this time that there is any credible suggestion that Newfrontiers is abandoning it’s commitment to male leadership, but in my own recent research looking at the media download sections of several UK Newfrontiers churches it is clear that our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 differs widely enabling nearly 40% of our churches to [occasionally] permit women to teach when the full congregation is assembled.  (Teaching is assumed to be an eldership function, and as such the preserve of men)

Among my research, I found even  Wendy Virgo addressed an assembled congregation in Horsham on Mothers day (though interestingly CCK in Brighton – until very recently the longtime home for Wendy and Terry - is not one of the congregations that has permitted a woman to take to the pulpit on a Sunday) and in the first minute of her talk she taught that  “we don’t usually make a habit of women preaching on Sunday’s but we do feel that at time’s it’s appropriate”.    I found that this statement was somewhat odd. Either, we have a ‘habit’ [Note: not a biblical principle] that prevents women from exercising their gifting to teach, preach and encourage or we believe that preaching and teaching to a congregation that includes men requires authority that is provided by church government which is exclusively male led.

However I don’t want to get into the discussion that would require greater theological mind(s) than mine to probe questions such as: what exactly is teaching, what  is someone doing when they speak from the assumed pulpit on a Sunday, can women speak formally as long as they don’t teach, is the teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 something that is in reference only to her husband, can single women then be free to teach since they have no ‘head’ in the home, can elders delegate their authority to others, can those that have been delegated to set direction and all such other questions… as these are not the subject of this post… .

The nub of my question is, since a number of our congregations draw the line of where women can teach in different places sufficient to allow some to teach the assembled church, and with many church denominations already opening governmental positions to women, does that mean it’s only a matter of time before one of our congregations elevates someone to the leadership team (beyond children’s or women’s ministry) and enables them to have a directive or authoritive role (rather than a complementarian influential one) in church governance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven’t seen the vision and values statements or who haven’t been following Terry Virgo’s series on these statements here’s the relevant ones to this topic.

7. A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed.

8. A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship with trans-local ministries.