Those damn women
I had been up for over an hour this morning before it registered with me that it is International Womens’ Day, but some people are not so lax, and I had an email from commenter Alan in my inbox by the time that I got to work. I am sure that Alan wouldn’t mind me quoting a couple of excerpts:
Well, there’s a most peculiar development going on in the churches at the moment.Archbishops and ethics lecturers are mounting a new campaign to get men into church.The argument runs like this:men hate the church(that of course will be news to women who look around and find its men who run the place),for five reasons:
*church meeting styles are feminine
*church leadership model is weak
*church is boring and safe:no risk
*church doesn’t relate to a man’s world
*blokes like to get their hands dirty
(”Five reasons why men hate the church”,Jeremy Halcrow,29.1.07 Syd Anglican website)
But maybe there’s another reason.
Perhaps men look around the church and don’t like the way other men are treating women.Maybe there’s too many men now comfortably and easily working with, working for,being directed by,in partnership with, women, that they are uneasy about the kind of blokey culture about in too many of our churches, and dont want to be a part of it!
I don’t know whether I agree with the latter commentary, but I find that there is a real paradox about the church/gender debate. First it seems clear that there are many more men in formal leadership in churches than women. If anything this is even more true of church plants and alternative model churches. As much as I embrace the “emerging” discussion, the movement does seem to have a more than usual affliction with the “angry young man” syndrome. No offence intended to any angry young men in the audience.
However, at the same time, there is a concern about the fact that men as a demographic are under-represented among church attenders. The NCLS says that only about 39% of church attenders in Australia are male and suggests a number of theories as to why. Part of this imbalance is almost certainly due to the fact that the elderly are over-represented in churches and women on average live longer than men. But what of the rest of the difference?
Increasingly, as Alan has pointed out, I have heard people discuss the idea that men are less likely to be involved with the church because church culture is somehow uncomfortable or anti-male. These are the arguments for people who endorse or at least condone a “bloke”inisation of leadership and culture in the church to “correct the balance”. I find these positions to raise some logical conflicts. I think we can point to the following facts that seem to be fairly well established.
- More women than men are regular church attenders
- More men than women are in formal leadership in the church
Which raises a whole bunch of questions. If the culture of the church is anti-church, then who creates the culture? If the leaders create the culture, then why are a group of predominantly male leaders creating such a “feminine” culture so as to be anathema to men? What about the culture of the church is feminine? The worship? The openness? The confessional? The singing? What?
In response to that, if the culture of the church is too female, then what changes will make the place more attractive to men? Surely most men are more sophisiticated than to respond to an increase on the ‘bloke’iness dial? So I have a couple of simple questions I would like an answer to, and I think that the commenters at signposts on this day are well qualified to give me those answers:
- Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
- What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
- Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
- What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I’ll have a go - no rocket science here unfortunately, but i agree that the current demographic is symptomatic of a broader problem:
“Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?” - because of the idea that women aren’t allowed to ‘teach men’ within a church, and men love commitees etc, because of the high level of structure. Also, men love to lead, but often don’t get to in their workplace because (simply) they’re not good enough. A church will let them simply because they are men, and they are keen.
“What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?” Let them.
“Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?” I personally think that (usually) women are (generally) better at vulnerability and humility, and able to resign themselves to the fact that they ‘can’t make it alone’.
“What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?” Get the men who are currently there to build into genuine relationships with fellas for a start. Who knows what might follow!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I reckon this is a scream - it’s on my wall, but where the more conservative types won’t see it 1st up!
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
(Maggi Dawn, an Anglican minister in the UK)
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
1. Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
I’m not sure - I constantly find myself in meetings where I’m not only one of the few women, but I’m one of the only people under 30…in fact I’m usually the ONLY one under 30! This discussion has occurred elsewhere on Signposts, but I suspect it could have something to do with the fact that men tend to be drawn to argumentative styles of engagement, decision-making, rules etc, while women are more contextual and like the ‘caring, sharing’ stuff. These are huge over-generalisations of course, but I think it’s part of it.
These factors are difficult to change…there are some that are more immediate and could be more easily changed (well, depending on your theological perspective I guess). The idea that the Bible sanctions gender norms about decision making is still widespread in the church. In some, women CAN’T be a part of formal decision making. Speaking as someone who’s in a denomination in which women can be ministers, I’ve come up against plenty of unspoken stereotypes about young people and/or women.
2. What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
Challenge stereotypes about leadership? Ie why is being on a church council considered “leadership” while making the morning coffees isn’t? Why does the church, like every other aspect of society, undervalue emotion, story-telling, and context in decision-making? When the whole goal of the church is to become more in tune with a Creator, why do we place so much emphasis on rational decision-making? (Don’t want to take this one toooooo far, especially re: finances, but it’s interesting to think about!)
3. Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
This is true of “the West”, but I’m not so sure about elsewhere. I think that part of the explanation lies in modernity…religion is perceived as irrational, and - again as a huge generalisation - men tend to value rationality even more than women do. It’s ok for women to be “emotional”, men are supposed to be entirely “rational”, “reasonable” and “objective”.
Maybe it’s also dominant worship style? While I know lots of men who like pentecostal worship, I also know plenty who hate it because it’s “too emotional”. Also, singing songs and lighting candles probably isn’t seen as a particularly “blokey” thing to do. Then again, I’ve known plenty of young men who enjoyed getting to stand on stage in the worship team and do the Christian Rock God thang…
4. What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
I’m going to have a think about this one…
March 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Complex questions… here’s some quick thoughts.
Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
Lack of role models for younger women. Lack of female mentors for such women. Some men in leadership fail to recognise (hence develop and encourage) what an emerging leader “looks like” if they’re a woman, or have deep biases they’ve never challenged (”no point encouraging them into the ministry, they’ll just go and have babies”). Subtle cultural barriers… women aren’t listened to in the same way men are… this is one of the factors creating a “glass ceiling”. I think young women can be prone to certain forms of self-doubt that block them stepping into up front leadership (boys won’t like me if I’m loud) (I’m self conscious about my big thighs) In some churches there are very upfront theological barriers to women in leadership.
What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
Intentional mentoring. Developing flexible training opportunities. Teaching on the leadership of women in the early church and explaining the context of the “difficult” passages about women in leadership.
Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
I think many women are more in touch with their intuitive / spiritual / emotional side than men in the Western world.
What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
“church attendance” is a totally passive thing and may well be a fair bit of the problem… testosterone is not a passive hormone. “What can be done to help more males become fully engaged disciples of Jesus Christ?” is a better question… and I think it will look a lot more like mission projects and community service in a discipleship context than singing songs and listening to hymns for an hour or two.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
It’s them right wing born again evangelical fundies who interpret the Bible literally and claim to speak for God by emphasizing on selective verses where women should be subservient to men.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I agree with you Janet. Men predominantly learn by doing. That’s why if they are involved in a church, they tend to gravitate towards the doing aspects of the life of the church, which includes leadership. Women tend to be better generally at being (which men need to learn too).
While churches predominantly maintain passivity, men will continue to be less prominant. Just my 2 cents worth….
March 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
When guys in the ch tell me they despair of ever finding someone to marry, I give them the stats, and tell them they’re on a good wicket
One of the reasons NCLS gave was that more men are in full-time work, which reduces their time for participation in church, and also reduces their felt need to connect with other people, since they do that at work. They noted that FT-working women have the same low rates of ch attendance as men.
Current missional ch thinking is that typical churches appeal to a small slice of the population, and I guess that slice has more women in it.
No doubt NCLS will be quick to note which churches have the highest male %.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I have been blogging about this one too - interesting thought about the impact of full time work on male involvement (and women too where that applies). I hadn’t thought of that. Janet, I agree with the need for more mentors. I also think that there needs to be more role models. It is hard to imagine doing something that a: seems to go against the flow of some church teaching, and b: has little precedent. In the latter the traditional church leads the way. In my own context I have found that modelling and raising the issues for discussion with young women to be helpful, backed up with creating opportunity for action on their part. I honestly think that the gender imbalance thing (more males than females on Sunday) is more reflective of the gap between culture and expressions of church than a gender issue. I wonder if the gender difference is similarly reflected in more missional expressions of church.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Interesting. I often pause midway through a chorus and think to myself “this language is awfully…well…girly”. But the paradox is right there in front of us. If the church culture is too “girly”, it is the “blokes” in leadership that over the years have cultivated such a culture. Not sure why this is so…
March 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Maybe it’s because in a passive environment it is easier to control things, and so fostering a passive environment is what church leadership have done over the years (both on purpose or inadvertantly), which has had a consequence of turning away guys……
March 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Another interesting quote from Alan’s email (he has a wide circulation list) is as follows:
*Croucher in a sermon on women and ministry, says that the main reason why there are not more women in leadership positions is psychological. “The little boy in us men cant cope with strong women:we left home to get away from maternal authority. Indeed many men seem to have a near pathological fear of losing power to a women. Few men have women mentors. They usually don’t read books by women. Men usually define themselves in terms of job success:women in terms of relationships…”
What do you think guys? Or is that from another era?
March 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“this language is awfully…well…girly”. - I guess that the majority of current music writers (male & female, and there are certainly more female than there used to be!) are, at least ‘artistic’, which often brings a more femanine (not female) voice to what is produced.
Those who lead musical worship (male & female) from a performance (for the Lord?) background, are again artistic in their temperment, so they’re pretty happy with their eyes closed, arms extended, whispering sweet nothings as tho no-one else was there, which, admittedly, can look a bit ‘girly’.
Now - the thing is, that this is what I tend to do. What works in my favour is that I don’t look at all ‘girly’ (not even with your eyes closed!) However, I am often aware that when builders, labourers and farmers are in the service, especially if they are new to the church culture, they must wonder what on earth is going on!!
Whilst I appreciate this style of worship in it’s place, I’m looking more and more for alternate forms of congregational worship (as opposed to individual worship) that might be a little more robust, and probably non-musical. I’m looking forward to the roof tiler coming up to me after church, telling me that he either pulled a hamstring or cracked a rib in worship - hard core!!
Janet - intersting thoughts by Croucher. I think there is still too much a bias or tendancy for women to have to be strong, kick-but, CEO types to lead a larger church group. Men may have caused the problem (may have?) but women (generally) are a fair way off the mark in these institutions from leading from a genuinely femanine perspective.
Perhaps a little too much ‘monkey see/monkey do?’
March 12th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The other question Dan,is why do men dominate and why do they get away with it.
Why in our church, can men organise governance structures(boards/committees) with 99% of members,men? Why do state conference organisations appoint only men? Next week our churches are organising another cutting edge conference with all featured speakers-men? And they are organising a national youth conference later in the year,of the 18 speakers,all except 2 are men?
Why do they do this,my guess is they do it ,because they can.
You suggest that the male leadership of the emerging church is afflicted with the “angry young man syndrome”.I wonder. I dont sense much anger. Its more along the following:young man based in a congregation,or starts a new organisation;then organises lots of conferences where he and his mates are speakers;writes books;throws in some pop sociology(”there are 350 subgroups in society which need evangelising”),mix it with some pop history(”pioneering forms of leadership….are associated with masculine energies”);promotes books by organising conferences or attending conferences organised by colleagues;brings in overseas male speaker for conference and he in turn returns the favour and he goes overseas. It seems more to do with entrepreneurship and marketing.The angry young men of the 60s in the churches were angry not so much with the church or their navels,but with poverty,governments which were screwing housing commission tenants,companies and bosses exploiting migrant workers; institutions which were oppressing women workers,and issues of war and peace.
Why do women let men get away with it,not sure.Perhaps they see little boys preoccupied with little games and opt out and become engaged in bigger pictures and dreams.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I think part of the issue is that women in ministry don’t have wives. I was speaking with a woman in ministry yesterday, who said her male collegues looked at her incredulously when she said she needed a day off to do all the washing and ironing (”you mean… that doesn’t happen all by itself?… oh…)
When women do the bulk of the domestic chores and child rearing (which is statistically, though not universally true) they are not able to clock up the same amount of formal study and formal ministry experience that men do. Unless they’re single women… but single people can sometimes be viewed a bit suspiciously in the “Family Church” evangelical world.
I know some people are really concerned about inclusive language. Although I think we should be sensitive to this, for me the pragmatic stuff (who will raise the children, who will do the dishes?) is probably of greater significance for women with a call to ministry. Even in the 21st C I don’t think men agonise over this stuff to the extent women do.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Folks
I check this site sometimes and this is a hobbyhorse - I am actually fairly recently reconstructed (despite being old), but my views are at face value not PC.
I believe the question(s) posed by the above is a reflection of humanity’s ongoing battle with God to re-write the gender roles that HE ascribed and built into to us. If you think that’s crap, think of the Trinity - do u read anything in Scripture ever about Jesus whinging that His Father won’t let run the show? No - but u read that about Lucifer, and that’s the seed that he planted with Adam and Eve - God is holding back on you. What then happened is that Adam abrogated his leadership role and let Eve run the show, and then try and blame her when God called him to account - he was right there and he said NOTHING!!! Been the same way ever since - despite appearances - with the following dominant themes:
Abrogation - enforced by our reliance on structures and constant fighting about which is the “right way” to do things which diminishes active moment by moment reliance and active listening to/on God - sow your seed as far and wide as possible but don’t be a real father if you admit anything at all!
Subjugation and blame - because either women will bewitch us, or get us in trouble - it was a women (the devil) that made me do it - I didn’t get that thing out of my pants of my own volition - she did it (I wish)!
Battle for supremacy and “Bosship” - Men with huge balls thru the centuries, and today women with even bigger ones who can do everything - both of whom are desperate to run the show, and have others do their bidding.
Where should we be?
Potted summary - men have been given stewardship and primary responsibility to God for world, family and church - the role of women to help men cut the mustard both in terms of actually doing the job, but also helping their men to be men - I believe the Bible does give us some plain cues, but I’m still trying to work out what that really means - where’s the black and white when u need it? Might mean we have to think it thru daily - that can’t be right - can it??
Why do you think Paul says men love your wives, and women RESPECT your husbands (If a woman doesn’t respect her love will be a shadow of what it could be - men the message is here are you worthy of that respect)?
There is a message there in terms of God’s design and purpose. The Trinity has allocated roles, responsibilities and functions and there is no grasping. What makes you think in typical current generation fashion that preceding generations have got it wrong and we know better? What arrogance and hubris!
If we believe God to be one of sublime purpose, intent, design in breadth, depth and detail - micro and macro - why wouldn’t be taking our cues from what is in Scripture - both the obvious and not so obvious (no-one bother misquoting Gal 3:28 please).
I think the real question is what would church, marital relationships, family and society in general look like if it followed God’s paradigm for gender? What would leadership in that paradign look like - and it sure as hell wouldn’t be anything a lot of the destructive rubbish we suffer thru
today - and we wouldn’t be the most fatherless generation since Adam was a boy! Men would be men - sacrificially a la Christ - they might even eat quiche, and women would be real women - both strong and feminine.
To give you my answers to the questions which prompted this discussion?
1. Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
It might just be that the gender structures God wanted haven’t been totally corrupted yet - not saying that there isn’t a lot there for reasons associated with this discussion and many, many others. Unfortunately it may be that on strict merit grounds you would expect it to be the other way around sometimes - but then - when did God ever treat us on our merits??
2. What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
Why - for what possible Godly purpose apart from addressing a gender imbalance that only we seem to be able to see - someone should tell God He’s gotta fix this.
3. Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
Women come because they realise there is something more than their deaf, dumb, and wilfully blind husbands and they want that. - they would really like to share that with their husbands (don’t get cute), but they’re too stupid and proud. Because men becoming Christians would mean they would become responsible and accountable to God and that is the last thing we want - we might have to do something then!! Or even worse, do nothing but listen for a while! Also men don’t understood the manhood that Christ expressed and portrayed - the sheer perseverance, strength, smarts, and sensitivity - what woman wouldn’t want a man like that? And really would we men want to be like that - or does that thought make you wanna run to a galaxy far, far away?
4. What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
Preach the Gospel so the Spirit can do his thing - then they would come - no Gospel - no come. Women - challenge your men to be men both subtley and boldly - that is not an excuse to nag - challenge his thinking!
Cheers
MN
March 12th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
And heart - if he can still remember where to find it - now there is a challenge!
Cheers
MN
March 13th, 2007 at 11:22 am
After a couple of thousand years (BC) of men hammering women into the ground, Jesus and the apostles did a pretty amazing job of convincing women that they were ok. They even convinced a few of the men that women were good for more than the roles they had previously been prescribed.
Then, we got busy smashing the idea of ‘worthy women’ again for a couple of thousand years. They couldn’t vote, couldn’t work, couldn’t do much except basic domestic chores.
I (for one) am not trying to get a better gender balance in churches because it’s all pc etc; I’m trying to remind men AND women of the facts that God has called some of each gender to be leaders, prophets, teachers, administrators, evangelists etc.
It’s God’s way MN - and yes! It’s a biblical thing.
Some of the points you make about men being the men they should be etc yada yada are extremely valid and purposeful, but they don’t alter the fact that men (for a long time) have led out of their ‘human’ man-ness, not out of the ‘Christ-man-ness’ (I can’t believe I just typed that!) that we are called to.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hi MN.
Abrogation - Subjugation and blame -Battle for supremacy… I agree these are all problems. I also appreciate the need for listening to God and flexibility suggested in your post.
Where I’d want to tease out your argument more is here: “men have been given stewardship and primary responsibility to God for world, family and church - the role of women to help men cut the mustard both in terms of actually doing the job, but also helping their men to be men.”
I don’t feel that the claim that authority is given to men is supported by the Genesis 1 account, in which authority over every living creature is given to THEM: mankind, male and female.
Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
In others words… both male and female have God-given stewardship and responsibility for the world.
I think a biblical argument can be mounted for wives submitting to husbands (this can be debated, but is worth discussing separately)… but it is a huge extrapolation to say therefore the job of all women is to cheer on men in leadership and to always take on a subservient role. I do not believe Paul’s comments about headship in marriage can be taken to believe no women can be involved in spiritual leadership in the church. That to me is a massive (and unsupportable) leap. I’d be interested in your biblical arguments in favour of this, but I can’t see them myself. This invalidates the leadership of Deborah, of Abigail, of Esther, of Priscilla, of Junias, of Phoebe, of Lydia and others, and suggests all the extra biblical evidence for women in leadership of the early church was an error later corrected by an increasingly heirachical church.
I’m really cautious about stereotyping of any kind… my ministry experience tells me that which is life-giving, that which gives joy, that which someone finds really fulfilling, that which they are led to do through prayer, that which is fruitful in the lives of others, is the thing they are probably called by God to do.
Some women do love cooking, practicing hospitality, raising children, supporting their husbands in ministry… I’m not convinced that a “feminist-leftie-Nazi” should tell them they are wrong, and that they should be trying to find their own fulfillment in their own ministry or career? What if a nurturing role is what they are called to do? What if they love it?
The problem is (I think) that some men married to such nurturing women… and some women who are wired like this… start to think: “The way a woman can feel REALLY fulfilled is through a nurturing role… (and then take the next step)… if they don’t do this they are stepping outside of God’s design.” But other women get all “lit up inside” by working with the poor, or by preaching, or by doing evangelism, or by training leaders, or by missionary work, or by a professional career for which they are particularly gifted, or by doing art, or by working with youth… God is endlessly creative, God has made us all differently, and treats us all differently.
If someone were to tell the brilliant Dan McCreddan that she is only allowed to cook, clean, breed and cheer on the menfolk of the church, and that God will be most upset with her if she does anything else, I don’t think this would be particularly life-giving for her. (I don’t mean that in a selfish sense, I mean that in a sense of God-given call). I think the church would also be impoverished for this. Surely Christ has called us to freedom.
Anyway, happy to engage in a theological discussion, but it will probably be tainted by my reflections on ministry.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
To Toddy
Can’t disagree with your comments about leading from human-ness - you should become an author since you’ve invented a new term.
My query and challenge is what does Godly leadership in a Christian setting (not secular) look like? Is possible to allocate ANY roles, functions etc on gender lines? The thrust of the last 100 years or more has been to discredit and destroy such notions. What’s the biblical basis for or against, without falling into the trap of moving in with the Philistines?
Also my feeling is that this argument/discussion always seems to get caught up in redressing wrongs of past generations. I absolutely made no comments above about talents and giftings or about perpetuating a society or church structure which does not allow women to use what God gave them. Role is a totally separate issue - the query is to what extent do they impact on or place limits around each other? What is God’s design here?
And so to Janet’s comments….
Re your remarks about Genesis - yes men and women jointly have stewardship - the two became “one flesh” - a statement which I think is about more than sex. But in terms of leadership and responsibility who did God hold primarily accountable for the “Eden” incident? Who did He call out to? Who was asked if the fruit had been eaten? Not the one who led the charge - but rather the one who God primarily held responsible! Is this pattern replicated throughout Scripture? Is it evident in different ways?
Am I suggesting women are simply a “cheer squad”? Absolutely not. This role is much stronger, tougher and harder edged than that. Also I didn’t say anything about denying spiritual leadership roles within the church. However clearly I have a question about the framework within which that would be exercised. Most of the debate seems to end up reducing to an issue about numbers which is humanist crap.
Re your comments about not being able to extrapolate from Paul’s comments about marriage to leadership - that’s just it - I think there is a consistency in God’s approach. With God we have wild diversity and very subtle consistency - wheels within wheels which bear similarities to other aspects of creation. I would suggest that since God is fundamentally relational that that order is embedded throughout all the different types of relationship - between the Trinity, between Jesus and the church, between husband and wife, between male and female, parents and children etc
Nothing I’ve said invalidates the leadership displayed by the women you’ve listed . However to pick a couple of examples - in Deborah’s case - Barak didn’t take up the leadership role he was supposed and as a consequence was told that a woman would get the glory. Abigail (the 1 Sam.25) was making up for the stupidity of her husband. Re Priscilla and Lydia - what was the context within which the lead? Does that say anything about this issue?
My real question in all of this again is what is God’s intended and preferred basis of leadership? Are there gender specific roles in general? What cues are there in Scripture? Does the broad experience of life gibe with or work against this?
I’m not trying to diminish or take away from your ministry. Surely Christ has called us to freedom indeed - but are there God given constraints around which that freedom should be exercised?
Cheers
MN
March 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
A question my significant other just put - is there a difference between headship and leadership? How does that play out? To a degree I’m woosing out by posing questions instead of nailing the colours to the mast - but you can see that anyway.
have a good one
MN
March 14th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I think that this is an interesting discussion. Thanks for your contribution MN.
I sometimes wonder whether God had anything at all to say about leadership on gender lines. I know that Paul talks about people in relationship with each other, but when we see in scripture an example of women in leadership, does that mean that person is intended as a blueprint or archetype for all women in leadership? We have many different examples of men in leadership in the bible, but we are realistic enough to understand that god doesn’t expect all men in leadership to be Paul, Peter, Moses, Joshua, Noah and Barnabus (even though they might learn from all of those models).
Yet when we see stories about women, we sometimes presume that God intends those stories as lessons for women as women. Is the story of Mary and Martha a cautionary tale for women only, or is it directed at all of us?
March 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hello again!
I can’t agree that Deborah only exercised spiritual leadership because Barak wouldn’t:
Judges 4 “Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.”
Deborah was the judge of Israel… the leading spiritual authority of the nation… prior to the command to go to war. She had no desire to act as the general of the army (she was not interested in grasping for power)… she simply spoke the word of the Lord to Barak, who was unwilling to go at the command of the Lord without Deborah tagging along.
“There is a consistency in God’s approach”
Mmm… I’d question this… so much of the bible needs to be read in a cultural context and a particular time. Paul commands slaves to obey their masters. Do we extrapolate this to mean that slavery is part of the divine order, because God is consistent? Or do we understand that the epistles addressed a very specific context, but the principles of that spooky passage (Galatians 3:28) are closer to the universal kingdom principles?
“My real question in all of this again is what is God’s intended and preferred basis of leadership?…. are there God given constraints around which that freedom should be exercised?”
Loads of constraints… submission to Christ, servanthood, submission to other believers, giftedness from the Holy Spirit, God’s call, tests of character (temperance, hospitality, prayer etc.) Like Dan, I don’t see in the scripture much suggesting any of the constraints are along gender lines.
As you say, you haven’t really declared your hand… so here’s a “test case” scenario for you. Where Dan’s and my ministry paths have intersected as when she was the chair of the Churches of Christ Conference Board… the leadership body of Churches of Christ Vic/Tas (for whom I work). She was chair of the Board over a period of major review and structural change, where her leadership, sharp intellect and legal expertise were invaluable.
So… should she have done this? Was God OK with this… or should she have taken a subservient role on the Board?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Now I have a bit more time… I’ll pick up your comments on the Adam and Eve account. You wrote:
“who did God hold primarily accountable for the “Eden” incident? Who did He call out to? Who was asked if the fruit had been eaten? Not the one who led the charge - but rather the one who God primarily held responsible! ”
I’ve pasted the relevant passage for discussion:
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
I’d have to say once more I think your interpretation is extrapolation, and the text is ambiguous. Adam was spoken to first, then the woman, then the serpent. Does this really mean Adam was most responsible, then Eve, then the serpent least responsible?
The punishments are pronounced in reverse order… the serpent is cursed, then the woman (whose punishment was pain in childbirth, and that her husband would rule over her… ie this was not God’s original intent!) then the man.
They were all punished, and all responsible. Why was Adam spoken to first? We can speculate about this, but I don’t think we can come to any firm conclusions… one can speculate that God did this because Adam had greater responsiblity, but this is not stated in the text… and I don’t think this idea gets a lot of support from other scriptures. (I’m open to ideas on how to interpret this passage from any experts in ancient Near East literature… but a quick check of a couple of commentaries suggests to me the meaning you give to the order of God’s questions is not a mainstream interpretation.)
So having gotten that off my chest, I’m open to your declaring your hand re appropriate roles for women! You’re not suggesting they can’t be involved in spiritual leadership, so what are you suggesting exactly?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Hi Janet and Dan
Fair enough.
My colours…
Background - raised by Grandmother - never met father, and mother I don’t want to know except she had the courage in the 50s not to get a coat hanger job. Went to conservative evangelical churches most of my life, where women for the most part didn’t preach. In one church no women as elders or preaching, in another very limited women preaching, and the odd women as elders. Always women members with equal vote. In each of these churches I was the black sheep. Have changed a couple major theological perspectives once or twice over a period of years, but this has always has taken a fair bit of time.
Currently Baptist with women on the board (defacto elders) and woman pastor (not executive) who preaches.
Personal views
Believe in male headship, don’t support women preaching - pretty much a literal interpretation. I believe male headship is supported by the creation stories (both of them, but particularly the second one), and the general tenor of scripture throughout. Recognise the validity of taking into account cultural differences and changes, but quite often see this a cop out to support differing agendas - however understand there is a lot that is very difficult to work thru on that score one way or the other.
I note Dan’s comments about not being sure about whether God has much to say about gender roles. I assume from this website and Janet’s comments Dan has made a major and positive contribution over the years - I am in no position to pass comment on that one way or the other, and it is not right for me do to so.
I think part of the difficulty in this discussion as my wife reminded me the difference between leadership and headship. Headship should include leadership, but I don’t see that leadership automatically includes or implies headship - it will vary depending on the circumstances. An aspect of headship which my wife has “suggested” I point out is it is exercised sacrificially in order to protect, nurture and enhance the relationship which one has been entrusted with. My wife is exhibiting spiritual leadership at this point.
Stott wrote in Issues facing Christians today: 1984 Marshalls Handbook that:
Headship is more a headship of care than of control, more of responsibility than authority….he gives himself up for her in love as did Christ for the Church…and his concern is not to crush her, but to liberate her”.
My view is that headship if you like is implicit in the Creation story. I think a good argument from the rest of Scripture can be put to support this, but there is nothing that comes out and says “This is the way it will be” a la the 10 commandments. I can’t prove it. My basis for seeing the Creation story as supporting this is a follows:
Adam created first - God could have made men first, or simply hermaphrodites - He didn’t - there are biological imperatives that remain to this day, and until women no longer need men for procreation with “advances” in medical science.
Yes you are quite right in that men and women jointly were given stewardship over the earth.
The warning to not eat the fruit is only recorded as having been given to Adam.
Women created because not good for man to be alone - I also take that as being that God deliberately made man incomplete in a relational way that only woman could fill - note Adam’s response to first sight - bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh - this union as union with Christ is still a mystery. The union between man and woman represents and imitates in its highest form the communion between the Trinity, and is an image of their relationship.
To bring about the fall the serpent tempted Eve directly, and Adam indirectly though he was with her.
While it may be that God also gave the commandment to Eve directly Scripture doesn’t record this. It may be that God left it to Adam to teach Eve this, which I think he probably did - I have no way to support that.
When called to account by God, it was Adam who was specifically asked if he had eaten the fruit, and Adam who responded to God blaming Eve even though he was right there - at that point Adam failed his first test of headship. Eve received her own punishment, but it is Adam that death comes thru, not Eve.
Janet says “I’d have to say once more I think your interpretation is extrapolation, and the text is ambiguous. Adam was spoken to first, then the woman, then the serpent. Does this really mean Adam was most responsible, then Eve, then the serpent least responsible?”
My contention is not that one party is more or less responsible than another, but that they are responsible for what they have been given responsibility for - no more, no less. That might be overlapping or shared at some points, at others quite individual and specific - cf parable of the talents.
To move forward a bit…
In terms of leadership, exercising gifts and spiritual responsibility there are plenty of examples of women doing precisely that. But I rely on the Pauline texts for direct guidance as to most people who hold my “position”, and I take them seriously, but again I think that revolves more around headship than leadership. To me headship probably is the key issue, and this is one of ordained role and function not ability, gifts or talents.
Where do I take my cues from to support this notion?
The interplay between the Trinity and down the hierarchy. But the interesting thing is if you read John 10 34ff as an example of that from our perspective we see no difference between the Heavenly Father and Jesus the Son, but nevertheless there is a very clear role distinction, as also with the Spirit from other passages (a few passages in John). This union is what the marriage relationship images, and indeed all other God ordained styles of relating between God and human, and human and human..
There are other passages which speak to this type of role within the Godhead, but again could be wishful thinking. E.g. Phil 2: 4-5 - Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped…
Think in the OT of the Levites - why this tribe and not another - I don’t know, I’m not told. Why Abraham? Why monogamy when for most males it doesn’t make sense most of the time - I don’t know - it is just the way God has ordained things - (I have actually finally thought that thru - taken me 30 years).
These are my thoughts. Happy for anyone to make a Biblical argument the other way, or more realistically as a team exercise. I accept a lot of it on my part will remain hypothesis and supposition - I can not prove it, but neither I think can those that think the other way. If we have integrity the issue becomes how to deal with that, knowing that in the short term at least views are unlikely to change.
Which comes back to Dan’s comment about what does God have to say?
My last comments are:
God is wildly diverse, systematic and consistent - He doesn’t change. His creation reflects this, and so do we. I think there are gender role differences which are sometimes both obvious (as to be dismissed) and very subtle; in other places there is little or no difference at all. It may be, and this is where I struggle that these differences for practical purposes when working in an “Edenic” pattern are both obvious and imperceptible all at the same time.
I am very skeptical of fads of culture - I don’t defend slavery, the subjugation of women, the Crusades etc - all examples of our Godlessness - the fact that there are less of these things today in and of themselves are in overall context historical fads. If you believe Scripture the longer we go the closer, we get to the end times, and the more overwhelming our depravity and denial of God. Despite our increased knowledge it is becoming harder and harder to know God - not because He has moved, but our social structures and way of life has.
Both these things should be put up in lights and taken into account when thinking thru such issues if we are to get anywhere near the truth.
Summary: I see cues given particularly from the Creation story, but throughout the Bible into the NT, and I see them as consistent. In a sense I think the issue is less “women in the church”, and more “men in the church”, or lack of, which is one of the points Dan started with. We (men) avoid which is what Adam did.
Cheers
MN
March 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Thanks MN.
As you have pointed out, you cannot prove your views about headship and I cannot prove the contrary view. I would simply state my honest opinion that claiming men have headship over women in the church is very speculative. Their are only two passage in the bible about headship: one is unambigously about husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:21 - 33) the other is I think a difficult passage to interpret (I Corinthians 11: 3 -16) about headship, veils, long hair and the angels. The analogy between the relationship between men and women being like relationships in the Trinity is not stated (or even implied) anywhere in scripture, so I have difficulty in accepting this argument.
My personal belief is that if we hadn’t developed a patriachal church and then looked for arguments to support “male headship” we wouldn’t read so much into Adam being addressed first… or into the other passages that are trotted out to support male headship.
As for women speaking in church, I’ve dissected these passages in the thread titled “Coming out of the Closet”, so I won’t repeat this here.
My experience suggests if a woman is a truly gifted preacher theological arguments tends to evaporate after a while in a local church… if she is less gifted than a male preacher or gets up people’s noses in some way the arguments are more likely to hang around!
Having said all that… I’ve been listening to Wolfgang Simpson over the weekend, who claims the church as we’ve come to know it is nothing like Christ intended… the early church was a network of house churches with a flat leadership structure… the Constantian church replaced pagan temples with Christian basillicas, and sharing life and meals together with the pattern of liturgy of the Jewish synagogues, and relational networking with leadership models based on Roman patterns of governance. So perhaps the Anglicans instead of arguing whether women can be bishops, should be arguing over whether ANYONE should be a bishop!
In the housechurch movements Wolfgang described women do most of the evangelism and the kitchen is the hub of the church… there IS no formal heirachy up which men tend to climb.
All that aside… I think you raise really interesting questions about men and masculinity and irresponsibility. And here I find resonance with what you say.
I think there is a problem with many men in our society. I don’t believe that insisting on male headship in the church will make much difference to this, to be perfectly honest. I actually think society has incredibly low expectations of young men… we expect them to sleep around, get drunk, have women feed them and pick up after them (many young people of both genders stay at home and don’t move into independent living until their late 20’s or even 30’s… often not even paying board, and certainly not doing their proportion of household chores)… in the church they may be kept in “youth / young adults” groups instead of taking on mainstream leadership responsibilities… it seems to be a minority of families that require basic manners (let alone respect) from youth/young adults towards other people in general, and towards the opposite sex in particular… women are portrayed as sex objects in the mass media and men are only to happy to view them this way… I could go on and on. (actually, I just did).
Rather than esoteric discussions about headship, I think some gutsy mentoring by mature Christian men might go some way toward addressing this malaise. Meeting up with a “ballsy” man who’ll ask hard questions about relationships and sex and pornography and finance and respect… and who will challenge their mentee to use that masculine energy to actively make a difference in the world… might be the best antidote to the immaturity and apathy we see in some young men.
Then… we might need a broader vision of the kingdom of God than the institutional church as we know it to fire up the masculine imagination, don’t you think? Complex questions.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hmm after such an intelligent and deep conversation I have to chime in (and bring it back a bit?). Toddy, I wasn’t necessarily saying that “girly” was bad. Of course worship leaders and the like have to express themselves and that includes gender. And we do need to include the feminine in our worship - particularly as guys. And yes, you’re quite right. The artistic temperament has its place in church and our church services, and does sometimes come off as a bit more feminine.
I guess part of the problem is that for so many people, the Sunday service is the be all and end all of church and worship. We need to make sure that we emphasise that Sunday is only one part of it. One part that is not so important that it needs be the only part that people sample. If we find church too feminine to invite other guys to, we need to ask two key questions:
1. What other aspects of church can you connect someone to?
2. And why see the only way to Jesus through church (and the worship service)? Why not bring the message to our masculine chest haired blue singleted sport watching mates in their ennvironmnet, and let “church” grow from there?
I see where you’re coming from Toddy, as a fellow fellow who is a bit artistic in temperament (”who used my coffee mug? You expect me to write in this kind of environment? I’m not working like this!!!”), and has been known to sing along to Justin Timberlake on occasion. There, my secret shame is made public…please don’t hunt me down.
Quick question about women in leadership - a little off the topic from the conversation above - but why is it that men have a problem with women in leadership but we didn’t mind packing them off to Africa et al in the 1800s and early 1900s, and when the men died, we didn’t mind them exercising spiritual authority over the churches that sprung up?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Off the topic a bit….
Janet, I liked the reflections you wrote of what Wolfgang Simpson had to say about the church and flat leadership and the kitchen being the predominant medium for the church….
March 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
It was a while ago but someone said something about the church culture being a bit macho and sexist…and I have to agree…at least in evangelical type churches. Years ago when my boyfriend (who is now my husband) came to my pentecostal church, he came out of an Anglican church and couldn’t believe how, well, sexist the guys were. He didn’t want to go to men’s camps and run around without clothes on and hear about women submitting…and he was also really shocked at the way the guys treated their girlfriends…a few years later we did a pre-marriage course and it was taught that Biblically the house is the woman’s responsibility and the man can choose to help. They said he should help, but if he chose not to, then the woman couldn’t complain. Needless to say, I didn’t think much of that point of view! We kind of laughed it off because he’s much better at housework than I am anyway…but I think this kind of attitude does really put people off…
March 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Oh Emma… this is a priceless of example of taking a human tradition, baptising it in religious speak, and claiming this is what the bible clearly teaches. Honestly… chapter and verse where the bible says housework is a woman’s job and the man can help if he feels like it? A tradition that developed when married women were pretty much barred from the paid workforce makes no sense in the 21st century.
An attitude of mutual servanthood frees us from sticking to narrow roles that don’t fit individual people and circumstances. What if a male is better at housework… and indeed, at parenting? What if a woman is able to earn more money in a career than her partner, and more is interested in working full time than parenting… what if it suits a couple for the man to be the stay at home dad/housekeeper? And the reverse may be true too…
I don’t think we should be strict Nazis on some kind of 50:50 rule for particular tasks…. although in a married relationship I think ideally there is some kind of balance in what each partner contributes to the family overall.
“Run around without clothes on”? Umm… why?
Thanks Wayne. Were you at Dangerous Stories? We should have had a gathering point for Signposters!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
“I am in no position to pass comment on that one way or the other, and it is not right for me do to so.” But in stating opined principles, you are. It’s either right, or it’s not. It isn’t right to judge/comment on a principle without assuming that it therefore translates into real life examples.
Oh - I can’t claim ‘human-ness’. It just describes being human as ‘other’, rather than just accepting it as ‘norm’.
Bluth - I actually think that worship services CAN be over feminised (I must admit that my desk is messy, I don’t use hair product and I’d be more likely to sing along to Cold Chisel than JT) There must be corporate worship structures that embrace and celebrate the masculine, and not just running naked at men’s camps!
“Oh Emma… this is a priceless of example of taking a human tradition, baptising it in religious speak, and claiming this is what the bible clearly teaches” - beautifully put Janet. I’m starting to get really sick of this habit of self-serving Christians - it actually makes my stomach literally church!