LEADERSHIP LETTER ARCHIVES

 

A MONTHLY READING

FOR ALL ARC LEADERS
January, 2008

 

Women in Leadership

 

My intention this month is to create an ARC-wide dialogue around the orthodoxy [conformity to the doctrines of Christian faith] and orthopraxy [conformity in the everyday practice of doctrines held in common] of gender and leadership.  The ARC has held a very strong complementarian position (i.e. the creation of two sexes was divinely purposeful and intended to carry out a mission together that blends the created differences into a unified and fruitful expression) over the past 30 years.  We’ve opposed the egalitarian position (i.e. though the two sexes are physiologically different, there are no differences in ministry functions because the Spirit is distributed equally and impartially to male and female) as heterodox [departing from and opposed to the usual beliefs and established doctrines].  My hope in this perspective is to arrive at a healthier expression of our complementarian position and practice.  Let me briefly tell you my own history in this matter.

 

I was converted to Christ in 1970 in a Pentecostal church.  From 1972 to 1981 I was part of Daystar Ministries, a communal expression of the charismatic movement.  Their “gender route” morphed from a very strong right-wing complementarian in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s to a radical feminism in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s.  Depending upon what Daystar center you lived in, you might experience incredibly different practices.  We weren’t big on theology—leadership “revelations” held sway.

 

In the summer of 1980 I read Steve Clark’s Man and Woman in Christ which I found compelling both theologically and practically (Christianity Today elected it as one of the three most helpful books of 1980).  I was asked to present this side of the issue at our 1980 annual fall gathering.  The wife of the founder presented the Christian feminist position.  We each got an hour followed by a panel discussion.  She stated her position far more eloquently than me, but I was deeply convicted about the biblical integrity of the complementarian position.  I still am, but I have growing concern about what I would describe as a “siege mentality” in my own heart and, by consequence, a kind of reactionary diminishment of the ministries of women within the people and mission of God.  I have some concerns about my own approach to encouraging and releasing women in their Spirit-ordained ministries within God’s mission in this world.

 

There are five influential dynamics that have pressed me over the past year:

  1. Craig Blomberg’s perspectives (he was our ’07 ARC conference speaker) on being a centrist complementarian and his conversations with Sue and me after the conference.

  2. John Stott’s Our Social and Sexual Revolution (IVP).  His chapter on women in ministry is wise and helpful.

  3. Participation in Doug Fike’s group (GDI – Growth Dynamics International) and their annual conference over Labor Day.  Both Sue and I noted a very healthy participation and expression from the women.  It was genuinely spiritually attractive.

  4. Susan Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church.  Although I disagree with some of her conclusions, I was deeply impressed with the Christ-like engagement of the sensitive issues.

  5. My own meditation and study on the correlation of men and women in both church and home; that is, leadership in church and home ought to be mutually reflective and supportive of each other.  It seemed to me that my wife’s influence in our home was not adequately mirrored by women leaders in the church.

 

I decided to push this issue to the front at our MMC meeting in Poland.  But since half of the MMC was unable to make it to Poland, I met with them in Toledo, a week before the Poland conference.  We had a very engaging afternoon of dialogue which revealed a clearer centrist position than I thought existed.  The same outcome was revealed in Poland.

 

Let me try to describe a centrist complementarian position:

  • Men should be ordained as elders to be reflective and supportive of the model of home outlined in Scripture.

  • However, women should be included regularly within leadership meetings so that the divine image is properly reflected as in a healthy home.

  • Elders should carry the bulk of teaching, but they should invite others with the gift of teaching to give appropriate instruction to God’s flock.

  • The flock should regularly hear from mature women just as all children ought to hear from their mothers.

 

Those on the complementarian right may feel this goes too far.  Those on the egalitarian center probably will feel that this doesn’t go nearly far enough.  But I am persuaded that both Jesus and Paul related to women and worked with women on mission in ways that were radical to their cultures and faithful to the Image of God.

 

My personal conviction is that no good comes out of a “siege mentality.”  And I think I’ve dwelt in that space for some time.  My hope for all of us is that within this profoundly broken culture, we neither yield to the prevailing mindset of darkness nor create a fortress that neither our Savior nor the great apostle would comfortably commend.

 

Please feel free to engage this dialogue/forum via the ARC email.

 

Blessings,

Ned

 

Click here to view Leadership Letter Archives