Thoughts on the 'middle ground'

Krish Kandiah has blogged about 'Women, Men, Church and Twitter' over at his blog here. I've added my thoughts, but rather than clog up the comments I'd thought I'd expand on them here. Krish says:

'My hope is that we can build a centre ground coalition that champions the centrality of the gospel, the authority of scripture and a gracious respect and honouring of women and the recognition of the need for a hermeneutic of humility when it comes to the scriptures and a spirit of generosity when it comes to those we disagree with. I want to start a peace process – not just that we agree to disagree but that we find a way through an issue that is splitting the church right down the middle…'

I think the motivation to keep people talking about the issue, and to find a way of working together and respecting each other in spite of our differences is really good. But my question about a ‘centre-ground coalition’ is what happens in that space and who gets to decide? It is one thing to be generous and respectful about the difference in our beliefs about men and women; it is another thing to be generous about our practice.

I am not keen on labels and I agree that there is a range of views under each of the words ‘complementarian’ and ‘egalitarian’, but I’ll use them for shorthand. My concern is that the ‘centre-ground’ for shared worship and mission will end up being complementarian by default, not a place that genuinely accepts the beliefs and practices of all sides of the conversation.

Let me explain. If you are a complementarian man or woman in an egalitarian space, then you might feel uncomfortable when you hear a woman preach or see her lead, but your practice – the way you are obedient to what you believe God is calling you to – does not need to change.

If you are an egalitarian man in a complementarian space, then again you may feel uncomfortable that women aren’t allowed to lead or preach, but your practice does not need to change. You can lead, preach, teach and innovate to your heart’s content. You’ll be listened to and welcomed round the table, wherever that table might be.

But if you are an egalitarian woman in a complementarian space, then your practice is restricted. A friend worked for an evangelical organisation in a leadership role and would often go to churches to talk about the work of that organisation. She says, ‘I have been asked countless times not to speak from the bible when I have been invited to a church to speak about the work of my organisation. I have also witnessed many evangelicals leave services if a woman is speaking, go to sleep or voice extreme anger.’ So egalitarian women may be allowed to preach, teach and lead but only to a restricted audience or with certain conditions in place, such as having a man in authority over us; our obedience to God is only permitted if it is qualified in some way by others even though that’s something that we believe is not required. In other complementarian settings, we may not be allowed to do any of those things  - to preach, lead or teach – regardless of our beliefs or the work that we do. Our full sense of calling and identity as a woman in leadership is not respected or affirmed. Many, many women I know have experienced this, and have submitted to the context in which they are invited to serve, limiting what they would normally do to fit with what that context requires. And many women have felt belittled, undermined and dismissed as a result.

Now I trust that we will carry on being generous, looking for ways to work with others, submitting to the requirements of the contexts in which we find ourselves in order to further the kingdom. I hope we’ll deal with those feelings of being second-class so that we don’t let them get in the way of our obedience to God.

But is that generosity reciprocated? Are complementarian churches or organisations in the habit of saying ‘we don’t normally have female preachers or teachers, but we recognise that you’re exercising that gift in your context and your church or organisation affirms your leadership so we’ll invite you to speak to us’?

Are complementarian organisations forming partnerships with others in the habit of saying, ‘we don’t normally have women in decision-making roles, but we recognise that you do so we’ll make sure that women are included in leadership’?

If it’s really an issue on which we can agree to differ, isn’t that something that should be happening, as well as egalitarian women being willing to change their practice? I’m asking the questions because that’s not my experience, but perhaps you know situations where this has happened.

If we’re going to have a ‘centre-ground coalition’ it needs to be a place that genuinely accepts the beliefs and practices of all sides of the conversation, not one that is complementarian by default.

Comments

[Jo Royal]

I very much enjoyed Krish's post, and have already commented there. The idea of a 'middle-ground' though has continued to bounce around in my thoughts since reading it. I think your post here pretty much sums up my thoughts. I just cannot see what the middle-ground would look like, and suspect that for most women the middle-ground would require them to lay down their giftings for the sake of unity.

I am also concerned that in reaching a middle-ground between complementarian and egalitarian practice, the modelling of women in ministry (which is already very low) will be reduced even further and therefore encourage complementarian growth in the future. If it is not modeled, attitudes wont change - and neither will future practice.

Thank you for continuing the conversation ... :)

[Jenny Baker]

Thanks Jo. Was great to meet you at Youthwork the Conference although sorry that we didn't have a chance to chat properly. The plan to get people moving between courses didn't happen!

[suzannah {so much shouting, so much laughter}]

i work at a christian camp, and several in leadership, including the executive director, are from complementarian denominations. one thing i have greatly appreciated is his/their desire to welcome women to the table. i'm not a fan of public speaking, but when given the chance to lead a staff seminar or preach/teach at sunday worship, i jump at the chance and am so grateful it is offered.

i think there is more freedom sometimes in parachurch ministries. when i was a youth pastor, at networking meetings i was usually the only woman who was not there as a volunteer/spouse. within the church, it is extremely hard to find common ground across this divide when women's gifts are not affirmed.

[Thea C]

I would also question the assumption that this 'issue' is splitting the church down the middle.... It may be splitting certain evangelical circles, but for many of the rest of us it's either a non issue or is confined to a vocal minority. I'm getting to the point of withdrawing from all these kinds of online debates because I get so fed up with the implicit assumption that the evangelical church is all there is (or all there should be.)

[General overflow]

A really interesting discussion and debate, made more so by being had in a 'women-only' space. I was pushed here by @vickybeeching's tweet, for reference.

As a man, can I ask whether the unacceptance issue mentioned above is primarily peddled by men in churches, or by women also?

I was brought up in one of the free church streams that allowed women to exercise their giftings, but was very much feeling its way through the issue (as a child I remember women's berets, but by my teens they'd gone). But I remember clearly one church within the stream had a women leader as the head, and seemed to have arrived to the point that it was clear she was the best person for the job. Everyone just got on with it without really dealing with it (is that an example of the reciprocal arrangement you'd like to see, as you say above?).

But post-uni I moved to a CofE church in London where women were given clear equal footing, and biblical teaching was there to back up why. In fact, my best mate first told me try the church because, "he'd seen the couple in charge speaking at soul survivor and it had been their partnership that persuaded him women should lead too." From a baptists son, that's a big statement.

I was thinking about cheekily copying the blog to my site (generaloverflow.com) that gives a secular space for exactly these sorts of unfinished thoughts. But I decided against it as I imagine most of the visitors would not even understand the discussion- society seems to have moved on so much that this sort of debate seems antiquated. In fact, it's now illegal...

Although i very much appreciate that this issue will be very painful for those enduring it directly, I'm inclined to agree with the common (wo)man. I am reminded of the simile, "Christians arguing is like two mice arguing over who is going to eat the elephant." there's so much to be getting on with, hasn't this sort of debate been one of the ones killing the English Church, when there's a harvest ready? It might be a generational thing, but imagine the rest of the world doesn't really care, and in the meantime they are clearly missing out on the better message...

[radical disciple]

amen, jen

as i said on krish's blog - it may be that egalitarian men (i agree about the labels, but let's use them for now...) can flourish in the middle ground, but women will not - it will simply not be possible. and at this point will those men who talk the talk for us, hang us out to dry?

thanks for taking up the converation, jody

[God Loves Women]

Thanks so much for your post! I don't know whether there is a middle ground, surely it is an either or thing. What does it say to the women in the complimentarian church if the church says to a visting egalitarian woman, "you can preach" but none of "our" women can.

My experience of those within the complimentarian view, both men and women, is that there is a sliding scale, in which women are "allowed" to teach children, lead in secular situations, but not lead men in the Church. For me this must be challenged, it cannot be accepted or enabled, because then we begin to collude with the patriarchal system which informs the complimetarian view.

I believe this is too important and too many women (and men) have been damaged and broken by complimentarianism for us to suggest there can be a middle ground. I can't think of any places where Jesus compromised and found a middle ground, even though it would have probably been much more comfortable if He had been more friendly to the Pharisees and it would have been much "nicer" all round!

[Alex]

Agree entirely with General Overflow. This debate is in fact antiquated - any non-Christian in the Western world (and indeed many Christians) would balk at this kind of talk.

I realise churches, like all organisations, have issues they must address. But focusing on this - perpetuating the conversation with blogs and tweets that show intelligent Christians divided - makes us all a laughing stock.

I think we all need to reassess the point; Jesus came and died to save us. He told us to tell people. That's it, in a nutshell. You don't need a doctorate to understand it or live by it. And if you are unfortunate enough to be a woman (or a man) who is surrounded by people who can't understand that very basic truth, then shake the dust off of your feet and carry on til you find somewhere that you're appreciated. It's useless (and harmful) for Christians to split hairs over irrelevant issues; there's a heap of work we ought to be doing in the soul-saving department.

[James Prescott]

I know this sounds simple, but Jesus said: Love one another, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. He forgave those who killed Him. Bottom line, we are free to agree or disagree - but what we must always do no matter what is love one another, treat each other with respect and dignity. Jesus said we would be known by the love we show one another - and this type of debate is a very public example of that. We must not let our egos or need to be right get in the way of Jesus overarching command to love one another. It does sound very simplistic, but the (narrow) path through this will only be found with love, grace, respect and humility, agreeing to disagree with respect.

[Jenny Baker]

Thanks for all your comments.

General Overflow, it's women as well as men. There are women who believe that men should take the lead in all areas of life and are very happy to live like that.

Alex, I'd argue that this issue is extremely relevant to 'soul-saving'. Why would women outside the church who are leading businesses, sharing parenting, being innovative want to follow Jesus if they're told that he says they shouldn't be doing those things?