محاورة نشر تعليق

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني William_Lauesen (-1)  
البحرين

The Cape Town Commitment and Feminism

I just read through The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith and a Call to Action. I enjoyed how well it encapsulated what we believe and what we know we need to practice. Great job!

I do however have some comments on its unfortunate bent toward feminism. While it is hard to point a finger at any "smoking guns" –specific points that are clearly bad – it does seem quite heavily stacked on the feminist side. (Complementarians seeking to write a balanced statement would have written a quite different document than feminists seeking to write what they consider a balanced statement.) I would have hoped for something more balanced, as is true in almost every other subject. Perhaps Lausanne needs more complementarians on the committee next time!

First, let me summarize the main points of disagreement between the complementarians and the feminists, and then examine how the document falls between the two.

Complementarians believe:

1. Women like men have gifts (any/all gifts without exception) and callings to use these gifts (within Scriptural guidelines of course, including love and seeking the benefit of others), and have made and should make more of a contribution in world evangelism. -> This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said, but it does need to be said as feminists so often imply that complementarians don’t believe this.

2. Women have different roles in the family (in marriage) than men: men should be loving leaders, women should be loving followers submissive to their husband’s leadership. Of course there should be mutual love and respect, listening to and blessing one another. -> I didn’t see this anywhere in the Commitment – marriage is discussed solely in the context of equality and mutuality, which is fine but not the whole story.

3. Women have different roles in the family of God (in the church): while they can do almost everything in church meetings that men can (pray, prophesy, interpret, sing, share, etc.), they are not (according to I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14) to teach men, lead men, or correct men’s prophesies. -> This of course was nowhere mentioned, even though it is the main point of contention in the subject at hand. (May we not be guilty of suppressing the truth even if inconvenient to our age – especially when it’s not convenient! – but rather bring the glorious light of the whole gospel into a dark subject.)

4. Different roles are visible in the trinity, with the Son submitting to the Father, without any inference of inequality or inferiority. -> I’m not sure if this theological foundation was laid or ignored – you can check for yourself!

Feminists believe:

1. There is no difference between men and women in ministry. I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14 are cultural or for some other reason do not apply today. -> This is clearly implied in the Commitment; the passages are ignored as not relevant or not significant!

2. However, although the above point is the main difference, feminists very seldom raise those scriptures. They usually raise arguments of equality, gifting, calling, and need (all of which is agreed – but they ignore the above passages as if they aren’t relevant), implying that complementarians are therefore "missing the boat" and not "getting with the program" – with the clear implication that women should not be hindered from any ministry as there is no reason for it (as the above scriptures are silenced as not worthy of mention). Often it is also implied that complementarians are traditional and just following old customs (ie, following old culture rather than scripture – complementarians would say that feminists are following new culture rather than scripture).  Often the opinions of biblical complementarians are not fairly presented. -> This is exactly what we see in the Commitment: same emphases, same slant, same implications, same silences.

Sorry to have to go through all of the above – I hope I’ve been fair in the short summary – but it seemed necessary to lay the groundwork for the following.

On page 45 and 46 of the document – the second to last point of the Call to Action, is point 3. "Men and women in partnership" (which of course we all agree is a good thing). 

What do we see there? Exactly what we’d expect from ones writing from a feminist position – an emphasis on equality, gifting, calling, and so on, while ignoring scriptural limitations. The introductory paragraph clearly says that we should not limit women from doing anything – and if we do – woe to the complementarians – they are quenching the Spirit!

Point a, refers to Lausanne’s historic position (to which complementarians agree wholeheartedly); is it meant to imply that it supports the rest of the section?

Point b makes a nod to differences of opinion. However, note that while two examples are given of different opinions, those opinions are ones that biblical complementarians would not hold:

a) No complementarians believe that women should not teach or preach – all believe that they should teach and preach; just they should not teach and preach to men in the church assembled.  This possibility – having women teach and preach to women – isn’t even considered.

b) Teaching or preaching in sole authority over men should be extremely rare (whether by women or by men) – teachers and preachers should be under submission to church leaders. One wonders why such a limited case is mentioned and not the more common cases.

c) I take as a good example of what biblical (not just "traditional") complementarians believe, the Biblical Council on Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.cbmw.org/

d) Note that while the complementarians get 1.5 lines (incorrect as it is), the feminists get twice as much – and that re-states what has already been stated, as the opinion of the authors of the Commitment.

Under point b are three points:

1) We should not speak in an ungodly well of the other side. A very good point, and necessary point; often opponents distort their opponents and disparage them.

2) Yes we should study the scripture – not suppress relevant scriptures. Note the emphasis on context and culture – surely this is always considered – as that is how we often like to negate inconvenient scriptures that don’t agree with the spirit of our age and culture.

3) Compassion and standing against injustice – of course. Interesting the point about opposing the work of the Spirit – woe to the complementarians that dare to stop unbiblical practice! May we repent of pitting the Spirit against the Word, as if God were divided!

4) Amen to seeking to reflect Christ’s humble servanthood.

e) Point c. in conclusion ignores the entire difference of opinion. It seems to say that we should not act like complementarians, but act like feminists. The passage from Paul cited by the Commitment at this point, Titus 2:3-5 – see how different it is from the feminist position – speaks of women teaching women, also to be submissive to their husbands. "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." (ESV)  Amen!

PS. Sorry if this isn’t the write place for this, but I couldn’t find a better place.

　

20.08.2012

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني PaulDz (0)
الولايات المتحدة

Cody, I think the statement is fine as it stands. If they go into detail on each statement then the paper would turn into an 8 volume series.

Although I think that egalitarianism is the clear biblical choice and that the statement can be understood that way I also think that a complementarian or hierarchicalist could live with the statement as it stands.

I think you should listen more closely to our brother Chi Wai Wu.

20.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ PaulDz:

Paul, I appreciate your feedback. Again, it isn’t at all my desire to actually engage the debate on gender roles and ministry here. I know that it is an important issue to a lot of people, but it simply isn’t one of my primary areas of focus.  So, I think, if you’ll permit me, I’ll just resist the urge to go further down that road.

My real question here is about whether Lausanne wants to be intentionally moving down the road towards making this a core issue rather than a periphery one. I am impressed with the honesty and unifying posture of the Manila statement (quoted previously) on this issue. And I am not sure what compelling reason there would be for intentionally taking a side -- since it would be undoubtedly divisive. What was defective about the Manila statement that the LTWG felt they needed to deal with?

OR, is this actually not an intentional move towards affirming the egalitarian side and just an example of a place in the paper that needs some fine tuning? 

Just asking, you know? 

I appreciate the reminder to listen to Wu. I have read and re-read his comment many times. But, I’m intentionally trying to keep this from being a thread that is focused on who is right in the debate. Because, this thread is about how central we feel this debate should be to the Lausanne Movement.

Without question, we must continue to talk, debate, discuss, listen.  I am thoroughly enjoying doing so. The German, female pastor at my table group has been a true blessing in this for me as well as in every topic.  But, my question is, should this be a point at which we draw a line in the sand?  Is there a will in Lausanne to dis-invite the complementarians from the table? I mean, I have no idea what all complementarians think, but I certainly do not for a second want to dis-invite the egalitarians. 

I would ask, though brother, that you consider that perhaps the term "hierarchical" isn’t a fair term to pair with complementarian.  These seem to be very different concepts to me.  Gender role and Power distance are certainly different in terms of cultural anthropology. Theologically also there are, I believe, some very different lines of thought bearing on these issues. The concept of hierarchicalism seems to be related much more to issues of ecclesiology.  And we see many churches with strong and elaborate hierarchies that are egalitarian.  But when you pair complementarian with the term hierarchical, it feels like you are suggesting that I believe women should be at the “bottom” and men at the “top”. But this isn’t how I understand either the issue of gender roles or ecclesiology – not that I want to get into that.  It is only that I’d like to point out that you might possibly have some assumptions about complementarianism that don’t prove true with all of us who would tend towards that perspective.

I hope you are able to follow my train of thought here.  Blessings to you!

20.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني PaulDz (0)
الولايات المتحدة

Also, the story of the 18-year-old North Korean ezer was amazingly beautiful. This is what I read:

"But by far, the most powerful moment of the Conference came in the final moments of the evening’s plenary session when an 18-year-old North Korean ezer spoke. Orphaned when her mother died of cancer and her father whose fate is unknown but was likely executed in North Korea as a Christian missionary for treason, she voiced her heart for North Korean and her determination to return there after completing her education. Then, weeping, she issued an impassioned plea for us to remember the people of North Korea. It was unforgettable and brought the 4000+ delegates to their feet in response. The applause wouldn’t stop, and the Lausanne leadership had to bring her out again.

" (Carolyn’s Reflections, http://www.whitbyforum.com/, Wed Oct 20 2010 15:32:38 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time))

I find it very difficult to restrict our sister simply because she is a sister. May God move mountains through her!

20.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ PaulDz:

I’m not totally tracking with this comment. All I can say is that I also very much appreciated the testimony - and not because we are calling it a testimony rather than a "sermon". I could appreciate either. Soooo . . . I guess I’m just not exactly sure what you’re driving at. But, you know, that’s cool.  Anyway, we’re agreed that it was a great testimony.

20.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة

The Manila Manifesto provides an excellent mediating statement on the issues of gender roles in the Church. I see this statement as doing a better job of addressing the issue than that of the LTWG paper.  In the Manifesto we read,

"God created men and women as equal bearers of his image, accepts them equally in Christ and poured out his Spirit on all flesh, sons and daughters alike. In addition, because the Holy Spirit distributes his gifts to women as well as to men, they must be given opportunities to exercise their gifts. We celebrate their distinguished record in the history of missions and are convinced that God calls women to similar roles today. Even though we are not fully agreed what forms their leadership should take, we do agree about the partnership in world evangelization which God intends men and women to enjoy. Suitable training must therefore be made available to both."

This, in my view, is as powerful statement that the Church can unite behind and it should be a model for us as we consider any statements made on this issue at the Congress.

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني LCKeeney (0)  
الولايات المتحدة
@ Cody_Lorance:

Cody,

You might be interested in my most recent blog. (I hope I wasn’t too hard on complementarians).  I’d be interested to hear your comments.

http://theruthlessmonk.blogspot.com/

Leslie

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ LCKeeney:

No, I don’t think you are being too harsh on us complementarians.  You’ve written in an honest and balanced way that I appreciate. I don’t think we are home yet on this. However I do believe that there is a way to reconcile the passages that you’ve brought up that is hermeneutically sound. - Not sure I know what it is, but . . . you know . . . ;)

What do you think of the Manila statement?

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني chiwaiwu (1)  
الصين

In Hong Kong, we did a church census every five years. From last year’s survey, we found out 1,250 churches here had 3,671 paid pastors, and 47.9% were female pastors. We had 22.2% of these held leadership positions as senior pastors. I don’t have the figures of mainland China, but i would say the churches in Hong Kong had affirmed and supported women to lead the congregation. For us, it is no longer a theological issue, but a matter of culture.

I serve in an international mission agency, the board in US can’t accept women into the board, but we already had women board members. I respect the US board, and i don’t push for more women leadership. I would like to see how many speakers are female on the platform in Capetown.    

        

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ chiwaiwu:

Thanks for sharing the statistics.  Very interesting. I’m curious about whether you’d agree with what LCKeeney has written (posted as a comment here).

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني LCKeeney (0)  
الولايات المتحدة
@ chiwaiwu:

Chi,

Your description of the churches in Hong Kong fascinates me.  In U.S. evangelical culture, a complementarian position is often assumed to be the biblical position and the egalitarian position is considered suspect. While I have come to an egalitarian position using my own somewhat post-modern logic (My most recent blog is an explanation of my view on this issue.  See http://theruthlessmonk.blogspot.com/ ), I am interested to know how the church in Hong Kong interprets 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14?

Leslie

08.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني LCKeeney (0)  
الولايات المتحدة

Cody,

Your question relates to a post I had written regarding the Lausanne Paper on Men & Women by the Segraves.  While I would be classified as an egalitarian, I think that the congress papers seem to be assuming an egalitarian position without offering any biblical support.  Although I agree with their position, I don’t think it’s helpful to take the position but not address the biblical basis for their position.  Complementarianism has a strong biblical basis which I think should be addressed. Otherwise the Lausanne position sounds like it’s accomodating the culture without that biblical basis. Your question is a good one.

06.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ LCKeeney:

Yes, this is exactly what I’m talking about.  Thank you for this response, we’re on completely the same wavelength.  Blessings to you!

06.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Warrick_Farah (0)  
الولايات المتحدة

Cody, could you explain what you mean by " cultural anthropological conviction"?

06.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ Warrick_Farah:

Thanks for the question, Warrick. Not sure I really want to go down this trail.  But alas, here we go.  My conviction on this issue as it relates to culture has to do with the dynamics of gender role separation in various cultural settings.  That is to say, different cultures have varrying degrees of and types of separation of gender roles. 

So . . . I basically think that the Scripture affirms me as a cross-cultural worker affirming and contextualizing myself to the particular-cultural-in-which-I’m-working’s system of gender role separation.  And that, so long as people are being treated with love, respect, dignity, and are seen as ontologically equal I don’t need to worry about imposing my own values about gender on them. 

For example, Nepalis have a complex of rules related to whether or not it is okay for a member of one gender to kick the legs of someone from the opposite gender. The rules are different for men than for women and it often puzzles me. It suggests a complementarianism latent in the culture. However, this complementariansim doesn’t necessarily translated into feelings of inequality.  Equality and sameness are seen as fundamentally different concepts.  So, there is no Biblical mandate for me to blaze in and tell them what rules they should really have about leg-kicking.

Okay, well, I’ve been working for about 18hours straight. I’m very sure I’m not making any sense. I’ll look at this in the morning and see if I still agree with it. 

Blessings!

06.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Pete_Houston (7)
جنوب أفريقيا

“We affirm that ministry gifting and calling are not defined by gender, or by ethnicity, wealth, or social status.  Since the whole church is called to mission, the whole church is gifted for mission.”  I’d support that statement 100%.  Sorry, Cody!  

I’m going to be interested in how Lausanne III pans out in practice with such diversity of views, even within Evangelicalism.  I’d recommend group hugs at various stages to share the love :)

06.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Cody_Lorance (12)   
الولايات المتحدة
@ Pete_Houston:

No need to apologize, Pete. My main reason for posting this is to seek clarification.  I think there is a sense in which I (even holding a complementarian perspective) can affirm this.  But my question is to the intention of the statement.  Is this intentionally a side-taking statement by the LTWG? Regardless of where people come down on the issue, I don’t think it is true that we are ready to make this one of the main issues of unity or division.  Not sure if that was clear.  It’s late. Haven’t slept much.

06.10.2010

يتوجب عليك تسجيل الدخول أولاً لكي تتمكن من نشر تعليق. إذا لم يكن لديك حساب، يمكن التسجيل الآن (إنه مجاني وسهل!)