The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Leslie Anne Neal Segraves, Chad Alan Neal Segraves
Date: 09.07.2010
Category: Men & Women
Editor’s Note: This Cape Town 2010 Advance Paper has been written by Leslie Anne Neal Segraves and Chad Alan Neal Segraves as an overview of the topic to be discussed at the Multiplex session on “Men and Women: A Powerful Team for the Completion of the Great Commission.” Responses to this paper through the Lausanne Global Conversation will be fed back to the authors and others to help shape their final presentations at the Congress.
“Would you take $20 for your fishing net?” The Kashmiri fisherman paused from his early morning work, smiled and excitedly handed us his dripping, smelly net. We had traveled to Kashmir, spent the night on a houseboat, rowed across Dal Lake, watched fishermen who inspired us with their teamwork, and finally arrived at the place where we equipped a group of church planters plagued with internal disunity. As we taught about the power of unity and reconciliation, the filthy net powerfully symbolized how God desires the men, the women, the young, the old, the urban, and the rural to work together, each holding their part of the net to bring in God’s harvest.
Jesus described the kingdom of God as a net “that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish” (Matt. 13:47). Contrasted to individualistic fishing poles, the nets Jesus described required many people working together to bring in the full catch. In the same way, fulfilling the Great Commission requires the participation and service of all who claim allegiance to Christ. Simply put, God calls people to Himself (salvation) and then sends them into the world (service) working together as one Body, equipped with spiritual gifts to extend His reign on the earth.
Despite the urgent need for the Church to equip, empower, and release more laborers for the countless millions in need of a Savior, many questions and barriers remain regarding the partnership of men and women. These barriers require the Church’s attention and biblical reflection: Does God distribute spiritual gifts based on one’s gender? Does God give leadership gifts to females or only to men? Can a woman only lead children and other women? How does Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection heal and redeem God’s ideal purposes for males and females? Does restricting or releasing women into spiritual leadership impact the Great Commission?
The Lausanne movement, begun by Billy Graham, has affirmed that men and women are gifted by God and that their partnership is needed for world evangelization. The Manila Manifesto, produced by Lausanne’s second major world Congress in 1989, proclaims, “We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God’s people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good” (Affirmation 14, 1989). Summary Affirmations from the 2004 Lausanne Forum for World Evangelization include, “We call on the Church around the world to work towards full partnership of men and women in the work of world evangelization by maximizing the gifts of all” (Claydon:2005).
We present this paper with a basic understanding of partnership. Partnership means that each party invests themselves in accomplishing a shared goal, with an opportunity to experience freedom and encouragement to contribute based on their giftedness, regardless of their external characteristics. Each partner brings both supernatural gifting and natural talent given by God for the fulfillment of the goal.
In spite of global movements that encourage the vital participation of both males and females, women in both the West and the East have felt restrictions placed upon them, not only by the world, but also often by their Christian brothers and sisters. Due to space limitations, this paper does not delve into the exegesis of key biblical texts – namely 1 Cor. 11, 14; 1 Tim. 2, 3; and Eph. 5. Rather, this paper seeks to demonstrate the biblical and missiological worldview of those who believe God can (and does) equip both males and females with leadership and teaching gifts to be used in completing His mission.
The Apostle Paul instructs Timothy to “entrust (Paul’s teachings) to reliable people (anthropos) who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul, a careful and brilliant writer uses the Greek word that includes both men and women, rather than the Greek word used specifically for men. Given this fact, and others learned from an in-depth study of pertinent passages, we believe that God gives leadership/teaching gifts not only to men, but also to women, and that releasing women to use leadership and teaching gifts positively impacts the Great Commission.
A few years ago, we were asked to teach a seminar to 100 Indian pastors about male/female relationships in the home and the church from a strong biblical perspective. A few weeks after the conference, we received an email from two married participants. “Praise the Lord! [The husband] went to one unreached village, preached the Gospel and 35 people accepted Christ! Praise the Lord! [The wife] went to another unreached village, preached the Gospel and 315 people accepted Christ!” In both villages house churches were planted. The husband and wife team rejoiced that God used both of them to bring spiritual fruit and help transform unreached villages with the Good News.
Though we rejoice in the above story where both husband and wife were released and productive in ministry, other Christian traditions limit the involvement of gifted women in leadership. While reasons for the limitations vary (biblical viewpoint, cultural bias, social acceptability, practical issues), the Great Commission is impacted at both an individual and a corporate level when we restrict the gifts of women. An American woman in her thirties stated, “I always knew I was smart, talented, and gifted. I just figured that God didn’t really need me because I was a woman.” A ten-year old girl who attends a Christian school asked with a furrowed brow, “Does God love boys more than girls? I felt like it when the teacher told the Bible story. The boys said they were better than girls and used the Bible to ‘prove’ it.” Juliet Thomas, an Indian Christian leader, states:
Women have regretfully testified ‘that though their leadership qualities are sought after and used in the secular fields, they shrink into insignificance when they are in the church.’ In a world where women serve as prime ministers, ambassadors and business executives, as well as carry out their responsibilities in their home, some are rightly questioning the Church on the prescribed limits within which women must often serve (Thomas 2005:189).
As we write this paper, we affirm our solid love for Jesus, our deep devotion to the Word of God, and our firm commitment to the Great Commission. We are certain that other Christian brothers and sisters also share a similar love and outward focus, though they may disagree with the presuppositions and applications of male/female partnership outlined in this paper. Paul Hiebert states, “We must approach our study with humility and with a willingness to learn from Scripture, experience, and one another” (Hiebert 2008:308). It is our prayer that Christ-like humility and teachability on this issue will result in multiplying Christian co-workers exponentially!
The following pages highlight briefly the topics of the Trinity, the Kingdom of God, and justice which form the basis for our understanding of the male/female relationship and their partnership in the Great Commission. We pray the Church reflects God’s image, God’s kingdom, and God’s justice, so that all ethnic groups can experience the transforming power of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection!
Partnership between males and females reflects the non-hierarchical Trinity
While most Christians believe that God creates both male and female in God’s image (imago Dei) and that God is not a “male deity” (“God is Spirit.” John 4:24), some contemporary evangelical theologians have, in the past 35 years, promoted the idea that the Trinity is arranged in a hierarchy such that the Son and Spirit are eternally subordinate to the Father. This position was developed in order to promote “male leadership” and “female subordination” in the Church and home.
We disagree with a “chain-of-command” view of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed states, “In this Trinity none is before or after, none is greater or less than another” (Kelly 2004:79). Athanasius worked tirelessly to express the mutuality in the Persons of the Trinity while fighting against the Arian heresy. All Christian creeds and confessions recognize “that the three divine persons are inseparable in operations or functions and indivisible in power and authority” (Giles 2006:30). In particular, with the Nicene Creed of 325 and the Nicea-Constantinople Creed of 381, “the church declared that there are no graded levels of God-ness in the Trinity” (Scorgie 2005:43).
We recognize the mystery of the Trinity. Yet Scripture as a whole reveals the nature of the Persons of the Trinity and the character of God.
These statements reveal that each Person of the Trinity seems to defer to and honor the Others over themselves, displaying a perichoretic relationship. Initially coined by the Cappadocian Fathers, perichoresis describes the interpenetration and inseparability of actions of the Trinitarian Persons, so that when one Person acts, the Others also act. That is, none of the divine Persons acts independently from the Others. When the Father creates, the Word speaks and the Spirit moves (Gen. 1). When the Son sacrifices himself, He commits His Spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46). When the Holy Spirit lives inside believers, the Father and Son make their home as well (John 14:23). These brief truths help us understand that the Trinity exists as co-eternal, co-equal, and inseparable without differing levels of authority, power or will.
By realizing the mutuality within the Trinity, humanity can better reflect God’s image. The Persons of the Trinity, differentiated as Father, Son, and Spirit, remain united as One Being. Humans, differentiated as male and female, can also remain united with the same goal of accomplishing God’s will on earth. Shared action within the Trinity thus foreshadows the shared and coordinated attitudes and actions of redeemed people created in God’s image (the imago Dei).
Just as the differentiation and integration of the Trinity does not structure the Father, Son, and Spirit in hierarchical terms, God does not create humanity with hierarchy. From our reading in Genesis 1-2, in God’s ideal paradise, male “headship/leadership” is neither explicit nor implied in the text. In these two chapters, rosh (Hebrew “head”) or kephale (Greek Septuagint “head”) cannot be found. We do find that the man alone is “not good,” and as he searches for a partner, God graciously creates the woman as an “ezer k’neged,” meaning equal/corresponding strength. In Genesis 1:28-29 the text shows that God gives the man and woman the same blessings and responsibilities in subduing the earth by using two plural pronouns (God blessed them and said to them”); five plural verbs (Be fruitful, increase, fill, subdue, rule); and by using the plural “you” (I give you...they will be yours).
The Triune God serves as the original and the ultimate model for community-in-relationship between males and females. God built into the male and female “the unity-in-diversity and mutuality that characterize the eternal divine reality…Humans-in-relation or humans-in-community ultimately reflect the imago Dei” (Grenz 1994:171). As bearers of God’s image, redeemed males and females reflect the Triune community as they share dominion, steward the earth and extend the kingdom of God to all people groups.
Partn
ership between males and females reflects the kingdom of God
Because reconciliation remains the most vital need of the human condition, the cross of Christ lays the foundation for redeemed relationships, not only between people and God, but among people. “The reconciling work of Jesus extends to human relationships today. On the cross, he destroyed the barriers dividing human beings (Eph. 2:11-22)” (Grenz 1994:348). The broken Jesus carried in his Body the brokenness of the world.
The mission of God (missio Dei) climaxed at the death and resurrection of Jesus. At this juncture, Jesus restored the possibility of a redeemed humanity. The cross of Christ offers a challenge to all believers who desire to live in a reconciled community between males and females.
What our Lord proclaimed in his teaching and modeled in his life – that the fullness of community lies in the giving of one’s life – his death gloriously displays. Not only is he the Revealer of life-in-community, Jesus is also the effector of that community. As the one who opens the way for us to participate in true fellowship, our Savior authors among us the divine design for human life (Grenz 1994:351).
Jesus’ broken body challenges both males and females to lay down their lives in order to live out a community based on God’s original intent in Genesis 1-2. With a kingdom mindset, a man can humble himself, serve out of his giftedness, empower others, and realize the need for a relational partner to co-rule with him. In the same way, a woman of the kingdom can humble herself, not give in to fear but serve out of her giftedness, even if that includes leadership, and realize that God desires for her to engage not only in relationships but also to share in governing the earth.
When redeemed males and females live God’s ideal in regard to male/female partnership, they send a powerful and prophetic message to the world. However, “Where the gospel has lost this prophetic voice, it is in danger of being wedded to beliefs and values that distort its message” (Hiebert 1985:56). The question then arises, has the Church demonstrated a male/female relationship that influences the culture prophetically, or have fallen cultures influenced the Church’s understanding of male/female relationships? On the Delhi University campus, a young woman approached us. “I have two questions for you. In my culture both Islam and Hinduism state that men are ‘higher’ and women are ‘lower’ (she used hand motions). In your religion, what does your God believe about men and women? What do followers of your God practice?”
As redeemed males and females demonstrate the prophetic message of the Kingdom by simply operating out of their full giftedness, their partnership will thoroughly impact society as yeast works through dough (Matt. 13:33). “The transforming work of the Prince of Peace is to create a community that would not be humanly possible, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave owner nor slave, as the tangible evidence of the in-breaking kingdom” (Guder 2000:69). May your kingdom come, Lord Jesus!
Partnership between males and females displays God’s justice
In 2006, a Christian brother told Chad, “These arguments about what women can and can’t do in the church don’t need to exist. They distract from Jesus. Women just need to be happy they are a part of the Body of Christ and not worry about what they are allowed to do in church.” Chad looked at the man and said, “Say your statement again but this time instead of the word woman use the word African-American. That’s why the issue matters.”
Throughout the world, most people recognize the injustice of limiting a person based on his/her ethnicity. Many in the Church, however, have been slow to see and address the injustice that continues for spiritually gifted women. A Western woman shared with us, “Sundays are the saddest days of my life. I feel unaccepted and of little value when I walk into the church.” A highly qualified South Asian woman sought out for her input and expertise on the governmental level exclaimed in despair, “When I come home, I am nobody! And I am silenced in my church! I would have given my life to serve the church, but I am not allowed to speak or participate in anything” (Thomas 2005:693). One sister shared that she attended a global conference without her husband. While riding with a group to the airport a man asked about her ministry that she shared with her husband. When she told him, he responded, “So what are your husband’s spiritual gifts that enable him to do this?” Another time she sat at a table with a leading apologist. Again, her husband was not present. Again, after sharing about her ministry with her husband, the apologist remarked, “So I need to meet your husband. What are his spiritual gifts?” In both of these instances, she felt “invisible and excluded” in the Body of Christ.
The Church’s embrace of women (and all redeemed peoples in its midst) has the potential to demonstrate the power and truth of reconciliation to a broken world, while exclusion – based on issues of ethnicity, gender, or social class – simply mimics the injustice of a fragmented world. We are reminded of the historic Lausanne Covenant of 1974, signed by multitudes of respected Christian leaders around the world, which states that Christians are called to share God’s "concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of injustice" (The Lausanne Covenant, 1974).
Some theologians encourage women to “not think about what they cannot do, and instead focus on what they can do.” However, the discussion of how women can serve in the home, church, and society cannot remain in a sterile, academic arena because it involves an issue of justice for over half the Body of Christ and strikes deep at their personal identity. Keeping the discussion in a theological ivory tower avoids the issues of injustice and identity (causing the pain to remain), does not take into account the gifting of the Holy Spirit (who gives gifts without regard to gender), and slows the task of the Great Commission (causing fewer laborers to operate in their giftedness).
In the current conversation about how males and females should function in the home, church, and society, the word roles often surfaces. However, neither the Old Testament, nor the New Testament, neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical writer used “role relationships” or “different and equal” vocabulary to describe how God can empower men and women for His purposes.
Since the 1970’s this “role” vocabulary has been used by some Christians to substantiate the essential equality between males and females (equal), yet maintain a functional hierarchy (different). Those who hold this position often seek to ground their perspective in an eternally subordinated Trinity. However, we believe that the vocabulary of “equal and different” and “roles” is not sufficient for describing either the male/female relationship or the Trinity.
Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, most biblical commentaries simply stated that men were created first and are therefore “primary or superior,” while women were created second and are therefore “derived, lesser, or inferior.” The innovative “roles” vocabulary allowed certain Christians to speak of the equality of men and women (in human essence/value), while maintaining a soft patriarchal structure (in function/work). Interestingly, from multiple research interviews in 2007-2008, we found that Muslim imams in North India use the same terminology when expressing the differences between males and females in Islam. “Males and females are equal…with males one degree above” (ref. Sura 2:228).
Just as the Trinity is not differentiated by roles, so humans should not differentiate themselves on the basis of roles. Some may oppose this position, saying, “So you believe there are no roles or functions specifically for women or men?” We would answer, “Of course there are certain obvious biological processes that only women or only men can do.” However, beyond the basic natural biology, we believe the Holy Spirit supernaturally gives gifts to both males and females, and pressing the “roles” vocabulary further often results in stereotypical conclusions. Additionally, throughout the Bible, we find that God equips and utilizes women in a variety of tasks and offices including that of: prophet, teacher, apostle, deacon, evangelist, business woman, house church leader, and worship leader.
A partnership model that endorses both males and females to use all their gifts in the capacity in which God calls them requires a different understanding and a different vocabulary. Clearly humans are differentiated as male and female, and we in no way endorse androgyny or homosexuality. Men and women are not “the same;” they are gendered as male and female which makes them clearly distinct. However, these distinctions do not determine how God can gift or use them in His global enterprise. We believe that the entire “roles” discussion begins and ends with a misplaced focus on authority based on one’s physical body, which then determines how a person can be used spiritually. Instead, both authority and action in the Church and home should begin and proceed with God’s clear calling, God’s gracious gifting, and God’s strong empowerment.
Conclusion
As millions wait to hear the message of the kingdom, the Church must mobilize and release more laborers. According to ethicists Stassen and Gushee, gender as a foundational point on determining one’s service in the Church fades when one looks at the enormous task for the church to complete world evangelization. “The criterion for who may pursue these precious kingdom goals is simply the whole body of Christ, with specialization directed by spiritual giftedness” (Stassen and Gushee 2003:323).
So how can global leaders practically release and empower more laborers, both men and women, for the harvest and facilitate a new global equilibrium?
ework and childcare so that women can also pursue and use their gifts. Both husbands and wives should encourage their spouse to use all their spiritual gifts. Both husbands and wives should care for children, and women should not be limited to their biological function.
The partnership of males and females using all their gifts impacts the Great Commission. As an atheist in the nation of China, Ms. G. came to know Jesus Christ. Though her husband and children ridiculed her for years, eventually they also believed. Ms. G., a gifted teacher, gathered people in her home and shared the Scriptures. Before long, their church grew to over 200 people. Her husband, a great cook and wise counselor, served the fellowship wholeheartedly.
The church grew until a Western man attended the service and noticed the structure of Ms. G.’s group. He approached Mr. and Ms. G., “You are not doing church in a biblical pattern. It is not right for Ms. G. to teach and lead. It is not right for Mr. G. to cook, serve, and only give wise counsel. You are not following the biblical mandate for a man and woman’s roles.” Heartbroken that they had disobeyed God’s rules, Ms. G. stopped teaching and Mr. G. began to teach. Eventually, the church dwindled in size. Finally, another Western couple enabled Mr. and Ms. G. to look at Scripture through new eyes and understand how God expects gifts to be used. Ms. G. began teaching again, and Mr. G. began to serve again with hospitality and wisdom. The church now has over 1,000 members and has sent their own workers to unreached areas of China.
We stood onstage at the Lausanne 2004 Forum for World Evangelization held in Pattaya, Thailand. We gave a five minute summary of Issue Group 24’s work during the Forum on the topic of empowering men and women to work together for the Gospel. On the stage with us stood six women and four men (representing the sixty percent females and forty percent males in the world-wide Church). Each held onto our large fishing net from Kashmir, India. We said, “Some believers seek to restrict women in their use of their God-given gifts. The results? Women, drop your net!” The women onstage dropped the net and weights hanging from the net hit the floor with a thud. The audience gasped, and we said, “Fish are lost!”
N.T. Wright claims, “We must think and pray carefully about where our own cultures, prejudices, and angers are taking us, and make sure we conform, not to any of the different stereotypes the world offers, but to the healing, liberating, humanizing message of the gospel of Jesus” (Wright 2006 20.4:9). It is time for men and women who follow Christ to lay aside worldly stereotypes and instead reflect God’s original intent of strong partnership and the full supernatural gifting of God’s grace. Males and females reflecting the imago Dei, living out the Kingdom of God, and displaying justice toward others and in their relationships together, will co-labor powerfully with God, and with one another, to complete His mission among all people groups!
© The Lausanne Movement 2010
Works Cited
Ali, Yusef. 2006. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications.
Athanasius. 1885. The Athanasian Creed. London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Claydon, David. 2005. A New Vision, A New Heart, A Renewed Call (Volume 1, p.xii): Lausanne Occasional Papers from the 2004 Forum for World Evangelization, edited by D. Claydon, Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
Deddo, Gary W. 2008. The Trinity and Gender: Theological Reflections on the Differences of Divine and Human Persons. Priscilla Papers 22 (4):4-13.
Giles, Kevin. 2006. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing.
Gill, Deborah M., and Barbara Cavaness. 2004. God’s Women Then and Now. Springfield, MO: Grace and Truth.
Grenz, Stanley J. 1994. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Guder, Darrell. 2000. The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Kelly, J. N. D. 2004. Early Christian Doctrines. Peabody, MA: Prince Press.
Hiebert, Paul G. 1985. Anthropological Insight for Missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
———. 2008. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
The Lausanne Covenant. 1974. Available at http://www.lausanne.org/covenant.
The Manila Manifesto. 1989. Available at http://www.lausanne.org/manila-1989/manila-manifesto.html. Affirmation 14.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1991. Systematic Theology. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Scorgie, Glen G. 2005. The Journey Back to Eden. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing.
Stassen, Glen H., and David Gushee. 2003. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Thomas, Juliet. 2005. Lausanne Occasional Paper 53: Empowering Men and Women to Use Their Gifts Together in Advancing the Gospel. In A New Vision, A New Heart, A Renewed Call, edited by D. Claydon. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
Volf, Miroslav. 1996. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Wright, N.T. 2006. The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church. Priscilla Papers 20 (4):5-10.
Keywords: partnership, leadership, gifts, gender, participation, mutuality, Trinitarian, empowerment, love, perichoresis, differentiation, redeemed relationships, non-hierarchical leadership, equality, image-bearers, co-rulers, injustice, distinctives
Leslie Neal Segraves has not Contributed any other Resources entries. To see other content that Leslie Neal Segraves has Contributed, click here
Views: 26716
Comments: 53
Recommendations: 9
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
United Kingdom
I write from the perspective of a complementarian, a position that I hold as a result of my reading of the Bible (as my supreme authority). Men and women are equal, in many respects the same, but in some respects different.
Male headship in family and church certainly needs to be worked out carefully in each of our different cultural settings. Of course women are gifted by the Holy Spirit, and exercise leadership in many different ways and settings. But loving male headship in family and church under the Lordship of Christ who is our model both of headship and of submission (1 Corinthians 11.3) simply cannot be expunged from the Bible. I find (with many others) that this complementarian position is reasonable, fits with experience, and is in line with a strong stream of Christian teaching through the ages.
Your paper would need a careful response at many points. However, I strongly urge that the complementarian viewpoint is given a more balanced hearing at the Congress than this paper suggests could be the case. I am reminded of the comments of Robert Doyle in his review of Kevin Giles’ book ’The Trinity and Subordinationism’ to which you refer approvingly (I quote):
Robert Doyle’s article can be found at: http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/longing/article/5002/.
05.10.2010
United States
@ Jonathan_Pryke:
I agree with the hope for open discussion at the Congress. In order for this to occur, you must also accept that those who do not agree with you in this matter regard Scripture as their "supreme authority" with as much vigor and passion as you do.
You are critical of Kevin Giles and his assumptions and presumptions. Are you as critical of the same in complementarian writers and advocates?
And do you agree that with respect to the epistles, we are only privy to one half of a conversation between the writer and the recipients? And, further, how we reconstruct the "missing parts" will directly affect how we read the answer? We can only surmise what Paul was addressing in the Corinthian letter.
Finally, for all participants, at issue here is not one of inspiration. All who participate in the Congress acknowledge the supernatural inspiration of Scripture. What is at issue is one of interpretation and the application of hermenutical principals with real life consequences for the majority of the church - which is female.
05.10.2010
United States
Thank you for the paper.
This is very important. So many women have lost or seen their nurture qualities as weaknesses in order to be like men. Many women have tried/is trying to be like men. The fact is we are already as good as men. God made us all in His image, in femininity and masculinity. When God created Eve from the side of Adam (interestingly not from his head or feet, but his side - to be alongside him) He did not take all the femininity, he left some because we are all made in God’s image, same with masculinity - Adam had more but Eve had some as they were both made in God’s image. I’m not talking about male and female gender, I’m talking about masculinite and femininity qualities.
I feel the big picture of all of this is that the enemy is after the nurtering quality in women, but also in men. When you cut out nurture, you cut out a big part of who God is. When people are not nurtured, the fruit is devestating.
Women need to take their place, no need to fight for it, strive for it, God already gave it. God is a God who comforts those who needs comfort, He nurtures. That is what brings healing to peoples’ hearts. The church is desperate to receive healing so she can take her place. The "feminine heart" of the church needs restoration.
I honor my brothers in the Lord, I honor my husband as head of the home. We are both called by God with each one uniquely gifted. I draw from him and he from me.
Each one of us have a place, no one is in competition.
Marguerite
02.10.2010
United States
This is the most powerful writing I have read about the partnership between men and women. As much as the church needs a wake up call on this topic for the sake of the Gospel and the advancement of the Kingdom of God we also have a lot of work in the Eastern culture where women in ministry are still undermined. All this in the name of "culture". This execuse is not Biblical.
While we need to be sensitive to the local context and to the culture yet we must educate and teach that Scriptures must supercede culture, in this case, in looking at what God intended for both genders co-equally to accomplish for God’s glory.
We will not see big movements of the Gospel without dealing with the excellent points this article raises about males and females co-partnerships in God’s work.
23.09.2010
Jamaica
There are more questions than answers! We say God is Spirit but many of us see him as male with long white beard. If not like this, what would an androgynous God look like? More questions than answers. There are certain mysteries we will not solve in this lifetime - like why did God create man first? Why did Jesus choose twelve male disciples? How much should culture feature into how we present the gospel. Is this question of male/female roles and rights more a question of equity and NOT equality? We are diverse, we are different we have different roles. The more we make each other "the same" is the less we reflect the image that God created. One being could not represent God, so He created two opposite, role differentiated individuals and said be fruitful and multiply. The two together must be fruitful and the two together must multiply - one carries the sperm, the other the seed; one gives, the other receives.
Some might think this a simplistic response. I believe we make some things too complex. We need to de-layer this issue - peel away until we arrive at the heart of God and discover what he had in mind when he did create male and female. I ask this question in closing - does the man still have the role of priest in the home, or are there two priests vying for position and the more talented/gifted wins the toss? Alas, we are in trouble!
22.09.2010
Australia
Thank you for a very comprehensive paper on this very crucial subject.
I was at Pattaya in 2004 and remember very vividly the illustration of the net on the stage. It was very powerful....
But, what has changed after 6 years?
The harvest is plentiful and the workers are "still"few.
It is a great tragedy that many people are not using their gifts in His service for His glory.
If God has given me, a woman, a certain gift, like for example the gift of "preaching", how can I tell Him: " Thanks but no thanks - I cannot do it because my Church does not allow me to preach."
Who am I to argue with God the creator of the universe? Wouldn’t I then be disobedient to Him? Would this refusal be considered a sin?
Can we together pray wherever we are now and at Cape Town that the Lord of the harvest will "release" the available workers that are not using their gifts?
May we ask God to show us practical ways to be united together to awaken and shake up the global Church. Also may we encourage women (and men) all over the world to prayerfully uncover their Spiritual giftedness that was specially given to each one of them through the power of the Holy Spirit. And may they seek God’s guidance to utilize their gift and be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20).
18.09.2010
United States
While I agree with the paper not delving into the usual disputed passages, the interpretation of these passages reveal key worldview aspects that must be part of the conversation at some point. That both sides agree on the inspiration of the Scripture is not a question. It is the process of wading through perceived authorial intent that creates the waves. And again, that is a worldview or at least hermeneutical presumption that must be on the table for meaningful gains in understanding and the forging of true partnerships.
Some of the responses have brought cultural issues to the fore. However I would ask whether culture should shape the Gospel or should the Gospel transform the culture? In the West, we see too much pop culture woven into our churches - to the detriment of the Gospel’s core. In the East, it appears to be the same. The Gospel is compromised either way. Is this what our end game should be? Is God glorified by this anywhere in the world?
After years of reading both sides of what feels like a hermeneutical tennis match over a select few passages and the corresponding "implications" I come back to Dr. M. Gay Hubbard’s words from her book Women: The Misunderstood Majority: Overcoming Myths that Hold Women Back, " “Despite wide differences in philosophy, power brokers in opposing camps too often hold one passionate belief in common: If only women can be persuaded (or coerced) to act in a certain way, then all will be well with the world.” On the contrary, all will only right with the world when the heavenly Christ and not human culture reigns - first in human hearts and then in our spheres of influence.
It comes back to the original plan from Genesis as Leslie and Chad have so well put it: God created BOTH sexes in His image and gave BOTH dominion over the earth. Genesis 1 provides context for Genesis 2 which fleshes out (literally) the desired relationship between these two image-bearers. Of course the curse fundamentally changed this dynamic yet many seem to forget the Cross also fundamentally changed it back. It initiated a "new creation" with a "second Adam" and a new humanity. (Men would do well to remember they are the Bride in this new scenario NOT the Groom!) Which has more power in the end, the curse or the Cross? Do we shrink in fear for the curse’s implications or reach in faith for the Cross’ possibilities?
What did Jesus do? He included women in His travels, He taught them as disciples. They were among the first preachers at Pentecost, filled with His Spirit. He knew the "girl effect" long before Nicholas Kristof wrote of it in Half the Sky. Jesus’ redemption and regenerative gifts gave both sexes a fresh start. Dispute and discord came in with the Serpent in the first creation. Have we let him slink in again to sow dissension and destruction?
One of my favorite quotes about Jesus comes from Dorothy Sayers who concluded her short book Are Women Human? with this cogent observation:
Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were the first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man – there has never been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them as, ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!’; who rebuked without querulous ness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out there sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is not act, no sermon no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything ‘funny’ about a woman’s nature.”
At the very least, can we agree to disagree and get on with manifold tasks at hand?
10.09.2010
United States
I especially appreciatied this statement in the essy: "Jesus’ broken body challenges both males and females to lay down their lives in order to live out a community based on God’s original intent in Genesis 1-2. With a kingdom mindset, a man can humble himself, serve out of his giftedness, empower others, and realize the need for a relational partner to co-rule with him. In the same way, a woman of the kingdom can humble herself, not give in to fear but serve out of her giftedness, even if that includes leadership, and realize that God desires for her to engage not only in relationships but also to share in governing the earth."
I would like to add that in my experience as an ordained minister I am more grieved when faced with opposition to ministry by other women as opposed to men. I must admit that when I first felt/ heard God’s call on my life to serve in a leadership role of the church and to preach the Gospel, I waited a year before I told anyone (husband, pastor, parents, friends). I tried to reason with God that He had made a mistake because I was fearful of the barriers and battles that I knew were before. But, you can only run so far from God. I have been in a leadership role and preaching for more than 20 years, yet I still face opposition at times. It is only because God’s "yes" is louder than the "no" of some people that I continue on. Thank you for the article. I am encouraged.
25.08.2010
Germany
We all know, this is always also a discussion about how we read and understand Schripture. When it comes to hermeneutics, we are seldom only rational, but very often emitional, because this issue is so important to us. The word of God as it is revealed in the whole bible is eternal and true and also written at a specific time to specific people (Galatians 4,4). To me it became evident that in the so important question of male and female roles in church and society this means that the distinction of man and woman is vital at all times and everywhere but accepting and outliving the specific role of a male or female may differ in times and cultures.
I´m very thankful for the blessing female pastors, teachers and board members habe been in my life, my church and my society.
I´m not "exporting" this understanding into each and every culture or ethnie today, but I find it encouraging, enriching and absolutely in accordance with scripture.
21.08.2010
United States
Jan P. USA
Leslie and Chad, I appreciate your effort in documenting and presenting males and females working together. What I would like to see you comment on is 1Timothy 2:11-15 that many people use a law for women to be seen and not heard. My commentary suggested that Paul was just referring to the Ephesian women due to their lack in proper training in the Gospel as Paul let Priscilla teach the Gospel to Apollos.
16.08.2010
United States
@ Jan_P:
1 Timothy 2:9-15 has been somewhat of an interpretive locus classicus for the complementarian position. By referring to Eve’s deception and transgression in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, I think we need to ask: Did Paul agree with the assumption that the woman’s nature is inferior to the male? Doriani pointed out that theologians have argued that the passage affirms that women cannot teach in the church because they are more easily deceived (1995:262). However, contemporary complementarians have shied away from talking about ontology and argue that the passage states that Eve was deceived and transgressed because she did not maintain her subordinate place under her husband’s leadership (see Moo 1991:190; Piper and Grudem 1991:73). However, it appears to me that Paul used the analogy of Eve in this passage not to identify the inherent limitations of a woman’s ontology or her status but to correct the misuse of social influence and power by a small but influential group of wealthy women in the Ephesian congregation.
Doriani, Daniel. 1995. Appendix 1: A History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. In Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, edited by A. J. Köstenberger, T. R. Schreiner and H. S. Baldwin. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Moo, Douglas. 1991. What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by J. Piper and W. A. Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Piper, John, and Wayne A. Grudem. 1991. An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by J. Piper and W. A. Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
17.08.2010
Kenya
@ Bradford_Greer:
I think it is a bit unfortunate that Bradford uses the term ’inferior’. i think the New Testament is clear - that there is no ’inferior’ gender. But that does not in itself mean that all genders are always equal to all tasks.
Speaking from the African context (and my home is in an African village, in which my home language is an African language etc.) it is remarkable to observe how much more free children are with ladies than with men. Men are very ’inferior’ in handling children. (Men are of course also inferior at handling men - women manage to live much closer to men than men do.) By implication this could also mean that - if women are given ’leadership’ in the church, then they are likely to carry over the way they handle children to the way they handle adults? (Although by implication I have suggested above, because women are loved by men and by children, that men must be like children!)
However we may nuance our understanding of 1 Timothy; the Bible has been translated into numerous ’southern’ languages, and Paul here seems to speak very clearly indeed.
17.08.2010
Canada
A few points about this that I’ve been wrestling with for a very long time (especially since many men in my church are strong proponents of complimentarianism and sometimes it feels like they wish the women would just go away and be quiet).
Often, when hearing men talk about jobs/roles/things that women should not/cannot do, that they argue from a "biblical" perspective, I can’t help but shudder and think of more radical and fundamentalist leaders from other religions who also say the same types of things - arguing that it’s for maintaining the dignity and modesty of women, it is to follow the natural order of creation, etc etc - and makes me wonder, had I been but born in another country or another culture, I may very well be illiterate, uneducated, lacking the freedom to walk my village freely, or even my family compound, unable to access the justice system, unable to access banking or credit, etc etc.
In saying that "in Christ, there is no... male or female", and then starting to stratify the roles that women are not allowed to play smacks of hypocrisy. How is it that we release women to go serve overseas, even planting churches and preaching for "those people, over there", but then cannot give the dignity to women to serve those same roles here?
On the other hand, there is a chicken/egg problem at hand here - there is the reality that women far outnumber men in churches, on the mission field and globally in leadership roles. (That being said, I am going to point out that the vast majority of the plenary speakers are men). So there is this strange irony that the majority of the church are women, the majority of the leadership is made up of women, and yet, at the very top of the hierarchy are men. How is that? How is it that a very small elite group of men still run most of the channels of thought in the church? Where are the rest of the men in the church? Why are they not stepping up to their (expected) roles?
It’s been explained to me that it is BECAUSE women are TOO empowered, so men step back and don’t want to participate anymore. I find that explanation plausible, but silly. The sharing and establishment of God’s kingdom is not about who gets the credit, but that it happens. Period.
12.08.2010
India
@ Julia_L:
Hallo Julia,
I highly appreciate your comment. This is one of the issue which I raised in many mission boards, as a man. But the board members gives a different look.
Only in one country named Philippines, where you would see many women in the boards and taking the leadership & desicion role. I highly appreciate the men there, who were willing to give the space for the women to work in line with them. I have seen a balance between the men and women in the field also. Even in Sri Lanka also you would see the greater role of women in the leadership level (Board level). In a sence I could say women has a greater role to play in the church board in many countries.
In majorityof the countries where I worked and interacted with the boards, its hardly we could see women in the misison boards. It turns to be problem for the women in the for the mission field, to express the problems to the board, as 100% members are men. Sometimes it turn to be a disaster in the field due to this issue. I hope that the Lord would open the heart to the men to understand this issue.
I would also say, this problem persist because women fail to pray for "Righteous Men to lead the mission organisations". It would open the space for the equal role of women in the leadership level in the organisation.
For your excouragement, I am telling that there are some women speakers in the lausanne conference also.
Also to tell you, that there are equally many women playing a greater role in the decision making and leadership level.
We can’t bring change overnight, but we could see it near futher, if we hold on to the values & trust in His love.....
joey
12.08.2010
India
It sounds to be a nice paper.
I would like to ask you a question. During the last several years, there is heavy influx of misisonaries in the mission fields of Asia. But the surprising thing that I found in different part of asia is, there is a wide imbalance of women and men misisonary ratio in the field (7:3 ratio - more women - less men).
1)Why there is very less partnership of men in the mission field?
2)Does mission boards support more of women to the field?
If you see the histroy of mission in India, a century ago there very more male British missionaries than women.
I do have great respect of the role of women in the mission in the mission field. At the same time, I do have witnessed so much of their struggles, which many mission boards have near addressed this issue.
My only concern is that there is a greater decline of men role in the mission field, rather in the misison boards.
Let me know - how we could equate the parternisp of me and women in the mission field.
21.07.2010
Kenya
@ joeynimi:
In responding to this question, perhaps I need to say that I am reading ’Wild at Heart’ by John Eldredge - and the latter seems to suggest (only half way through!) that men have lost sight of the spiritual battles that need to be engaged with all their masculinity intact. That is, recent decades have defined much of ’mission’ in a feminine way - apart from the fundraising and project management (which people these days do from the West) mission is about nursing, teaching, listening, teaching English etc. - widely seen as female roles.
I believe the above will change as people get a grasp on post-modernism, and as the latter filters through to mission-sending bodies.
What I mentioned below may also be a factor. Men have trouble getting by without a supportive female (wife etc.), but more women these days seem to want roles other than ’supporting’ their man / family. Frankly, a single woman from the West can draw various ’benefits’ from being a ’missionary’ in the South, but many of those ’benefits’ (prestige etc.) turn around and disappear for a married woman - who can instead find her status and identity challenged.
Just a few thoughts.
31.07.2010
United States
@ Jim_Harries:
Jim, you make a comment stating that certain professions are "feminine." Geert and Gert Jan Hofstede write: "Which behaviors are considered masculine and feminine differs not only among traditional but also among modern societies. This is most evident in the distribution of men and women over certain professions. Women dominate as doctors in Russia, as dentists in Belgium, and as shopkeepers in parts of West Africa. Men dominate as typists in Pakistan and form a sizable share of nurses in the Netherlands. Female managers are virtually non-existent in Japan but frequent in the Philippines and Thailand (Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind 2005, 117). I guess the point is that Genesis 1-3 does not appear to indicate what roles, behaviors, or professions are masculine or feminine. The biological role of bearing children for women is mentioned in Genesis 3. In Genesis 2 and 3 there does not appear to be any indication of what a married woman’s role or responsibilities should be. And what about single women? There is nothing mentioned at all about them. So, I guess the ideas we hold about what a woman’s what a man’s role should be are heavily culturally conditioned. Becoming aware of this can help us as we rethink what the Bible actually says in this regard.
03.08.2010
Kenya
Thanks for this piece.
To add a more global perspective, perhaps we (in the West) have
something to learn from non-Western people’s amongst women gender
roles are more closely defined than they are in the West. Then they do
not need to be re-negotiated at every turn.
Many ’missionaries’ end up working with people whose approach to
gender is more ’traditional’ than the above. This can create a crisis
for a Western couple. What a man needs in such a context is a woman
who will adjust to the culture that they are meeting. For a woman to
minister effectively also, she needs a man who will adjust to the
culture they are meeting.
The bible advocates ’service’ and assuming others are better than
yourself. Women have been much better than this (I think) than men for
many many years. Long may the same spirit continue! Men - we should
also be servants.
I think the church needs, men and women who have servant hearts.
Women’s particular gifting and aptitude tends to mean that they excel
in the domestic sphere. They bear children, and are much more capable
than men at looking after them. This becomes a particularly difficult
task in cross cultural mission. Let’s encourage our ladies to excel
in these vital tasks.
I wonder what the position of the different genders will be if missionaries are to work in a Muslim context? Non-traditional gender roles in the home could presumably offend those being reached. Then the ‘offense’ will be cultural and not of the Gospel?
Women tend to hold society together. Men and children are all very often and in very many ways dependent on them for their wellbeing and thriving. We are told that there are more women on the mission field than men. Many of the women are single. Women, it seems, can cope alone. Men have much more difficulty. Children are of course typically even more dependent on women. These responsibilities need to be considered.
These views arise from a ‘northerner’ living in the ‘global-south’.
20.07.2010
United States
@ Jim_Harries:
Jim, thanks for your thoughts. To enhance the discussion, I recommend this book as a reference to the excellent paper:
Balswick, Judith K. and Jack O. Balswick. 2008. Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach. Second Ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
The book can help us think about the impact of nature and nurture (that is biology, genetics, upbringing, and culture) as we consider how to reflect the justice of God in our gender-oriented interactions and relationships.
21.07.2010
United States
This is an excellent paper. Thank you so much for it. I would like to hear some from the Global South weigh in on this topic to hear their views. It is relatively easy to for western churches to adopt an egalitarian perspective. Western societies are already somewhat or significantly egalitarian in orientation. I guess I would like to know if a more "traditional" culture can adopt an egalitarian position without disrupting the social order? Does the egalitarian position sound somewhat threatening to the social order? If a traditional culture adopts an egalitarian perspective, what would that adopting process look like? Would it happen in stages? If so, what would those stages be?
17.07.2010
United States
I appreciate this advance paper’s presentation of an important topic to today’s church. Strong and credible arguments abound on both sides of the discussion of women in ministry, an issue that has been known to divide families, congregations, and denominations.
While there is no simple solution to the divisiveness this topic creates, it is my hope that this blogpost bit.ly/dhtoLh will cause readers to prayerfully consider opposing views in a manner that will lead to a greater sense of understanding and unity that is so sorely needed in the Church today.
12.07.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).