Women's issues and "my" preacher

[bolt.]

I'm having a hard time recently at church. I'm part of a small close-knit congregation. Our denomination stresses the idea of 'freedom in non-essentials' and so, up until now, I haven't had more than momentary annoyances when I find myself more 'progressive' than the preacher, or holding an 'interesting' non-majority opinion. I'm a confident, educated person. I'm employed as a prof at the local Bible college.

 

Recently some issues of women in leadership have come up: basically to re-think and clarify the issue of male-only elders (who are the volunteer congregational leaders, working together with the preacher).

 

Things that have happened:

 

- I made a motion at a congregational meeting to "request" that the elders consider forming a committee to consider the issue. Some debate followed, concluding with the motion being passed.

 

- the elders issued a statement to the effect that they have, after significant study (together with the preacher, but no other congregational involvement) concluded that male-only eldership makes sense for our situation: but that we should acknowledge we are a congregation where opinions vary and nobody is actually on the not-biblical side of this unclear and non-essential issue.

 

- the elders statement also included an admonishment that 'people' should not use motions and meetings to bring up 'theological questions' -- that 'they' should approach the elders personally with any 'questions' they might have.

 

These things, having made me quite sensitive, have been followed very swiftly by...

 

- Two sermons in a series from Proverbs -- one focused on 'bringing up good men' and the other on 'brining up good women'. Both of which were filled with not-bad advice (that could be applied to raising good people of either gender) presented in a highly gendered way. I can give examples.

 

- An email recommendation from the preacher that everyone see the 'Christian' film 'War Room', which idealizes and affirms a complementarian view of marriage.

 

My question: Am I being really sensitive? Because, perhaps it's all a bit mashed-together and recent? Or is this message being actually pushed in a way that indicates that 'actually no' this isn't a 'multiple opinions welcome' issue -- the leadership (elders and preacher) want to teach one correct view and suppress the other.

 

Question 2: Do you think this is a good place to raise girls, considering that I *don't* believe in gender essentialism, complementarian marriage, or male-only eldership. Is it time for me to de-knit myself and find a better match?

[8circles]

I seem to share your theological views & I would not feel comfortable in that congregation.

 

I'm sorry this is happening.   :grouphug:  :grouphug:

 

Hopeful for a good outcome for you. 

 

ETA:  Q1: no, I don't think you're being sensitive.  IME those coincidences aren't really.

Q2: I don't have girls, but I would seem to be difficult to teach what you believe when your church teaches the opposite.

[Sneezyone]

I would not feel comfortable in that environment either and would begin shopping around for a new congregation. That is not the view of womanhood that I want my children to adopt. I would even go one step further and, since the congregation is small, openly express my dismay at the messages they're sending to women and girls. I think, too often, people are to afraid to call a spade a spade.

[Jan in SC]

I don't think it matters if you're being sensitive or not. I think what matters is that your theological beliefs are different enough from your current denomination that you are, at best, uncomfortable. I think that is worth exploring. Your version of exploring and mine might differ, but I would visit other denominations. Your congregation is not a place I would want to raise a daughter, but I do not have those beliefs, so I'm not sure it's fair for me to answer.

[bolt.]

The "official beliefs" of the church (since the elders statement, before which there was nothing official) are that the Bible is inconclusive about women's leadership, and that either opinion is a-ok.

 

The messaging after that just seems a little too "on the nose" for me to feel like it's actually the case.

[mamaraby]

I'm an atheist, but Bible college grad and former pastor's wife, so fwiw -

 

Q1 - No. From what you've described I think your feelings on the situation are accurate.

 

Q2 - No. If I were in your shoes I'd be looking for a church that was a safe space for me and my daughters.

[poppy]

I don't think it is a good place to raise girls, or boys for that matter.

I don't think churches have to be democratic in leadership necessarily - I understand "you should have talked to us first" as a concept - but if Top Down is not how you wish to have your church life work, that is not the place for you.

[zoobie]

Would you stay in an academic setting with teachers who espoused information and taught in a similar manner?

[TechWife]

- the elders statement also included an admonishment that 'people' should not use motions and meetings to bring up 'theological questions' -- that 'they' should approach the elders personally with any 'questions' they might have.

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming this is a formal business meeting and that it is being conducted consistent with whatever rules your church has (bylaws or whatever) and that those rules don't specifically exclude theological questions nor state that the meeting is limited to specific topics, then this was out of line. 

 

If, indeed, theological questions are not allowed, then the error was in the way the meeting was moderated, not in that the question was asked in the first place. The moderator should have not accepted the motion, allowed discussion nor a vote. 

 

In both cases, issuing an written admonishment is not appropriate. If it is the first, then they need to get over themselves. If it was the second, then they need to address this with the moderator and make an announcement at the next business meeting that explains the proper procedure and types of questions allowed at such meetings. This should be done with the purpose of educating the congregation, not of shaming the moderator or the person who asked the question in the first place. 

 

My personal opinion is that it's the first and the elders need to get over themselves. But, like I said, that's just an opinion. 

 

ETA: If I had the nerve and were I in your situation I might ask them what it is about "our situation" that makes male-only eldership appropriate and, by extension, male/female leadership inappropriate. BTW, I don't have a problem with male-only elders and am probably a complimentarian. I do have a problem with how this situation was handled so disrespectfully. 

[Laurie4b]

I'm having a hard time recently at church. I'm part of a small close-knit congregation. Our denomination stresses the idea of 'freedom in non-essentials' and so, up until now, I haven't had more than momentary annoyances when I find myself more 'progressive' than the preacher, or holding an 'interesting' non-majority opinion. I'm a confident, educated person. I'm employed as a prof at the local Bible college.

 

Recently some issues of women in leadership have come up: basically to re-think and clarify the issue of male-only elders (who are the volunteer congregational leaders, working together with the preacher).

 

Things that have happened:

 

- I made a motion at a congregational meeting to "request" that the elders consider forming a committee to consider the issue. Some debate followed, concluding with the motion being passed.

 

- the elders issued a statement to the effect that they have, after significant study (together with the preacher, but no other congregational involvement) concluded that male-only eldership makes sense for our situation: but that we should acknowledge we are a congregation where opinions vary and nobody is actually on the not-biblical side of this unclear and non-essential issue.

 

- the elders statement also included an admonishment that 'people' should not use motions and meetings to bring up 'theological questions' -- that 'they' should approach the elders personally with any 'questions' they might have.

 

These things, having made me quite sensitive, have been followed very swiftly by...

 

- Two sermons in a series from Proverbs -- one focused on 'bringing up good men' and the other on 'brining up good women'. Both of which were filled with not-bad advice (that could be applied to raising good people of either gender) presented in a highly gendered way. I can give examples.

 

- An email recommendation from the preacher that everyone see the 'Christian' film 'War Room', which idealizes and affirms a complementarian view of marriage.

 

My question: Am I being really sensitive? Because, perhaps it's all a bit mashed-together and recent? Or is this message being actually pushed in a way that indicates that 'actually no' this isn't a 'multiple opinions welcome' issue -- the leadership (elders and preacher) want to teach one correct view and suppress the other.

 

Question 2: Do you think this is a good place to raise girls, considering that I *don't* believe in gender essentialism, complementarian marriage, or male-only eldership. Is it time for me to de-knit myself and find a better match?

 

I get it. I used to be part of a congregation who likewise held for decades a point of view that truly allowed and honored differences of opinion on secondary issues. 

 

However, if you shouldn't have brought this up as a motion, neither should you have been rebuked in a theological policy statement. I would go to the elders and discuss this. They apparently had an issue with you first bringing it up publicly (which I assume you didn't know wasn't the "right" way to do it) rather than privately then turned around and did the same thing. Below the belt and not leader-like. 

 

"War Room" recommendation? Meh. 

 

Raising men vs. raising women sermon: more of an issue, but still could be within an acceptable range. 

 

I would keep your eyes open for any further shifting. There is quite a lot of emphasis on gender roles with an "our way is the only possible biblical way" pov from a wide swath of evangelicals right now and the issue is considered a core issue. Where it's considered a core issue, there tends to be a belief in authoritarian leadership as well. 

 

If it's really a secondary issue to you, is it worth leaving the church over? Also, I think there is great value in teaching our kids that some things are secondary issues and we have to be humble enough to believe that it might be our view which is incorrect, and gracious enough to allow other people to hold their views even when we disagree. I think it's fine to teach your dds what you believe and why. They will make up their own minds anyway. 

 

That being said, there can be a harm to females, I think, when patriarchy comes into play and if there is any sense that women are inferior to men. (No one outright acknowledges teaching that, but the practical application in some congregations sends that message loud and clear.)  So if the practice is demeaning to girls, then that would be another matter. 

 

I think that since your church is one in which the official belief is that you may have different beliefs about secondary issues, that you are not, in fact, out of line with what your church is teaching. 

[bolt.]

Would you stay in an academic setting with teachers who espoused information and taught in a similar manner?

That's a very good question. It helps me with my thinking.

 

I think I would stay, if they would have me, because they would clearly need me. But I wouldn't be shy about it.

 

And I wouldn't consider it a very "academic" setting. People who could teach that way, unapologetically, have clearly fine very little research and are using a classroom as a pulpit. They would be expressing opinions that are very much in the minority in the academic sphere of Christianity, without disclosing that fact, or presenting plausible alternative views. As such, I'd gently but clearly advocate for better academic practices to my hypothetical colleagues in that hypothetical institution.

 

But a pulpit *is* a pulpit, and is often used to present personal exhortation messages: with only tennuous connections to the work of Christain academia. I don't really expect much better of a humble preacher. But I do expect a little better. But it's pretty subtle, and it's presented as 'opinion' or application, not gospel.

[SparklyUnicorn]

- An email recommendation from the preacher that everyone see the 'Christian' film 'War Room', which idealizes and affirms a complementarian view of marriage.

 

My question: Am I being really sensitive? Because, perhaps it's all a bit mashed-together and recent? Or is this message being actually pushed in a way that indicates that 'actually no' this isn't a 'multiple opinions welcome' issue -- the leadership (elders and preacher) want to teach one correct view and suppress the other.

 

Question 2: Do you think this is a good place to raise girls, considering that I *don't* believe in gender essentialism, complementarian marriage, or male-only eldership. Is it time for me to de-knit myself and find a better match?

 

Not too sensitive IMO.

 

No, not a good place to raise girls.

 

[Plink]

I'd call and schedule a meeting with the elders. Ask point-blank whether you were the intended target of these statements. Then listen without any attempt to defend one point of view or the other. They will either redeem themselves or dig a giant hole.

[Sneezyone]

I'd call and schedule a meeting with the elders. Ask point-blank whether you were the intended target of these statements. Then listen without any attempt to defend one point of view or the other. They will either redeem themselves or dig a giant hole.

 

My sense is that these things tend to go downhill very quickly, especially once the elders' 'amen chorus' gets wind of things. But I can see how a meeting would be good for someone who is interested in helping right the ship. I don't think a private meeting would be enough to get me to stay though, regardless of what was said. The elders would need to publicly clarify their meaning and intent for the entire congregation.

[AK_Mom4]

I think when you find that your beliefs no longer align with the practices of a church, then it's time to find a different place of worship.

 

I don't know if I would assume that you were the target of the elders' response.  It might just be that you were the one who opened the can of worms and they felt compelled to deal with it in a broad manner.

 

Kick the dust off your sandals and move on.

[6packofun]

Well, if the one issue that you or your girls may never become the pastor at this church is of the utmost importance--compared to, say, their teachings on salvation, serving the poor, spiritual gifts, the sacraments, teaching the Word through strong exegesis in almost all other circumstances--then maybe moving on is a good idea.  I actually agree that church "business" meetings tend to not be the place to bring up theological concerns.  That the elders together with the pastor discussed it since it was introduced in a church business type meeting makes sense because that's part of their job description.  Perhaps you can find a church where there are no leaders other than the pastor?  I have no suggestions for that, though.

 

I think it would be great to talk to someone you respect about this topic at your church to clarify whether or not you feel you can stay.

[fairfarmhand]

I would totally bristle at the public way this was handled. Rather than say at the meeting "Can we discuss that at a later time?" They pointedly publicly singled you out. Then they repeatedly did the same thing at later services. That is what would bother me...the way it was handled rather than the topic that was discussed.

[Sneezyone]

Well, if the one issue that you or your girls may never become the pastor at this church is of the utmost importance--compared to, say, their teachings on salvation, serving the poor, spiritual gifts, the sacraments, teaching the Word through strong exegesis in almost all other circumstances--then maybe moving on is a good idea.  I actually agree that church "business" meetings tend to not be the place to bring up theological concerns.  That the elders together with the pastor discussed it since it was introduced in a church business type meeting makes sense because that's part of their job description.  Perhaps you can find a church where there are no leaders other than the pastor?  I have no suggestions for that, though.

 

I think it would be great to talk to someone you respect about this topic at your church to clarify whether or not you feel you can stay.

 

That's not what the OP said at all and, quite frankly, this is a perfect example of the 'amen chorus' that typically rides in to squelch any hint of dissent. The OPs concern was more broadly about the public, increasingly patriarchal messages coming from the elders of the church.

 

There is no biblical imperative for women and men to have strict gender roles within marriage or the church and the fact that the OPs church is just now delivering these gendered messages is a not-so-subtle indication that the elders are no longer interested in being neutral. In fact, I would argue that they seem to be elevating these gendered roles to a salvation issue when it does not belong there.

 

I would not feel comfortable with either of my children being in an environment in which their intellectual gifts and contributions might be dismissed, and their roles circumscribed, simply by virtue of their gender.

[JulieA97]

We are in a similar boat in that our denomination does not ordain women ministers or have women elders. Women deacons is left up to the individual churches. Neither myself nor dh agree with this but looking at other denominations we can't find one that fits 100%. This is as close as we come. So because we love our church and have strong ties to the denomination we stay.

 

Our church though is very hands off about it. No sermons about it and there are some like us that are in favor of women ministers and elders. Its not viewed as a core issue though so lots of leeway for different beliefs on it.

 

If they were more explicit about it or I saw heavy handed patriarchy we would leave. But for us right now its not enough to leave. Only you can make the decision on if this is enough for you to leave.

[bolt.]

The "increasingly gendered" messages are coming from the preacher. According to the elder's statement, he is free to have a male-only leadership opinion, complementatian perspective on marriage -- because it is a 'matter for opinion' and he gets to have one. It is definitely not being elevated to a big issue (much less a salvation issue!) by the elders.

 

It's probable that it's more frequently 'in the pulpit' just because it's on the preacher's mind, because it's under discussion.

[Sneezyone]

The "increasingly gendered" messages are coming from the preacher. According to the elder's statement, he is free to have a male-only leadership opinion, complementatian perspective on marriage -- because it is a 'matter for opinion' and he gets to have one. It is definitely not being elevated to a big issue (much less a salvation issue!) by the elders.

 

It's probable that it's more frequently 'in the pulpit' just because it's on the preacher's mind, because it's under discussion.

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification. So, essentially, the elders are deferring to the pastor. What is the role of the elders in your church?

[mamaofgirls]

When I question the Church I try to see if I can line it up with scripture. The Bible is our textbook - do you have scripture that shows that only male edlership is incorrect? Do you have scripture that shows there should be more of an egalitarianism between men and women? If you have those I would bring that up to eldership, I personally would recommend speaking with your husband before doing this to see what he thinks.

 

[Laurie4b]

The "increasingly gendered" messages are coming from the preacher. According to the elder's statement, he is free to have a male-only leadership opinion, complementatian perspective on marriage -- because it is a 'matter for opinion' and he gets to have one. It is definitely not being elevated to a big issue (much less a salvation issue!) by the elders.

 

It's probable that it's more frequently 'in the pulpit' just because it's on the preacher's mind, because it's under discussion.

 

How long has this preacher been at your church? 

[bolt.]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. So, essentially, the elders are deferring to the pastor. What is the role of the elders in your church?

No, it's more that the elders are deferring to the principle of freedom of individual opinion. The preacher has an individual opinion. It's just that he also has a pulpit to go with his opinions.

 

The messages are not heavy-handed either, nor is the preacher's opinion something I haven't been aware of all along. It's just something that's coming up a bit too much lately. He's a big of a friendly goof, an excellent pastor, and a good friend. He happens to hold some old fashioned ideas that the clings to basically (I think) because he can't imagine that his beloved mentors could have been wrong in their tremendously respected role in his life.

 

The role of elders is pastoral care of individuals in the congregation, and (together with the pastor) a kind if concensus-based overall leadership role.

[elegantlion]

You're not being overly sensitive in my opinion. I would probably quit attending or confront the pastor. Since I hate confrontation, I'd probably just quit. Subtle public chastisement is just icky. It could be just that it's on his mind, and if he had real issue with how you approached the subject, he should have spoken with you directly. He might also say it is not intentional and just God's way of showing you what you need to hear. 

[bolt.]

When I question the Church I try to see if I can line it up with scripture. The Bible is our textbook - do you have scripture that shows that only male edlership is incorrect? Do you have scripture that shows there should be more of an egalitarianism between men and women? If you have those I would bring that up to eldership, I personally would recommend speaking with your husband before doing this to see what he thinks.

There are many scriptures that suggest leadership is open to all. There are also many that could suggest that it is restricted to men.

 

I consider myself a qualified and faithful interpreter of the word, and have concluded in my mind and spirit that the scriptures that 'could suggest' limitations are commonly misunderstood -- and therefore do not, in fact, limit anyone.

 

Obviously, that's not proof. The scriptures do not "show" these things. Interpretation is required, and interpretation varies.

 

Equally obviously, my beloved, trustworthy and intelligent elders, having already made a thorough study of both positions -- have no need for me to verbally rehash what they are already familiar with.

 

Their conclusion is that both positions are biblically defensible, neither should be considered proven, and both opinions are welcome. I believe (privately) that this indicates that the elders themselves are either undecided, or hold different opinions from one another.

 

My husband is not terribly involved with my church life, but he holds egalitarian views as far as we have discussed it.

 

And the Bible is not a text book.

[bolt.]

How long has this preacher been at your church?

Round about 10 years. (My membership is closer to 20 adult years.)

[Sneezyone]

No, it's more that the elders are deferring to the principle of freedom of individual opinion. The preacher has an individual opinion. It's just that he also has a pulpit to go with his opinions.

 

The messages are not heavy-handed either, nor is the preacher's opinion something I haven't been aware of all along. It's just something that's coming up a bit too much lately. He's a big of a friendly goof, an excellent pastor, and a good friend. He happens to hold some old fashioned ideas that the clings to basically (I think) because he can't imagine that his beloved mentors could have been wrong in their tremendously respected role in his life.

 

The role of elders is pastoral care of individuals in the congregation, and (together with the pastor) a kind if concensus-based overall leadership role.

In that vein, do the elders not see a role for themselves in maintaining the neutrality of the church as a whole on that issue? In the church of my youth, the elders were there to provide that kind of council/support. If, for example, an entire month of Sundays was all of the sudden devoted to adultery and the pastor started recommending Fireproof, something might be said by the elders. lol.

 

The pastor is always going to command the bully pulpit and I think most folks would be inclined to see his statements/messages as the official position of the church, especially if they remain unchecked in any way. Also, is it possible that the same polarization that's taking place nationally is making the pastor more conservative?

[bolt.]

We're Canadian, so I don't usually understand what Americans mean by "conservative" -- he's clearly more "theologically conservative" (tends towards literal interpretation and is dismissive of new ideas, unless they come from trusted sources).

 

I think the elders would aknowledge a role if the preacher openly spoke on women, leadership and elder's roles -- but not this kind of indirect dribbles of gender stereotyping and presumption of leaderly male-ness as a default idea (especially in marriage).

 

I might be able to enlist an ally, but I may well be seen as being really picky, sensitive, wanting to silence the whole issue in a no-freedom way.

 

Plus, the elders haven't stated that they have a neutral opinion over marriage, or gender-essentialism, or anything else that's relevant to the Proverbs sermons or the War Room movie.

 

It's really understated. It's hard to make a big deal over understated messages.

[8circles]

It's really understated. It's hard to make a big deal over understated messages.

 

I think that's why those messages are so dangerous.  YMMV

[Sneezyone]

I think that's why those messages are so dangerous. YMMV

Yep. Obv. I'm heavily influenced by what I've seen in U.S. churches but I'm not at all convinced that those subtle digs go away with time. I wouldn't make a big deal of it but I also wouldn't stay.

[texasmama]

I think you are being sent a very clear message.

[LucyStoner]

You are way less sensitive than some. I'd leave over nothing more than the suggestion I watch "War Room". I jest. Sort of.

 

So no, I don't think you are being too sensitive.

[SparklyUnicorn]

My guess it is an attempt to "help" you understand.  That would tick me off right there.  But lets suppose that's just a weird coincidence.  They aren't in line with the views you support.  Surely there must be somewhere else out there that is. 

 

Some stuff I can get past.  Nothing will perfectly match your views on every point, but some stuff is a deal breaker.  This would be a deal breaker for me.  It was one thing that I disliked severely about the Catholic church.  Women weren't mistreated, but they definitely are second class citizens when it comes to church leadership. 

[6packofun]

That's not what the OP said at all and, quite frankly, this is a perfect example of the 'amen chorus' that typically rides in to squelch any hint of dissent. The OPs concern was more broadly about the public, increasingly patriarchal messages coming from the elders of the church.

 

There is no biblical imperative for women and men to have strict gender roles within marriage or the church and the fact that the OPs church is just now delivering these gendered messages is a not-so-subtle indication that the elders are no longer interested in being neutral. In fact, I would argue that they seem to be elevating these gendered roles to a salvation issue when it does not belong there.

 

I would not feel comfortable with either of my children being in an environment in which their intellectual gifts and contributions might be dismissed, and their roles circumscribed, simply by virtue of their gender.

 

My point is that if elders and the pastor are the ONLY areas where a woman cannot serve, one has to decide if that really makes it an awful patriarchal church.  And one can be OK with that structure and NOT be a patriarchal "amen chorus", whatever that is.

 

Is this church saying Sunday school/Children's church teachers should only be women or that's only where they can serve?  I'd have a problem with that.  Are they telling wives and husbands prescriptively HOW to love and serve their spouses?  That's not biblical, IMO, other than the general commands TO love and serve one another.  This church has already shown that the OP has the ability to publicly bring up the topic in a meeting and ask for further clarification on this issue.  Is she still feeling oppressed?  I'm not sure we have enough facts to say so.

 

What does no imperative mean?  Just a suggestion?  It's not like the Bible is silent on it or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  The OP needs to decide if she can only attend a church that reads the Bible in the way that makes her comfy on this issue.  

 

It's interesting that you mention "intellectual gifts" because this usually doesn't have anything to do with whether a person is smart enough to do a particular job.  Spiritual gifts are way more important in church, btw.

 

I could give a crap if someone recommended seeing a Christian film.  We never do because they usually suck.  LOL  And yet, the same pastor who suggested all the couples go out to see Fireproof--gag--also was totally supportive and enthusiastic about me leading a study in apologetics.   I'm not saying OP's church is like that. Just that it seems soon to jump ship.

[Aiden]

I am a complementarian who is not comfortable with female leadership within the church, and I believe this situation was handled inappropriately by your church leadership.

 

I can understand the elders and pastor coming back with a statement that they've investigated the issue and believe that male-only leadership is appropriate for your church's situation even though they don't believe that's a universal principle--they could be deferring to the sensibilities of those leaders or laypersons within the church who are uncomfortable with female leadership.They could be thinking that those who are in favor of female leadership can find that unofficially, whereas those who are not in favor can't escape it if they have official female leaders. (Your call whether or not that's acceptable to you; I'm merely offering a possibility of where their thinking is on this issue.)

 

It's the rest of the response that is not ok.

 

It was not ok for the response to include a statement that theological issues should not be brought up as motions in congregational meetings. Stating that in the response to your motion clearly makes it a statement that your motion was inappropriate, and by the rules of your congregation and denomination (at least the way you've presented them), that isn't the case. They chastised you for making a motion in a congregational meeting. That's much more authoritarian than I'd be comfortable with, and I'm fairly comfortable with strong authority.

 

The sermons from Proverbs--were they a stand-alone series or things that came up as part of an ongoing series? If your pastor is going through Proverbs anyway, and they came up, it's unfortunate timing and you're being oversensitive. If they're a stand alone series that hasn't been planned before this happened, or if they otherwise came out of order, and there's no external stimulus for causing them (like Mother's and Father's Day would have been, for example), then you're not being oversensitive. It is possible that the pastor wasn't thinking of you in particular but that the sermons came about just because the topic was on his mind, but pastors should be wise enough to think about appearances as well--pastors should not give the appearance of targeting a particular church member from the pulpit, or if they really feel that they need to, they should acknowledge it and explain why. They instead should follow the biblical instructions for church discipline (first go to the person alone, then with someone else, then publicly in front of the church if other options haven't brought about repentance).

 

The recommendation to watch War Room--has he recommended any of the prior Kendricks movies? If he recommended the others, this this is par for the course and probably not directed at you. If he did not, then again, even if he's not consciously directing it at you, it may well have been inspired by you and he should be aware enough to avoid the appearance of targeting a church member even if he's not consciously and deliberately targeting you.
 

It certainly appears as if you're being targeted. It may or may not be something of which the pastor or the elders are aware or doing on purpose.

 

If you're friends with the pastor, I'd talk to him directly. Lay out the series of events and tell him that it meets the standard of "would appear to an uninvolved, reasonable observer" that these events are targeting you and that it's making you feel unwelcome in the church. See what he says. His response would heavily influence my decision about whether to leave the church or stay.

 

I'd also be uncomfortable with the hypocrisy that these events represent. If your church's official statement of beliefs/policy/whatever you call it is tolerance on the peripherals, and the role of women is considered a peripheral, then your pastor, with the collusion of the elders, is going against your church's official beliefs. That's very much not ok and is something that should be brought up with the pastor.

[Carol in Cal.]

Authority in the church is so tricky, since the ideal is 'servant leaders' which is a bit paradoxical.

 

I have not seen War Room.  My impression of it was that it was more about prayer than about gender, so I'm not sure how relevant my opinion would be on that, LOL!

 

I also belong to a church that votes on things that are not theological.  The thinking is, if someone is a question of Truth, it is not subject to vote or opinion really.  "Thus says the Lord" trumps everything else.  If it is an area where there is room for a multiplicity of opinions, then we should not bind where God does not, and spiritual leaders should guide all not to judge, but also to discern.  IOW, they should guide people to include their faith and their knowledge of God's will in forming their (non-binding on anyone else) opinions on a matter like this. One example of that would generally be who to vote for in a secular election.  If it is an area of forming policy or direction within the church, that's what you vote on.

 

Now, I wonder whether your question was one that the presider of the meeting did not know how to handle, because he wasn't clear whether it was the first or the last option.  Certainly the way you put it would put it into the last option in my church--you called for study.  

OTOH, if this was a flaming shock to everyone in the room because no one puts things like that into motions, then you have to realize that in the moment they didn't know what to do, and now they are doing mop up.  Also, the presiding over a meeting like that is only as good as the presider's skill set, and your church may have a presider who is rather poor at thinking on his feet ATM.  Then the elders pour in, see what he should have done, and get a bit ham handed in fixing it.  Frankly that's how it sounds to me.  It sounds like there is a culture of giving people a heads up before a meeting about anything that might be brought up there, and your question broke an unwritten rule.  Having done that myself a few times, once nationally actually, I can say that I would not do it again in most of those instances, (except that national one, which was totally righteous and turned out to be helpful in ways that I did not anticipate.  Go figure.  God is good.), because although I want to study and cling to the Truth and make things right, I also want to do everything 'decently and in good order'.  Plus in general, it's not effective to shock everyone.  What is effective is to learn, and to teach.

 

If it were me, I'd go very quiet for a while.  I'd avoid defensiveness like the plague, because it doesn't do any good.  I'd pray and I'd watch to see what happened next.  

 

This might be the start of a really ugly downward spiral, or it might be a little blip in a generally smooth road.  You can't tell yet, but strictly avoiding conflict will take everything down a level emotionally in the congregation, and will enable things to settle down while you pursue discernment.

Regarding the question of 'local custom', I would say that making changes in church structure quickly is always a bad idea, even if the change is good and right.  So I would respect that for a period of time, and focus on how the teaching of the church lines up with the fact that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no more 'male and female'", and how clearly it says that women are just as capable at men, whether their service is restricted or not.  Those things are Truth, regardless of local custom.  

[Danestress]

I am curious about how your church operates. Does the congregation typically vote on this type of thing? Like the whole congregation votes to ask the elders to form a committee on various issues within the church, issues of biblical interpretation, etc?

 

It doesn't seem to me that you were asking a "question" at all. You were asking for consideration of a motion to do something. And while you were asking that a partly theological issue be considered, you were not technically bringing up theological questions in the meeting. So I think that part of the response was odd.

 

The sermons would not bother me if the content was not offensive, the movie recommendation seemed trivial, though I have not seen that movie. To me, I would let those things go so that you can focus on what is important.

 

For me, whether I stay would depend on how things go from here. In my church, my pastor would probably email me and say, "Hey, did you feel ok about that response? Do you want to talk to me about it? I appreciate your heart for our church and you desire to grow as a family" or something like that. We may not agree in the end, but we don't ignore tensions and possible hurt feelings. Or if you emailed (called, talked to) him and asked if that reminder about meetings was directed to you, I would expect he would want to talk about it with you and to do do kindly and respectfully even if ultimately you don't agree. Or if normally you would do this with an elder, fine. I would feel uncomfortable having to address all the elders at once, but we don't use an elder model at my church so I may be unused to how this works.

 

I firstly I'm fine with the ways in which my own personal beliefs are sometimes at odds with the position of my pastor and even with the position of the larger church. I am honest about what I believe, for the most part, so sometimes it just comes down to, "I love this church, we are like family, hope it's Okay in this family to not agree."

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Question 2: Do you think this is a good place to raise girls, considering that I *don't* believe in gender essentialism, complementarian marriage, or male-only eldership. Is it time for me to de-knit myself and find a better match?

 

If you don't agree with your church leadership in these areas, and they are important to you, then I'd say yes, it could be time for you to leave.

 

I belong to a male-headship denomination.  I don't have any negative emotions or thought about the fact that I (or my daughter) could never serve as pastor or elder.  It's just not that important to me; I don't feel strongly either way.   But it sounds like it's not a good fit for you and that's what important.   

 

(As an aside, I'd be very surprised if my daughter stays with this denomination once she's an adult and off on her own. She has no desire to be a pastor but that aspect bothers her a little. There are similar denoms that do allow for women pastors/elders and I wouldn't be surprised for her to land there.  OK by me.) 

 

As for the other stuff... I don't know.  After reading all the posts I got a little lost on that.  But it sounds to me as if they handled it clumsily, not necessarily maliciously.   I know that sometimes people have complained to me that they felt "targeted" by a sermon and I know that wasn't the pastor's intent at all.  (I get complaints sometimes because I am married to one of the pastors.)   Sometimes it just works out that way.  But I am not saying that's the case of your situation now, just speaking generally.  Based on your posts I don't get that you are oversensitive.

 

[abba12]

I disagree with female leadership in the church. Having said that, it sounds like it wasn't handled very well. 

 

I get him saying that he and the elders have come to the conclusion that male-only elders are appropriate for their situation if the majority of active members in the church are against it. It's all well and good to say women should be in leadership, but if the majority of the congregation disagrees, and you put a woman in leadership, she will not be respected in that role, it will cause issues with those families, complications, if this church has active elders it will undermine the eldership in the eyes of those who believe it should be male-only. Are you prepared to cause a church split over this issue? This isn't the same as women forcing their way into employment and other social things during the beginning of feminism, there's a lot more at play here, including people who believe it would be sinful of THEM to sit under such authority, and thus feel no choice but to leave because remaining would be, to them, sinful on their own behalf.

 

Are you actually trying to get into leadership yourself? if so, I think this is your hint that you wont be welcomed as a leader at this church even if the pastor allows you to, and forcing yourself into that position wont do any good, because you being in leadership wont change the theology of the other members. My family, and other families I know, will walk out of services where a woman is preaching. We don't do it disrespectfully, we are discrete, sometimes only my husband leaves and I remain with the girls, but we (or specifically, he) does not sit under a female preacher. And believe me, he is NOT someone who looks down on women or treats them as weak, he has had no problem whatsoever with female employers, managers, police officers, judges or anyone else of female authority. But women in church leadership is a different issue, and we believe HE would be sinning to sit under that teaching. Another example, some churches have their elders do home visits and other pastoral duties with families. While I will love and respect a woman who is an elder like any other member of the church, and would happily have her over for coffee during the week or chat with her on sunday, she would not be welcome to come to our house in a pastoral/leadership capacity, and we would quietly request a re-assignment to a different elders pastoral care group. Again, we believe that WE would be sinning, to sit under her authority. An elder is supposed to have the authority of the church behind them, which makes it very different to a female friend coming over to help or support with something. If you don't take the eldership too seriously, then this distinction wont seem like much to you, but it's huge to some people. So, if you have a congregation which largely believes in male headship, then you are welcome to hold your beliefs and the church wont call you wrong or argue it, but forcing that on everyone else is both unfair, and would almost certainly backfire on you. 

 

HAVING SAID THAT....

 

The calling out of your motion was wrong. If there was a problem with the motion it should have been raised at the time, not called out later

The sermons were wrong, intentional or not, the pastor should have had some concept of how that would look

The recommendation to see war room is probably just coincidence, every Christian I know is recommending that movie right now (I hate Christian movies, they're usually awful) so I wouldn't take that too personally.

 

So, yes, even from the perspective of someone who is strongly against women in church leadership, this was handled badly and you should speak up to someone about it, or perhaps consider moving churches since it seems your beliefs on a fairly core theological point differ, and as much as they say they will respect your belief, they don't appear to be doing so. 

 

 

[Heatherwith4]

Actually, you do. You are leaving specifically because you do not respect her call, her ordination, or her authority. You may not do it blatantly, but it is definitely disrespectfully.

Yes, exactly.

[Carol in Cal.]

Actually, you do. You are leaving specifically because you do not respect her call, her ordination, or her authority. You may not do it blatantly, but it is definitely disrespectfully.

Although I would not walk out in these circumstances, I don't agree that doing so is *necessarily* disrespectful.  It is possible to respectfully disagree, and to express that politely, which it sounds  like she was doing.

[marbel]

Although I would not walk out in these circumstances, I don't agree that doing so is *necessarily* disrespectful.  It is possible to respectfully disagree, and to express that politely, which it sounds  like she was doing.

 

I don't know how a family can walk out of a service when someone gets up to preach without it being disrespectful. 

 

But what I really can't figure out is why a family that disagreed with female preachers would be in that church anyway.   Do some churches have surprise guest preachers that no one knows about ahead of time?  (Not meaning to be snarky.) 

[8circles]

Actually, you do. You are leaving specifically because you do not respect her call, her ordination, or her authority. You may not do it blatantly, but it is definitely disrespectfully.

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

Lord, have mercy.

[mamaofgirls]

There are many scriptures that suggest leadership is open to all. There are also many that could suggest that it is restricted to men.

 

I consider myself a qualified and faithful interpreter of the word, and have concluded in my mind and spirit that the scriptures that 'could suggest' limitations are commonly misunderstood -- and therefore do not, in fact, limit anyone.

 

Obviously, that's not proof. The scriptures do not "show" these things. Interpretation is required, and interpretation varies.

 

Equally obviously, my beloved, trustworthy and intelligent elders, having already made a thorough study of both positions -- have no need for me to verbally rehash what they are already familiar with.

 

Their conclusion is that both positions are biblically defensible, neither should be considered proven, and both opinions are welcome. I believe (privately) that this indicates that the elders themselves are either undecided, or hold different opinions from one another.

 

My husband is not terribly involved with my church life, but he holds egalitarian views as far as we have discussed it.

 

And the Bible is not a text book.

 

I am going to assume that your Elders try to follow a Biblical guidline for running the church, correct? If so, then I would make a list of those scriptures and meet with them. Go through the scritpures together, explaining how you and your husband interpt them and why. Then I would ask them how they interpret them and to explain why.

 

The def of "textbook" is a book about a particular subject that is used in the study of that subject. The subject of this book would be God and His will for man. I personally use the Bible to when 'studying' most things, especially conserns with church and leadership.

 

[marbel]

Yes, when the pastor wakes up with a kidney stone, or laryngitis, or acute intestinal issues . . .

 

Well, that's true.  But that's not what I meant (though I was not clear about that).

 

I'm guessing that if a person/family feels strongly about male-only preaching, they are not regularly attending a church where a woman might pop up as a guest preacher.    And if they are visiting a church outside their denomination - on vacation, say - they would check before choosing that church to visit, or (at least) before sitting down, so that they wouldn't have to walk out when the female preacher stood up. 

[bolt.]

I am going to assume that your Elders try to follow a Biblical guidline for running the church, correct? If so, then I would make a list of those scriptures and meet with them. Go through the scritpures together, explaining how you and your husband interpt them and why. Then I would ask them how they interpret them and to explain why.

 

The def of "textbook" is a book about a particular subject that is used in the study of that subject. The subject of this book would be God and His will for man. I personally use the Bible to when 'studying' most things, especially conserns with church and leadership.

 

I'm not getting your point here about having a meeting to discuss the range of interpretations that are already perfectly clear. I'm a Bible college professor. I'm completely familiar with how and why people interpret various scriptures in support of male-limited eldership. I can't imagine any purpose for me to waste the elders time having them explain it to me, nor simply to have them listen to me explain to them something they already understand from my perspective. It seems completely selfish and self-aggrandizing, and gives the impression that I don't believe it trust that they have done their homework. And to involve my church-reluctant conflict-avoidant husband (even peripherally) in such a pointless exercise??? I just don't get it.

 

The Bible is a lot of things, and it is completely unique in a way that resists categorization. It certainly can be studied -- but it is a lot more like a source document than a textbook. Someone my "study Shakespeare" by reading Hamlet, but nonetheless Hamlet is not the textbook about Shakespeare. It's still a play -- a source document. If you want a textbook about Shakespeare, you want something else.

[TranquilMind]

I'm having a hard time recently at church. I'm part of a small close-knit congregation. Our denomination stresses the idea of 'freedom in non-essentials' and so, up until now, I haven't had more than momentary annoyances when I find myself more 'progressive' than the preacher, or holding an 'interesting' non-majority opinion. I'm a confident, educated person. I'm employed as a prof at the local Bible college.

 

Recently some issues of women in leadership have come up: basically to re-think and clarify the issue of male-only elders (who are the volunteer congregational leaders, working together with the preacher).

 

Things that have happened:

 

- I made a motion at a congregational meeting to "request" that the elders consider forming a committee to consider the issue. Some debate followed, concluding with the motion being passed.

 

- the elders issued a statement to the effect that they have, after significant study (together with the preacher, but no other congregational involvement) concluded that male-only eldership makes sense for our situation: but that we should acknowledge we are a congregation where opinions vary and nobody is actually on the not-biblical side of this unclear and non-essential issue.

 

- the elders statement also included an admonishment that 'people' should not use motions and meetings to bring up 'theological questions' -- that 'they' should approach the elders personally with any 'questions' they might have.

 

These things, having made me quite sensitive, have been followed very swiftly by...

 

- Two sermons in a series from Proverbs -- one focused on 'bringing up good men' and the other on 'brining up good women'. Both of which were filled with not-bad advice (that could be applied to raising good people of either gender) presented in a highly gendered way. I can give examples.

 

- An email recommendation from the preacher that everyone see the 'Christian' film 'War Room', which idealizes and affirms a complementarian view of marriage.

 

My question: Am I being really sensitive? Because, perhaps it's all a bit mashed-together and recent? Or is this message being actually pushed in a way that indicates that 'actually no' this isn't a 'multiple opinions welcome' issue -- the leadership (elders and preacher) want to teach one correct view and suppress the other.

 

Question 2: Do you think this is a good place to raise girls, considering that I *don't* believe in gender essentialism, complementarian marriage, or male-only eldership. Is it time for me to de-knit myself and find a better match?

If you and your husband are in complete agreement, maybe this is not the place for you. We never make a move like that without complete agreement.  If you are single, I guess only you make that decision.

 

Honestly, things like this don't bother me that much.  I know what my gifts are and no man (or elder board) can keep them squelched.  God raises up leaders, not boards of people.   On the other hand, if friction is developing and you feel it is divisive, maybe you should move on. 

[pehp]

I don't think you're being too sensitive...and I'm not an especially sensitive person. 

 

If you and the church differ on this, even though it is 'non-essential', and they have clearly stated their position, I'd probably start praying about where to go next.  

[Anne in CA]

No, it's more that the elders are deferring to the principle of freedom of individual opinion. The preacher has an individual opinion. It's just that he also has a pulpit to go with his opinions.

 

The messages are not heavy-handed either, nor is the preacher's opinion something I haven't been aware of all along. It's just something that's coming up a bit too much lately. He's a big of a friendly goof, an excellent pastor, and a good friend. He happens to hold some old fashioned ideas that the clings to basically (I think) because he can't imagine that his beloved mentors could have been wrong in their tremendously respected role in his life.

 

The role of elders is pastoral care of individuals in the congregation, and (together with the pastor) a kind if concensus-based overall leadership role.

My question is... is he investing his time in Gothard like teachings? Some of Doug Wilson's stuff looks pretty intellectual to the unsophisticated. I think he is indulging in some yuckky teaching for himself on his own time and now it is coming out. I would be extremely curious to know what teachings he is getting this stuff from. Because even if it is starting small, this stuff gets bigger.