Women's issues and "my" preacher

[bolt.]

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.

No, he's not into anyone more extrodinary that James Dobson... Not my favorited guy, but not in the league if Gothard, etc.

[Aiden]

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.)

My husband and I attended an international, interdenominational church for three years during one of our overseas assignments. It was common for people to take long vacations to their home country over the summer. When our (male) pastor was away for two months, we had a series of guest speakers. They were not announced ahead of time. One of the guest speakers was a woman, one who was on staff as the children's pastor.

 

We do not believe that it is appropriate to have a female preacher in a position of spiritual authority over men. However, we did agree with--and love--our church's policy of agreement on the essentials and liberty in the non-essentials, and we do not believe it is sinful for a man to listen to a woman's opinion on spiritual matters, even if that opinion is being delivered from the pulpit. We stayed for her sermon. If it had become a regular event, we would probably have left that church, but we tolerated it as the exception to the norm.

 

So, yes, it is very possible for people who do not believe in female leadership in church to find themselves unexpectedly listening to a female preacher.

[Halftime Hope]

Bolt, I'm praying for wisdom for you as you consider this.  We've been in similarly difficult situations--very painful.

 

I, personally, would not take offense at the War Room recommendation, as it is a powerful movie which isn't primarily about complementarian roles for men and women.  Overall, people are jazzed about a well-done movie that reminds us of the power of prayer.   However, because you are raw about the clumsy and hurtful way all of this has been handled, it makes sense that this would feel like another slight.  I'd be surprised if it was intended in that manner; I'm betting the recommendation did not have anything to do with you.

 

In two situations we've had over the years, we've had to weigh the issues and decide if they would make it impossible or too difficult for our family to fellowship with an open heart with our church family. 

 

I think your nuclear family is perfectly capable of raising your children according to your beliefs, and both teaching and modeling life done your way, such that whatever your church does is a bit of a moot point.  Your kids may not see women in x or y role at the church, but there may be enough that is right in the church that it would make it worthwhile for you to stay.  It's a judgment call.  

 

However, if the majority of your church family feel differently than your family does, and you feel that it will make an untenable atmosphere for you, then of course it is time to move.   We had to make a painful move out of church because there was no way we could live with the atmosphere created by a different legalistic constraint, and mostly, because of the very poor leadership judgment and the lack of diligence in shepherding that allowed the church to get to that crossroads. 

 

I wish you clarity and discernment as you seek the best for your family.

 

 

 

 

 

[abba12]

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.) 

 

I forgot about the cultural differences again, sorry.

In Australia, we have nowhere near the church diversity of the US. We have the very structured denominations (catholic, anglican, presbyterian, etc) and, outside of that, a large portion of Australian churches are all the same, AOG, 'happy clappy' types (many are labelled baptist but this is quite different to the american baptists as far as I can tell). These churches are generally a catch-all for everyone who doesn't fit as a catholic/anglican/presbyterian/other similar denomination, and I think are almost in the majority in my area, they certainly have the most growrth. Most large-family conservative types, your 'fundies', who aren't catholic attend these churches, but so do most very liberal Christians, and everyone in between. There's some groupings, the church I attend has a lot of homeschoolers, the one 15 minutes away is far more 'progressive' as a rule, but generally these churches have a wide variety of theological opinions. We have a sparse population, outside of the city you attend whatever church you can get to. We have a lot of liberal type people in our church who can't/won't travel the 15 minutes to the next church (no public transport here on weekends, so those who can't drive are very limited) and are quite happy there, everyones beliefs are respected, though in our specific church right now we don't have any female pastors.

 

We don't have anything remotely like your southern baptists, or family integrated churches or anything (aside from a few stand-alone campuses in the city). It's either very organized old denominations, or a bunch of denominations with different names but, essentially, identical structures mimiced after the hillsong model. Thing is, the old denominations expect you to agree with their theology, the modern churches will generally graciously accept differences of belief, so people like me go to the independent churches and we are generally accepted despite our differences. To an american it would seem strange I suppose, for a headcovering, homeschooling mum to be jumping and clapping in one of those charismatic churches. But, it's actually not unusual here. 

 

Anyway, as that relates to female preaching, these modern churches have pastors but they will very frequently have guest pastors who are not announced ahead of time. Also, while it's easy to find a church with a male head-pastor, the majority of these churches have three or four pastors beneath the head pastor, and will have at least one female on the pastoral team. We have been fortunate that our current church has only one pastor, a male, but that hasn't always been the case for us, as so many churches have them. In those situations, we would generally just not attend on the weeks the female pastor is speaking, but they were not always announced. Luckly, we don't have to deal with the eldership issue in these churches, the 3 or 4 person pastoral team are essentially elders who are allowed to preach. My comments on elders came from my husbands experiences in a Presbyterian church growing up. The Presbyterians allowed female elders for a little while, and it backfired so badly they stopped allowing them again, but there were still a few around who had been given elder status before they reverted back, so it's an issue he had some experience navigating. 

 

Hope that sorts that confusion out. As for respect, you're right, I don't respect her in the position she is taking, because I believe it is sinful and she is trying to exert church authority over me and my husband personally, so it's not a live-and-let-live issue, her actions directly effect us since my husband believes it is his sin, and his responsibility, not to sit under a woman's preaching.  But I can act respectfully in how I deal with it. I have never caused a fuss in a church or told people 'oh she shouldn't be doing that'. We simply take care of our own beliefs, quietly and without fuss, respecting her and the churches choice to put her in that. We choose not to attend on certain weeks, we would never argue in meeting that she should be banned or stood down though. We might mention our beliefs to her or the pastor quietly so that there was no secrecy/gossip, but we would not talk about it among the congregation or stir up issues. We try to respect others right to do as they believe while ensuring we are not in sin. Being prepared to do, and accept, that is a key component of these wide-theological-gap churches working. Having said that, in your church it sounds like the majority disagree with female leadership, so, regardless of people being respectful or not, you're going to have issues when a large portion of the church doesn't attend on the week you're speaking, or requests different elder assignment. It only works in the churches I've been in because the male-only group is a minority that can be easily managed, usually just a handful of families. If that's not the case in your church then I totally understand the pastor and elder decision that male-only is right for your church, and they're right, regardless of their theological convictions, if a church won't respect the woman in that position it's not going to work. 

[Anne in CA]

No, he's not into anyone more extrodinary that James Dobson... Not my favorited guy, but not in the league if Gothard, etc.

 I hope so... it just seems like this stuff doesn't come from nowhere.

[Garga]

I've been thinking about this topic for a long time. Years. Our church doesn't allow women on the board (though we have had women preachers in the pulpit.) The church board isn't any authority. The only job they have is to advise the pastor, and the pastor has no obligation whatsoever to do what they say.

 

Yet, it's expressly written into the guidelines that women cannot be on the board. About 2 years ago, it was brought up that women should be on the board and quickly was shot down. I don't understand why at all. There is no "leadership" to being on the board. The board is just a sounding board for the pastor. They have no authority.

 

I know it will be brought up again in a couple of months--about women being on the board. I'm having to struggle with whether or not I can stay in a church that is comfortable silencing the advice of women. Why the pushback to even let women voice their opinion at a board meeting? If things don't change, what will I do? I have appreciated reading this thread. As others have said, is there enough about the church that I am ok with, that I can disagree with this issue and stay? I honestly don't know at this point.

 

OP: It sounds like they're being sure to stamp out your point of view on this issue. It sounds like they're drawing a line that women and men are different and that women should not have leadership. I think it's a little sickening that it was a roomful of men deciding this. But I also feel sick that that's the same thing that'll go on in my church when the issue of women on the board comes up, being that it'll be something the board discusses with the pastor and no women are on the board. Note: I am very sensitive about this issue. I am actually seething resentment about it. So...take anything I say here with a block of salt.

[bolt.]

I forgot about the cultural differences again, sorry.

In Australia, we have nowhere near the church diversity of the US. We have the very structured denominations (catholic, anglican, presbyterian, etc) and, outside of that, a large portion of Australian churches are all the same, AOG, 'happy clappy' types (many are labelled baptist but this is quite different to the american baptists as far as I can tell). These churches are generally a catch-all for everyone who doesn't fit as a catholic/anglican/presbyterian/other similar denomination, and I think are almost in the majority in my area, they certainly have the most growrth. Most large-family conservative types, your 'fundies', who aren't catholic attend these churches, but so do most very liberal Christians, and everyone in between. There's some groupings, the church I attend has a lot of homeschoolers, the one 15 minutes away is far more 'progressive' as a rule, but generally these churches have a wide variety of theological opinions. We have a sparse population, outside of the city you attend whatever church you can get to. We have a lot of liberal type people in our church who can't/won't travel the 15 minutes to the next church (no public transport here on weekends, so those who can't drive are very limited) and are quite happy there, everyones beliefs are respected, though in our specific church right now we don't have any female pastors.

 

We don't have anything remotely like your southern baptists, or family integrated churches or anything (aside from a few stand-alone campuses in the city). It's either very organized old denominations, or a bunch of denominations with different names but, essentially, identical structures mimiced after the hillsong model. Thing is, the old denominations expect you to agree with their theology, the modern churches will generally graciously accept differences of belief, so people like me go to the independent churches and we are generally accepted despite our differences. To an american it would seem strange I suppose, for a headcovering, homeschooling mum to be jumping and clapping in one of those charismatic churches. But, it's actually not unusual here.

 

Anyway, as that relates to female preaching, these modern churches have pastors but they will very frequently have guest pastors who are not announced ahead of time. Also, while it's easy to find a church with a male head-pastor, the majority of these churches have three or four pastors beneath the head pastor, and will have at least one female on the pastoral team. We have been fortunate that our current church has only one pastor, a male, but that hasn't always been the case for us, as so many churches have them. In those situations, we would generally just not attend on the weeks the female pastor is speaking, but they were not always announced. Luckly, we don't have to deal with the eldership issue in these churches, the 3 or 4 person pastoral team are essentially elders who are allowed to preach. My comments on elders came from my husbands experiences in a Presbyterian church growing up. The Presbyterians allowed female elders for a little while, and it backfired so badly they stopped allowing them again, but there were still a few around who had been given elder status before they reverted back, so it's an issue he had some experience navigating.

 

Hope that sorts that confusion out. As for respect, you're right, I don't respect her in the position she is taking, because I believe it is sinful and she is trying to exert church authority over me and my husband personally, so it's not a live-and-let-live issue, her actions directly effect us since my husband believes it is his sin, and his responsibility, not to sit under a woman's preaching. But I can act respectfully in how I deal with it. I have never caused a fuss in a church or told people 'oh she shouldn't be doing that'. We simply take care of our own beliefs, quietly and without fuss, respecting her and the churches choice to put her in that. We choose not to attend on certain weeks, we would never argue in meeting that she should be banned or stood down though. We might mention our beliefs to her or the pastor quietly so that there was no secrecy/gossip, but we would not talk about it among the congregation or stir up issues. We try to respect others right to do as they believe while ensuring we are not in sin. Being prepared to do, and accept, that is a key component of these wide-theological-gap churches working. Having said that, in your church it sounds like the majority disagree with female leadership, so, regardless of people being respectful or not, you're going to have issues when a large portion of the church doesn't attend on the week you're speaking, or requests different elder assignment. It only works in the churches I've been in because the male-only group is a minority that can be easily managed, usually just a handful of families. If that's not the case in your church then I totally understand the pastor and elder decision that male-only is right for your church, and they're right, regardless of their theological convictions, if a church won't respect the woman in that position it's not going to work.

I think you've jumped to some conclusions here, so I wanted to clear them up.

 

First, I don't actually think "the majority" of people disagree with female "leadership" -- in fact, that would be a slim minority. The vast majority believe in female leadership, including preaching. I and other female guest speakers have occasional opportunities to preach that have raised no objections, nor has anyone left... Much less any kind of 'large number' of people. Leadership roles other than "eldership" are not what the current issues are related to.

 

Second, I don't even think 'the majority' of people would disagree with female eldership. I think it's probably roughly in thirds: pro, con, and undecided.

 

Third, I have no specific intention of becoming an elder myself. I lack the physical maturity, and whether or not I will grow into the required spiritual maturity (given time) remains to be seen. (Besides which, we don't have 'elder assignments'.)

 

Fourth, the reasoning given (which I have every reason to consider honest and transparent) had nothing to do with any presumption of proportions holding various points of view. It was out of concern for 'sins of conscience' among people (however many or few) who could not abide the situation created by affirmation of female eldership as official part of the church leadership structure.

[bolt.]

I've been thinking about this topic for a long time. Years. Our church doesn't allow women on the board (though we have had women preachers in the pulpit.) The church board isn't any authority. The only job they have is to advise the pastor, and the pastor has no obligation whatsoever to do what they say.

 

Yet, it's expressly written into the guidelines that women cannot be on the board. About 2 years ago, it was brought up that women should be on the board and quickly was shot down. I don't understand why at all. There is no "leadership" to being on the board. The board is just a sounding board for the pastor. They have no authority.

 

I know it will be brought up again in a couple of months--about women being on the board. I'm having to struggle with whether or not I can stay in a church that is comfortable silencing the advice of women. Why the pushback to even let women voice their opinion at a board meeting? If things don't change, what will I do? I have appreciated reading this thread. As others have said, is there enough about the church that I am ok with, that I can disagree with this issue and stay? I honestly don't know at this point.

 

OP: It sounds like they're being sure to stamp out your point of view on this issue. It sounds like they're drawing a line that women and men are different and that women should not have leadership. I think it's a little sickening that it was a roomful of men deciding this. But I also feel sick that that's the same thing that'll go on in my church when the issue of women on the board comes up, being that it'll be something the board discusses with the pastor and no women are on the board. Note: I am very sensitive about this issue. I am actually seething resentment about it. So...take anything I say here with a block of salt.

I resonate a lot with this. I don't actually think they are 'being sure to stamp out my point of view' but the amount of influence a pastor has for his opinions is a lot stronger than I have for mine.

 

(In fact the elders statement that both views are to be considered biblical and equally valid kinda strengthens the egalitarian leadership view from 2nd place to a tie. A bit of good there.)

[Kiara.I]

This is a church where you, bolt, are not "allowed" to have the giftings that you have.

Is this a place where you can serve the body by using your gifts?

 

I would personally be very uncomfortable raising ANY child there.  I actually think it might be more damaging to raise boys there than to raise girls...but that's a pretty irrelevant question.

 

Anyway.  What are you hearing from God about it?  Stay?  Or go?

[bolt.]

I'm certainly "allowed" to have gifts, and use them from time to time for the whole church, or in informal interpersonal ways. I'm encouraged by many people who 'believe in me' -- including the preacher and elders. This is similar to the way any gifted-but-not-employed young man might be treated in a passive way. (Although perhaps a gifted young man might be more likely to be directly mentored by a male leader.)

 

However, I do experience social pressure that perhaps I might increse my tactfulness and other skills of 'fitting in' in some ways that are gendered and some that are not -- and that my ministry to women is "particularly" appreciated.

 

Also complicating the matter is that my "gifts" run in an academic direction, and I serve the body very well at the bible college. Many profs experience having low service opportunities in congregational life because of their vocation in academic settings.

 

The "role" that might eventually be restricted from me is not a role I am currently quailified for. But I really don't like the under-message: that respects (as one possible view) that women's leadership as an elder is forbidden *for a reason* -- that the leadership of women is (in that role) morally wrong, and likely to do more harm than good.

 

So it's more a philosophical objection than a very serious practical limitation at this time.

 

(I'm also not very good at 'hearing from God' and knowing I'm hearing. Eventually decisions begin to 'seem right' in a spiritual way, but not usually at this 'all balls in the air' stage.)

[ktgrok]

I'm Catholic, so no, we don't have female priests or bishops, although there is always talk of bringing back the female diaconate. Remains to be seen. But even so, the way things were handled in your church was offensive and dismissive. That is what would bother me, more than the actual issue itself. 

[J-rap]

That's a tough situation, and I think since you are uncertain yourself, you might as well wait a bit and see how it evolves.  Probably your decision one way or another will become stronger then.

 

If it were me 10 years ago, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it as long as the church environment in general (including the most important theological matters of course) was a positive place to be for our family.  I get that churches are evolving regarding this issue and if it seems like the church is humble and open to change I could let that one issue slide.   But the minute there became more of an "attitude" about it or some kind of an ol' boys' club environment kicking in, I'd leave.

 

In fact, our church is very similar to yours.  We remained there when our kids were growing up because its people were loving and humble and the pastor was continually admitting that his conclusions in gray areas are his, and other people may come up with other conclusions.  It was a sweet environment to raise our kids in, and we would always reinforce certain things (women's issues, etc.) at home and talk about that quite a bit with our kids.

 

One other thing to consider is that we are in a very small town, and there really isn't much of a choice in churches unless we decide to just church at home on our own, and we didn't want to do that with young children.  We wanted them to know what it's like to be part of a broader, loving church family.  (And also, to learn that there are a lot of different views out there regarding our faith, and we will agree with some and not others.  And our own views on things might change as we are challenged by others'.)  Are there other churches in your area that would be a good fit for your family?

 

Today we actually still attend the same church, irregularly, but my kids are all in college now, etc., so they're not home much.  However, if they were to move back home for whatever reason, we would probably not attend it anymore regularly because these issues have become even more important to us and our children as our girls have become young women, and I know for a fact that one of my daughters feels so strongly about this that she will not even attend a service there on occasion.  I get that, and even now -- with just my husband and myself -- we would attend a different church if we lived in a bigger city with more churches.  But, there are also other issues with our church these days which make it not so great a fit anymore.

 

It sounds like in your church, it's more of a pastor expressing his opinion issue rather than a broader congregational issue, and that would ruffle my feathers because it seems like it has become almost more of a control-type issue for him in which he needs to prove his point.  So I guess my problem would be more with him, not the church in general.  Maybe he is going through some changes in his own faith or problems in his personal life that are surfacing in weird ways.  (Also, I've never heard of the movie you are talking about but I didn't like Facing the Giants!  ha, but that's a separate issue.  :))

 

So yeah, the more I think about this, I might wait it out a bit to see if it's more of a pastor-issue or a general congregation issue;  maybe he'll be leaving!  However, I'd probably speak with him privately in the meantime and ask him if his remarks were directed toward you in particular.

 

The ironic thing in our church is that most of the couples I see there are strong, vocal women with quieter husbands, and I know for a fact that those women have an equal or stronger voice in their family leadership;  they just won't admit it. 

 

[Nan in Mass]

I am Universalist, so I son,t really belong in this coversation at all. : ) take what I say with a saltshaker of salt, ok?

 

No matter how open to differing opinions the rest of the congregation is (and this is something I understand well, having grown up in a UU church where everyone believes something different), i think from a child,s point of view, the pastor represents the church,s teachings and by extention, because you take you have chosen to take your children to that church with that pastor, yours. Children tend to see things in a more black and white way when they are young. Even an adults memories of being young tend to be black and white. My denomination tends to attract people who feel their childhood church damaged them in some way. I hear their stories. They generally contain bewilderment that their beloved parents would expose them to church leaders with "damaging" views. Even as adults, they have trouble separating the beliefs of a church in general with what the particular leaders of that church told them. If it were I, unless my pastor were preaching a strong message of different-opinions-are-good-and-right, I would worry about what message my children were absorbing and look for a church where the leadership,s views aligned with my own better and would help reinforce my own teachings at home.

 

Nan

[justasque]

My question would be how much do the leadership put the "freedom in non-essentials" philosophy out there when they are preaching/leading on the topics you're concerned about.  For example, in the sermons about bringing up good men/women, did the preacher make sure to say that he was speaking in generalizations, and that children and families are given different gifts and challenges, and that while you can take some wisdom from generalizations, ultimately you need to make parenting choices focused on the individual children you are raising?  Regarding parenting, does he speak using a "many parents have found..." approach, or more of a "you should..." approach?  Does he encourage parents (and spouses) to continually seek wisdom to apply to their own specific situation, or does he come more from a "this is the way to do it" perspective?  Does he make sure to stress "freedom in non-essentials" in other subjects, or is it something only mentioned when someone pushes back a bit?  How do others in leadership handle these things?

To maintain a "freedom in non-essentials" community, it's essential to continually make that point clear, and to "walk the talk" in how teaching/mentoring is done.  If this is not happening, you might want to visit a few other worship communities to see if one of them feels like a better fit for you and your family.  

If you are even asking this question, it's a clue that it wouldn't hurt to understand your options rather than waiting for things to get really bad.  The worst that could happen would be that you'd decide that your current church is indeed the best fit - not perfect, but better than the other options - in which case, you'd feel stronger in your decision to stay.  

[chiguirre]

I wasn't going to post but I've been thinking about this post for a couple of days.

 

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who isn't religious but who does take my kids to a Catholic church for family/culture reasons. Obviously, the RCC is highly patriarchal in its formal structure. It's never bothered me and I got to thinking about why that is. My conclusion was that the patriarchy is restricted to the church hierarchy. It doesn't even dictate who runs the parish finance committee. It  doesn't have much influence on women's roles in the broader social context. There are plenty of Catholic-majority countries with a female head of government. Even the US has Nancy Pelosi who was a pretty stereotypical Catholic mom of many before she entered politics.

 

So, Bolt, I'd think about how your pastor's attitudes are likely to affect your dds' views of their opportunities in society. Is he advocating that women not take on leadership roles outside of the church hierarchy or is he restricting himself to just that sphere? That would make all of the difference for me.

[Jerico]

We've been in situations where for the sake of unity we've left a church. I'm not interested in going into a church with the intention of changing them. I would consider if its worth everyones time and energy to go through unneeded conflict.

[Halftime Hope]

We've been in situations where for the sake of unity we've left a church. I'm not interested in going into a church with the intention of changing them. I would consider if its worth everyones time and energy to go through unneeded conflict.

 

Agreed that this is a good option in some cases.

[bolt.]

I think I've settled (thanks friends!) that probably the actions of the elders made me more sensitive to the messages of the preacher. His perspective and comments haven't really changed, and I considered them manageable before.

 

The actions of the elders in response to my meeting motion and the vote on it -- were unwarranted, and not a logical or proportional response to the specific content of my actual motion. But I think the constitute an awkward and inept response (attempting to be diplomatic, hoping it won't become a big conflictual kerfuffle) rather than targeted suppression.

 

I'm not terribly dissatisfied with the actual response -- they put *in writing* that the egalitarian view is completely biblical as an official church belief. My bigger beef was with the message that the motion shouldn't have been made, and with their avoidance of congregational involvement in the process. As things settle, I think both of those are probably excusable among amateurs. I don't sense malice or targeting... Just wishing they didn't have to handle a hot potato, and getting it done as quick as possible.

 

I'd welcome analysis of that conclusion... Especially from people who might think I'm taking it too lightly.

[Ausmumof3]

I belong to a group where women don't preach etc and I'd say you kicked the hornet nest... This is in response to you raising it. I don't support woman leadership particularly, but I don't like the way this was handled because it seems manipulative rather than direct. They don't engage with your questions but arrange other ways to address the issue. I strongly dislike the "don't raise it in meeting but see one of the elders approach", because I've seen this used in groups with major power and control issues. It means that no one in the group knows how you are feeling but the leaders and prevents open discussion of issues.

[HS Mom in NC]

Since I've never read your church's constitution/official policies or whatever your church calls it, I have no idea if it was appropriate for you to bring it up in that meeting.  From the outside it looks like you brought it up in public way and they responded in a public way. If it was completely inappropriate for you to bring it up, why didn't someone right then and there say something like, "That falls under the category of __________________________ issues and this meeting is for _____________________ issues.  Let's make an appointment with ____________________ to discuss that with you because it's important to you." or "_________________ meetings are for theological related issues. We should schedule one for this issue." or "Our next ______________________ meeting is on  ______________________and we can address this issue then." So yes, they sent a very mixed message. 

 

If they have a history of considering it a non-essential issue then it looks from the outside "male leadership for now" sounds like a lame response.  In that situation they need to explain the "for now" part and what might change in the future that would have them considering female leadership if it's truly a situational thing and not a policy thing.

 

My gut reaction, shot in the dark, guess  to this limited information is that either the elders aren't agreed on it being a non-essential issue and this is a cover for conflict or there's some other situation between elders that's not being publicly discussed.  That could be good or it could be bad. So I agree that a meeting between you and the leadership in private may be in order and you may be made aware of something you shouldn't discuss with the congregation until it's resolved. I'm the kind of person who would ask point blank when the topics of the recent sermons had been decided.  I can sit and make eye contact and wait a long time in awkward silence for an answer. I can also ask if the church leadership is changing it's position on female elders and when that started to happen.

I'm not categorically opposed to the idea that a motion made and passed by a group of people may need to be addressed in some sort of official policy to the congregation. I'm shocked how few church goers bother to familiarize themselves with and clarify with leadership the official policies and doctrines before joining a church, so it may be another situation where there's confusion about policy and people need a reminder about that particular congregation's policies. You may have been the individual who brought it up, but there may be a lot of people who agree with you, so they responded publicly.  Like I said, you did bring it up in public in a church meeting so I think it opened the door for a public response of some sort.

I know a lot of different types of Christians promoting the War Room movie these days.

If you see that this church has different theological and policy positions than you do, it's time to move on.

[marbel]

I think I've settled (thanks friends!) that probably the actions of the elders made me more sensitive to the messages of the preacher. His perspective and comments haven't really changed, and I considered them manageable before.

 

The actions of the elders in response to my meeting motion and the vote on it -- were unwarranted, and not a logical or proportional response to the specific content of my actual motion. But I think the constitute an awkward and inept response (attempting to be diplomatic, hoping it won't become a big conflictual kerfuffle) rather than targeted suppression.

 

I'm not terribly dissatisfied with the actual response -- they put *in writing* that the egalitarian view is completely biblical as an official church belief. My bigger beef was with the message that the motion shouldn't have been made, and with their avoidance of congregational involvement in the process. As things settle, I think both of those are probably excusable among amateurs. I don't sense malice or targeting... Just wishing they didn't have to handle a hot potato, and getting it done as quick as possible.

 

I'd welcome analysis of that conclusion... Especially from people who might think I'm taking it too lightly.

 

I think that the only person who can really analyze your conclusion is you. 

 

And... I know I'm going to say this clumsily but I'll try...please see that I'm typing this with my sincere but puzzled face on... why solicit people to tell you you are taking it too lightly?   I don't think this is the case - in fact I am pretty sure it's not, just based on what I know of you from this thread and others - but it almost comes across that you want someone to tell you to go ahead and get more upset about it.  If you are satisfied with your conclusion, why ask for people to tell you not to be?  (You don't have to answer me.)

 

But this situation is foreign to me, so probably I just don't get it.  Where I go to church, these sorts of issues are not sorted out at the level of the individual church, but rather at denomination level.   So, it just would not come up in a congregation meeting.  Or, I should say, if it was, it would be sent to the denomination and a committee would study it for months or years and then come to a conclusion. :-)

 

 

[bolt.]

I think that the only person who can really analyze your conclusion is you.

 

And... I know I'm going to say this clumsily but I'll try...please see that I'm typing this with my sincere but puzzled face on... why solicit people to tell you you are taking it too lightly? I don't think this is the case - in fact I am pretty sure it's not, just based on what I know of you from this thread and others - but it almost comes across that you want someone to tell you to go ahead and get more upset about it. If you are satisfied with your conclusion, why ask for people to tell you not to be? (You don't have to answer me.)

 

But this situation is foreign to me, so probably I just don't get it. Where I go to church, these sorts of issues are not sorted out at the level of the individual church, but rather at denomination level. So, it just would not come up in a congregation meeting. Or, I should say, if it was, it would be sent to the denomination and a committee would study it for months or years and then come to a conclusion. :-)

I am interested in people suggesting a variety of possible interpretations, so I can "try them on" and see how well they fit -- what resonates, what makes me defensive, what sounds like wisdom, etc. This begins with brainstorming (any and all perspectives).

 

Now that I'm settling into a perspective that feels right, I particularly want to face any 'rebuttal' points of view that might draw my attention to my blind spots. I'm not sure of my conclusion. It's provisional, and I'd like to stretch and test it. Therefore anyone who can tell me that I'm taking it too lightly (since I intend to take it lightly -- in my own eyes) and why, might save me from making a mistake.

 

I suppose that anyone who thinks I'm taking it too seriously is more than welcome as well... I don't think my idea of waiting to see how it develops and continue to be tolerant is a very serious response... But I suppose some might see it in ways I don't see it. That's why I ask these things... To see what I'm not likely to see alone.

 

I don't want permission to be upset. That wouldn't have much of a point. Who wants to be upset? But I need to take serious actions for serious reasons, I don't want to overlook it.

[bolt.]

It's a similar logical process to saying to my friends and family, "I think I want to buy xyz house. Is there any reason you guys can think of why I shouldn't?"

[texasmama]

In your shoes, I would ask for a meeting with the pastor and simply address the mixed message and how it was delivered.  That is what I have done when dh and I have had questions in the past.  I reserve judgment until I hear "from the horse's mouth", so to speak.  I would not make any final judgments or decisions without this critical step.

[8circles]

I think you're taking it too lightly.

 

Your church has decided that male-only leadership is a non-essential. You asked for a congregational committee to explore the issue - which was agreed upon at the meeting. The male-leadership met without congregational input and decided to remain male-only and closed the issue and basically asked that it not be questioned again.

 

I've retold your story using my own words - if I've misrepresented, I apologize.

[bolt.]

I think you're taking it too lightly.

 

Your church has decided that male-only leadership is a non-essential. You asked for a congregational committee to explore the issue - which was agreed upon at the meeting. The male-leadership met without congregational input and decided to remain male-only and closed the issue and basically asked that it not be questioned again.

 

I've retold your story using my own words - if I've misrepresented, I apologize.

That's an important perspective. Thank you for sharing it bluntly enough, without being pointed. I'll ponder it, because it raises the question of 'does it matter that they had reasonable intentions, if they still did what they did?'

 

Thanks

[Halftime Hope]

In that hypothetical meeting with the pastor and perhaps a couple of the elders, the one that you have privately to find out why they think that bringing up theological questions should not be done in public, I would also want to find out what their criteria are for "we choose male only leadership for our CURRENT circumstances."  (Forgive the paraphrase.) 

 

I would also call them on discussing theology in private only.  Theology matters.  Discussing it openly, without fear, even if people need to 1) agree to disagree, or 2) to postpone pronouncements so that they can go home and study and seek God's face on the issue, is not harmful to the body, on the contrary, it's a healthy process.  Of all things, leaders should *want* to model open, respectful, thoughtful, engaged discussion.