Brian G. Felushko
January 2019
I am convinced that in the 21st century
church, in most cultures, gender should not be either a benefit or detriment to
teaching, mentoring and the appointing of individuals to official roles of
leadership. In other words, it is my conviction that both men and women can,
and should, be taught, mentored and appointed to roles of leadership in the
church. Leadership is about giftedness used faithfully in the service of God
and his church. In 21st century western society, leadership training
and appointment should not be about gender. Why am I convinced that gifted and
faithful men and women can, and should, be appointed to roles of leadership in
the church today?
The following statement will appear to be contradictory to my stated position and
counterintuitive, at first, but hang in there and read all the way through this paper to get
my point. Unlike most who argue for the inclusion of women in leadership roles,
I see no clear and conclusive evidence that the NT teaches or
demonstrates the equality of the genders when it comes to leadership roles and
responsibilities. Rather, the NT teaches and demonstrates that only men
were appointed as leaders in the early church. The examples of male
leadership in the apostolic and post-apostolic church are numerous and clear.
The examples often cited of female leadership in the early church are few and, a best, disputable.
No one would say that the faithful lives of service
(i.e., ministering) by women were unimportant. In fact, the examples of women
living, working, sacrificing and even dying for the sake of the gospel are
numerous and both convicting and inspiring. Women of faith had a great impact
on the early church and on the communities in which they lived. However, that
does not mean they were appointed to positions of leadership in the church
either alongside men or in authority over men. The biblical and historical
evidence strongly suggests that women were not appointed to leadership roles in
the early church.
Why were the early Christians so patriarchal? It was
because the society/culture in which the early Christians lived was strongly and
consistently patriarchal.[2]
While the teachings of Jesus and Paul gave greater respect to women than
previously imagined and called upon husbands, older men and younger men to
treat female believers as equal partners before God, their teaching and example
served to maintain clear gender distinctions in terms of roles and
responsibilities. However, I do not believe these teachings are permanent
doctrines that every generation of Christians must obey, nor are they God-inspired
examples that every generation of Christians must imitate. Rather, Jesus and
the apostolic and post-apostolic churches adapted in every way they could to
the culture in which they lived in order to make the unchangeable gospel
attractive, and thus to win as many as possible.
But let me make something very clear indeed! There is
only one gospel which saves those who believe (1 Cor 15:1–7) and it remains
eternal and unchangeable (Galatians 1:6–10) because there is only ONE body,
Spirit, Lord, faith, baptism, and God (Ephesians 4:4–6). In contrast, the
practices, structures and methodologies of the church are adaptable and,
indeed, must be adapted to the culture in which it exists. While the gospel is
not culturally dependent, the practices, structures and methodologies of the
church must be culturally dependent if we are to become all things to all
people.
The mission of the church is not to mindlessly reproduce
the practices, structures and methodologies of the NT church but rather it is to
preach the gospel of Christ and to do so as effectively as possible. That
means doing whatever it takes to make the unchangeable gospel as attractive as
possible to its potential hearers. (cf. Titus 2:1–10). At least some of
what made the teaching of God our Saviour attractive to the first century hearers
is not what makes that teaching attractive today. In fact, in an egalitarian
society, appointing only males to official leadership roles makes the teaching
of God our Saviour unattractive to many (mostly women, but also many men and
certainly to most who are Gen X, Y and Z).[3]
Paul wrote, in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, that he adapted
his practices, lifestyle and/or methodology in order to most effectively reach
out with the gospel to people of various cultures: to win the Jews he lived
like a Jew; to win those under the law he lived like one under the law; to
those free from the law he lived like one who was free from the law; to the
weak he became week (e.g., not drinking wine or eating meat that had been
sacrificed to idols and considering one day more important than other days,
etc.); to all people he adapted in order to save some. And he said that he did
all this adapting, “for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in
its blessings.” Paul ended this section of his letter with the
following statement (1 Cor 10:31–11:1): “So, whether you eat or drink, or
whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offence
to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please
everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so
that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
In a patriarchal society, it only makes sense that the
culture of the church would be patriarchal. Jesus was patriarchal in his
choosing of the 12 apostles because the society in which he lived was
patriarchal. The apostles had the Jerusalem church choose seven men
[not women] whom they appointed to distribute food equally to all the widows,
because the society in which they lived was patriarchal. Paul chose men
[not women] to be elders in the churches he had planted and he instructed both
Timothy and Titus that elders (overseers and shepherds) were to be “the husband
[male] of one wife [female]" because the society in which they
lived was patriarchal.
But we don’t live in a patriarchal society. We live in
an egalitarian society, or, at least, one that is striving to be more and more
egalitarian. Times have changed. Our culture is different. Women are accepted
in leadership roles throughout western society. I am convinced that if Jesus
had lived in an egalitarian society, he would have appointed at least some
women as his apostles. I am convinced that if Paul had lived in an egalitarian
society, he would have chosen the best people, from both men and women, who
were suitably gifted and living faithfully for God, to be leaders of the churches
he planted.
We don’t have the right to adapt the gospel of Jesus –
it was, is and always will be counter-cultural (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25).
It will always be a stumbling block to some, foolishness to others and the
power of God to those who are being saved! However, we must adapt our
practices, structures and methodologies to whatever makes the most sense in our
culture, “so that the message of God may not be discredited” and
to “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” and thus “win
as many as possible.” A patriarchal leadership structure is not
attractive or effective in an egalitarian society. A hierarchical
leadership structure (with or without gender bias) is not attractive or
effective in a democratic society. And in the information age, one-person
leadership is not attractive or effective. So, I’m convinced that what the
church needs today in our culture is a plurality of men and women, multi-generational
(baby-boomers, Gen Y and even X), who lead, not by authority, but by example in
their service to God, the church and the world.
Really Important Notes:
- This short paper represents my opinion and perspective only. I am not writing this on behalf of any church group, local or global.
- I'm sure there are some (perhaps many) who would disagree with some (or all) of what I've written. I welcome your comments and critiques. I would request, however, that you would be respectful -- i.e., disagree all you want with the paper, but please do not attack or judge the motives of the author (i.e., me!).
[1]
This is a ‘position paper’ and is a summary of a longer and more detailed expository
paper where I will discuss key passages in their literary and historical
contexts. Examples, both clear and disputed, with regard to the gender of
leadership in the early church will be explored. I hope to finish and post that
paper by the end of February.
[2] A patriarchal society, family, or system is one in which
the men have all or most of the power and importance. Please note: patriarchal does
not equate to misogynistic, which means reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women.
[3] Egalitarian means
supporting or following the idea that all people are equal and
should have the same rights and opportunities.
No comments:
Post a Comment