Women's Role: Can We Be Unified in Our Diversity?

Disclaimer: This post is written primarily for my family, friends and associates who are members of the Vancouver Church of Christ and secondarily for those who are members of the ICOC denomination. It is motivated by the discussion, now ongoing in at least some ICOC churches, regarding what the Bible does and does not say about women's role in the church. All others are certainly welcome to read and comment, but please keep in mind the specific context that motivates my comments.

*********************

At the beginning of this year, the minister of my local church family, introduced a discussion of women's role in the church. He has preached three sermons and is in the process of writing a series of six articles regarding where he has landed on this issue and why. (See the sermon series "Half the Church" and the blog posts attached: https://www.vancouverchurchofchrist.org/sermons).

Before digging into this, a couple of definitions would be helpful:

• Egalitarianism is derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level). In theological spheres, egalitarianism generally means equality in authority and responsibilities between genders.

• Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, church leadership and elsewhere.  

I've used this opportunity to study this issue out in much greater detail and depth than ever before. Certainly, as we in Canadian society strive to be ever more egalitarian and inclusive, this is a timely topic that requires discussion. Yet, this is not a new discussion; the role of women in the church has been debated since the very beginning of Christianity as is even obvious in the pages of the New Testament, as well as in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Sincere, knowledgeable, Bible believing, scholars, theologians, academics and other Jesus followers, have "landed" at various places on the continuum between strict complementarianism and ardent egalitarianism and, I think, always will. Such is the situation in which we find ourselves in the Vancouver Church of Christ. All the preaching, writing of blog posts and articles, reading of recommended references, discussions and even respectful debates will not get all of us to land on exactly the same place. This is an issue for which the biblical texts presents, at least somewhat, conflicting perspectives, depending on how one (a) views and uses these texts, and thus (b) interprets said texts. But the bottom line is that sincere, knowledgeable, Bible believing, Christ followers can (and will) legitimately come to differing conclusions and convictions about women's role.

Some would say that we just need to go with "the plain reading of the text." However, I agree with those who have noted that we as a denomination (ICOC) and as a local church (VCOC) have long ago left the shores of "following just the plain reading of the text." In regard to so many issues, we have noted that just a plain reading of the text isn't sufficient. Proper exegesis always involves taking historical, cultural and literary contexts into account. When it comes to women's role, even the strict complementarians must acknowledge that we actually don't put the plain reading of the text into practice, when it comes to either 1 Corinthians 14:33–39 or 1 Timothy 2:8–15. How certain are we that everything we say is culturally dependent in the Bible, actually is culturally dependent and thus is not obligatory? And if the two texts above are culturally dependent, then what else in the Bible is also culturally dependent? When Timothy and Titus are told that an elder/shepherd/overseer "must be the husband of one wife," is that culturally dependent, and if so, does that mean we are free to appoint someone as an elder who is "the wife of one husband?"

In my 30 plus years as a member of ICOC churches, in which I served 25 years in the full-time paid ministry in Canadian churches of Christ, we have come to a place that is neither strict complementarianism nor ardent egalitarianism. We actually practice a compromise of the two. True, we don't appoint women as evangelists, but we do appoint women as women's ministry leaders, who are financially supported by the church and work together with their male ministry partners to advance the gospel among both men and women. True, we don't appoint women as elders/shepherds/overseers – because the text clearly says that an elder must be the husband (Gk = aner) of one wife (Gk = gune) – but neither do we appoint men as elders without their wives as their shepherding partner, and many of our churches appoint "shepherding couples" and even single women as "shepherds." Women also lead in many ways in ICOC churches and ICOC parachurch organizations - children's ministry, teen ministry, HOPE worldwide, church boards, mission societies, etc. Maybe we've landed where we are presently, i.e., neither complementarian nor egalitarian, consciously or not, as a way to promote greater involvement, influence and impact of the women in our churches, while at the same time respecting the convictions of those who are complementarian.  In light of the passages where Paul says that he would not do anything that would cause his brother or sister to stumble, shouldn't that be the underlying principle that guides us as we strive as a church to "land" somewhere on the issue of women's role. Maybe, where we've already landed is where we should be, for the sake of unity, while continuing to discuss how to promote greater involvement, influence and impact of women in our churches. 

To be honest, I, personally, have "landed" on the egalitarian side of this issue. I will strive to explain why in some future blog posts. However, I recognize that not an insignificant number of other sincere, truth-seeking, Bible believing, disciples of Jesus, who have also studied, prayed and discussed women's role, have "landed" more on the complementarian side. While I don't believe any of us sees this as a salvation issue, my fear is that it can, very easily and quickly, become a fellowship issue – that is, if we as a local church (or denomination) land on either side, what about those sincere sisters and brothers who disagree and for whom it is truly a conscience and conviction issue?  

Is there a way to continue to promote the impact and influence of women in our church families without alienating those among us who, to their credit, have already accommodated themselves to an egalitarian leaning practice? And, it must be noted that they have done so to a degree way beyond what the comfort level that their complementarian convictions would normally allow. Is there a way to recognize the needs, the wishes, the hopes and the convictions of both egalitarians and complementarians without creating a conscience issue for either group, and thus a potential fellowship rift? Do we really believe that practicing strict egalitarianism would advance the gospel, while complementarians among us might be forced, because of conscience, to disengage or even leave our fellowship? I, for one, believe that a fellowship rift or exodus because of this issue would hinder the gospel. However, if we can find a way for us all to live, work, pray, serve and preach together, in spite of our diverse opinions and convictions on the issue of women's role, I think we might just might make the gospel more attractive to our contemporary society. We could show the world that the love of Christ is the force that binds us, even when we differ in our opinions or convictions. We can be to the world the much needed example that unity is not uniformity, but rather unity is achieved and maintained, in the midst of diversity, when faith expresses itself in love. 

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6).