Are we really at a turning point for women in ministry?

Paul Smith has written an article for Evangelical Times claiming that the Evangelical Church is at a turning or tipping point when it comes to men and women in ministry.  He has also participated in a podcast discussion with the editor Mike Judge.  The article is behind a paywall so I’ve not been able to read it but I was able to listen to the podcast and it’s that which I intend to engage with here.

Paul’s argument is as follows.  There have been “abstract discussions” which have moved into concrete actions about whether or not women should preach.  He cites the example of Aimee Byrd who wrote her book “recovering from Biblical manhood and womanhood” and who now preaches. He goes on to say:

“Historically Evangelicals have said that men are to preach, now increasingly that is not the position that is held or practiced.  It starts at midweek Bible studies, then it might mean evangelistic talks and then it becomes addresses  in church.  And that progression is underway and it is inevitable what is going to happen if we follow that trajectory.”

He then talks about his experience at University in the Christian Union. The desire was to remove barriers to the Gospel and this at first meant that  if we disagree as Christians we don’t talk about it. It then  became about what is offensive to non-Christians and countering that to be attractive to them.  This led to the platforming of women.

The interviewer, Mike Judge suggests that maybe the church is “cuddling up to a culture” that loves diversity and equality. Paul agrees and says that we see this on church websites, as churches try to hit all the tick boxes of pictures to include. 

The discussion moves on to asking why are we at a turning point?  Paul says that in fact this has already happened in broader evangelicalism so he is speaking specifically about conservative evangelicalism by which he means  “non charismatic”  evangelicals.  He says that:

“There seems to be desire to platform women as much as possible in order to appease the culture, rather than  for any bigger Biblical principle.”

Mike Judge asks:

“does this bleed over into other aspects of church life”

Paul says that it does because it doesn’t matter what we think but what Scripture says.  He argues that when we interpret Scripture in the light  the culture then we  are on the road to liberalism.  It matters because this is all about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. He claims that the Bible is clear on women preaching, that liberals agree on what Paul says but argue that he was just a misogynist.

Mike asks about  possible objections to Paul’s position such as that there were women prophetesses and deaconesses in the Bible.  This is not answered.  Another objection raised is that Paul is in danger of conforming to the social norms of the 1950s. He describes this as a slur.  His response is twofold.  First, that the 1950s were followed by the 60s with the pill resulting in greater feminism and the devaluing of motherhood.  Secondly, he claism that you could argue just as much for the 1850s, 1750s and so on.  In other words, historically, culture prior to the 1960s and the Christian position conformed to Scripture.ou could argue for the 1850s and 1750s. 

Paul is then asked if there Is  room for liberty of conscience on this. He answers “No”  because liberty of conscience is bound to God’s word it isn’t a free for all for us to think and do what we want.  Our aim should be to reach conformity to Scripture. 

Right at the end he says some might be leaning into the hurting and harmed in their response to the issue and so may hear hard lines being drawn through that prism.  He suggests that perhaps t we might be talking past each other leading to misunderstanding.

Responding to the podcast

I wish that Paul Smith had started with the point he belatedly recognises in his conclusion because that might have shifted the debate in tone and perhaps opened up the better conversation that he claims to desire.  It may well be that different sides are talking past each other but of course it takes two to tango so, what if Paul was also to take time to make sure that he wasn’t mishearing as well?

You see, the way that things are set up, with the clip introducing the whole podcast and much of the discussion throughout the video is to not simply disagree with the theology or the practices of others but to accuse them of doing what they do and thinking what they think in order to appease culture.  In other words, Paul moves from disagreement and challenge to accusation based on his presumptions about the motives of others.  I seem to be repeating myself a lot on this but good faith conversation is not possible when we judge motives.  It’s an unhealthy way of engaging with others.  We are not in a position to read hearts and judge motives.  Sadly, this is happening all too frequently.

I can’t help but thinking that it is this kind of approach where motives are judged that hinders our ability to hear each other well.  If egalitarians and narrow/soft complementarians hear wide/hard complementarians as misogynists seeking to hold women back and preserve their own power, then this will affect what and how they hear. Similarly, if wide/hard complementarians see everyone else as cultural cpromises on the slippery lope to liberalism then are they going to engage with the arguments and reasoning made from Scripture by others?

Now, just because someone seeks to judge your motives where they shouldn’t doesn’t get you off the hook.  They could be right.  We need to be alert to the possibility that our position is affected by other motives including the pressure out of fear to appease this or that culture.  However, it is worth saying that life is messier than a simplistic presumption that one side have bad motives and the other pure. There may be different motives affecting different people on one side and there may be mixed motives affecting me.

I write as someone who identifies as someone within the “narrow/soft” quadrant of the complementarian compass.  This means:

1. That I believe that Scripture’s instructions are specific to the relationship between men and women in marriage and then to elders in the church.  It is not about wider roles in society.
2. That there is an element of “mutual submission” within the context of male headship in marriage.
3. That whilst eldership is male, church leadership is broader than male elders and this means women are involved in leadership including as deacons, though there also seems to be a broader sense of women as peominent co-workers suggested by Romans 16.
4. That primary teaching to the church is under the authority of the elders and that therefore, should be carried out mainly by the elders and other men who are competent to teach.
5. That women clearly do speak to the church in Scripture, noting particularly prophecy and we also see examples of them being involved, with their husbands in the discipleship of others.

Now, it’s not my intention to repeat the arguments and discussion from Scripture here because I’ve dealt with them at length in the past, for example here. What I want to do here is to note two things.  First, that yes it is important that I check my own heart motives to make sure that my position has not been unduly influenced by cultural conformity or fear of man.  However, second, yes I have dealt with the questions at length previously and you can see my working out.  You might disagree with my interpretation of Scripture but what you cannot do is claim that I’ve reached the position by rejecting or seeking to undermine the authority of Scripture. 

I must also add here that whilst I have serious disagreements with egalitarianism I also am able to recognise that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ have reached their conclusions whilst seeking to sit under the authority of God’s Word too.  It is Scripture and not our interpretations that is infallible. 

Moreover, given the accusations being thrown out, it is perhaps telling that in the podcast, there is no attempt whatsoever to engage with what Scripture actually says on the subject.  This becomes starkly obvious when Mike references female prophets and deacons.  If you are going to accuse others of being unbiblical you will do well to bring Scripture to bear on the discussion.

Rather, what we have is a reliance on tradition.  Even that understanding of tradition is shaky. We start with the claim that Evangelicals have always been against women preachers.  That’s no t the case, there’s been a long tradition of women being involved in public speaking, evangelism and yes even preaching among Evangelicals and that includes amongst staunch complementarians in some quarters.  I was at Christchurch Fulwood in the 1990s when Philip Hacking was vicar, a leading conservative evangelical in the CofE and opponent of women’s ordination.  Yet there were occasional women preachers.  Similarly, the Keswick Convention has a long tradition of welcoming women to the platform.  Of course “Evangelicals” is then modified to mean “conservative evangelicals” with a dubious interpretation of what that term means.  Yet even on that narrow outlook I’m not convinced that Paul gets his history right.

We also see an unwillingness in the podcast on the part of Paul to check his own influences.  The description of he argument that Paul’s position is shaped as much by 1950s culture is described as a slur.  I’m not sure if I’m one of the people Paul has in mind, however, the point is one I’ve raised, though not so much to do with preaching as with how we apply complementarianism in the home.  I make it specifically in “Marriage at work” where I look at Ephesians 5 and its application to contemporary issues.  As you can see there, my point is not that there was a culture pre the 1950s which was overturned in the 1960s but rather that we see specific cultural expressions which reflect that time period and indeed a specific geographical context too.  This means that Paul is wrong when he says that you could go to the 1850s, 1750s and so on.  Whilst culture today is different to the 1850s and 1750s, those time periods were also in many ways different to the 1950s. 

Now, we could beat a turning point when it comes to how the church approaches the question of male and female roles in the church and the home.  It is also possible that such a turning point will be for good or for bad.  However, we won’t be able to determine that by throwing out accusations about the motives of others or seeing slippery slopes everywhere.  Rather, we need to have a proper good faith conversation where we actually listen to each other but more importantly stop to look at God’s Word together.