I was asked a question the other day by a friend and it’s been nagging me ever since. The question is this (quick background first: we have a retreat each year for the whole church and usually invite an outside speaker to come teach for the weekend. Also our church supports women in leadership/ministry):
“What would you think of inviting someone to speak at the church retreat that is a vocal opponent of women in leadership in the church even if they are not going to be speaking on that subject?”
My initial response was “No way; women in leadership is a matter of justice and faithfulness to the gospel. Ever since Pentecost the Spirit has made no distinction between empowering women to preach and teach. And even if the church hasn’t supported them for most of it’s history they have been doing it regardless, but without the prayers or support of most men” (can you tell I feel strongly about this?).
His response was, “Yes, but if some other church or parachurch refused to invite someone from our church to speak at their retreat because we support women in leadership wouldn’t we think them divisive and small-minded?” Presumably there are some churches out there that don’t think women should be in leadership, but are willing to invite a man to speak who thinks otherwise.
“Right, but if you were a woman you would never even get asked in the first place!”
The discussion ended there, but I continued thinking about it and started questioning my response.
Aren’t I willing to listen to Christians outside my little circle? I am, but admittedly I am more inclined to listen to people to the left of me than to the right. Nonethless, I read good books by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even conservative Protestants all of who disagree with me on the issue of women in leadership. Yes, inviting someone to preach at a church is different since they are going to be specifically instructing the church how to live and think as a Christian, but still, it’s not that different.
Also it’s a question where I think Scripture could lean either way. On the one hand there are texts like 2 John 10: “If someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite him into your house or encourage him in any way” (NLT). But in tension with this text is Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20 “that they may all be one.” Fidelity to the gospel or unity in the Spirit? Does one trump the other? Age old question, I know.
At the heart of the matter, in this particular case, is consistency. I know my church wouldn’t invite someone to speak who is a vocal supporter of abortion or racism. If those are issues on which my church are willing to take a stand, why not women in leadership? Supporting women isn’t just a matter of preference or biblical interpretation, but a matter of justice and fidelity to the good news—the gospel. That said, if a church was willing to invite anyone that falls in the broad tent of the Christian Church then I would be far more inclined to assent, both because I want to hear from those who see things differently from me and also because the bonds of friendship in Christ are real.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Nathan // Jan 16, 2006 at 8:03 am
Firstly, let me say that I differ with you on the issue of women in pastoral leadership, but I have no desire to debate that. I would not consider that an issue in inviting you to speak to any that might be under my spiritual leadership. I might ask that you respectively avoid the subject; however, women in pastoral leadership is not worth the causing division.
I have spent the past 3 years at a church where the majority would agree with me, but with a pastor that would agree with you. He has respected the positions of the church majority and has not addressed the issue from any point of controversy. This can be done successfully.
So, my response to your question is that neither fidelity to the gospel nor unity in the Spirit has to be the trump. The gospel can be proclaimed, and Christians can be taught to think for themselves, while unity is preserved.
2 scott // Jan 16, 2006 at 11:41 am
If I may be allowed to throw in my two cents – I think the answer to your question, Jason, hinges on how you define “fidelity to the Gospel” and “unity and the Spirit.”
I certainly see your dilemma, and the force of your question – because if unity in the Spirit is not to be pitted against faithfulness to the Gospel, then lines have to be drawn. False unity would be unity which exists apart from faithfulness to the Gospel – merely the absence of conflict, rather than the peace of Christ.
Which is why I have to (respectfully) disagree with you on this issue, Nathan, when you state that “women in pastoral leadership is not worth causing the division.” This seems to me to be the case only if the issue of women pastors has nothing to do with the call and gifts of the Spirit, if the Gospel and church unity have nothing to do with the concrete, communal transcendence of social divisions.
But it seems to me the latter is not the case, and thus that faithfulness to the Gospel requires that we seek to witness in our churches to that reign in which the enmity of Jew/Greek, male/female, slave/free is absolved by God’s grace and our relations with one another are healed.
I don’t think this at all settles the question you asked, Jason, of whether or not you should invite one who believes females are by nature not able to be called and gifted by the Spirit for pastoral leadership. I just mean to point out that it seems to me faithfulness and unity can’t be opposed, if our proclaiming the Gospel means we have to live it too.
But it does seem to me that we have to take account of the always broken character of our unity, this side of the eschaton, the ever present wrestling with the powers of sin. And thus perhaps we have to approach issues like this with humility, seek to engage those with whom we disagree – particularly where we feel unfaithfulness to the Gospel is at stake – and open ourselves up to the possibility of the Spirit’s work in mutual correction and edification. I don’t know whether that means invite the guy, or start a long conversation with him, explaining why you can’t yet invite him. But I certainly don’t think “avoiding the issue” does anything but lead to a semblance of unity.
There’s my two cents.
Peace,
Scott
3 Jason // Jan 16, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Scott, Nate, thank you both for giving your thoughts; it’s helpful to hear how others process this question.
Scott, what your comment made me think of is the importance of connecting the Kingdom to the gospel. If the church is to preach salvation to the world, and that salvation involves the proclamation and embodiment of the advancing Kingdom of God then how we live is directly tied to what we proclaim. If, at the heart of Kingdom is a restored community between humans and their fellow brothers and sisters and between humans and their God, then how women are supported and gifted by the church matters.
Also, there seems to be a difference between discussing these things with “friends in Christ” and asking someone to come and give spiritual leadership to a church. I’m leaning towards the conviction that someone who is asked to come give spiritual leadership to a church should be in rather close fellowship (theologically and ethically) with that church. Of course, so much hinges on how “rather close” is defined…
Leave a Comment