As I've explored this topic on and off, I think what both complementarian and egalitarians have failed to reckon with adequately is the concept of mothering and fathering in the church. My other pet peeve is how the conversation often opens up with 'power', and I think that in church leadership, we shouldn't be asking "who gets power over the other"? but should be asking, "Who gets to stop lording it over others?" (Answer: everyone.)
The complementarians (of the American conservative kind, especially) relegate mothering to something merely in the home, and don't seem to take into account how much of being a mother is being a leader. If this concept was explored more, not only do I think it would benefit the home, and benefit women in general, but having mothers in the church who lead would be a no-brainer. And in all honesty, we need proper mothers in the church - women who can lead in a womanly way, and who actually are recognized as mothers - as leaders.
Egalitarians have failed to think of mothering properly at all, in my opinion. By taking away the clear differences between men and women, I note that (often enough), the women tend to lead like men. Christian egalitarians tend to be a bit softer - many of them do recognize the differences, but they don't account for them properly, in my opinion. In other words, they think installing a woman as a pastor fixes the problem of power dynamics (which, again, I think is the wrong starting point) without asking the question of what woman leadership looks like. Here's the dynamic they seem to adopt: Men have had too much power over woman, we fix that by installing woman in the roles the tradition has insisted is only for men, and that should fix the power dynamic. Only some go so far as to ask what the role looks like in a womanly way (like the Wesleyans) but most of the time, I don't think people are honestly reckoning with what mothering looks like.
It's for this reason that I do believe that the role of 'elder' in the church is a role for fathers, as I think that's how the Bible talks about it. But this does not mean mothers are not leaders! What we have failed to do is recognize mothers, or recognize that this is a leadership role. We think their job is to put up the decor and (in more healthy scenarios) pastor the women; or perhaps sing and take care of the children. If we acknowledged that the church needs leaders, both men and women, and think of these as fathers and mothers, I think we'll come much closer to the Biblical vision, and we'd get to jettison complementarianism and egalitarianism completely for something less institutional and much more human.
Taking into consideration the impending minefield that this subject matter can trigger, especially in the context of a postmodernist viewpoint, you have raised some interesting questions and points to explore. You have also successfully managed to get me out of my seat, hunt down something akin to a notepad and a writing implement, and start doing some reading and research of my own. No hard feat for someone as complacent as me.
Thank you for taking the time to read the post and to think!
In terms of research, I would browse Preston Sprinkle’s Theology in the Raw because he interviews people with diverse views which he often does not agree with. So you hear things from many different angles and he does a lot of work in this area.
I would also listen to Jamie Goggin and Kyle Strobel and read their book, the way of the Dragon, the way of the lamb. It was the most revelatory book I have read on the subject of power which I think is intrinsically linked to the issues of women in leadership.
Lastly anything which connects the dots of Paul-Lydia-Phoebe-Priscilla (and Aquilla) would prove interesting.
And if you listen to the specific vides I mentioned, there is a lot of interesting stuff there.
As I've explored this topic on and off, I think what both complementarian and egalitarians have failed to reckon with adequately is the concept of mothering and fathering in the church. My other pet peeve is how the conversation often opens up with 'power', and I think that in church leadership, we shouldn't be asking "who gets power over the other"? but should be asking, "Who gets to stop lording it over others?" (Answer: everyone.)
The complementarians (of the American conservative kind, especially) relegate mothering to something merely in the home, and don't seem to take into account how much of being a mother is being a leader. If this concept was explored more, not only do I think it would benefit the home, and benefit women in general, but having mothers in the church who lead would be a no-brainer. And in all honesty, we need proper mothers in the church - women who can lead in a womanly way, and who actually are recognized as mothers - as leaders.
Egalitarians have failed to think of mothering properly at all, in my opinion. By taking away the clear differences between men and women, I note that (often enough), the women tend to lead like men. Christian egalitarians tend to be a bit softer - many of them do recognize the differences, but they don't account for them properly, in my opinion. In other words, they think installing a woman as a pastor fixes the problem of power dynamics (which, again, I think is the wrong starting point) without asking the question of what woman leadership looks like. Here's the dynamic they seem to adopt: Men have had too much power over woman, we fix that by installing woman in the roles the tradition has insisted is only for men, and that should fix the power dynamic. Only some go so far as to ask what the role looks like in a womanly way (like the Wesleyans) but most of the time, I don't think people are honestly reckoning with what mothering looks like.
It's for this reason that I do believe that the role of 'elder' in the church is a role for fathers, as I think that's how the Bible talks about it. But this does not mean mothers are not leaders! What we have failed to do is recognize mothers, or recognize that this is a leadership role. We think their job is to put up the decor and (in more healthy scenarios) pastor the women; or perhaps sing and take care of the children. If we acknowledged that the church needs leaders, both men and women, and think of these as fathers and mothers, I think we'll come much closer to the Biblical vision, and we'd get to jettison complementarianism and egalitarianism completely for something less institutional and much more human.
Taking into consideration the impending minefield that this subject matter can trigger, especially in the context of a postmodernist viewpoint, you have raised some interesting questions and points to explore. You have also successfully managed to get me out of my seat, hunt down something akin to a notepad and a writing implement, and start doing some reading and research of my own. No hard feat for someone as complacent as me.
Good piece, one I’ll come back to often...
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to read the post and to think!
In terms of research, I would browse Preston Sprinkle’s Theology in the Raw because he interviews people with diverse views which he often does not agree with. So you hear things from many different angles and he does a lot of work in this area.
I would also listen to Jamie Goggin and Kyle Strobel and read their book, the way of the Dragon, the way of the lamb. It was the most revelatory book I have read on the subject of power which I think is intrinsically linked to the issues of women in leadership.
Lastly anything which connects the dots of Paul-Lydia-Phoebe-Priscilla (and Aquilla) would prove interesting.
And if you listen to the specific vides I mentioned, there is a lot of interesting stuff there.