I know people will have a lot of issues with this title, and probably even more when they find out that this blog is about complementarianism, which tends to raise the temperature a few notches all on its own.
For those not in the know, complementarianism is the belief that God created men and women of equal value and dignity as image bearers, but with differing functions. We believe that those differences in function bear no difference in value – the world has done that, but the theology does not. But badly applied theology is not a reason to throw out the theology. It is a reason to turn up the dial on the discourse and apply it better.
This week the dial is all over the place since Albert Mohler made a comment on a podcast that caused the title of this blog. Let’s start at the beginning.
Application of complementarianism in the US tends towards the more conservative end of the spectrum. An example of the “more conservative end” would be John Piper who asserted that women should not be drill sergeants, umpires or sometimes even police officers because it would “offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership and thus controvert God’s created order.” (Don’t get me started on that). Dr Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and prominent speaker and teacher, added fuel to the fire in the last fortnight. He has proposed a clear amendment to the Southern Baptist Convention Constitution that a cooperating SBC church “Does not affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.”
On the surface it seems clear – women can’t preach from the pulpit. But scratch just a little deeper and there are questions. What is Dr Mohler understanding of pastor, elder and overseer and how are they the same in activity or function to those roles we see in the New Testament? And, perhaps more crucially, what does “the function of” encompass?
The opacity of the statement was made clear the following week when Dr Mohler, while on a podcast, was asked by a female listener, about a podcast run by her church where the pastor and staff members (one of whom is a woman) answer questions from the previous Sunday sermon. The listener said “I believe she’s acting as a pastor in this context because she’s giving advice to the whole church body.”
Dr Mohler responded that yes, the woman is teaching. “If she is functioning as a pastor, then she is assuming the role of a pastor and I think that’s what’s implied here. And yes, I do see that as a problem.”
Dr Mohler is a Christian brother and this is not a blog to throw stones. He is acting from his sincere belief that this is the correct application of scripture. Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy. That is, our adherence to the Christian faith and doctrine will lead to correct practice. This is what we all aim for.
I am troubled by the US trajectory though. I am a complementarian and believe wholeheartedly in the truth and beauty of men and women working together and functioning in complementary ways. What I am troubled by is the preponderance of the SBC on all the things a woman shouldn’t do.
Let me give you an example to clarify the concern. I had a conversation with my teenage son the other day on disciplining children (we talk sometimes about things like this as he starts looking forward to the days when he is married and has a family of his own.) I mentioned that the naughty corner was my preferred method which I got from TVs Supernanny. It just worked. Smacking for discipline is not successful I offered, because if you start down that path, there’s only one way you can go with it – you smack harder and more often to get results, and that is not a place you want to end up.
I feel like this move by Dr Mohler, as good as his intention is, may have a similar effect. We are moving very quickly from a ban on leading a church and preaching to mixed audiences from the pulpit to an increasingly long list of prohibitions. The inclusion of not just “pastor” by title but also “function as” can then include anything in the eye of the beholder. But which beholder?
If I, in my mixed Bible study, make comments about the sermon the previous Sunday, am I functioning as pastor? How about if I’m on a Christian but non-church related podcast? What if a man reads my blogs and articles?
Where this leads is either silence on my part to fulfil all righteousness, and/or I must only be in female contexts. With regard to the latter, as identified by Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher in their book Embracing Complementarianism, if men and women are separated into siloes, there isn’t much complementing going on. If we are siloed, we miss the opportunity to work for God’s glory as a complementary unit of image bearers. If we are silenced….
In Matthew 28:8-10, the women were first at the tomb to see the risen Jesus. “The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid, yet filled with joy, and ran to tell the disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them, “Greetings, he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to a Galilee; there they will see me.” Then in verse 16 “the eleven disciples went to Galilee” which means the women had told them and they had listened.
The women directly took the message of Jesus to the disciples and they listened. I am moved to wonder that if the SBC’s version of complementarianism was followed by the first disciples, if the women would be allowed this message bearing.
I am not using this passage to argue for women guarding the good deposit and preaching. I am using this passage to illustrate the integral role women have in the church that Dr Mohler’s prohibitions would potentially silence.
I am extremely blessed in my church to be led by a good and godly complementarian minister. Women do not preach from the pulpit, or lead mixed Bible studies, or lead services from the front. But women are extremely visible in the life of the church and, as over 50% of the congregation, our minister seeks out female voices to help him weigh options before deciding on a course of action.
I am surrounded by strong complementarian men who value my input and encourage me to use my voice. We discuss and debate and think through theology together without controverting their male sense of leadership or responsibility. In all honesty, I do not know many (if any) ministers whose God-given maleness is so fragile that I must be limited so as not to offend it. I have experienced non-ministers whose sense of maleness was offended but that was more to do with cultural reasons than scriptural ones (but that’s an issue for another blog).
Do I accept some limitations because of my gender? Yes. My complementarianism, rooted strongly in biblical truth, demands that I am voluntarily self limiting in some aspects. I do not preach to mixed audiences even though I would like to. I do not lead mixed Bible studies even though I know I have the ability to. I have turned down both those opportunities in fact. But my doctrinal beliefs and faith in Jesus means that my self limitation is both voluntary and joyful. We must not forget that in complementarianism, men must be self limiting too, we forget this in all the focus on women. And Jesus had all the power in the universe and yet was voluntarily self limiting to the point of an anguishing death on the cross.
Orthodoxy should lead to orthopraxy. But the trajectory of the SBC events of the last few weeks leaning hard into prescriptive prohibitions, feels more like legalism which is worrying.
We are called to strive for God’s glory together, in roles that are complementary. That means they work together. Differing functions but with one that cannot achieve what they need for God’s glory without the other. A list of prohibitions focused solely on women starts to look like men who lead in a way that doesn’t need women, and women who are just an adjunct.
This is not the complementarianism I see in the truth and beauty of scripture. I pray our churches can apply our theological convictions in a way that honours God’s created order and God’s created goodness, to his glory.