Emerging Women

Recently over at The Common Loon the question was asked whether there is a Calvinist-Complementarian connection. With the rise of the “New Calvinists” often referred to as the “young, restless, and reformed,” the gender roles issue has taken on a new life. The blog author writes -

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included)…

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology….

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever’s 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

His post is insightful in wondering why this is such an issue and wonders if there are egalitarian Calvinists. One of the leaders of the New Calvinists, Kevin DeYoung (co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent) responded to the post on his own blog. In it he graciously admitted that some egalitarians come to that position from the Bible, but that he thinks it is best if Calvinists don’t associate with them. His reasons include -

1. Those that accept egalitarianism, over time accept sexual immorality.
2. If we are confused about manhood and womanhood then we can’t minister to our culture.
3. Egalitarians don’t always affirm core doctrines like inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment while complementarians do.
4. If we want to work with other people/denominations Calvinists need to be clear on who is allowed to be in leadership or speak at those events. Its just easier to assert that women aren’t allowed.

I know here at Emerging Women we have complementarians as well as egalitarians, and I am sure at least a few Calvinists. So how do you respond to these assertions? Can a Calvinist be an egalitarian, or at least associate with them? Is it better to take a stand and not work with those who are different from you? Should we as Christians seek unity first, and denominational doctrine second (or the other way around)?

I admit that as an egalitarian, it is easier sometimes to simply not have to deal with the complementarians. I don’t want to be a part of a church that denies the call of God in my life or that tells me that I am lesser than men. It’s a position I struggled to come to through long biblical study, and I can’t place myself back into a world that actively oppresses me. That said, I have issues with saying that I would never work with a complementarian (no matter how much I disagree with his theology). I am for building the body of Christ and loving others even if I disagree with them or see them committing injustices. It’s hard, but I feel like that is the response I have to have.

So what are your thoughts? How as Christians should we interact?

By Liz Dyer

For most of my life I pretty much believed what someone else told me the bible said. That isn’t to say that I didn’t read the bible or study the bible – but I interpreted within the guidelines of what someone else told me it said (a pastor, a commentary, a particular author etc.). Over time I began to realize that I could not accept some of the popular interpretations and I began to dig deeper. One of the topics that I began to look into was the issue of a woman’s role in the church. I was surprised to find out that this was an issue that not only divided Christians and non-Christians, mainliners and evangelicals, liberals and conservatives but also conservative evangelical Christians themselves. I was also surprised that there were some very big words that were being used to describe the two main sides of the issue … egalitarian and complementarian.

Egalitarianism = Belief that there are no biblically mandated timeless distinctions between men and women in the church. They stress an equality of men and women, not merely for salvation or in essential personhood, but in opportunities to hold every office and play every role that exists in church life.

Complementarianism = Belief that there are certain timeless restrictions on women’s roles in the church. They stress that persons in positions of authority can function in loving, supportive ways that do not lead to the abuse of those in subordinate positions. Certain roles are altogether prohibited for women.

As I started to dig into this issue one of the first things I noticed is that it is difficult to find anyone that totally agrees on where the lines are to be drawn. Is it only that women cannot be ordained? Or is it that they cannot preach at all? Or teach? Or speak? Serve as deacons? Teach in seminaries? What exactly is it that they can and cannot do? Who decides and on what basis?

Then there are all the irrationalities and contradictions to process. Why is it okay to teach children and other women, but not men? Why would it be okay to stand up and deliver a message to a group of people but not stand behind a pulpit? Is it really that much difference in teaching a 17 year old male and a 19 year old male? Why would it be okay for a woman to lead a whole nation but not a church that has 50 members? Why does the bible speak favorably of a woman judge who led, taught and had authority over men and women, a woman apostle and women who led church in their homes?
As I continued to dig and search I came to the conclusion that Paul was not a sexist, that women are not clearly forbidden to teach, preach, shepherd or lead in the church and/or the home and that Jesus was a liberator of women.

Here are some of the reasons I am an egalitarian:
1. Scripture affirms that women were leaders in ministry – Phoebe was a deacon, Priscilla was a teacher, Lydia was an overseer.
2. Paul calls Junia an apostle in Romans 16:7
3. If Scripture allows for some ministry roles then we can’t disallow it. The era and culture of the day prevented widespread ministry roles, but Paul doesn’t say that women can’t serve in leadership roles.
4. In I Cor. 11:5 Paul says that women were praying and prophesying in church. In I Cor. 14:34-35 Paul is not restricting women from speaking – otherwise women would not be allowed to sing, give testimony, or say anything at all in church. I believe that Paul was actually refuting the faulty sexist tradition that was prevalent in his day. For more on this read what Cheryl Schatz wrote in her post “Who Dared To Contradict Paul?”
5. In I Tim. 2:11-14 the idea of women being forbidden to teach men is not a universal rule. If we make this universal and transcultural then we have to make all the commands of I Timothy transcultural. Cheryl Schatz also has an excellent post on this point.
6. Jesus treated women different than culture. He taught them and considered them His disciples – Mary of Mary and Martha and the woman at the well are good examples.
7 Given examples of women’s ministry in the Bible it is wrong to take one or two passages that could be situationally conditional and use them to deny or substantially restrict a group of laborers. The burden of proof lies with those that are doing the restricting and I believe they fail to provide the needed evidence. Dave at Clouds of Heaven has an excellent post on this idea here.

My name is Liz and I am a follower of Jesus Christ who lives in Texas (Dallas/Fort Worth area). I am married and have two sons. I enjoy reading, blogging, listening to music, going to movies, the emergent conversation and hanging out with friends and family. I recently started a blog called Grace Rules. I named my blog Grace Rules because although I have a history of letting things like rules, regulations, law, convictions, and stuff like that rule my life, I am determined to become a woman who is ruled by grace and love.