Council limits pastoral roles to men

From Christian Week:

TORONTO, ON-Roy Matheson has been one of the most vocal opponents of a move by conservatives within one of Canada's largest evangelical denominations, the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada (FEBCC), to make male leadership a test of membership in the denomination. This fall, Matheson may pay the price for his beliefs by having to walk out of the denomination at the FEBCC's conference November 3-6 in Toronto... Darryl Dash, senior pastor at Richview Baptist Church in Toronto, believes the National Council is making a mistake in pushing the issue and listening to a small group of strict complementarians who are threatening a split that would likely involve many more churches than a split involving egalitarian churches. "A small group is pushing us toward a precipice," he says. "Scripture is not clear enough to demand unanimity." Dash, who worked with several other Toronto area pastors to defer the issue for a year for further study, wonders "what's worth splitting over and drawing lines in the sand." He also worries the issue will contribute to FEBCC churches losing their significance in today's "post-Christian" society. "We need to address missional questions in a society that doesn't care what churches think (about the role of women)," he says. "We need to accept ambiguity and allow diversity. Unfortunately, this is not the Council's view."

I was having nightmares about this article after the interview was over, mainly because I couldn't remember if I had been too harsh. Overall, not a bad representation of both sides of the debate.

Comments

[Mike]

Hey Darryl: I'm probably the wrong guy to give a comment because I think denominationalism is on its death bed (Amen!). Is this a "Kingdom issue" (whatever those are...)? I don't think so. So, those who want to make it one: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Peace.

[Darryl]

I'm wondering if I should just let the denomination decide whatever it wants and stick to more important issues.

[Richard]

I've been in that place with decisions of the denomination I'm a part of, too, Darryl. The difficulty comes when I need to decide whether or not I can support the decisions... and still be faithful. By the way, the closing quote in that article, "We need to address..." was well spoken. Blessings and peace - Richard Bott

[Jacob]

Darryl, What is your most convincing passage of Scripture for the Egalitarian point of view? Also, in your opinion what is the clincher argument against the traditional view (men lead churches and families)? Just wondering - I'd like to try and understand the other side. Thanks, Jacob.

[Darryl]

I'm not sure there's a clincher argument on either side. It's such a complicated issue with all kinds of nuances. I just read about 10 books on the topic and came away with the conclusion that it's not cut and dry either way. In fact, I'm not even sure I've come to a firm conclusion on the issue either way. I know two things: both sides are radically revising the traditional view. What we call complimentarianism or the traditional view is vastly different from church history, which we would consider embarrassing now. I also know that while we should all wrestle and try to come to a conclusion, it seems silly to refuse to associate with others who come to a different conclusion. As I said, it's not cut and dry, and it's not a do or die issue.

[Jacob]

Obviously many are convicted this issue is cut and dry and would be uncomfortable being yoked with unqualified Pastors (BTW, one could be unqualified for many different reasons). I think that needs to be respected. Let me re-phrase my question. In your opinion what is the best passage of scripture the Egalitarian side has? What is the best argument against the Complementarian point of view (as espoused by BCMW)? Not talking clinchers here. Jacob

[Darryl]

The best argument that the complimentarians have is the headship argument. I think headship does mean leadership. Other passages are a bit tougher. 1 Timothy 2 is one of the most challenging passages in the New Testament. There's no question the NT is patriarchal. The only question is why: is it a reflection of that culture, or is it meant to be timeless teaching? The best argument that the egalitarians have is Galatians 3:28. Some think it just applies to salvation. Others argue that there is a movement in the New Testament which sees some of the teaching as culturally bound. The best book on this topic, that I know of, is Bill Webb's book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. The last chapter, "What if I'm wrong," is excellent. There are people on both sides who are intolerant and think everything is clear cut. I think these people, and they exist on both sides, are blowing smoke. Anyone who doesn't have something like Webb's "What if I'm wrong" caveat probably hasn't studied the issue enough, or is being intellectually dishonest and proud. Again, I mean that to apply to both sides.

[Jacob]

Thanks. I'm gonna study Gal 3 and try to pick up Webb's book. The thing that makes this issue so flammable is that it's very visual and practical. It's not just a theoretical doctrinal issue (like the end times, literal vs. figurative 7 days of creation, or even the Calvinist debate). Depending on which view you take it directly effects the way we run and lead our churches and families. It is because of this I'm not sure that we can be yoked together as like minded churches. Again, thanks for your response. Jacob.

[kevin]

I've written paper after paper on this and spoken to a number of groups. The more I pray and study on this subject, the more I realize the good book just doesn't give a clear answer. To that, I say each congregation/denomination needs to faithfully come to its own decision and then be obedient. At the same time, we need to remember there is not enough evidence one way or the other to deny fellowship with groups that believe otherwise. Personally? I fall into the camp that says where the bible is not absolutely explicit, the door is open. Women as pastors/elders/teachers (whatever word you use) are not expressly forbidden, so I'm not going to say they don't have their place. By experience, I know a number of wonderful women faithfully serving as pastors/elders/teachers and a number of healthy, growing congregations with women pastors/elders/teachers. However, I have not yet experienced a healthy, growing congregation with a woman as an individual lead pastor or solo pastor. It doesn't mean it isn't possible or that there aren't thousands of such congregations. It just means I haven't come across one yet. Bottom line? While I have no issue at all working for a female boss (I currently work for a company owned by two women), I do not think I would be comfortable serving in a church with a woman as the senior pastor. Whether this is biblical or just a short coming on my part, I do not know. However, as I look to pastoring a church again in the near future, I pray for faithful, called women to be a part of the eldership.

[kevin]

Sorry. Started reading the comments and got sidetracked. What I meant to say was that your statements were great. I'm also impressed at how well the reporter presented them. :)

[George]

Hi Darryl I haven't really studied the issue but find it interesting. I am part of a church plant that indicates the following on this issue: "We at----- church affirm the significant and God-ordained role that women are to play in the establishment and leadership of the local church. We beleive that every opportunity of leadership is open to women except those that are excluded by Scripture. We do not feel any pressure to re-examine the clear biblical teaching on the exclusion of women from the office of elder simply because the unregenerate world is clamoring for the church to do so. We stand with the 2000 year old historical concensus on the teaching of Scripture that women are not to be placed in positions within the church where they would exercise authority over the male leadership or where they would teach doctrine to the adult members of the congregation. We do not see this as an issue of equality, for men and women are equal under God in every way. We see this as an issue of sameness. Men and women are not the same, the Bible makes that very clear. Just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different in function and responsibility yet equal, so it is with the relationship between men and women. While we reject the movement within Christianity to see men and women as the same, we do stand against the other extreme which de-emphasizes the significant leadership role of women in the church. We want to see female leadership when qualified candidates are available, in any leadership position other than elder or deacon." Seems very clear and Scriptural to me, what do you think Darryl?

[Darryl]

Well, it is clear, and that is one Biblical position, but it's far clear that it is the right and only view. Appealing to 2,000 years of history sounds good, but conservatives today have a much different view of women than conservatives did two hundred years ago. Both sides are radically revising church tradition. Tradition counts for something, but it should take second place to Scripture, it would seem to me. As I say, the view you expressed is a valid one, but (in my view) there is also another alternate, roughly equally plausible position. At the end of the day, I'm not as concerned with the position a church takes as much as the humility that goes along with it, and the commitment not to make this an issue worth splitting over.