I just posted an essay on church and pomo blog on “Why I am Not an Egalitarian in relation to women in ministry in the church: Because postmodernity did it to me.” (The title was shortened for the blog). If you’re interested in the subject please check it out. But first I need to explain some things.
First, I believe flat out the issue of gender relations is central to the church and its witness to the justice God is working out in the world through Jesus Christ. Anyone who knows me for a while, knows that I have been an advocate of women’s ordination and women’s full participation in the authority of the church for many years. I do not subscribe to the complementarian approach that says women can be in any position of authority in the church as long as they have a man over them because I don’t believe that limitation is put on women in Scripture. I believe 1 Cor 14:34, and 1 Tim 2:12 is about something else. Yet I humbly confess I see some problems in staking out a position using the terms “egalitarian” along with “equality” and even inherent individual rights. It is the political assumptions that so often undergird those terms that bothers me.
I believe the Western liberal political assumptions encoded in the words “egalitarian” hinder true gender reconciliation and justice in the churches I have been in and around. They set us up to be individuals, not members of one another in a unity that supersedes gender yet does not erase it (Gal 3:28). They exert power discourses that sublate gender difference. So we have fights, square offs, pain, hurt, make women be men, hurling at one another in unbelievable division in local churches and denominations nation-wide. For these reasons I think the political assumptions that undergird the egalitarian interpretation need to deconstructed. I think postmodern critical theorists can help. Of course I also think complementarians need deconstruction as well for they are captive to the same political categories as egalitarians. I could have written the post on the complimentarians, but that would have been too easy.
Unfortunately I fear if I criticize or engage in the dangers of the political assumptions that underly the Egalitarian position, I get that look of not being Politically Correct, like I am a dinosaur from the fundamentalist dark ages (how can a guy read Judith Butler and be a fundy?). Like how can I REALLY be for women’s justice and full participation in ordination if I am not a complete advocate of the egalitarian position. It’s one of those postmodern things that sometimes you can be saying something that sounds like one position but actually means something quite profoundly different. So I knew I’d be taking some risks when I posted this essay. Nonetheless, I gave it a shot. Lord have mercy. Anyways, if you’re interested in why I am not an egalitarian – because postmodernity did it to me … check it out on churchandpomo and then tell me where I went wrong. Seriously, I’m open for conversation and feedback!
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.