Why I'm Not an Egalitarian...

When we as an elder board and a whole community processed the issue of women in leadership, we came to something different than the complementarian position- we could see that it's not a universal principle in Scripture that women never taught men or exercised authority over them. It just isn't. So we knew we needed to be open to that.
Also, there was no "elder exception clause" that would allow us to be open to women in all positions of leadership except the role of elder or pastor, (I've come to believe (watch your toes) that the only two really consistent positions, scripturally, are the heirarchical and what is often called the "egalitarian" position... but that's a different topic), so we knew we couldn't talk about including women in the full life of the community and leadership and arbitrarily exclude them from certain positions or (toes! TOES!) call certain positions "director" if women happened to fill them and "pastor" should the occupant be male.

But what we didn't come to was what many think of as being the egalitarian position. And let me be clear here- when I talk about the "egalitarian position", I'm talking about perceptions and common understandings that may or may not be representative of the positions of others who claim that label, yeah?
Anyway, what I mean by "what we didn't come to was what many think of as being the egalitarian position" is that we didn't set out to seek some percentage balance or (the dreaded word) quota of women in leadership. It's entirely possible (and was true for the first two years of evergreen) that we would not have women on the elder board. It's also entirely possible that we might have ALL women on the elder board. And so on.
Also, I really want to affirm the "complementary" nature of male/female creation. We really are different. Very different. Sometimes shockingly so :)
And that's WHY we need women in leadership, but again, that's another post...
(As an aside, a certain large, emergent-esque church here in town has recently finished processing this same issue, but with slightly different results- they maintain their complementarian leadership structure but they have, *ahem*... The Council of Godly Women. I have nothing but love for said community, so, I'm just poking a little fun at a sister-community here, but every time I hear "The Council of Godly Women" I can't help but think of some Stars Wars inspired Jedi-like council with robes meeting in a dark room...)

All of that to say, I was happy to see David Fitch come out with the same "We're for women in leadership but not egalitarianism" position... and do a much better, more erudite-sounding job at explaining it.

He says:

"In the church world where I come from, people still argue about the issue of women’s ordination and equal participation in the authority of the church. Conservative protestants have virtually beaten the issue to death yet still remain locked into the well worn polarity between the Complementarians, who view women in the church as determined by the NT role of husband ‘s headship over the wife, and the Egalitarians, who point to the plethora of NT evidence concerning women’s equal participation with men in the authority of the church. The “Biblical Equality” position views this newfound equal status for women as part of the redeemed structure of humanity in Christ and therefore it applies to Christian marriages as well. I too believe that woman have equal participation in the gifts of the Spirit given on Pentecost to the church (Acts 2:17-18). I am for the ordination of women in the church as well. I endorse and affirm women’s full participation in the authority/leadership of the church as part of the redeemed structure of humanity inaugurated in Christ. To many of us this seems all too obvious at this point. This last affirmation however is why I see a lack in the Egalitarian option (I see similar issues with the Complementarians). Both positions seem incapable of describing a justice born of the reconciliation God is working in the world through Christ (2 Cor 5:19). And I believe, oddly enough, that a few postmodern critical theorists help us understand this better. In what follows, I offer three insights from Critical theory that reveal the inadequacies of the “Biblical Equality” position and their cousins among the classic protestant modern feminists (as distinguished from the post-structuralist feminists). I concentrate on the Egalitarians because this position is most often assumed to be the position best aligned with gender relation justice. I realize I am characterizing their views in the short space that I have here. I can only hope to be more precise in future writings.

So here goes with three insights from postmodern critical theorists (and friends) that help us see the inadequacies of the so-called Egalitarian position as a way forward in establishing justice and reconciliation regarding gender relations in the church of Jesus Christ. "

Read the rest here

Comments

[Makeesha]

I can go along more with what you're saying than how David put it but I still think you're playing word games. Egalitarianism is a very broad and very simple idea that you both subscribe to you just refuse to call yourselves as such for whatever reason. It's like Fitch calling himself an evangelical and refusing to drop that term even when in many ways he's not and it's the same as certain people refusing to call themselves Christians or a church when indeed they are. or like you calling yourself part of the emerging church even when there are many areas in which you wouldn't identify.

Just because one doesn't like some of the fringe ideas or perceptions of a given term doesn't mean they aren't whatever that thing is.

I understand that there are some fringe components of egalitarianism but what both of you are assuming is a definition of biblical equality in gender that none of us subscribe to which for me is very frustrating because you're perpetuating misunderstanding not actually helping to better define the term.

Those of us who do use the term egalitarian to describe ourselves are a bit baffled at all of this because the "negatives" you are claiming in egalitarianism just aren't there for us. But whatever, semantics I guess...just like the issues you're causing with your "church" post. ;)

There was a good post on it in the CBE blog recently if you care to read it.

[Tina]

I think it is safe to say that we agree more than disagree on this subject. The piece I am struggling with is I, as Makeesha says in Fitch's post, do not see the call for homogenization of the sexes in the egalitarian literature. Not to say it does not exist...as in any labeled movement there is a breadth of views including extremes but I have not exhaustively read everything.

What I do read is calling for an environment that accommodates a variety of people into the community at whatever role (not that a role is necessary to be a part of the community) they are gifted by God in irregardless of gender. Take gender out of the role description, except birthing babies and fathering babies!

As for our apparently vast gender differences...the funny thing is the secular reading I have been doing in feminist writing is shifting from the old school power feminism. There is actually research that suggests we male/female are more similar than different and the emphasis on differences is more polarizing than helpful. My example, from many Christian marriage literature, is the adage that men want respect and women want love...well I think it is safe to say women want respect too and men want love too. The either/or verbage falls short and we need to change our verbage to both/and. This is what I have read in egalitarian literature.

[Rachel]

Bob, I'm with Makeesha. I just don't understand the distinction that is being made here. I've read many egalitarian books and articles, attended two lectures by Cathy Kroeger (founder of CBE), done egalitarian Bible study courses, etc. And I've never, ever heard anyone suggest the idea of quotas (the first time I've ever heard that mentioned in relation to egalitarianism was here today) and have never heard anyone say that men and women aren't different (wouldn't that be absurd?).

But anyhow, Bob, I really respect your community and the stand you have taken on behalf of ministry based on giftedness. I listened to your podcast sermon on the household code and I thought it was one of the finest articulations of the Christian egalitarian position I had ever heard.

[Rachel]

Also - Bob, I'm truly not trying to be sarcastic here - I recognize that I am reading this as a layperson without formal theological training - but these two statements from Fitch seem totally contradictory to me. Can someone explain further?

"The “Biblical Equality” position views this newfound equal status for women as part of the redeemed structure of humanity in Christ"

"Both positions seem incapable of describing a justice born of the reconciliation God is working in the world through Christ"

[Bob]

Thanks Rachel..

And for the record- Tina is one of our elders. When we announced she was coming on the board, people clapped :)

I think the argument that Fitch makes is a good one, if a bit dense and wrapped in the language of postmodernity...

When I get a chance, I want to pull out Sumner again and look at some of her arguments. It was actually there (her book Men and Women in the Church) that I came to this betwixt and between position- she takes both complementarians and egalitarians to task.
I need to refresh my memory on the egalitarian side of her critique...

[Bob]

WHoops- you reposted while I was answering... maybe someone else? I need to hit a couple other things...

[Bob]

And Makeesha- thanks for your thoughts...

I do tend to think it's about more than word games though. .. more in a bit. I need to "percolate" some.

[Rachel]

Bob, I just want to ask that you be sure to include in your continued percolation process some books by authors who articulate the egalitarian position, not just by those who critique it. It seems to me that it is simple fairness to allow individuals who claim a label to be the primary definers of that label. It is so frustrating for members of any group to have a critic say, "You believe thus and so" and then the members say, "No, we do not believe that" and the critics respond "Oh yes, you do."

During my 10 or so years as an egalitarian, I have heard over and over the absurd claim that egalitarians believe that men and women are not different. (Is there any actual documented case of anyone anywhere who makes this assertion?) Perhaps this simply reflects my own prejudices or blind spots, but to me, the fact that this charge continues to be leveled only seems to illustrate the strength of our position. If our position was truly so assailable Biblically, why would our critics have to continue to make this silly assertion?

But again, I am very open to seeing how I may be wrong here. And I really respect you, Bob, and do not consider you to be one of those individuals who attack the egalitarian position.

[Mike Swalm]

Bob,
just found your blog through a search on fitch, and appreciated your post. I just posted on fitch's article as well, and wondered if i might make a comment.

As i read it, Fitch (and you) are not so much critiquing the egalitarian position, but some of the undergirding rationale that exists. I may be off, but i would consider myself egalitarian, so i'll try to make it short and understandable.

For me, when i read egalitarian literature or talk to egalitarians, i rarely hear (and it might just be me) gender justice mentioned with gender roles or differences ACCENTUATED. For example, I often read and hear that women should be allowed to be such and such (though i hate that word allowed) or that we really should have women pastors. No mention of quotas, really, but just that we should, or that women should be able to if they're gifted that way. What i don't hear is that we should have women in leadership BECAUSE they're women, or that women's leadership will likely look different than men's leadership, and that's a GOOD thing.

anyway, that's just a short explanation of why I liked fitch's article. you can check my blog if you want to read more about what i've been thinking.

God bless you all, and me, as we seek God's will together,
Mike

[Mike Swalm]

Sorry, one more.
Rachel, you asked about the contradictory nature of these two:
"The “Biblical Equality” position views this newfound equal status for women as part of the redeemed structure of humanity in Christ"

"Both positions seem incapable of describing a justice born of the reconciliation God is working in the world through Christ"

I think Fitch would see no contradiction. The difference he would suggest (i think) is in the language of "equal status." Fitch argues that equal status derives its strength from the language of liberal politics, whereas gender justice language would be for him a better description. equality, after all, is not what we are seeking, but justice...that is, men and women using the gifts they've been given in the capacity to which they've been called for the glory of God in Christ.

but that's just what i think he'd say :)

[Makeesha]

I guess I've always seen equality as a component of justice but maybe it's because my idea of equality is more "post modern".

Bob - perhaps it is more than just words but you and Fitch aren't addressing anything more than "just words" since you're taking a position of understanding of egalitarianism that isn't consistent with my or any of my peers' understanding of it.

in other words, you're saying you're not egalitarian because of your understanding of egalitarian which is, in my experience, ill informed...which wouldn't matter except that in your defense of why you're not egalitarian, you misrepresent it.

[Brian]

I just wanted to put it out there that I think it's great that Bob put this on his blog after the round-about we had on our forum at Evergreen back when we first were discussed this. Maybe it's taken bob this long to recoup from those discussions to get er going again. Bravo, bob.

I'm with the other commenters here on many points, but since the natives (the kids) are restless, I'll only note two: First, you not being an egalitarian as you define it is something like someone saying they aren't hierarchical because they don't believe in oppressing women. (overstated, but follow) It's, I think, an erronious definition of egalitarianism with which you disagree. Second, Tina is spot on that sex-differences aren't as prominant as once thought. There are greater differences within sex than between sex.

As an aside, were you suggesting that egalitarianism would dictate quotas on elder boards? :)

[bob]

boy, you all are doing a number on me! I'm enjoying your comments so keep on...
brian- I wouldn't call it exactly a direct cause and effect in terms of quotas, but I will say that my fear is that in embracing that label some would infer a promise to ALWAYS have at least one woman on the board or open us up to people charging hypocrisy should we ever again find ourselves with only male elders...
I don't think your analogy quite captures it. I think a better analogy would be the person who prefers the term "progressive" over and against "liberal." that's probably a cop out to some and makes perfect sense to others...

[Bob]

And for the record...

I'm in substantial agreement with how Makeesha lays out egalitarianism:
"In regard to gender in the context of Christianity, this basically means that:

– women should not be denied ordination, theological education or be treated as "less than" in board meetings, conversations, etc. simply because they were born female.

– a woman should not be treated as an object or a novelty or a resource.

– a woman should be allowed to maintain her distinct gender identity (whatever that means for her) and should not be expected or required to sacrifice that in order to obtain a voice, role or position.

– a woman should not be required to bow to gender roles assigned by society and should not be castigated when she chooses a path that is seen as "male"

– a woman is a complete individual without a man and a man is a complete individual without a woman but as humanity, we are at our best when men and women are both encouraged to be fully who they are in community - men and women together with full equality in the eyes of each other and the community at large. "

Except on the last one I would say it more like "Women do not complete men and men do not complete women. Only Jesus completes us both"

One side observation (don't crucify me!)
I find interesting the "What do you mean egalitarianism denies the differences between genders! Pshah!... But there really aren't many differences!" line of things here :)

[Makeesha]

"Women do not complete men and men do not complete women. Only Jesus completes us both"

yep, you said it better than I indeed.

I don't understand this that you said:

I find interesting the "What do you mean egalitarianism denies the differences between genders! Pshah!... But there really aren't many differences!" line of things here :)

Did any of us egalitarians say that there aren't many differences?

[Bob]

Yes :)

"As for our apparently vast gender differences...the funny thing is the secular reading I have been doing in feminist writing is shifting from the old school power feminism. There is actually research that suggests we male/female are more similar than different and the emphasis on differences is more polarizing than helpful."

"Tina is spot on that sex-differences aren't as prominant as once thought. There are greater differences within sex than between sex."

Which is fine- I think the common wisdom on this swings back and forth between the extremes. It wouldn't surprise me in a number of years to read about all the "We really are different" studies they'll be doing.
But that aside, whether emphasize the similarities of differences depends on context. The fact is we're all the same- fallen humans, and we're all different- individuals. Within those similarities and differences lie many other subgroupings, including male and female...

And besides, everyone knows... Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus :)

[Makeesha]

many so called "differences" contrived social constructs so in that regard, I DO think there are fewer differences than many think/thought...AND that many of true differences are not those that we all grew up believing

All that doesn't mean I think there are NO differences and it doesn't mean I don't agree that God created differences in us.

[Brian]

Thanks, Makeesha. Well put. To say "no difference" doesn't mean we are all homogeneous. It means there are greater differences within the sexes than between the sexes. We should gaurd against things such as "men are better/worse at x,y,z" or "you know women". Bill Clinton shot back at Mrs. Edwards' comments that Hillary was trying to be "manly" and distancing herself from women's issues. Bill said that knowing about military and policy and budget wasn't being "manly" but "being a leader" and that Hillary didn't have to be less of a woman to be those things. Amen.

And, when refering to the comments on overestimating the differences between the sexes, you say "the common wisdom swings back and forth between extremes" and that for other reasons we will find a number of studies supporting differences. In saying this you trivialize social science research and sound dismissive of data that doesn't fit your paradigm. I think this is a convenient stance at best and intellectually dishonest at worst (which I feel at liberty of saying because I love you).

Please read this summary article from the American Psychological Association: http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html (I don't know how to hyperlink)

[Brian]

As an aside, John Gray, author of the Mars/Venus books, got his PhD from a correspondence program that has been shut down by the state of California for giving out meaningless degrees. :)

[Bob]

We went round and round about this differences and stuff before. I'm really not trying to prove anything- I have nothing invested in making anyone think like me in terms of gender differences...

But one thing I can say- the older I get, and the longer I live with 1 boy and 1 girl, the more convinced I am that some of the ways I thought we were different are wrong and some were dead-on right... that in some areas- men and women are very different.
And the common wisdom (and the scientific community) DOES swing back and forth. e.g. In the 70's all the studies pointed to... global cooling. Today? Warming.
Tomorrow?

That's doesn't discount science, but it does demand we take a longer view AND that we understand that statistics and studies can be produced to prove just about anything. You know that! So when I read/hear stuff like this, particularly on social science stuff like this, I take it with a HUGE grain of salt.

All that to say- I stand by the statement: men and women are different and THAT's a HUGE reason why we need women in leadership (not the only reason, just a big one).

Can we talk about the Brian McLaren video now since we all pretty much agree except on a couple of secondary and tertiary points? :)

[Paul]

I've enjoyed reading and reflecting on the insights of this post, thank you.

I am feeling drawn to how Paul put in his letter to the philipians, that jesus considered equality with the Father not something to be used for his own personal advantage - which is to say we can theorize about this as much as possible but what is the practical reality of our relationships and what do we use equality for?

[Brian]

I think to some degree, the debate regarding differences is tangential to the discussion of egalitarian, hierarchical, "Sumner", etc. As such, I don't want to detract from the thread. And, as you rightly said, we went round and round on this before.

Besides, my view on this isn't necessarily the definitive egalitarian view. Besides, you said above "I'm in substantial agreement with how Makeesha lays out egalitarianism".

I'll add, though...

I think you're right when you say that science is influenced by other factors than science. The types of questions change. The hypotheses change. The theories that are trying to be proven and disproven change. But... science advances. And this particular work is a meta-analysis of nearly 50 meta-analyses over the past 30 years or so.

[Makeesha]

brian and bob - I don't care about what science says about "differences" as much as I care about the many women in my life as well as myself who have been scarred by having "roles" and "behaviors" put on them that weren't appropriate simply because they were women.

I struggled for years to find who I really AM because I'm not a stereotypical woman in personality or in many of my interests. Every woman's book I have ever read has made me gag, every women's conference I've ever been to has made me feeling like I need to take a shower when I get home...so that either says about me that I'm not a real whole complete Christian woman or someone's got it terribly wrong.

I finally came to grips with it being the latter and starting seeking God for who *I* am not who I am *as a woman*.

[Tina]

First of all I did not mean to imply there aren't many/any differences but that there are not VAST differences, hard to type exaggeration. I guess my contention is we are each unique people meaning that we as individuals are each different. By focusing on gender differences predominantly we, I think, become more polarized as men and women.

My experience confirms for me that my children are different but less so as boy versus girl and more so as they are each unique. In fact Mackenzie and Victoria are more dissimilar than Victoria and Ryan but each are different from one another.

So for me to say that men and women have similarities along with dissimilarities is not equal to saying that men and women are the same. Sorry if the wording of my first post was confusing. The point I was trying to get across is that let's build unity and get the polarizing gender language off the table.

[Tina]

I was typing while Makeesha's post went up but I concur with what she said. The research I read only confirmed my gut feeling which is not the best way to read research...oh well. I just want to be in a culture/society that gives people freedom to become their "authentic self before God", John Finch.