New Frontiers and Women

A week of Contrasts

Contrasts between three Churches have struck me this week:

1. The Church of England has again been under the spotlight about its attitude to women (see 42: CoE gets something right or for better coverage the Church Times blog Reactions to the women bishops vote & More reactions to the women bishops vote)
2. The Methodist Conference has made progress on Inclusivity, Equality and Diversity (yes, it is very overdue). Of course this is building on a long held policy that no position can be restricted by gender.
3. New Frontiers are having their annual conference Together On A Mission (TOAM). The amazing thing is that they are stating clearer than ever before a commitment to male only leadership.

So we have the CoE making a big step (and not without pain or disagreement) towards recognising the God given call of women to leadership in the Church.

We have the Methodist Church starting to properly form policies to ensure that its stated beliefs in equality regardless of gender (and many other areas) are kept to throughout the Church.

At the same time we have New Frontiers (well men from New Frontiers - because they are the only voice of New Frontiers) asserting, more strongly than ever, that women cannot be in positions of leadership, but more than that focusing only on the role of women in the home. I have plenty of links below that make this clear.

Irony

I find it ironic that at the same conference where they are declaring that their growth and blessing is due to having male only leadership they are also claiming a prophetic word "that there would be new alliances forged and new opportunities presented to the church by the government."

I can't help wondering just how they expect the government not to notice where New Frontiers are standing on women (pun intended).

The Official New Frontiers Stance on Women

Working out the official position of New frontiers on the issue of women on their website is tricky, they are cautious in what they write (presumably as their position is so unacceptable to society). However, enough comes through to make clear their view that women cannot be in any position of Leadership (Minister, Elder, etc).

The whole basis of New Frontiers is claimed to be Ephesians 4 Ministries. But  they have built their entire Church mission policy and polity on a mis-translation:

Paul tells us that when Jesus ascended He 'gave gifts to men' (Eph. 4:8).

Note that the TNIV, NRSV, The Source, CEV, NLT and The Message, all say "people" not "men".
The New Jeruslem Bible has "humanity"
The Good News (TEV) has "mankind"

To support the New Frontiers text we have to go back to older translations but then "men" was generally used in an inclusive way.

Having decided to exclude women they then follow this throughout their site. Some examples:

We are working with teams of gifted men serving existing churches as well as emerging church plants. [Frequently Asked Questions] (That phrase is repeated frequently, women are never mentioned).

They have a website dedicated to their training. It includes two leadership courses:

• Leadership Training Foundations
• Leadership Advanced Training

All testimonies from men, only men in any of the pictures. The "Leadership & Chruch Planting Course" follows their normal practice for pastors, showing a married couple where the husband will be the pastor.

I can't help wondering just how long it is going to take the media and general public to catch on to where New Frontiers are standing on women (pun intended)

If you have been reading 42 for any length of time you will know that I have written plenty on Scripture and role of Women. If New Frontiers presented Scriptural arguments on their website then we could engage with them, but they don't.

Together On A Mission

Where a key part of that Mission is to take back the Church for men. That is clear when you ask Mark Driscoll to be your key speaker and rave about his attitudes to gender issues. They were enthusiastic about this before the conference began. Take this from an interview in their magazine, the article is called One to One with Mark Driscoll (MD = Mark Driscoll, JV = Joel Virgo from new Frontiers).

MD: ... There is no office such as pastor’s wife or pastor’s children and I work very hard to ensure that our family remains our top priority over the church. Too many pastors put their ministry above their family and their wives and children get active in the church just so they can be close to their husband/daddy which is tragic.
...
MD: I am honoured to see a generation of young men rising up with amazing gifts and a willingness to learn from godly older men
...
MD: In our church planting network our men preach an hour of exposition as a general rule and they are doing a great job.
...
JV: You guys in Acts 29 have chosen to state your commitment to distinct male/female roles in family and church as a non-negotiable value (not unlike ourselves). Could you tell us what has influenced that decision?

MD: A deep love for God’s Word. The Bible is clear that men are to lovingly head their homes, and elders are to be the best men whom God calls to do the same in the church. We are routinely criticised for this belief. But, our men and their wives and the fruit of their ministry speaks for itself and is the best apologetic for the truth because the truth simply works.

Then we move to the list of speakers for the Leadership track of the conference. Only 2 women (both wives of other speakers) and 35 men. Of course the two women do not hold leadership positions in New Frontiers.

Now let us look at New Frontiers bloggers and this issue. At Newfrontiers Bloggers there is a collection of bloggers and some profiles. No women in leadership positions, that I have seen so far Here are a few posts I noticed that relate to this issue:

• adrianwarnock.com: TOAM08 - Mark Driscoll on the Missional Church.

  Qualified Church Leadership
  This is, he believes, THE strength of Newfrontiers based on what he has seen. In particular, Driscoll said it is very important to hold the line on male eldership. To oppose this position is very popular among those who are not successful. You have to approach the Scriptures differently to come to the opposite position. One of the reasons Newfrontiers is strong, argues Driscoll, is because of our commitment to male elders. If we ever compromise on that issue, we will find our blessing will diminish. Continue to hold that line. To change it changes everything—how families are organized, etc. Church life sets the pattern for home life. We need pastor-dads who are shepherds to their own flock at home. Keep holding that line!!

[DW comment] What can you say. The idea that a Church is blessed because it chooses to interpret scripture in a sexist way is horrific. What kind of God will bless us more if we dis-regard the call & gifts of 50% of those created in God's image?

• Am I Sexist? - wordandspirit.

  I have to admit that my reading of Scripture leads me to side with the "complementarian" position. This position does not seek to deny "equality" between the sexes. On the contrary, it positively affirms that men and women are... 

  • equally bearers of the image of God
  • equal in value or worth
  • equal in dignity
  • equal in moral responsibility
  • equal in salvation (the same "way in" for all)
  • equal as recipients of the gift of the Spirit
  • (and I would add as a charismatic) equal as recipients of the gifts of the Spirit

  However, complementarians also believe that there are differences between male and female, and that these differences are good. They come from God's creative intention. Rather than competing with one another, men and women actually complement one another.

  One of the ways that complementarians see these differences outworking is in leadership of the local church, specifically the eldership. They believe the New Testament teaches that men are to be called as elders in the church, to serve by exercising authority and taking responsibility for the care and spiritual well-being of those in the congregation.

  [DW comment] It may seem to help your argument to re-define English words on the quiet. But what definition of equal supports claims that women are of equal value and worth but cannot perform tasks or be appointed to roles for which they are qualified due to their gender.

  Now no matter how carefully you nuance this view, and explain that Christian leadership is about serving, not controlling or bossing people, it will still be dismissed as sexist. It would be awkward to say the least for me to explain this point of view to those I work with.

  [DW comment] Yes explaining your position will require you to demonstrate that you have redefined English. Plus saying leadership is not bossing does not make it acceptable to bar 50% of people from leading by not bossing.

  The irony of it is, that despite my 'sexist' views, I have found myself squirming in my seat at work recently listening to the discussions of my male colleagues. In their view on the world, a woman's worth seems to be measured almost entirely on how 'fit' she is. Women are treated as though they exist simply for men's viewing pleasure. In the 'lad' culture that prevails, it is apparently fine to come out with comments like "smack my bitch up" when talking about your girlfriend. Because of course, if you were to call them to order, they can simply claim that they didn't mean you to take them seriously, and tell you to 'lighten up' a bit.

  It has left me wondering how we have got into this state, where evangelical Christians are seen as the ones who are anti-women, while those whose attitudes seem most demeaning towards women are left unchallenged. I wonder whether I should speak up and call people to order for the way they speak about women. What would I say? Would I be perceived as a total hypocrite given my own 'sexist' views? Is this an issue on which actions would speak louder than words? I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this one.

[DW comment] Life is much simpler when you use English, as someone who sticks to a dictionary definition of equal and believes (on the basis of Scripture) that it applies to all people, I can tell you that both the behaviour of men in a lad culture and that of a complementarian are both demeaning to women and both should be challenged, both are sexist.

• The (not so) secret diary of a Worship Leader, aged 32: Wimp or Warrior.

Found this interesting quote from Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church, Seattle) taken from Relevant Magazine.

There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.

[DW comment] I have written extensively on such comments by Mark Driscoll before. It seems there is scant evidence for either of these strange Jesus images in Scripture. On the otherhand a strong but non-violent Jesus is visible all over the gospels.

• The Simple Pastor: Out of step.

  I find myself with Mark Heath and wondering about the state of the world when I am more out of step with contemporary culture than the Anglican church. But that's where I am. To some I am faithful, perhaps to others an oppressor and denier of God's call on the lives of women.

But in our individualistic society that leads us to a bind, where God's personal call is the one indisputable fact. When someone says 'but God has called me' how can you respond without seeming mean-spirited even if your honest understanding of scripture says, 'that can't be'? It's not easy to avoid heartache in such situations. So for those on both sides of this division, with heartache all round - may you know greater grace.

[DW comment] I normally find myself agreeing with Phil on many issues and I throughly respect his lifestyle commitment to the gospel. However, he is viewing this dilemna from the side of power. At such a point asking for greater grace on both sides is like saying to a slave, you need to accept your fate with grace and in return I the master will be gracious to you my inferior. Indeed Scripture demands that we all stand up for justice, but with love and in non-violent ways.

Conclusion

Not being a lawyer I have no idea how New Frontiers avoid prosecution under equal opportunities legislation, I thought the CoE had specific exemptions which had allowed them to not appoint women bishops. Maybe those exemptions apply in this case.

I can see many good and valid reasons for growth and blessing within New Frontiers but to claim that it results from an injustice perpetuated against women seems bizarre.

I have multiple frustrations around this issue. Big hang-ups for me, huge buttons that get pressed when I look at what is being written. I want to end by sharing some of them.

• A Church that claims to lay great weight on the calling and active work of the Holy Spirit, yet denies it in women.
• People who claim an infallible understanding of Scripture while ignoring huge swathes and so much scholarship about Biblical languages, culture and customs.
• Claims that positions such as mine are not rooted in Scripture and so we can be dismissed as nut jobs, non evangelicals, ...
• Claims to show grace that do not recognise the God given and God blessed ministries of so many of my colleagues

Related articles

• 42: Becki's Wanderings: Together on a Mission.
• 42: CoE gets something right.
• 42: Putting paid to the complementarian position on 1 Corinthians 14:33-34.
• 42: Auntie Knows Best: Newfrontiers and women.
• 42: A bizarre gender debate.
• 42: What does Male Headship teach?.
• 42: A new blog to disagree with.
• 42: Wise words on a "Biblical" position.
• 42: Films as good gender examples.

Comments

[joe]

Dave, I think there is a lack of clear thinking in your post.

All religions practice discrimination in their choices for leadership and what that means, just as many other secular organisations do.

A tennis club includes rules of behaviour, which might include not promoting the playing of golf. They might argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with playing golf, but we don't do it here.

I am not a lawyer either, but if the law thinks it can legislate on faulty theology to that extent, it is an ass.

Mind you, I can't stand New Frontiers or Mark Driscoll.

[Mark]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the interaction with my post. I don't see how I am redefining the English language. Just as the word "free" doesn't have to mean free in every imaginable sense, neither does equal have to mean equal in any and every respect. For example, it is patently obvious that not all people are "equal" in height or weight. More than that, people are not all equal in intelligence, maturity and compentency at various tasks. Even more "awkward" is the fact that God doesn't seem to give equal doses of spiritual gifting to everyone. Does this mean God is violating some kind of low of equality? In short, equality does not mean uniformity, and this is seen in the nature of the Triune God, whose three persons are not clones of one another.

As for the Eph 4 point, I have never heard anyone from newfrontiers use the phrase "gifts to men" to teach male leadership, and I would consider it poor exegesis if they tried to do so. You also talk as though newfrontiers are the first group ever to see male-only eldership taught in Scripture. At least have the honesty to admit that many from church history have read Scripture this way, even if this point of view is perhaps waning in modern times.

I also want to say that I find it very insulting to my wife when egalitarians imply that staying at home raising children is some kind of second rate job for losers. Also, I am very proud of the many amazing and diverse ministries that women have pioneered and led (yes, led) in my own church. If anything, it is getting men to engage that is the problem.

I am willing to learn on this issue. I have recently bought Philip Towner's commentary on the Pastoral epistles, as it is important to me to hear what Scripture is really saying, not just what my tradition tells me it is saying.

Finally, don't assume Mark Driscoll's views are identical to newfrontiers. There is actually quite a diversity of practise within newfrontiers.

(sorry for the length of my reply)

[Dave]

Joe,

Lack of clear thinking is always possible.

The law in the UK does prevent employers discriminating on the basis of gender, ethnicity etc. To my mind that is consistent with good theology.

[PamBG]

Ephesians 4:10, the Greek says 'anthropois' . This is the word that means 'people' in the same way that 'all men' used to be used in English to mean 'all people'. There is another word for 'masculine person' - 'andros'. Clearly this passage does not mean that 'God only gives spiritual gifts to men and not to women.'

Not that I believe in New Frontiers process of reading the bible nor do I believe that a fine tooth comb reading of the bible reveals the heart of God.

Actually, the verse itself is about grace. Would they also argue that God gives grace to men only and not to women?

[Andy]

Hi Mark,
As someone who stays home and looks after the kids while my wife has a job outside the home I agree that "raising children is not a second-rate job for losers". However, am I correct in saying it's not something you disapprove of as it is not a suitable role for me on account of my gender?
Andy

[Andy]

Apologies, the last line should have of course read "it's not something you approve of"

[Mark]

Hi Andy,
you are correct. I do not see it in any way as an unsuitable task for a man. I have four small children, and keeping them all out of mischief is no mean feat. I believe that both men and women should work, but I consider raising children to be one of the highest and most noble forms of work (not to mention one of the most demanding!).

[joe]

Dave - so are you also happy to allow ministers of other religions becoming Christian clergy - on the basis that you cannot discriminate?

Are you campaigning for the RC church to accept married clergy? Are you going to be reporting them to the Anti-discrimination authorities?

[ianmcn]

Another significant contrast between those 3 organisations is that 2 are in decline and 1 is experiencing significant growth!

I'm not saying that this can be attributed directly to male only leadership, but I do believe God honours movements that let his word shape their approach to culture, rather than culture shape their approach to his word. Wherever you may stand on the gender debate, you can't accuse New frontiers of the latter!

[Dave]

Mark,

Always happy to interact with people.

I would suggest the simple test, ask women if they feel they are considered equal to men in Churches that do not permit them to be pastors or elders.

The phrase "gifts to men" is used on the New Frontiers website, which then mentions no gifts to women that I can see.

Surely it was clear from context (mentioning CoE etc) that I know New Frontiers are not unique in holding (or having held) this position. But they do stand out for seemingly increasing the emphasis on it (on UK scene) and that against most scholarship.

I have never implied staying at home is for losers, for a few years my wife has done that. But my problem is when there is no option for a woman to do anything else.

If women are already being called and equipped by God in the Church then it simply proves my point, history is being repeated. Deborah, Naomi, Esther, Priscilla, Junia etc from scripture would all approve and want full equality.

If MD is not fully representative of New Frontiers then great, lets hear from those who stand for justice.

[Dave]

Hi Pam,

Thanks for the support. Interestingly it is the only scripture in the New Frontiers Mission pages.

I feel a danger of talking of grace is the assumption that women need to accept inequality with grace, for people who are also created in the image of God that seems to me to be a great injustice.

[PamBG]

I would suggest the simple test, ask women if they feel they are considered equal to men in Churches that do not permit them to be pastors or elders.

Well, I can speak as someone who grew up under male headship. I think that 'complementarianism' is just a fancy new socially-acceptable term for male headship. I was certainly told the same sort of tap-dancing 'Some people are more equal than others' stuff too.

I expect that complementarian women will probably scream blue murder at my opinion, but here goes. I think all individuals are different and I do not believe that our characters are given by God according to our chromosomes. There are women who feel vocationally called to the roles of wife and mother and who want to be supporters and not make decisions in the family; this is probably no longer a socially-acceptable choice and they feel affirmed by a culture that tells them that this is actually their God-given role in life, that it's what they *should* be doing. I would actually be happy to affirm any individual in that choice against social norms.

For those of us who felt called to study and to teach and to preach at an early age, what it feels like is being crushed. Like someone standing on your chest and demanding that you breathe and that if you suffocate, it's your fault. Then the guilt is heaped on when you are told that this passionate calling you have and that your love of God is actually a temptation of Satan (I don't think New Frontiers claims that, but the denomination of my birth does.)

So, what it feels like is pretty awful if you have a calling to preach and teach. I expect it feels pretty good if you have a calling to a traditional role.

But I know enough about male-headship to know that my views will simply be written off. I'll be prayed for but I won't be listened to. (I say that - I believe - without bitterness, simply from experience.)

[PamBG]

I feel a danger of talking of grace is the assumption that women need to accept inequality with grace, for people who are also created in the image of God that seems to me to be a great injustice.

Well, that works both ways, doesn't it?

You could equally argue that male-headship and complementarian men should have the grace to recognise when they can learn something from a woman instead of thinking that they can't learn anything.

Being wrong can be forgiven. Only they are never wrong.

[Dave]

Andy,

17 years ago that was our expectation but things changed.

Of course children grow up and lifestyle changes over time.

Meanwhile you and your wife have a great time in the roles that work for you. May God bless you all.

[Dave]

Joe,

Interesting that you seem to equate a Christian woman becoming clergy with a minister of another religion becoming clergy.

How do you think a Christian woman with a call to ministry would respond to your suggestion?

As I understand the law all faiths are protected in that they do not have to appoint people who are not adherents, that seems right and proper to me.

But that is a huge sidetrack.

Here we are talking about women of our own faith, with a call from God, with gifts and graces from God and we are talking about an understanding of Scripture (that takes scripture very seriously) that celebrates humanity - made in God's image.

Quite different I think.

[Dave]

ianmcn,

I said "I can see many good and valid reasons for growth and blessing within New Frontiers but to claim that it results from an injustice perpetuated against women seems bizarre."

I recognize the patterns of decline and growth. It is not only bizarre but superficial to suppose that male headship is the reason for New Frontiers growth and decline in the CoE and Methodist.

However, I love the Church I have been called to and would rather serve a Church that works for justice than one that is growing and perpetuating injustice - that seems pretty close to the heart of God (Amos 5:21-24 comes to mind).

[Auntie Doris]

Great blog entry and thank you. I spent over 10 years in Newfrontiers churches, listening to those sort negative comments about women. Even if they didn't say it overtly the lack of discussion around gifts for women made it very clear what they thought. I left and I am currently going to a Anglican church, whichI have found far more freeing. Interesting, bearing in mind some of the comments I have heard over the years from Newfrontiers members about the 'established churches' and the fact that they are not proggressive enough.

[Dave]

Pam,

Grace in both directions - that is a bit radical isn't it :-)

Seriously you are right on the button.

[Dave]

Auntie Doris, nice to meet you. Love your latest blog post, will link to it.

Glad you are in a better place now

[Phil Groom]

Dave, thank you. I hadn't realised what an oppressive organisation New Frontiers is. I knew Mark Driscoll was a bit of a fruitcake (if you're reading this, Mark, please don't take offence: I enjoy fruitcake; just prefer it edible) but wasn't aware of their anti-women bias.

Here's to the first female Archbishop. Kinda hope she'll be black, too! Like God...

[Auntie Doris]

"Here's to the first female Archbishop. Kinda hope she'll be black, too!"

.... and preferably a lesbian too... that should get them all going! ;)

[Charity]

Hello Dave

Thanks for your post.

I too spent over 10 years in Newfrontiers and heard the Ephesians 4 passage preached on many times. Strangely enough I never consciously perceived the "gifts to men" bit... however you are exactly right in what the sub-message is on the webpage you linked to.

For me that is one of the problems - Newfrontiers would never say for example "God does not give gifts to women" but they would most certainly emphasise "God gives gifts to men" or God uses gifted men.

Women are not told outright that they cannot have gifts, but they are given the cold shoulder as in Auntie Doris' experience. I'm not sure that this is any better for married women - it just comes out in a different way. For example if you try to have a theological discussion you may be told to "ask your husband at home" (yes this really happened to me!) or be accused of having a Jezabellic spirit (yest this really happened to me!).

[Mark Heath]

There seems to be an assumption that in newfrontiers/complementarian churches all women are frustrated and have their gifting squashed, while men are free to flourish in whatever way takes their fancy.

The reality is quite different. In most churches there are some women and men who feel that their gifts are unappreciated, and plenty of women and men who are actively engaged in fruitful ministries. It is a little simplistic to assume that because a woman didn't get to do something she wanted to that she was necessarily a victim of discrimination. There are a whole host of reasons why churches fail to release people into ministries. Sometimes it is caused by leaders holding on too tightly to their own positions, sometimes there are good reasons for not giving someone the platform they desire.

One final point, I need to try again to set the record straight on newfrontiers and Eph 4 (although I should point out that I am not in any way an official spokesperson for the movement). Newfrontiers does not teach male headship from Eph 4. The emphasis is on the ministries (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher). In fact, newfrontiers recognises a number of women as prophets and teachers within the movement, not to mention worship leaders, cell leaders etc. It is eldership that is believed to be male only. Opinion is divided on whether women may preach. I have heard several sermons by women in newfrontiers churches and at their conferences too.

[PamBG]

Under male-headship, any man can say 'I could be an elder if I were gifted and had the opportunity.'

Under male-headship, a woman gifted with leadership and the opportunity to exercise it must say 'Despite my gifting I may not be an elder due to my gender.'

This is discrimination pure and simple and the analysis is not simplistic.

Mark's argument seems similar to arguing 40 years ago that there was no institutional racism because not all white people had the opportunity to reach their potential.

[Phil Groom]

Auntie Doris: "and preferably a lesbian too..."

Yes, yes, yes! I nearly said that myself but figured I'd probably already damned myself far enough. Well said :)

Just one problem: I want to be Archie's husband!!

[Auntie Doris]

Charity said, "be accused of having a Jezabellic spirit (yest this really happened to me!)."

I know several women within Newfrontiers who were accused of this. Terribly sad as many of them were some of the most Godly women I have ever met.

[Dave]

Mark,

Your logic does not work for me. I agree with Pam, this is very clear discrimination.

I absolutely deny that anything I have written assumes that all women are called to be pastors & elders or that all women are frustrated.

The difference between frustrated men and women in New Frontiers is that women are not permitted to have a call to be a pastor or elder recognised. They have no option. For men it is possible.

Ok as for the reality of New Frontiers teaching.

a) Can women join the leadership training courses?

b) Has anyone blogged about the two women speakers at TOAM? Were they in the main sessions? Whose authority did they teach under? (My suspicion is the answers are. It was such an unimportant part of TOAM that nobody has bothered to blog it and they were there under the authority of their pastor husbands).

c) Who decides what a woman can do in a New Frontiers Church/Conference? (DW: men) Are any women involved in that decision making process? (DW: No) Under whose authority do they preach/teach? (Their husband and/or male pastor)

[Mark Heath]

Dave, you are correct to say that women are not recognised as pastors or elders in newfrontiers churches. No one is denying this. So yes, a "discrimination" is made.

As for your questions. I don't know the answer to (a) for all training courses. Having said that, women have attended all training courses that I have had any contact with (WordPlus, Frontier Year Project, School of Worship etc)

(b) No, I don't think anyone has blogged about the women speakers from this year. I think it is mean-spirited to call their contribution "unimportant" though. Why is it considered fair game to insult women in complementarian churches?

(c) I know you will not like this answer, but we honestly believe that "who decides" is God - we are trying to obey the Bible. Everyone who teaches in any context is expected to be under the authority of the Word of God first, and under the authority of their elders second.

Anyway I will bow out of this debate now, as we are probably already generating more heat than light. I will allow my more enlightened sisters and brothers to have the final word. Please pray that I will understand the truth more completely and not be blinded by any prejudices I may have. I trust you share my passion to be faithful to the Word of God.

[Dave]

Mark,

a) All of the pictures on the website for leadership courses are all men. How many women are teachers on the courses. I have had several superb women teachers in my training (Angela Shier-Jones and Justine Allain Chapman were outstanding).

b) I don't think their contribution is unimportant, I am not insulting women from complementarian churches. I am pointing out that nobody from new Frontiers has thought it important enough to even mention at all.

c) We absolutely believe that we too are submitting to God through the authority of the word. We see this affirmed through the work of the women who have been appointed to leadership roles and who have been ordained as our ministers. I have loads of personal experience of women in authority over me in the Church and without exception they have been people with wonderful gifts and an obviously powerful presence of the spirit.

[Crushed]

I am a woman who has felt called by God to preach and teach and yes.... lead. However, much as I love the New Frontiers church I attend, I have felt crushed, frustrated and second-class by their emphasis on male eldership. In all other areas of my life I am a leader, mentor and make key decisions - but not in church. I haven't met Mr Right - and feel as an older single woman I have no say or influence on church issues just because I don't have a man to validate me. And yet, Jesus was inclusive. We don't live in some Christian Utopia - nor did the early church. It's a pity that the majority of the congregation in most churches can't be used to the full because they are women. It hurts, is confusing and frustrating that this issue is not being taken seriously other than by men who seem to need this to boost their egos and justify being "men". Real men are not intimidated or threatened by women who feel they have a strong calling - they encourage and welcome the gifts God gives them.

[Blue, with a hint of Amber]

I am an elder at a newfrontiers Church, and am male (hopfully that does not come as agreat surprise!).

I oversee our midweek cell groups. We have 19 cell groups and we have 13 female cell leaders. 5 of them lead as half of a couple, while 8 women lead on their own (in 7 groups, as one is lead by two single females). Of the 8 leading on their own, five are married but lead alone (different calling & gifting to husbands, or husband not saved), two are divorced and single, and one is unmarried.

Our pastoral co-ordinator is female, and co-ordinates a team that involves two elders serving on it. Two of five worship leaders are female. Our discipleship-co-ordinator is a female divorcee. Of five cell group overseers two are female.

All of them serve actively in a Church with a male eldership.

Women are allowed to preach, pray, prophecy, you name it, all within the overall scope and vision of the church as laid down by the eldership.

If we are talking about the final authorty of church government and discipline then let us discuss the issues.

But a statement like "A Church that claims to lay great weight on the calling and active work of the Holy Spirit, yet denies it in women." is as harmful a cheap shot and misrepresentation as calling someone a "nut job".

Almost all of the women mentioned would be called "cell pastor" or "discipleship elder" in other Churches. But don't hold the post of "elder" in terms of the complimentarian position of final government in churches.

Our Church has 5 key community outreach programmes - one is led by a man, one by a couple and three by women.

I know local churches with a female minister who have far, far fewer women active in ministry in the church, even as a percentage of congregation and overal numbers, than us, even though they serve under a female minister.

None of those facts relate to how I feel being the one "in power" as such - those are the numbers.

I agree that the whole issue is really important to discuss with grace and humilty and it would not be a deal breaker for me. While at university I went to two different churches in 3 years, both of whom would see things differently in this area. Interestingly enough though, with a male / female couple serving as "pastors" they both saw the male as the head of their household and family, and expressed how that reflected their Church roles, so maybe we weren't ever that different in our thinking after all, even if both times she was a "pastor" and there was a photo of her on the website.

[gil]

I came across this blog through some strange surfing session, so I have sort of stumbled across it. I have to say I am amazed at some of the comments and a little disheartened by it. Clearly these sort of topics are emotive in the extreme and often people think THEY are Right and YOU are wrong. I think this will always exist until the time comes when the perfect replaces the imperfect.

It is not really fair or accurate to portray NFI as the only movement that does not have Women Pastors/Elders. It is the same in many Baptist, Evangelical, Free Churches and from Brethern Assemblies. I suspect the viewpoint has nothing to do with being sexist but more to do with their own reading of Scripture and the God/Man/Woman relationship.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Interesting point Gill.

The Anglican church prevented women being priests for something approaching 445 years.

Where did the african anglicans who are causing a fuss now get their complimentarian theology from?

Methodism took about 130 years to have a female minister in post.

What of all those millions upon millions of methodists and anglicans, and the tens of thousands of missionaries from both churches who went all across the world proclaiming the gospel and starting churches (with male leaders). Are they to be criticised for being sexist?

Or is everything absolved because of a decision in 1880 / 1994?

And what changed at that time - was it scripture, was it theological understanding or was it culture?

If it was theological understanding that has changed and newfrontiers are yet to receive the same enlightenment then pray for grace and understanding for them.

In 110 years time they will have had as long as the methodists took to appoint a female church leader (unless my quick google search of the subject gave me the wrong date, in which case please enlighten me).

In 111 years time the moral high ground is all yours. In the mean time let's bless each other's strengths and be a little more retiscent to call people sexist. Because by that way of thinking any theological position can be explained away by someone being too sexist, feminist, chavinist, homophopic etc, which does not make to a constructive discussion.

[Charity]

Hello "Blue, with a hint of amber"

Yours seems to be one of the Newfrontiers churches that are the most accommodating to women. I hope that you will be able to continue to do so.

When I was in a Newfrontiers church, I fully accepted the complementarian position and argued for it, much in the way that you do in your posts. However having been forced out amid accusations of "Jezabellic spirit" being bandied around, I have begun to call this teaching into question, along with a lot of stuff I had accepted as taught.

At the end of the day I have become convinced that with NewFrontiers what is important is that it is established who has authority. Authority must be seen to be in the hands of "gifted men", but also men who are going to be compliant with "apostolic" lines of authority.

I don't know about this, but I would hazard a guess, that the women whose ministry Dave Warnock has benefitted from so much, do not make such an issue out of authority.

Is that the case, Dave, or am I completely wrong?

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

I really respect your post Charity. Obviously I can't speak for other people or other situations, except to say that it saddens me, but I do speak for myself.

I don't see it as an issue of "accommodating" women at all. I see my role as serving a community of people into the fullness of what God has for them as laid down within the boundaries of how I allow scripture to shape my understanding of God, the church and mission. What did they do in China when all the men were led from the churches into the prison camps?

As for the Jezebel stuff - I don't really buy into that at all to be honest. I am really sorry to hear you suffered from that kind of accusation anywhere, let alone a Church. I remember at a GNC camp at Malvern a few years back it seemed to be prevailent in discussions then.

My experience of newfrontiers is that I have met the person who oversees our church three times in two years and have never had any contact beyond that. He is friendly, full of good advice and ideas when we meet and available if something kicks off, but certainly not overbearing.

I work with local female ministers the way I work with local male ministers. There are so many ways my ecclesiology differs from other local churches that gender is far from the top of the list of things we could disagree on. But the grace of God and unity of the body of christ demand a bit more from me than that, although I do request the same grace from those who disagree with me.

[PamBG]

Blue with a tint of amber:

Your post still begs the question why women are not elders? If it is that they are not allowed, why? Doesn't the answer have to be that you believe in a complementarian theology?

There is a more basic disagreement here. That is that I believe that a fundamental principle of the Gospel is that there are no distinctions between biological categories of persons.[1]

The basic and fundamental disagreement is that complementarianism is based on the idea that some people have a God-given power over other people who have a God-given subservience. This is as counter to the gospel, in my view, as opposing justification by grace through faith.

I'm perfectly willing to recognise complementarian people as good, kind, moral people who sincerely want to be good disciples. However, I cannot endorse complementarianism as consistent with the Gospel.

[1] I'd like to point out that I'm not talking about 'anything goes' or 'equal access to church leadership for the immoral person'. I'm talking about ontology: How were were created.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

"The basic and fundamental disagreement is that complementarianism is based on the idea that some people have a God-given power over other people who have a God-given subservience."

Isn't that the same for any church with a leadership structure? Someone always has some level of power, even if it the secretary.

If I have to lay my life down for my wife as Jesus laid his down for the Church, in order to fulfill a complimentarian model of headship within our marriage, does that make me the one with a god-given power or the one with a god-given subservience?

I see it is a God given role and want to do it with all my heart.

Just like the Ephesians 4 ministries come together for the benefit of the Church - is one more important than another? Is God's intention to give different people different gifts and roles a kind of cruel lottery of our birth or part of his plan for humanity to reflect the image of the trinitarian God, where different persons of the godhead have different roles but all are God.

But anyway - I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things. Even those of us who are "wrong" are trying to get it right.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

I would add that what you mean by "elder" would seriously influence who or what the qualifications for that role would be.

And how you get there in terms of scripture and tradition will probably shape who gets there.

[beatthedrum]

I have been a member of a number of NFI churches and feel i would to make a few comments.

New Frontiers does not exclude women from any position in the church except eldership.

They view all women as being able to have and utilise all 'Gifts of the Spirit' in the same was as any man.

The exclusion is around eldership which is fairly clearly stated in Tomothy and Titus. That is the only restriction.

We have women leading ministries in the church, leading worship, taking 'sermons' on a Sunday morning. Doing everything except eldership.

Also I think New Frontiers are not as loud on this as you think, they have not changed their view while others have done.

There is an interesting book called 'Why men dont go to church'. One of the things it outlines is Women in leadership, men have difficulty relating to following women (which is the biblical way to lead.. getting people to follow you rather than ordering them to)

The gender gap is in most churches.. at least 2 - 1 Females to males in the church streams / denominations with female leadership the gap is a lot larger 3 or even 4 to 1.

Why because men have difficulty following women, and female leaders turn the church more feminine. Thus also puttin more men off.

Now you can say men need to change, and yes we do but you have to remember that Father made us to be men.

For a review on this book look at my blog www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com it is an excellent read and I would recommend anyone who is interested in leading more men to Christ to get a hold of a copy fast.

[Charity]

Thank you for your kind words, Blue with a tint of amber. You are one of the rare NewFrontiers people to react in this way.

[Dave]

Wow, so many comments, I'll reply to as many points as I can.

First to all the women with experience of NFI (Auntie Doris, Charity & Crushed) thanks for sharing your experiences.

Pam, as always thanks for your (typically better thought out and less rant like than me) thoughts.

Charity & Auntie Doris, those in power and authority and unsure of it can be extremely vicious in their words and behaviour.

Crushed, I love your definition of a real man "Real men are not intimidated or threatened by women who feel they have a strong calling - they encourage and welcome the gifts God gives them.".

Bwahoa, Sorry but Blue....Amber is too much to type :-)

I have heard of many cases where a soft version of male headship is advocated. Exactly as you suggest women are allowed to do almost anything, as long as a man is in final authority. I am sorry but I see this in a similar light to providing better living conditions for slaves, they are more comfortable but they are not free.

So yes I stand by my claim that male headship does deny the active work of the Holy Spirit at le4ast in that it puts artificial limits on it.

I would have loved to have invited you to Ringstead Shared Church a few months ago. I shared ministry there with Rosemary (see my post Bridgwater baptist Church). She was the senior Pastor and a mentor to me, it was a delight to serve under her leadership. Your examples are different and worrying, a Church appoints a woman as theoir pastor but you imply it is ok because really her husband has authority over her. So now you have someone without a calling or equipping from God actually acting in authority over the pastor - scary.

I see the same in households and families. We do not believe in male headship at home. Neither Jane nor I has any special authority over the other, we are a partnership, a team, one flesh.

Gil, yes there are other Churches without women in leadership (you kind of missed the big one - The Catholic Church). But I find NFI to be louder and more aggressive on this issue. Part of the problem is they deny the possibility of other readings of scripture so this is not just about how they see God/Man/Women but a bigger issue.

Bwahoa, Of course Methodism and Anglicans have a past, as we all do. Yes we do need to repent and move on. For example the role of Women was a key reason for the Salvation Army breaking away from Methodism.

Yes it is a change in the understanding of Scripture, much the same change that happened regarding slavery. That was a long journey and now there is plenty of Biblical scholarship available to learn from.

Charity,

"I don't know about this, but I would hazard a guess, that the women whose ministry Dave Warnock has benefited from so much, do not make such an issue out of authority."

I don't want to go down the complementarian line and say that women are different from men and that by having them in leadership the overall style is different. (Look at the Conservative Party and Maggie Thatcher).

You might find my post Thank-you to some of the women in my life, from a couple of years ago, interesting.

Certainly Methodism is not very authoritarian and certainly not aggressive. I have a very informal and friendly relationship with Alison, the chair of our district (in hierarchical terms sort of 2 layers above me), I call her "Boss" and we have a laugh, but also I fully respect her authority over me which, particularly when I was a probationer and she chaired the committee which needed to approve me for ordination was a lot.

Hope that helps.

[Charity]

Thanks for your answer, Dave.

I think you're kind of saying what I'm feeling. I'm not saying there is no authority - that in Methodism the leaders are much less hung about about it. As I said before I have virtually no experience of methodism so it really is an impression from afar.

In NewFrontiers, although there is a lot of talk about things being "built on relationships", in actual fact, "apostolic authority" has more clout than bishops do in the C of E.

[PamBG]

Just like the Ephesians 4 ministries come together for the benefit of the Church - is one more important than another?

Central to my point is that complimentarians say with their mouths that both genders are equal and that they 'say' by their actions that one ministry is more important than the other by restricting a single ministry for one gender.

I apologise if this is too blunt (meant only to be blunt and not hostile) but the complimentarian position tap-dances around the fact that it really does believe in superior and inferior ministries by claiming that it doesn't. The lived-out reality speaks the truth.

Again, you've claimed that 'not all men can be elders' and again, that's not the point. The point is that women gifted to be elders are forbidden that ministry, not because of their lack of God-given gifts but because of their gender.

This is a totally different category of argument. Again, it's analogous to 'So what if no one wants to hire a black person, not all white people are employed?'

[Phil Whittall]

It's been really interesting to read the discussion. Pam and Dave, a question for you...why would God be wrong to ask one gender to fulfil a task and not ask the other gender even though they were capable? What law or goodness within himself would he be breaking by doing so? Would it make God sexist in the same way that choosing Israel not Egypt would make him racist? Or choosing Jacob not Esau. I'm just wondering whether we think God would be free and within His rights to make that ask.

One other thought perhaps he's asked men not because they're better suited but because they've a greater need than women to learn servant leadership. Just a thought.

[Dave]

Phil,

God being wrong is a rather odd concept isn't it?

As far as I am concerned God is entirely free to do whatever her nature wants to do.

But the point is that I believe you are mis-reading scripture to say that God has done such a thing. The argument is too long for a comment.

On the other hand perhaps God has been asking women for centuries but the men have been too obsessed with power and authority to listen.

Maybe it is because men have been so bad at servant leadership that they have not heard or have ignored the master.

[Dave]

Phil,

I assume we can agree on a number of characteristics of God. Two I suggest are clear:

- Justice

- Mercy

So tell me why a just and merciful God would decide to limit leadership in the body of Christ to "men not because they're better suited but because they've a greater need than women to learn servant leadership."

If you were a woman would you consider God to be just and merciful by restricting servant leadership to those, who in your words, are not very good at it?

If you were a woman would you consider it just and merciful of God to demand a gender inequality that causes suffering for many women at the hands of men, supposedly the men they should be looking to as their head?

I submit that male headship is incompatible with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture and in Jesus the Christ.

[Joel Gill]

I think a crucial mistake that is being made here is that authority is being confused with superiority and hence equality.

If the nature of authority DOES mean that there are differences in superiority then, yes, that would lead to inequality, and be a huge injustice. This injustice wouldn't simply be between men and women however, it would also be between elder and congregation (if the idea of the elder having authority somehow made them superior over their congregation).

However, if the nature of authority DOES NOT equate to superiority then I don't believe it can be related to equality.

When I look at the trinity I see perfect equality... the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all totally equal... and yet there is authority within the Godhead... 1 Cor 11:3 suggests that God is the head of Christ. Does this authority make the Godhead unequal? Does it make God superior to Christ? I don't think it does. Authority doesn't squash and stand on people as may be suggested, i believe that when it is exercised correctly it releases people to be all that God intended them to be. Jesus doesn't strive to be the Father, as He is not unequal or inferior to the Father... He simply has a different role to play in achieving the same purpose.

Therefore, I do believe that male-headship is in agreement with the nature of God, as expressed in the Trinity. Headship relates to arguments of authority not culture, and while cultures have changed, authority as expressed in the Godhead hasn't.

One thing I would add is a quote from Terry Virgo, who leads the Newfrontiers family... (from No Well Worn Paths)

"Unity is no small thing to be regarded as a pious but impossible hope. It is our Christian duty to do all in our power to honestly strive for it. Therefore we must handle our differences not with arrogance but in the fear of God, always asking for his help and respecting one another's integrity."

I believe we're all in agreement that it is scriptural that men and women are equal, and that we want to see all people (regardless of gender) step into all that God has for them. I respect the fact that many of you because of your reading of scripture believe that that expresses itself in a different way to the way I believe it expresses itself... but we're both passionate about seeing men, women, children etc become all that God intended them to become. I'm not trying to 'stand on women' and claim 'superiority'... I'm trying to be faithful to scripture, see the Church become all Christ intended it to be, and ultimately bring honour and glory to Christ. I know that is your desire too... so lets make sure we "handle our differences not with arrogance but in the fear of God, always asking for his help and respecting one another's integrity."

Thanks,
Joel Gill

[Dave]

Joel,

First thoughts.

1. Using your view of the Trinity

a) Does authority within the trinity ever result in harm?

b) Does authority in the trinity ever result in one part being superior?

c) Does authority in the trinity ever mean the loss of equality?

d) Does authority in the trinity ever become a power game?

e) Is authority in the trinity ever protected for selfish reasons?

I am sure we would both say no to all the above.

In the case of male authority over women in the Church (and for that matter in the home) could you say the same thing?

Clearly just from the comments in this thread you could not.

Therefore we are not talking about the same thing when we talk about male headship (unless you want to call all men God?)

If all men could live authority as in the trinity then my case would be weaker. But they don't and can't!

Terry is clearly a lot wiser than many of his bloggers and than Mark Driscoll. But in the light of that how you have advised William Wilberforce to respond to Christians supporting slavery?

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

"In the case of male authority over women in the Church (and for that matter in the home) could you say the same thing?

Clearly just from the comments in this thread you could not.

Therefore we are not talking about the same thing when we talk about male headship (unless you want to call all men God?)

If all men could live authority as in the trinity then my case would be weaker. But they don't and can't!"

No-one doubts the tremendous injustices of chauvinism upon society and upon the Church. Chauvinism is just as incompatible with scriptural headship as it is with an equalitarian view of leadership/roles.

If we ditched every scriptural principle (as we understand it) because of the failure of the church / people / believers / leaders to fulfill it properly then we would not be left with much to believe in.

We would never pray for healing, never teach about giving and international mission would be banned - such is the injustices, false teaching, and injury done in the name of all three.

I think we have to take how we understand scripture, and live it out the best we can, by the grace of God.

A chief complaint appears to be that the newfrontiers website does not show that there is room for other views on this subject. Question for you - should it also provide discussion that validates the views of cessationalists? (even though it is a charistmatic movement). Should it validate the views of churches set up with parishes and bishops? (even though it wants to be an apostolic movement). Should it validate other views on the inerrancy of scripture? (even though it seeks to be an evangelical movement).

If every christian group, when describing its "distinctives" had to include details of every other way of viewing everything, then every christian website would be a wasteful mish mash of discussion and counter arguments, and no-one would know what anyone believed in that was different to anyone else. Each site has to express what that movement believes in.

What is interesting is that what Mark Driscoll actually said is that this would be a key area of criticism. Looks like that is one thing he got right!

[dw: put quote into italics for clarity]

[Chris E]

David -

The logical extension of your argument would be that Scripture would never command or commend any relationship unless it can always be achieved perfectly. That this is not true can be readily seen in the various sections in support of parenthood, government, marriage etc.

On the question of analogy, you'd have to argue that "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church" cannot be scriptural, as "Husbands aren't Christ".

[Beatthedrum]

Can I take this back to scripture?

1 Timothy 3:2 "2Now the overseer must be above reproach, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"

Surely this points to a man being the overseer / elder / bishop. From my understanding the greek is fairly clear it is not spouse of one spouse or wife of one husband, but husband of one wife.

Is there a problem with the translations in the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJ, message, amplified, NLV, WYC & NCV?

How do you view this scripture is it in error?

[gil]

It seems clear to me that on such issues there is little hope of agreement. On both sides people belive with all their heart that how they read and then interpret Scripture is correct. Like I said, one day in Glory these arguments will cease - what a joy they will be brothers & sisters...!

I think the body of Christ probably needs to lean more on the things we can unite around and less on the things that devide. Human nature wants to close the gap and complete the circle but sometimes this is not possible.

We are inperfect whilst God is perfect, our knowledge and understading is limited, whilst his is all encompassing. He searches our hearts and our motives, he imparts wisdon and understanding to us, he reveals himself to us more and more.

Politics in Churches is the thing that tends to spoil, there needs to be structure or it would be a free-for-all, but often this structure becomes overbearing and hierarchical.

I think we need to respect both side of the argument with love and patience toward each other. It is clear that the likes of NFI, Bretheren, Free Churches and the like, read scripture and interpret it to mean that Women should not have authority over men, some more than others. The Bretheren Assemblies from the reading of the some opf the letters go further still (.."women should remain silent in the church..") As far as I know, a large number of NFI members, indeed Terry Virgo himself are Ex Baptist and even Bretheren background so I am not surprised on their ideas with regards to Women in the Church. The experience I have had of NFI churches is that there is quite a wide difference in style and flavour, some of which may be explained by the individual church backgrounds (some being established joiners, others church plants etc). I do not however get the impression that Women are in any way second rated (apart from Eldership positions already mentioned), indeed quite the contrary they are in an environment where their contributions are welcomed as for all members (could not be said for some CofE women led churches for example); a word of knowledge, healing, gift of tongue etc. They are clearly involved in many of the main missions such a parent & toddler groups. The Womens gift to nurture and their sensitivity in such areas are in my view God given. Yes men also are in the same work but there is something very special about the Womens role in this area.

Therfore I would much rather say to people, look, this is what we understand from scripture and if you agreement then great, hopefully you will be happy in that environment. But if not, then you are not captive here against your will and you are free to find an environment where you can find happiness and the most important thing is not having all the answers but your own walk with God.

There is never going to be a perfect Church, not until the inperfect becomes perfect. Look to the day that soon may come that we are all caught in Glory arm in arm, when such arguments will cease.

Blessed be the name of the Lord.

[Ian]

Beatthedrum

Your argument from 1Tim 3:2 is trying to argue a positive form the absence of something - pretty shaky ground. The easiest way to understand this scripture is that polygamy was practised in the area that the letter was writtent o, but polyandry was not. Therefore the issue of a woman having multiple husbands would not have come up.

Of course, this is just as much a conjecture as your exegesis, but no less valid for that.

Regarding 1 Tim 2:12 |I would encourage people to read this paper: www.wcg.org/lit/church/ministry/women/Women10.pdf

It argues convincingly that 1 TIM 2 is best interpreted as a temporary injunction for that situation, rather than a universal rule for all time on the church.

Some historians argue that the early house churches were led by women just as much as men (depending on the house) - it was when the church moved out of the home, and therefore the surrounding society restricted the role of women outside as well) that it became missionaly expedient to not push the issue. I'll try and find some links on this.

[dw: turned url into a link]

[Phil Whittall]

Gil, thanks for your last comment. It's generous tone and spirit is much appreciated.

[Dave]

Bwahoa,

You need to remember that as far as I understand Scripture I am not abandoning any Scriptural principal.

It would help if you would remember that many of those who disagree with you fully respect the authority of Scripture.

Also remember that inerrancy has never been a requirement of being an evangelical (the concept is anyway relatively new - as well as false). See the Evangelical Alliance Basis of faith.

Chris,

That is not the logical extension of anything I have said.

Remember that just before the bit about husbands loving their wives is a prior requirement for MUTUAL submission. Having one gender in authority over another does not constitute MUTUAL submission to me.

Beatthedrum,

See the article Ian links to. Also remember that Paul praises women who are deacons (Phoebe), Church Leaders (Priscilla) and Apostles (Junia). He says that in Christ there are no distinctions between women and men. How do you view these scriptures? Is Paul in error?

Gil,

I agree with most of your comment. But "I do not however get the impression that Women are in any way second rated (apart from Eldership positions already mentioned)" is clearly not true for women who have commented here. Men in power cannot make this statement for women who have to submit to their authority.

As for women (and men) with gifts and callings to work with toddlers - fantastic, wonderful a great and valuable gift, but not one that women have automatically due to their gender. What about the women whose gift is for leadership?

I am not expecting NFI to suddenly change (although I do believe in miracles so will continue to pray for that). But I do have expectations on how NFI should respect other Christians that are not currently being met. I'll post about that separately.

Ian, thanks.

Phil, Yes, but I repeat it is not possible for men to say that women are not treated as 2nd class by male headship in Churches. Just as it is not possible for a slave owner to say my slaves are happy and do not want freedom.

[gil]

Dave, in reply to your comments (on my comments), that first sentence you remark on did have a prefix prior "The experience *I* have had of NFI churches" which I thought might be a clue. I do not claim to speak for women who have contributed here and I do not deny them the opportunity or doubt there own feelings and opinions. Also your comment "Men in power cannot make this statement for women who have to submit to their authority" - are you talking about my statement or are you making a general point. If the former then I can confirm that I am not in a leadership position - just a humble member of the congregation..!

I am glad you agree about the great work women do with toddlers and children, I do not pretend that it is a job only women can do - I am one of those people that would like to see more male role models in primary schools for example (especially in todays generation when many youngsters don't have such at home).

Your comment about "What about the women whose gift is for leadership?". Is leadership the same as Eldership? Cleary not, women are in leadership positions and do incredible work within churches of all types. I just think as I have mentioned that the perfect Church does not exist and sometimes it is not necessary to win an argument. We can respect different viewpoints and yes debate them if we like and this is where I am coming from. There is also the human element that sometimes brings about competition to be at the top. But I remind myself "..the first will become last and the last first ..". Eldership is not the be all and end-all, although it would appear there is a tendency for it to become that for some. God knows our hearts and motives.

I hope that it is possible to find an environment where we can flourish as invididuals both women and men and that lets us celebrate and join together with other Christians rather than one which seeks to box up and keep apart. I pray that the Church will be able to come together to witness to the nations and recover our own nation where the boat appears to have gone out. I can only cringe when the CofE gets all these negative headlines and this then effects peoples perception of Christianity. If agreement means people feeling compromised, then there comes a point where we must in love respect each other without trying to claim we speak for everyone even if this means not under the same roof anymore. Those sort of situations usually result in resentment and bad feeling where people are in it but not really in it. Such discussion on a blog such as these clearly demonstrates the differences and for me I feel that we must/we need to concentrate on that which edifies the whole body and wins souls for Christ. I pray that we can really seek this over the future years, respecting the differences and saying still your my brother, my sister. God bless to you all.

[gil]

Sorry about that triplicate posting! Some strange goings on with the website. If there is a moderator or adminstrator present feel free to get rid of the repeats - I only needed the one !!

[Dave]

Gil,

[Don't worry about the extra posts, Typepad is currently a bit slow at getting comments visible, I have got rid of the extras]

Actually for me the point about men talking about how women feel in male headship churches really applies to all men. When a man is in a male headship church they do have power compared to a woman in the same church even if they are "just a normal member". Use of power is a big gospel issue for me.

I am using leadership in a general sense. For me it includes elders (although we do not have elders in that way in the Methodist Church). So for me it includes all lay and ordained roles within the Church. The Methodist Church has a simple policy, no role is restricted by gender.

I respect your last paragraph. We can only come together if we understand each other and if there is respect for other traditions and people. Of course that goes both ways.

[Charity]

Has anyone blogged about the two women speakers at TOAM? Were they in the main sessions? Whose authority did they teach under? (My suspicion is the answers are. It was such an unimportant part of TOAM that nobody has bothered to blog it and they were there under the authority of their pastor husbands).

I've found this blog post about Wendy Virgo and Sue Hosier's seminar.

As I suspected this was a seminar for women, not main session and not aimed at a mixed group.

I guess that although some NewFrontiers churches allow women to preach to mixed congregations, that would not be possible at the leadership conference.

[PamBG]

Pam and Dave, a question for you...why would God be wrong to ask one gender to fulfil a task and not ask the other gender even though they were capable?

My argument is not that God would be wrong to do this. My argument is that God does not do this. My argument is that I read most of the New Testament as being about breaking down earthly systems of one category of person having power over another.

Complementarianism establishes and maintains male power over women despite it's denial that it doesn't. If it weren't about power, men wouldn't be fighting to hold on to it.

[Dave]

Charity,

Yes I just found the same post and have blogged about it at Becki's Wanderings: Together on a Mission

Pam, if we keep agreeing with each other so much we are going to have to do something to prove we are separate people.

My suggestion is that everyone goes over to your blog and reads (as one good example among many) about an ordained (whoohoo!) woman in leadership, plus they can then tell us apart from our piccies (I am the blond one).

[Becki]

Just to clarify a couple of points about this seminar at the conference that's caused so much controversy. First, I do not think that delegates had to be female to attend (I may be proven wrong on this), although I do concede that I didn't see any male delegates there. Second, women were free to attend any seminar of their choosing and were involved in all of the main meetings. The seminar was of a similar size to all of the other seminars, with around 150-200 delegates. It was certainly not designed as a platform for downtrodden wives to discuss a niche issue in the church. I'm in the process of writing a much longer blog entry to detail the seminar since I think it unfair that someone who wasn't there nor knows much of what was said has used it to create a viewpoint that NFI is sexist.

Also, I believe that within NFI, women are able to pursue callings to lead. In my church, both of our worship teams are headed up by women, and women lead small groups. We also have two female deacons (although I think my church is in the minority within NFI for having deacons at all). As was commented earlier, women are not excluded from leadership, but specifically from eldership, and as is said in Timothy, elders should be 'the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).

I think this issue is more than one of whether NFI discriminates against women (I don't believe it does), but of whether NFI is able to stand for biblical precepts in a world where the church is bowing increasingly to secular pressure. Yes, excluding women from eldership is counter-cultural, yes it causes friction. But as 'Blue, with a hint of amber' points out, the move to allow women priests and ministers was not brought about by a change in scripture. Granted, if our theological understanding is wrong then that needs to be addressed but what is far more likely is that the church bent with the culture. But I think that for a church to stand unwaivering for a counter-cultural standpoint on a controversial issue and yet to see the rapid growth that NFI is, it must be doing something right.

[Dave]

Becki,

Thanks for visiting and commenting, nice to see you here.

We understand that you did not have to be female to attend the sessions led by women, yet such is the role of women within NFI that

a) the only women permitted to lead sessions at TOAM are the wives of other speakers.

b) the only sessions being led by women are specifically on women's issues. No women speak on wider issues.

c) the only people you saw attending the sessions led by women were women. No men thought it was important to hear a women lead a session

d) Yes women are allowed to go and hear the real leaders (ie men) speak.

e) These are very limited opportunities to lead. They are all clearly under the authority of men.

f) there is plenty in the comments above to start you exploring other ways of understanding 1 Tim 3:2 and to see how it conflicts with other passages of Scripture (eg Christ's ministry, Paul's practice and teaching elsewhere, women in the Old Testament).

g) There is no doubt that NFI explicitly discriminates against women. It does so by saying they cannot be elders, it does so in the choice of speakers and their subjects at TOAM, it has done so in the lives of women commenting in this thread, it does so on their website (presentation of mission and in the leadership training course presentation) The question is whether the discrimination can be justified from scripture. So I reject your point that this is about being counter cultural. I believe almost everything about the gospel is counter cultural and fully support being counter cultural.

h) Nobody is claiming that scripture has changed. The claim is entirely that our understanding has changed (or perhaps more accurately reverted to a New Testament times understanding). Just as 200+ years ago the understanding that Scripture supported slavery changed.

i) Nobody denies (or I hope fails to rejoice in the growth of NFI) what started this post was the claim that the growth is due to gender discrimination. IMHO Growth of a church is due to the work of God and happens despite our failings and sins.

In conclusion yes I do believe the theological understanding of NFI is wrong. Rather than the Church bending with culture I believe that culture responded more quickly to changes in the understanding of scripture than the church did and for it's sins the Church has been left behind. No wonder people think we are irrelevant.

[Ian]

Becki

I just wanted to back up Dave's comment here about Scripture. I think it is unfair to suggest that the opening up of church leadership (or eldership if you prefer) to women is the result just of cultural pressure. I posted a good link above showing how the scriptures used by Newfrontiers (especially 2 Tim 2:12) are not necessarily best understood in the way that Newfrontiers do.

Besides, there are many ways in which the church changes with culture changes. For example, 100 years ago most churches would have said the bible teaches that women shouldn't go out to work, but now all but the most fundamentalist churches would argue this. Has scripture changed? Or has our ability to discern the essential from the cultural in scripture been aided by changes in culture?

[gil]

Check out Terry Virgo's book, No well woen paths, chapter 27 (from page 235) has some comments about NFI attitude to Women which may prove helpful to the discussion. Also refers to a chapter in Barney Coombs' Apostles Today, Soverign World 1996.

[Dave]

Gil,

Sorry I have sooo over spent my book budget this year. If there are bits available online I would be interested.

[beezwax]

i think that DW's obsession with new frontiers is rather unhealthy. i certainly would not like my minister to be spending so much time obsessing over another church movement such as this.

i would ask - is the holy spirit active and speaking to methodist congregations? is there prophecy in the methodist church today?
why is methodism dying? is it related to the attempts to accomodate scripture into the prevailing trends of society?

recently, i was on holiday in an area heaving with methodist churches. Not knowing any methodists (i'm in my 30s), then DW's attitude carries more weight than you realise. I chose a family evangelical church instead.

"I can't help wondering just how they expect the government not to notice where New Frontiers are standing on women "
Not by their own strength (or compromise) but by God's hand.

[PamBG]

i think that DW's obsession with new frontiers is rather unhealthy. i certainly would not like my minister to be spending so much time obsessing over another church movement such as this.

The question is, 'What do you think that the Gospel is about?'

New Frontiers clearly think that it's quite important to the Gospel that women should keep their place.

I can only suppose from it's actions that New Frontiers thinks that the Gospel message is something like 'Good News! God has a series of behaviours that he wants you to adopt and if you do, then you too can be saved.'

It's not so much 'obsession with another denomination' than saying that a practice is inconsistent with God's good news.

The Gospel isn't 'Good news! Slave men and gentile men are all offered salvation by God but women can only access salvation through the men who cover them.'

[Joel Gill]

Pam, that assessment and description is not right and not fair. Throughout this discussion and debate people from all and every viewpoint have called out for understanding, grace and humility… and I don’t think a declaration that...

‘New Frontiers thinks that the Gospel message is something like 'Good News! God has a series of behaviours that he wants you to adopt and if you do, then you too can be saved.'

...is a fair or accurate description of what Newfrontiers preaches.

We preach salvation through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone. A series of behaviours will not cause us to be saved… we are only saved by grace, because of Jesus. That is what is faithfully preached in every local setting, and every wider setting. In all the debate, no one has suggested that we preach that you get saved ‘if we do adopt a certain series of behaviours.’ We don’t say women or men for that matter can access salvation through ‘the men who cover them’… salvation is through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone!!

Like I posted before, this isn’t about women ‘keeping their place’ as if they are inferior… authority and superiority are NOT the same, as can be seen in the Godhead. There may and have been times, as some who have commented have shared, when this authority has been misused… but that is the fault of humanity and doesn’t mean we should abandon this for some other method we may think works better. Marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church, His bride… and yet human marriages completely and utterly fail to represent this beautiful relationship in all its fullness… but this does not mean we should abandon marriage, we should, by the grace of God, do all we can to make them reflect something of this glorious mystery!

As to what my view of the gospel is… (and I’m not speaking as a Newfrontiers Spokesman!!)

In my view, the gospel is ‘good news’ and it is more than just a gospel of salvation, it is the gospel of the Kingdom of God, seeing God’s rule and reign extended over all things. It is a gospel of everything being brought under the headship of Christ, a gospel of redemption, reconciliation and restoration. The church is the agent of that kingdom… establishing and advancing it!

That being the gospel I see in the Bible, what do I think is ‘important’? I think that anything that God bothered to put in his word is important… I think it’s important for the Church to have clear preaching and understanding of salvation (through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone!), I believe issues such as baptism, the Holy Spirit, Church government, Church discipline, the role of men and women, justice, marriage and the family etc etc are all important... so that we can move into all that God has for us, and become a mature Church, a radiant and beautiful bride… advancing the Kingdom of God! So if by…

“New Frontiers clearly think that it's quite important to the Gospel that women should keep their place”

…you mean is it important to determine what the Bible says about the roles of men and women, and then to be faithful to what we see in Scriptures…. Then yes… I think that is important. It doesn’t affect your salvation, but it is important to determine what the Bible says about these things and be faithful to that. Why? So that we can see the Church come into maturity and be an effective agent of the Kingdom. Why? So that we can see the bride radiant and beautiful ready to meet her groom!

Ok, this is getting a long comment now… and going way beyond the original post. In summary let me reaffirm that we don’t say anything at all like ‘God has a series of behaviours that he wants you to adopt and if you do, then you too can be saved.' You are saved through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone... I celebrate that, rejoice in that, and will preach that with all that I am, and all that I have.

[Dave]

Beezwax,

If 3 posts make an obsession then they seem very easy to catch. I'll have to be careful never to write about anything 3 times.

My experience is that the Holy Spirit is active in the Methodist Church - which I delight in. Yes we do have prophesy too. No I don't think you have got much idea about our Church, it's understanding of scripture or the challenges it faces.

"I can't help wondering just how they expect the government not to notice where New Frontiers are standing on women "
Not by their own strength (or compromise) but by God's hand.. I suggest you read a little about Christendom and post-Christendom to see why what you write here is nonsense and also nothing to do with the gospel.

[Dave]

Joel,

Firstly, you have not quoted Pam properly.

You missed out "I can only suppose from it's actions that"

The bit that you missed out gives the whole sentence a very different meaning (Pam is writing about the actions she sees, you write about what you preach).

The result is that from outside New Frontiers we see you failing to engage with the concerns and experiences of a woman (and a highly qualified woman in leadership in the Church at that). Hence, your argument ends up supporting Pam's assertion.

Men can assert that "this isn’t about women ‘keeping their place’ as if they are inferior" yet the reality is that time and time again women are saying that it does feel like that to them.

"There may and have been times, as some who have commented have shared, when this authority has been misused… but that is the fault of humanity and doesn’t mean we should abandon this for some other method we may think works better."

Again you have not listened to what people are suggesting. Our position on the issue of gender roles is a Biblical position. Please read that sentence 10 or 12 times. Our position on the issue of gender roles is a Biblical position. Forget all that those who support male headship have told you about what egalitarians believe. Again note: Our position on the issue of gender roles is a Biblical position.

In the earlier comments you will find some links to explain some of the scriptural arguments. When you read these you will discover there is nothing in a Christian egalitarian position that talks of abandoning marriage.

So by the halfway point in your comment we find that you have mis-represented Pam, still not taken seriously the experience of women and mis-understood the arguments against your position. Not a very good start.

I could argue with your understanding of the gospel which is a stereotypical male point of view. By that I mean lip service to the Gospel being about God's good news and God's Kingdom with little or no reflection on what that Kingdom might look like and then straight on into a list of rules, actions. behaviours and hierarchy with nothing on relationships, kingdom values, freedom, transformation or the place of God in all this.

Oh and then you return to your lessons in missing the point. You are reading Scripture looking for ways to keep men in authority, while doing so you accuse those who read Scripture differently of not being faithful to Scripture.

How very kind and condescending of you to reassure Pam that her salvation is not affected by her not being faithful to your male reading of Scripture.

Yet again note: Our position on the issue of gender roles is a Biblical position. As such we reject male headship as false teaching that does not lead to good news for all and that does not support maturity for the Church.

[PamBG]

Pam, that assessment and description is not right and not fair.

DaveW got it in one.

I believe that you preach 'salvation by grace'. You also seem to think that complementarianism is absolutely vital to the Christian journey.

So I see theology and actions not matching up here. Either 'God is no respector of persons' as the old AV/KJV had it, or God *is* 'a respector of persons'. You can't have it both ways, but NF tries to have it both ways.

Again, as *I* said before, I don't buy the 'having authority over someone isn't the same as being superior to them' argument. I've been there - in a male headship church. EVERYONE thought the men were superior whilst saying that they didn't.

And, DaveW, at least Joel is talking to me. Your other chap on the other thread who claimed to have respect for egalitarians just completely ignored me as if I were non-existent. We've seen this happen time and time again in cyberspace. Another reason that I feel that my experience suggests that complementarians don't really have respect for women.

[Dave]

Pam,

All those who ignore women on my blog are going on a list.

I'll take suggestions later about what to do with those on the list :-)

[Ian]

Dave

I just posted about a great cartoon in Private Eye this week about womena dn the church. Though you might enjoy it :-)

[blue, with a hint of amber]

It seems that these discussions lose more and more meaning as people put words in someone else's mouth, then seek to disprove the notion they have just put into someone else's mouth.

People are discussing stereotypes and charicatures.

Any comment which agrees with a presupposition gets counted as a tick in favour. Any counter comment gets waved away.

Question for you Dave - is complimentarian teaching "biblical"? I notice you have used the term "false teaching", but would you go as far as saying it is "unbiblical"?

[blue, with a hint of amber]

For you Pam - some positive engagement with your points!

"The question is, 'What do you think that the Gospel is about?'

New Frontiers clearly think that it's quite important to the Gospel that women should keep their place."

Surely the whole thing comes back to the created order. You see equality of role in creation, we see complimentarity of role in creation. When looking for restoration - you look for the restoration of equality, we look for the restoration of complimentarity (of role). On almost every other point on that journey we can think identical things.

"I can only suppose from it's actions that New Frontiers thinks that the Gospel message is something like 'Good News! God has a series of behaviours that he wants you to adopt and if you do, then you too can be saved.'"

A reformed movement would certainly find that misunderstanding offensive, and find it difficult to know how you made the jump to it.

"It's not so much 'obsession with another denomination' than saying that a practice is inconsistent with God's good news."

An inconsistency upheld by the Methodist church for 110 years, and fully believed by most of its founding fathers and key players in that time.

"The Gospel isn't 'Good news! Slave men and gentile men are all offered salvation by God but women can only access salvation through the men who cover them.'"

If that impression is given then it is unfortunate beyond words. But I also fear it is a charicature rather than what is actually said / done / thought.

"I believe that you preach 'salvation by grace'. You also seem to think that complementarianism is absolutely vital to the Christian journey."

In the same way you believe egalitarianism to be?

"So I see theology and actions not matching up here. Either 'God is no respector of persons' as the old AV/KJV had it, or God *is* 'a respector of persons'. You can't have it both ways, but NF tries to have it both ways."

What if we see both in scripture? Equality of everything, different roles to play, just like in the trinity.

"Again, as *I* said before, I don't buy the 'having authority over someone isn't the same as being superior to them' argument. I've been there - in a male headship church. EVERYONE thought the men were superior whilst saying that they didn't."

Well that is it then, no point anyone discussing anything ever again because they all believe something different to what they are actually saying! Surely you don't mean that? Are you accusing those discussing this issue on here of the same thing?

"And, DaveW, at least Joel is talking to me. Your other chap on the other thread who claimed to have respect for egalitarians just completely ignored me as if I were non-existent. We've seen this happen time and time again in cyberspace. Another reason that I feel that my experience suggests that complementarians don't really have respect for women."

Reading back this thread I could see why anyone would want to engage with it. I don;t think some people are looking for answers, and I think they are more interested in scoring points.

[PamBG]

BWAHOA:

You said I don;t think some people are looking for answers, and I think they are more interested in scoring points.

I came to this at the end of your post, having read and tried to address most of it. I probably wouldn't have answered had I not begun, but I too am left with the feeling that there isn't really any point trying to have a conversation. Since I've already written something, I'll post what I've written.

I'm not really inclined now to go much further in our conversation, however.

Here's what I wrote earlier.

You talk of 'looking for restoration'. I understand that NF is a 'restoration' movement. But I don't look for 'restoration'. I look for the consummation of the Kingdom of God. I say 'consummation' because I believe it has arrived, but not fully. The Kingdom is about much, much, much more than equality between men and women. So I don't even know how to begin to answer that question.

A reformed movement would certainly find that misunderstanding offensive, and find it difficult to know how you made the jump to it.

I don't understand that concept of being offended by a misunderstanding. I come to that conclusion because complementarianism seems to be an emotive issue for NF. And it seems to be - if not foundational, then 'next-to-foundational'. Anyone who is not a complementarian is certainly missing something absolutely vital to being a Christian, are they not?

I believe egalitarianism to be an important part of the gospel and therefore it's worth speaking up when complementarians say that egalitarians preach something that is against God's will. I would not, however, say complementarians are not Christians. Nor would I veto the appointment of a complementarian voted into a leadership position.

What if we see both in scripture? Equality of everything, different roles to play, just like in the trinity.

I understand your point. I repeat that I don't buy it.

Your Trinitarian analogy is incorrect, in my view. Complementarianism rests precisely on the ontology of being female - that we have some kind of ontological function of 'subservience' that we must fulfill.

The Trinity is ontologically one. Whatever a 'person' of the Trinity is, it is not something ontologically different from the other three persons.

[PamBG]

BWAHOA: I wrote a long post in answer to your post and then the software would not allow me to post for some reason.

In light of your comments that I don't really want to have a conversation, I'm disinclined to retype. Thank you for answering me, anyway. Dave and I have a few years' posting experience with women (not just me) being consistently ignored by complementarian bloggers on a range of topics. Since he's a man, he can attest to the truth of that.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

I too lost a long response too!

What I have learned above everything from this discussion is that you don't like being written off when people accuse you of being something you are not, and I feel the same.

As a final remark, I don't believe a woman has an ontological subservience any more than the Holy Spirit does to Christ. I am not suggesting men are Christ, but merely that equality of role and equality of identity can be seen as different things.

[PamBG]

I apologise if you feel I'm accusing you of being something you're not. I don't know what it is that I'm accusing you of 'being'.

Can you tell me what sort of response from me would make you feel 'authentically heard'?

For my part, I have heard the argument before that equality and role are not the same. It's not an argument that I'm going to 'buy' easily. I have the impression, perhaps, that you thought I'd react to this as a compelling argument?

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

That was a general point about being written off for being something you aren't - not aimed at you directly and I apologise if it came across that way.

An example could be DaveW saying "You are reading Scripture looking for ways to keep men in authority".

That is quite an accusation. It involves both an accusation against our use of scripture and our motivation for doing so. Call me wrong, by all means, if you disagree, but don't impose a sinful reason for being wrong upon me.

A comp. is looking to be faithful to what they see as God's created order as laid down in scripture while an egal. is looking to defend what they see as part of the freedom won for us on the cross as laid down in scripture.

Both of those are pretty emotive things, and too many statements along the lines of "you are / you believe" rather than "I am/do believe" blur the edges and mean we're only discussing what we think the other one believes, not what people are actually saying.

[Dave]

Sorry about the lost comments. I have not deleted them. I have checked the spam folder and they are not there.

Bwahoa,

"Question for you Dave - is complimentarian teaching "biblical"? I notice you have used the term "false teaching", but would you go as far as saying it is "unbiblical"?"

No not unbiblical, but a wrong interpretation of Scripture. For example you write:

"Surely the whole thing comes back to the created order. You see equality of role in creation, we see complimentarity of role in creation."

Can you tell me where there is male headship in the Genesis 1 account of creation?

So then we come to the 2nd creation account in Genesis 2. For me this illustrates my point about reading Scripture to keep men in authority. For example adam (from Hebrew for dirt) is neuter until the side is removed to create a male and female. The creation order argument is unsupported by proper translation.

We see similar approaches throughout the male headship view of Scripture eg denying all translation evidence in order to claim that Junia in Romans 8 is a woman or that she is an apostle.

We see more with the treatment of aner, again evidence of it's use for women as well as men is ignored.

As I say I see this as false teaching.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

"Can you tell me where there is male headship in the Genesis 1 account of creation?"

There are thousands of scholarly works that would seek to do that Dave, some of which I have seen you have read! Your opinion is that they are poor scholarship which sort of negates the purpose of quoting any of them.

Who decides what "proper" translation is? For every "expert" you wheel out the other side will bring out their own and on we go ad infinitum.

[Dave]

Bwahoa,

I have read loads about male headship from the 2nd creation account in Genesis 2.

But in Genesis 1 v26-27 God creates human beings male and female in his own image. I don't think I have read any of the arguments for male headship that have been built on this first creation account.

For example Mark Driscoll only refers to the 2nd account.

As regards "proper" translation. If a translation invents new rules (such as male representation) that nobody outside the male headship camp uses, or if it ignores alternate meanings of words (such as aner where there plenty of documented cases of it referring to women as well as men) then this is translation with an agenda to be proved rather than proper translation.

Yes I agree the motivation to question these translations comes from the feminist and egalitarian side, but it doe3s so on the basis of scholarly translation.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

"scholarly translation" is yet another pointless phrase. They are all scholars and they are all translating! The question is which scholars and which translations do you believe!

The "male headship" scholars will advocate male headship, and the egalitairan scholars "egalitatrianism".

It seems odd then that you appear to (and I affirm, only appear to) dismiss the work of male scholars who are proponents of headship as essentially only covering their own backs.

While at the same time taking on board scholarship from a feminist perspective, and also often work by women with a feminist agenda.

You then accuse male headship supporters of ignoring work by women because they don't trust them to be able to handle scripture correctly (which is exactly what you are doing with men who support male headship, for a different reason).

But you also appear to dismiss the testimony of women who seem perfectly happy and content within a complimentarian environment, with talks of slaves not knowing what freedom feels like etc.

So in the end it boils down to what scholarship you want to believe and why, which is fair enough.

Anyone got any links to any work by the church fathers on this subject or the practice of the early church beyond the NT?

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Sorry Dave - I hastily read and replied to the question on Genesis 1. I was thinking "pre fall", not Genesis 1. My apologies for the confusion.

[Allan]

Good grief... you're a methodist MINISTER and you said the following comment:

'I have no idea how New Frontiers avoid prosecution under equal opportunities legislation..'

Do you think they SHOULD be ? !?

[Dave]

Allan,

As I said I find it ironic that New Frontiers should both have this position on women and believe "that there would be new alliances forged and new opportunities presented to the church by the government." I do not see how the two can go together.

At times Christians will need and should break the law. Civil disobedience may be needed in response to unjust laws. But I don't think that we should be immune from the law - we may just have to bear the consequences of breaking human laws when required to be true to our faith.

I have no view on whether New Frontiers should be prosecuted, as I made clear I am not a lawyer and it may be that they are not breaking the law.

[Allan Clare]

Why not spend some time thinking about it and then give us your view?

SHOULD New Frontiers be prosecuted?

Allan.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Dave W - there is plenty of government money going towards Muslim-linked initiatives.

The same could be said for Hindu based community projects.

What about their position on women?

[Dave]

Allan,

I had spent time thinking about it. As I have no intention of taking a church to court myself I do not have a view on whether they should be prosecuted if what they are doing is against the law.

Bwahoa,

I agree that the Muslim faith has a troubling record in women's rights. I do not support them in that. I am much less familiar with the situation for Hindu's.

From my reading of Scripture I do believe that all women are entitled, as a minimum, to equality as laid out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights from 60 years ago.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

What I am referring to is an understanding of different gender roles within a religious organisation, based on fundamental beliefs based on an understanding of the core text of that particular religion.

How many females lead the prayer at the Mosque?

That doesn't prevent government initiatives funding Muslim community programmes and inner city regeneration projects.

No mosque has ever been done under equal rights legislation for not allowing women to lead the prayers.

A government minister could arrive at our church and be greeted by a female welcomer, shown to a seat by a female steward, listen to worship led by a female worship leader, hear a talk preached by a female member of our leadership team, and then have tea and coffee served by members of a cell group with a female leader.

I don't think that the minister would be rushing to press charges, even though all those women are serving within an environment of male eldership and a centrist complimentarian theology.

[Dave]

Bwahoa,

Not entirely sure what you are arguing here. But it sounds a bit like two things to me

a) a person is stopped for speeding on the M40, they tell the police officer "you shouldn't be wasting your time with me, on the M1 I hear there are people going much faster."

b) it has been a common and unsuccessful argument to say, "look how many women we employ" without acknowledging that they are no women in senior positions. All the tasks done by women are not relevant to a discussion about equality while women are not eligible for all roles.

I have not been arguing that it is legislation that means New Frontiers should be treating women as equals, it is scripture that demands that.

Oh and it all seems rather bizarre for a church to claim that it is ok for them not not treat women equally because the Muslims are not doing so. What else do you want to claim we should be doing because the Muslims are?

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Oh and it all seems rather bizarre for a church to claim that it is ok for them not not treat women equally because the Muslims are not doing so. What else do you want to claim we should be doing because the Muslims are?

That is a cheap shot Dave. You are better than that.

You know that is not what I am saying about Muslims, so why even say it? Who does it help?

I was referring directly to your point about how Newfrontiers have avoided prosecution.

My point was relating directly to how the government relates to all religious groups, many of which have beliefs or procedures which walk a tightrope against equality legislation.

Exactly the same point could made against the church of England (and most other churches, and almost every other religious group) regarding the appointment of homosexuals.

I was not trying to justify a theological viewpoint through the practice of Islam, but rather raise the issue that why would the government single out a small movement of one religion when religious practice across the board is constantly in tension with legislation of one sort or another.

I have not been arguing that it is legislation that means New Frontiers should be treating women as equals, it is scripture that demands that.

your view of scripture Dave.

I am struggling to work out how you (rightly) don't like being pigeon-holed by other evangelicals who hold different views to you on other issues, such as atonement, claiming all views that are "biblical" have valdiity and no "side" should claim the high ground.

But you appear willing to pigeon-hole others on issues like egalitarianism.

[Dave]

Bwahoa,

Nope I am not really above cheap shots, I just sometimes play above my game :-)

The point about prosecution was a very minor aside in the original post.

I quite agree that my position is complex, I do think it is consistent though. I am against those in power excluding others based on their understanding of scripture. So for example on atonement I stand for inclusion of views rather than an exclusive understanding.

On gender I stand for inclusion of both women and men. That does mean I can seem to exclude those who have chosen to exclude women.

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean about the pigeon holing. I think I am consistent in standing against those who exclude others based on their own reading of scripture (eg exclude people who do not accept penal substitution or exclude women from certain roles).

Oh and yes when I say "Scripture demands" I do accept that is shorthand for "my reading of Scripture demands" and I apologise for the arrogance of implying that only my reading is correct.

[gil]

Hi Dave, what has happened to a whole load of other posts made on this subject. They seem to has gone ?

[gil]

Hello Dave, I hope you don't mind but I put a link to this discussion on my own blog recently, so thought I would let you know out of courtesy. Maybe you and your fellow bloggers would like to pass by and leave a comment or two. God Bless

http://my-life-as-a-christian.blogspot.com/