tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post1125413476900417659..comments2023-11-11T21:26:46.689+00:00Comments on This Side of Sunday: A History of Gender Role Issues in Canada's C&MAJon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-84665181912379039632012-06-27T06:51:14.562+01:002012-06-27T06:51:14.562+01:00Thanks for chatting this out Bill. I'm on boar...Thanks for chatting this out Bill. I'm on board with the first paragraph, but am interested to think through why, in that event, a statement of some kind might be necessary which explained the diversity in local churches. On one hand I totally agree that this might be helpful, on the other hand I'm not sure we could agree on one and might be better off leaving it unspecified and a matter of common sense that local churches are going to be different. I'm reaching for an example here, I suppose, but we don't have a statement explaining why some churches will have small group pastors and others will not--we just assume there will be freedom on this. Maybe that's a bad parallel. I'll think on it some more.<br /><br />As for your second paragraph, yes, if the membership gave a "resounding yes or no" then our policy should reflect it. Not sure what counts as resounding, but female eldership has already been voted biblically allowable. Same with females on DEXCOM and BOD. At the same time, there is room for churches to not have female elders, so the (less than resounding) yes does not necessarily mean that those opposed must see it as "deviating", let alone feel the need to "find a denomination commensurate with their position." Isn't this only the case if we come to a resounding no? Then egalitarians face the dilemma you are suggesting. But if all we do is allow freedom on this, what is the reason why complementarians would have to consider leaving? Does it have to do with conscience? (That's a fair answer I suppose, I'm just exploring what the reasoning is here).<br /><br />As for the third paragraph, there are a number of things that make these situations UNidentical, and I don't quite agree with in the way the dilemma is set up.<br /><br />First of all, to parallel these cases is to assume that they have the same credibility, biblically speaking, and that there is an actual connection between them. To present a slippery slope you have to be able to draw a line from one thing to the other. I'm unsure what line you would draw here, other than the imagination that someone as "passionate about God" as I am might also want it (the ordination of homosexuals) to happen. The problem is that there are more biblical correlations between the slavery issue and the gender roles issue than between gender roles and homosexual immorality. So if you want to talk about slippery slopes maybe we should talk about that one, and about how we could be on the wrong end still looking up.<br /><br />Secondly, I have never made the argument for egalitarianism based on my passion for God. This has been called into question often enough that the implication has needed some pushback, but to argue for egalitarianism on that basis would be a bit absurd I think.<br /><br />Thirdly, I would stop short of making the IMAGINED POSSIBILITY of a future acceptance of a biblically prohibited act a measurement on whether we should make room for diversity of interpretation of the Bible on an unrelated (or at best loosely related) issue. <br /><br />Okay I think I had other things to say but I've run out of steam, which is probably just as well!Jon Couttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-39387379918397103312012-06-26T21:42:19.234+01:002012-06-26T21:42:19.234+01:00I'm now following this post.I'm now following this post.bhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353563009283566352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-90326334205615158762012-06-26T21:39:34.261+01:002012-06-26T21:39:34.261+01:00The denomination should not stand in your way. I k...The denomination should not stand in your way. I know you have sought the Lord and diligently studied the Scriptures in coming to your conclusion. We need to create an environment and a policy in which two pastors of two Alliance churches can function with denominational support where one church allows women elders, senior pastors and whatever, and another church holds to traditional views of restricting women from those roles. The policy needs a balanced stance on the subject which makes room for individual churches to make up their own minds. It shouldn't be silent on either approach, nor force a church to confront the issue until they want to. A plain reading of the policy should make it clear to both men and women that they may go from church to church and encounter varying interpretations of the Role of Women in Ministry and these (though mutually exclusive) are all legitimate Alliance views.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we were to ask our membership whether they believed the Bible to teach that women could serve as senior pastor and there was a resounding yes or no. Then our policy should reflect that hermeneutic. And those who want to deviate from the majority position could either practice out of harmony with policy come what may, or find a denomination commensurate with their position.<br /><br />I know how you respond to the slippery slope argument re homosexuality, but the process would be identical. There would be a subsection of the community who would argue biblically for the position and we would need to decide to make room to accommodate or stand firm and force out. Probably the Alliance solution would be that the board of elders could vote 2/3 to ordain homosexual ministers if they wanted to. We could commission a study to investigate the original languages as was done in 1984. They could report back that there is no biblical basis for it as they did with this issue in 1988. Then the pro gay community would insert the required words: <i>normally</i> and <i>usually</i> into the policy. And under continued pressure and a resolute argument over a number of years that this is what Scripture teaches we would find ourselves in a very similar position to the one we are in now with this issue. Do you imagine there is someone as passionate about following God as you are who is committed to a correct biblical interpretation on homosexuality who comes to a different conclusion than we do on that issue. As long as that person exists the slippery slope is real. At some point we still need to say, "No, that's not what the Bible says about that. You'll have to practice Christianity that way somewhere else." And I presume some democratic principle should be at work in deciding when we make room for divergent views and when we should hold the line and ask people to leave if they want to practice that way. <br /><br />Who knows, by the looks of things it may be me who has to find a new home before long.bhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353563009283566352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-60164017164786866892012-06-26T19:10:32.561+01:002012-06-26T19:10:32.561+01:00Thanks Bill. I may well be missing the info that L...Thanks Bill. I may well be missing the info that Langlois has, and I'd love some clarity on what happened in 2007 (or whenever) in that regard.<br /><br />I do not tend to want to look at this as a matter of progress, or 21st century realization of what Jesus was hoping for, but instead as a matter of seeking faithfulness to Christ in these unique times. I think with the developments you indicated in the West our best foot forward is mutual submission, and most of the dilemmas you indicated about workplaces and the home can just as easily addressed by men who pick up the slack and share the responsibilities as by families who prefer to revert to a 1950s family structure. (Also, women may be more empowered than ever, but our culture is not egalitarian by a long shot. Women are also as exploited as ever, and even the most equal-opportunity environments still tend to heavily favour men and to afford a veil for an underlying misogyny that every man who has ever stepped foot in a locker room knows is alive and well).<br /><br />I appreciate your caution, but caution can hold us back from faithfulness just as easily as eagerness can. <br /><br />In this issue I am more than ready to go ahead with mutual submission as the norm for my home and my church, and I'd appreciate if our denomination affirmed the freedom to do so. I am in no more danger by going forward than I am by staying put. I continue to submit to the authority of Christ, and to seek faithfulness to Scripture by seeking the HOly Spirit in the context of my church. Given the rhythms of confession and repentance and the mutual accountability that this entails, I am not fearful, and would in fact deeply regret having to leave a love note for someone to pick up in 200 years when there are other things they will have to face in their time. In fact, my fearful hesitance will have left them a bad example, and may even leave the impression that our God is not alive and active in our midst but dead and uninvolved except as a judge waiting at the end of time to drop the axe on our uwnitting mistakes.Jon Couttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-59001564890005690632012-06-26T17:17:36.675+01:002012-06-26T17:17:36.675+01:00Helpful summary here Jon - thanks for doing this. ...Helpful summary here Jon - thanks for doing this. I think there's some missing detail at 2007 if Allan Langlois knows what he's saying. <br /><br />When we speak of women elders, or women holding offices of authority in the church, we are embarking into new territory. Whatever we might speculate about Junia in Romans 16, the weight of evidence both in the New Testament and throughout history is that these roles have been performed by men. No doubt we can scour history and find exceptions here and there, but as a matter of policy these roles have been designated for and exercised by men. <br /><br />Let's make a few observations about our culture at this point in history. Women are more politically empowered today than ever. There are greater numbers of highly educated women in the workforce today performing roles which historically belonged to men. There is an unprecedented number of single mothers and women with no children at all. Future generations may look back and see this was the high point of abortions. The birth rate is at an all time low of 1.5 since 1990. <br /><br />Whether or not our culture can sustain this level of professional working women is debatable and from a purely demographic point of view, any worldview which gives rise to and maintains a birth rate of 1.5 is destined for collapse.<br /><br />Each generation reads the Bible with cultural blinders on. And for many egalitarians it seems quite plain that the Bible is saying today that women can and should serve in an unrestricted capacity within the church. Culture has evolved for the first time in history to a place where what Jesus always wanted to do but couldn't can now be done: declare that gender is not a basis for a distinction in function in the church or the family. <br /><br />When we enter into new territory as a Christian Church, when we are about to do something that the church throughout two millennia has not done, the weight of history ought to give us pause. Perhaps the wisest course of action would be to put a note in our denomination's file saying: "At this point in history we feel it would be right to equalize the role and function of men and women in the home and church. But in view of our unique period in history concerning the empowerment of women, we humbly admit that we may not be the first to be reading the Bible correctly on these issues, but the first to read it incorrectly. Please re-examine this issue in 200 years. If you, having the benefit of seeing the issue from another vantage point agree with us, perhaps a change would be in order. Due to our disharmony with the practice of the saints throughout church history we uncomfortably choose to maintain step with what in our day does not seem correct."bhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353563009283566352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-40780104818174493452012-06-21T19:06:33.496+01:002012-06-21T19:06:33.496+01:00This article does not mention the 1982 ordination ...This article does not mention the 1982 ordination of Rev. Ron McClelland formerly of The Pas, MB which is of little consequence to most people including his four daughters who have all grown up and have been in full time ministry in various parts of the world. None of them are officially ordained which is of little consequence to them or to me. I appreciate the article.Ron McClellandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-65342520024962884652012-06-21T16:27:51.667+01:002012-06-21T16:27:51.667+01:00Hi Ed. Sorry I left your comment in moderation so ...Hi Ed. Sorry I left your comment in moderation so long. I didn't notice it in my queue. My bad.<br /><br />I didn't try to hide my "bias" in this account, nor do I mean by any stretch of the imagination to imply that a look at our history will or should decide this for us in either direction. I simply tried to relay, based on a friend's research (which was done with scrupulous attention to the accounts of both complementarians and egalitarians), where we had come so far, and what things may or may not have influenced the course of events (in either direction).<br /><br />I'd be interested to know how the "bias" was maddening. Most of what I have included here is plain fact.<br /><br />I hope we have matured as a missional movement as well, and are ready to approach this theologically rather than merely pragmatically. For my part I have been putting my heart and my head to this matter in dialogue with Alliance folk for years now, and am frankly quite ready to see us go forward rather than retain status quo. I'd like to do that in discussion and in a search for consensus, but I think we've been doing status quo and dragging our heels on this far too long. No one has the excuse that they were not ready. They just don't. If you argument is that we need to stay status quo in the meantime, while we seek theological consensus, then my counter-argument is that the best course of action in the meantime is to remove those restrictions which actually do not represent the current diverse realities in the C&MA, but actually represent one view's bias over another's.<br /><br />But thanks for engaging me. Do let me know what specific points of historical bias you would like to challenge. Peace.Jon Couttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-59269195277623332992012-06-09T07:50:00.681+01:002012-06-09T07:50:00.681+01:00Hi Jon,
I hope you don't mind a few comments ...Hi Jon,<br /><br />I hope you don't mind a few comments regarding this article in view of our discussion otherwise. I've enjoyed poking around your site. You are a prolific thinker/writer. <br /><br />This particular article, though maddingly biased represents a summary, as I also recall, of some of the main happenings regarding the gender issue in the Alliance. It is not a pretty tale. <br /><br />That is why I think we need to take a much more scholarly approach to this matter in these days. The time for pragmatism and one-up-oneship is over. Since we have matured as a missional movement into a church, we need to speak and think differently about these things -- looking long and hard, not at our history as the pattern of how to procede, but in depth at what God's Word has to say. <br /><br />My plea, in these days, is that we suspend this discussion, continue the status quo for the next couple of years or longer, if necessary, put our hearts and heads together to see what the Word really has to say about the nature of leadership in the church and gender. I think it's well-worth taking the time for this so that we end up with a deeply shared conviction about it based on the Scriptures. <br /><br />Ed DrewloEd Drewlohttp://www.secondwindministries.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-55101204949360409922012-06-05T15:45:56.563+01:002012-06-05T15:45:56.563+01:00Thanks for the summary Jon. Found this very helpfu...Thanks for the summary Jon. Found this very helpful.<br /><br />Uncle DDarcy Couttsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-17112746887804537312012-05-28T15:22:36.357+01:002012-05-28T15:22:36.357+01:00After reading this blog post last night I remember...After reading this blog post last night I remembered something I thought you may find interesting.<br /><br />In October 1993 Tony Campolo came to CBC. I remember attending a Q&A with him in the Tozer Chapel. During that time, he made a statement where he said essentially - Unless the Alliance changes it's position on Women in Ministry it will not survive the changes that will come.<br /><br />Perhaps not surprisingly it was at another of His sessions I attended at Briercrest later that weekend that I clearly heard God call me into vocational ministry.<br /><br />Just thought you would find this interesting.Amanda Strainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-17009515411631028622012-05-28T10:07:09.648+01:002012-05-28T10:07:09.648+01:00Thank you Jon. Your blog has been bookmarked on o...Thank you Jon. Your blog has been bookmarked on our computer.Amanda Strainnoreply@blogger.com