Women Excluded from Ministry: ‘I Just Didn’t Think About You’

by Nicole Saylor 07-13-2009

“When the previous youth minister was here, he always filled in when the pastor was out,” Bethany, a youth minister at a church in the southeastern U.S. told me. “But the entire time James is on vacation, he’s gone to great lengths to find others to fill in. I am really hurt that he didn’t ask me to teach at all while he is on vacation.”

I had listened to Bethany’s sermons, and I knew she was a gifted and well-informed speaker – in fact, she was more qualified, more accomplished, and more adept than her predecessor by anyone’s standards. I also was aware that James, the pastor, was a conscientious man of faith who in some ways went to great lengths to support women in ministry, including Bethany. Something was amiss.

Bethany, at my encouragement, expressed her disappointment to James. The response? “It’s nothing personal, Bethany – I just didn’t think about asking you.”

What James failed to do was examine why he failed to think of Bethany, when previously he had the expectation that the youth minister would teach in his absence. James’s lack of awareness about why he had overlooked Bethany left her feeling misunderstood, underappreciated — and questioning her abilities and calling.

Bethany’s story is one of many that I have heard from women in ministry. While some do encounter outright opposition, more often they complain of being overlooked, undervalued, and underutilized in their key areas of giftedness. In fact, feeling silenced or overlooked due to their gender is an experience that is universal among the women in ministry whom I have known as friends and as patients. Repeatedly, many of them are given the message, “I just didn’t think about you.”

This problem is much harder to identify and to address than outright opposition to women in positions of leadership within the church.

The key to addressing our deeply held prejudices lies in making our thoughts and decisions intentional. Start by asking these questions about your faith community:

Are men and women represented equally, both behind the scenes and in positions with lots of face time?
Are women and men on staff paid at similar rates? If one of your female staff members were replaced with a male, would you feel compelled to increase the compensation for her job?
Do your female staff members feel comfortable broaching topics of prejudice with the entire staff? Intentionally invite conversations on this topic both individually and as a group.
How often do women teach? If the pastor is male, are guest speakers equally divided among men and women?
When appointing positions of leadership, are women considered equally with men?
Does your faith community speak in support of women in your community?
Does the leadership staff back up women who are placed in leadership when they experience prejudiced reactions?
Are the suggestions and leadership of women accepted and valued as an equal part of the team?
Have conversations individually and collectively with the women leaders of your church. What are their experiences?

This is just a sampling of the questions that faith communities must intentionally consider to move beyond “allowing” women in ministry to supporting women as equally valuable contributors to a faith community.

What are your stories and experiences regarding women in ministry? What other questions should be considered beyond the ones suggested here?

E. Nicole Saylor is a Doctor of Psychology Candidate at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. She currently resides in Knoxville, Tennesse, and is a therapist at Ebenezer Counseling.

Read more about the rich history of female leadership in the New Testament and in evangelical Christianity in Mimi Haddad’s article Empowered by God in July’s issue of Sojourners.

Categories: Diversity, Gender, Ministry

malaikamd

The sad thing is that many lay people out there feel the reality that a woman can lead and fulfill the spiritual needs of a people just as well as a man. There are gifted priests out there and there are priests who are so so. When will the time arrive when gender is out of the question and women actually are included in the leadership of the church. Sadly the time may never arrive. It is time though that the church catches up with the emotional and sentiments of many in the lay population. We are all children of God and many of us have callings no matter the gender. We need to create and recreate new and lasting awareness of what is true that we are all children of God. Who leads the church has little meaning to what gender it is. The universal principles are practiced and believed by both genders. Women will continue to be subordinate as long as their behavior acts subordinate. The time is today.

riolibrarian

The Episcopal Church welcomes you.

WaveTossed

Absolutely. I am an Episcopalian and we have a wonderful rector who happens to be a woman.

Eric77

As does the Anglican Church, most Baptist churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Moravian Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the United Methodist Church. And many others also welcome you.

weiwentg

There is no one Anglican Church. The Anglican Communion is a confederation of churches, which are referred to as provinces. While the majority of Anglican provinces around the world (28 of 38) do ordain women, many of the largest ones (e.g. Nigeria) do not yet do so.

Additionally, some provinces take the frankly illogical step of ordaining women as priests but not bishops (22 of 38 Anglican provinces allow female bishops, although not all have yet consecrated any female bishops).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_wome...

rdeesjoy

I grew up in a denomination that historically has rejected the concept of women in full ministry, yet in a church where women, and me personally from a young age, were actively encouraged to step into the work and roles God had called them to. Still -- I know the experience of being overlooked. "I just didn't think about you." "I didn't think you would be interested." Its a sign that we've dealt with the most obvious difficulties of an -ism, but are so culturally-shaped that we are blinded to the little things. That's when we have to be intentional to ask ourselves questions -- even to the point, perhaps, of framing them in light of "If the youth pastor were male, would I ....?" While I don't want to be treated as a man (for I am ALL woman!), I do believe we need to challenge our culturally-innate assumptions.

4HisGlory

Nicole's mistake in her argument is beginning with culture or expertise rather than the scriptures in their historical and biblical intent. Let's not dialogue about how qualified women are before we trace through Scripture why God put in place an order such as he did. This discussion you invite will likely be highly unhelpful otherwise because it will simply reinforce our own biases.

BlueDeacon

Nicole's mistake in her argument is beginning with culture or expertise rather than the scriptures in their historical and biblical intent.

Which is somewhat of an oxymoron. Jesus' disciples were all male because that was the system of that day; girls were not even allowed to study the Scriptures. Thus, when Mary sat at Jesus' feet while He was teaching and He praised her, each was making a statement.

That said, my willingness to accept certain roles in the church being limited to men is for sociological, not theological, reasons -- men need something to do in the church to have a reason to attend. For that reason in my church, only men serve as ushers, collect offerings, serve communion and ordained as pastors and ruling elders. (That said, women have actually preached.)

WaveTossed

"For that reason in my church, only men serve as ushers, collect offerings, serve communion and ordained as pastors and ruling elders."

Just curious: what sort of church do you belong to? I think you may have mentioned this in another thread, but my mind wasn't able to remember it. Is it your particular church that segregates women from men in their duties, or is it your entire denomination?

BlueDeacon

I'm pretty sure the policy is denomination-wide, though I don't know for sure.
It's affiliated with the extremely conservative Christian & Missionary
Alliance.

Common Loon

Wow, my church is part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance as well!

From what I can gather, the denomination's official stance is that women can do everything except serve as elders or ordained pastors, but congregations can make their own rules about other roles such as preaching, teaching and leading ministry teams. In our church, for example, we have women on the governing board, teaching adult Bible classes, leading worship and even (gasp!) preaching on occasion. Oh, and overseas missionary women can be ordained as pastors, but if they wish serve in the U.S., they have to be "consecrated" instead of "ordained" since apparently American congregations can only handle male pastors.

As mentioned in my comment below, I vehemently disagree with this inconsistent policy because it's based more on culture (i.e. don't rock the American conservative theology boat too much) than Scripture. It's astounding to me that a denomination can allow women to preach, teach, church plant and lead congregations overseas but not in this country. The only explanation I can think of is captivity to cultural (not theological) conservatism.

BlueDeacon

Well, despite the hypocrisy, I understand it -- the same situation exists in
my church. It has been my experience, however, that when women get into
leadership in a church, even in an evangelical church, all but the strongest
men often are shut out (and are driven out). Men need to feel a part of
things as well as the opportunity to serve.

I think the real problem with the debate over women in ministry is that it has
become an issue of "power," which the church should never be about.

WaveTossed

"Well, despite the hypocrisy, I understand it -- the same situation exists in
my church. It has been my experience, however, that when women get into
leadership in a church, even in an evangelical church, all but the strongest
men often are shut out (and are driven out). Men need to feel a part of
things as well as the opportunity to serve."

Run this by me again? Men can only feel a part of your church community if they bar women from leadership positions?

This idea of men feeling like "victims" of women is rather strange, seeing that men are the ones who benefit from the male-dominated sexism of our society. This looks a bit like the Whites who complain of "victimization" if Blacks are given leadership roles -- so therefore, according to this reasoning, Blacks should be excluded from these roles.

It's these sorts of rationalizations that allow racism and sexism to persist in our society.

BlueDeacon

Run this by me again? Men can only feel a part of your church community if they bar women from leadership positions?

That's where it will eventually go; I've seen that up close and personal. As I mentioned, eventually only the most "desirable" men will even be approached. (Keep in mind that this is a sociological issue, not necessarily a theological one.)

In another thread, I gave the example of the historic African-American church being today 75 percent female; in one Methodist denomination the membership is 84 percent female. (I got in trouble for saying that but still stand by it.) On the other hand, who started and ran the civil-rights movement? Black men -- because they were the ones who suffered the indignities of racial segregation, more so than women. And it's no coincidence that the black church was spiritually strongest then.

WaveTossed

"'[I wrote earlier]Run this by me again? Men can only feel a part of your church community if they bar women from leadership positions?'

"[Blue Deacon]That's where it will eventually go; I've seen that up close and personal. As I mentioned, eventually only the most "desirable" men will even be approached. (Keep in mind that this is a sociological issue, not necessarily a theological one.)"

So it's perfectly OK to exclude women from leadership positions over a "sociological issue?" So therefore, would it be perfectly OK to exclude Blacks from leadership positions over "sociological issues?"

I do not know about your church, but my church (like many Christian churches) are about justice, not caving in to "sociological issues." As I recall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a great book: "Why We Can't Wait." Dr. King was stating that justice cannot step aside for comfort zones or sociological issues that Whites might have with Blacks have eeuqal rights and equal access to leadership positions. And as I recall, Dr. King's church did not bar women from leadership positions over "sociological issues."

BlueDeacon

Apples and oranges -- because, as my pastor has pointed out, the church originally was multi-racial and multi-cultural. And besides, that statement ignores the reality that men and women are fundamentally different (un-PC to say, perhaps, but true). I also need to say that, despite my abilities and extensive knowledge of the Scripture, until I found myself in my present complementarian church, I was never asked even to lead a Bible study. Because I wasn't the "right type of person."

WaveTossed

"Apples and oranges -- because, as my pastor has pointed out, the church originally was multi-racial and multi-cultural. And besides, that statement ignores the reality that men and women are fundamentally different (un-PC to say, perhaps, but true)"

"men and women are fundamentally different", you say. Now understand your viewpoint even though I don't agree with it at all. Yes, there are differences, just as there are differences between races and different nationalities and different religions. However, these differences don't constitute fundamental difference. As I just said, there are differences in various religions and this is one place where our religions differ greatly.

I remember well the days when White segregationists said the same thing, "Blacks and Whites are fundamentally different."
.

BlueDeacon

I remember well the days when White segregationists said the same thing,
"Blacks and Whites are fundamentally different."

I've already mentioned that we're talking about two different issues -- that
there is "fundamental difference" between races has consistently been
scientifically proven false. (And in my experience, some blacks have said the
same thing.) On the other hand, even feminists know that there are intrinsic
differences between genders.

WaveTossed

Getting squeezed by the software again. I'll answer at the end.

Feminae

As a child I attended a C&MA church and they reject the ordination of women for theological reasons, not sociological ones.

I would also proffer that excluding women from leadership in the church to give men a reason to go is hurting the men as well as the women in the community. Not only does the community lose the benefit of (in most cases) over half of its population, but we are failing to challenge our men and expecting too little of them.

Just my two cents

pecador

I have heard it argued that in the church's darkest time, all the males abandoned Christ and left only the women to maintain the faith and the priesthood. I have met too many outstanding women clergy to buy into the idea of excluding them from the ministry. My denomination probably has over 50% women in the seminaries now. Jesus scandalized his contemporaries because he dealt with women in a way that exulted them and recognized their worth. How sad it is that we are still arguing about this issue 2000 years later.