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

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...

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.

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?

I am a staunch egalitarian because I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women; not because I think the inclusion of women will score points for Christianity in the public square. Conversely, I'm frustrated when pastors/church leaders use excuses other than theology to exclude women from teaching/preaching: “I just didn't think of you,” “Our congregation isn't used to hearing a woman preacher,” “We've never done that before” etc.

If you believe a glass ceiling is mandated by Scripture, be up front about it. If you don't believe the exclusion of women from preaching/pastoring is Biblical, affirm the God's calling of gifted women and let them develop those gifts!

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.)