Release Your Women

Egalitarianism in a megachurch doesn't surprise me at all. Pentecostals have often been in the forefront of equality. The Church of the Foursquare Gospel was founded by a woman, and the Assemblies of God have ordained women from day one in accordance with Joel 2:28. Liberal Mainline churches are the Johnny-come-latelies to the party, and then they make a big deal about it. In my local Presbytery, it is the evangelical congregations that are diverse and multiethnic. The liberal churches talk a good line but have minimal impact among any group. I'm sure exceptions abound in both groups, but many thanks to Sojourners for pointing out something different that has long defied accepted stereotypes. Blessings, Witness for Peace

Thanks for your "amen." I went back and read my original post, and just in case I didn't make it clear, I want to emphasize that I am all for promoting the role of women in the church. As a woman myself, I believe that women are just as capable as men to assume leadership roles in the church. The part of Mimi Haddad's post that I took issue with was her motivation for promoting female equality. She seemed to be saying that we should do it in order to have a big church. I maintain that we should do it because it's the right thing to do (with apoligies to Wilford Brimley).

I understand the point of the article and your advocacy in general. The opening paragraph, however, implies a correlation I remain unconvinced about. There is not enough information that the size of the church congregation is at all attributable to women's involvement. I would think there is some, but then I am left to question whether the goal of "unity" and some sort of universal church is even desirable.

In the past I have been a strong critic of mega-churches for a variety of reasons.

However, in this case I would have to agree with the writer that adopting an egalitarian approach to things like allowing women to take on leadership role is enlightened, especially in terms Gal. 3:28.

I personally believe that many churches in the west which claim to allow women equal opportunities in terms of ministry roles appear to only do that tokenly. Male leadership is often entrenched culturally, expected, empowered, promoted, and preferred as `the norm' to the detriment of competent trained women. Males are usually preferred as leaders above often more qualified females within denominational bodies including those new institutions of Neo-pentecostalism as well as the older types (eg. Anglican, Orthodox, etc).

So I guess I am arguing that many so-called `egalitarian' churches are often only toeknly so in the West.

I think, given that Asian societies have often been quite conservative in their attitudes to having women in meaningful church leadership roles traditionally, that Yongi Cho's church adopting a more egalitarian approach to leadership roles would be quite a radical departure from the norm - quite countercultural in the South Korean background religious culture.

Of course, with a church that size, it makes good common sense to enlist women to share the leadership load - an absolute practical necessity I would think.

There is one very large denomination concentrated mainly in the South in which women seem to be invisible. (I'm sure that they are working hard behind the scenes by teaching Sunday School classes, working in the Nursery, performing janitorial duties, and singing in the choir. I think that those churches are depriving themselves of the godly influence of dedicated ladies. I'm not sure what biblical foundation they use for this practice unless it is something that they carried over from the only Church that existed for the first 1500 years of Christendom. These observations are based only on watching their services on TV and I could be dead wrong - maybe they do allow women to minister.

The answer is "Mother Theresa"!!! A large church could be merely the result of clever marketing, or of being located in the right demographic at the right time. However, a desire to tell other people about Jesus--in a variety of ways--is a distinctive of transforming faith. Sometimes growth really is a sign of imperfect Christians who nonetheless have proper motivation and God's blessing, as in the Jerusalem church in the first century. Later, they became poor, but God loved them just the same. Blessings, Witness for Peace

Wait, I thought mega-churches were something to make snide comments about or to serve as examples of insincere, shallow, suburban evangelicals who only care about saving souls... Do you mean to say some of them have positive attributes as well?

*head exploding*

First, I have no argument with the premise that we women should have equal opportunity and participation in all aspects of life - including the church.

What I do take issue with is the conclusion that the so-called success of the meg-churches can be attributed to their inclusion of women. (I also have an issue with using the number of attendees as a measure of church success.)

When I was growing up, we had one set of school clothes which we washed repeatedly and then handed down. Were we less "successful" than those with a full wardrobe? Who is more successful - Mother Teresa or John Hagee? What conclusions could we derive from the songs at the top of the charts or the TV programs that top the Nielsen's?

Perhaps our current economic woes will force us to ascribe more importance to the simpler things in life - family and our relationships with each other. There are actually things that are more important than the number of congregants that a church has or the latest electronic game.

If a church is truly oppressing women and denying the existence or exercise of their spiritual gifts, that is a huge problem. If a church is turning a blind eye while men (even leaders) mistreat their wives, that is a huge problem, too. Both situations are very grievous. In those instances, I say "amen" to the pastor's exhortation to "release your women." I would even add, "Instruct your men on how to treat women according to the Word of God. And if a woman reports domestic violence, offer to accompany her to the police station, mobilize the church to help her move to a new home where she can be safe, and expel the batterer from the church until he bears fruit in keeping with repentance."

However, a church may believe that the roles of elder or pastor are Biblically limited to men and still be encouraging women to grow and to use the spiritual gifts God has given them. In my view, such churches do not need to "release" women; there is no prison from which the women in those churches need release. I believe it is a gross overstatement to contend that all churches with a complementarian approach are oppressive to women; again, some may be, but some does not equal all.

Forget looking at the content of the blog and waiting for quantitative research/evidence to show how many of those 830,000 members are actually making it vital -- or for proof that it's the spiritual liberation of women in the faith that gives the church power.

Neither of those things can ever be used to measure the work of God in His people. If Dr. Cho, who lives his call and is family with his congregation, finds in his communication with God that he's guided to "free the women" and good things happen when he does, that's the most solid evidence available. God is so far beyond human research methodology that we'd never make sense of him using that approach.

It's a neat and inspiring story; it helps me more to look past logical flaws, which are meaningless anyway, and to look for what the story says to me about Christian growth, individual and corporate.

Only the South Korean ones ; - )