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

Most people who deal with men's ministries would tell you just the opposite -- that that kind of egalitarian set-up keeps them from developing spiritually. In a marriage and household, it isn't the wife/mother charged with responsibility for the family -- it's the husband/father. (This, of course, does not give him the right to abuse anyone, which I think is the key issue here.)

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.

Thanks for this. I shared the link.

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.

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

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.)

4HisGlory has a valid point. Whether you are an egalitarian or a complementarian, your conclusions should be grounded in Scripture, not culture. Unfortunately, both sides of this debate often have it flipped so that theological beliefs are affirmed/rejected on the basis that they either "resist culture" one on hand or are "culturally current" on the other. Either way, it's a culture-based argument built on shifting sand.

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!

The Episcopal Church welcomes you.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Nicole likely didn't mention starting the argument with biblical consideration because that was a given. Of course that's where you begin and Jesus set the example of inclusion to women! Paul even affirmed women such as Junia, Priscilla as leading churches (the term "pastor" was not used at all). I believe your bias is showing...

"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?

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.

Thanks for this. I shared the link.