Imagine that it’s a Sunday morning and a church is on the point of announce its transition to an egalitarian model and commit to incorporate women in pastoral leadership. The leadership gathers behind the stage to hope and review their communication strategy before the service begins. The pastor who can be sharing the news from the pulpit paces, with a burning query filling his mind: How will the congregation reply to the announcement?
The months leading as much as at the present time proved to him that on matters of girls in ministry, his congregation was not of 1 mind. Yet he’s convinced that embracing an egalitarian approach is the best way forward for his church, so he gathers his strength, steps into the auditorium, and delivers the news.
The statement goes well, all things considered. The congregation doesn’t cheer, but nobody boos or walks out the door—and that looks like a win. Everything appears to be under control. The service ends without much tension, and the pastor together with the remainder of the leaders breathe a sigh of relief.
This, in fact, is an imagined scenario. But it’s not vastly different from what happens in point of fact when previously complementarian churches transition to egalitarian models: Oftentimes the people involved in the method are so exhausted from all of the work it took to maneuver the church to an egalitarian ministry philosophy that changing the church’s official statement on women appears to be the victory, the destination at the top of an extended road, when it’s only the start of an arduous journey.
Every church handles this process in a different way. What’s undeniably true in all situations is that regardless of how careful and intentional a church may be in its approach to this transition, the method is lengthier and more difficult than anticipated. It’s often painful and it’s inevitably messy. As a result, many communication strategies inadvertently prioritize messaging (like proper apologetics and careful articulation of a position) and damage control, significantly limiting the energy and focus required to properly arrange women to thrive.
As someone who has been caught in the midst of these transitions, I can say two things are often true: First, often good-hearted individuals are driving these efforts, doing their best with the resources available. Second, sometimes those well-intended efforts end in a number of pain.
While no church can navigate this journey perfectly, it is feasible to mitigate the hurt and frustration that always ensue. I offer a number of suggestions for church leaders to contemplate—pitfalls to look at out for—whether or not they’re starting the egalitarian journey or reevaluating their church’s posture toward women. With more women becoming preachers lately than in previous many years, it’s imperative we proceed to discuss the right way to make these transitions well.
One of essentially the most common pitfalls for newly egalitarian churches is considering that a press release on women changes all the pieces. This couldn’t be farther from the reality. While an official position on women could have modified, generally the systems and values undergirding a church’s culture remain the identical. Decades of tradition proceed to be at play. Long-held assumptions and expectations placed upon women remain intact, adding layers upon layers of complexity and challenges for ladies to navigate.
Women who might think they’ve latest leadership opportunities available to them find themselves bumping into invisible barriers and tripping over unspoken rules without knowing they were there in the primary place. In contexts like these, the ladies appointed to latest or higher positions of leadership are set as much as fail.
How can we mitigate this? A very good place to start out is to contemplate how your church’s current context—not your statement on women—supports (or undermines) the inclusion of girls in your congregation.
Just a few guiding questions are helpful here: Can we predict of specific traditions, assumptions, or expectations around women that may be at play in our staff culture? Are there any mechanisms in place to discover the worth systems or structures which may be dated or in need of attention? Have we considered how our hiring practices and worker manuals may be impacted by a latest position on women (for instance, what would maternity leave seem like for a lead pastor)? What wouldn’t it seem like for our church to fully include women in any respect levels of leadership and influence?
Another common pitfall for churches is considering that by appointing one woman to a selected leadership position, all women at the moment are represented and included. This is very common in the realm of preaching. In many instances, once a church has found a female preacher it trusts, not a complete lot of effort is made to incorporate more women in the combo. After all, they will now say that “women preach at this church.” But is that a really accurate statement?
Time and time again, once I walk into formerly complementarian churches and ask if women preach there, the reply is a few version of this: “Oh yes, Kimberly preaches on a regular basis.” What’s embedded in that sentence—and might be easily missed—is the proven fact that Amber (who happens to be trained in preaching) doesn’t preach there; neither does Sarah, Tara, or Michelle. Kimberly is the one woman who preaches at that church. That a girl preaches in any respect is something to have fun, no doubt about that. But there’s a world of difference between a church where Kimberly preaches and a church where women preach.
What wouldn’t it seem like to have a full-fledged vision for female preachers in our churches? Are there areas besides the pulpit where one woman may be carrying the banner of all womanhood? As churches have a look at their current female staff, are there any perspectives, ethnic backgrounds, or life experiences that will not be represented?
A 3rd pitfall, and maybe essentially the most painful one, is failing to grasp the emotional toll that these significant church transitions tackle women. Knowing that the last word goal of those discussions is to find out what us, women, can or cannot do based on our gender is very difficult for me. Who I’m as a girl, as a female preacher and pastor, is profoundly connected to the discussion. For lots of us, these conversations are deeply personal and fully embodied experiences.
Moreover, there are occasions once we are asked to share our personal experiences with the male staff and elders. Hopefully this can be a real effort to listen and check out to grasp our experience, but lots of these conversations find yourself being one-sided. We share our personal experiences and pain—they usually don’t.
When these dynamics are in place, the playing field just isn’t level. This only exacerbates the pain a few of us have been carrying long before these conversations began and reopens the very wounds the church is attempting to mend. Once the choice has been made to officially move in an egalitarian direction, many of the leadership’s efforts turn to apologetics, biblical grounding, and the careful articulation of the position paper, and never enough attention is given to the ladies who get caught up in the midst of all of it.
Churches that want to really move to an egalitarian model should ask themselves: Are we aware of the actual ways in which one-sided conversations have affected, and maybe proceed to affect, the ladies serving at our church? Do we’ve got female and male advocates whose fundamental role is to intercede and pray for ladies—to support them and look out for them on an ongoing basis? What wouldn’t it seem like to implement guidelines to make sure the conversations between men and girls are mutual and fair? Is there opportunity to create clear pathways, secure spaces, and resources for men and girls to voice their spiritual and emotional needs and struggles? How often will church leaders revise their stance and approach to women in ministry?
The chief query of all is that this: Is our church truly committed to including women within the lifetime of the church and to creating pathways for them to exercise the complete extent of their giftings? The answer to that query will inform the answers to all other questions on women in church leadership.
The journey won’t be perfect and churches will make mistakes, but the best way church leadership approaches every conversation, every announcement, and each situation will make all of the difference in making a space where all ladies and men can thrive and use their giftings along with mutuality and respect. The key word here is intentionality—not perfection. Loving, real, and ongoing intentionality will all the time go a great distance.
Gaby Viesca is the director of programs at Missio Alliance and is chair of the evangelical studies unit on the American Academy of Religion. She has worked in full-time pastoral ministry in Israel, Mexico, and the Pacific Northwest.
Have something so as to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.
