Out of step (2)

I guess following my post on being out of step a few fellow bloggers have responded and it's worth pointing you to their posts. We should always be prepared to read and see how others see us (whether we agree or not) and to read and understand the others perspective (agree or not).

So Dave Warnock has an extensive post about the Newfrontiers position on women and a follow up one with links to others here. Needless to say he doesn't like it. At all. While it's unlikely that either Dave and I are going to end up changing our views on understanding scripture here, I think a few responses to some of his final comments might be helpful because I don't see what he is seeing in my church or in many others of our network. Of course that might be because I'm the one in power.

Here are his problems which he lists at the end of his post:

1. A Church that claims to lay great weight on the calling and active work of the Holy Spirit, yet denies it in women.
2. People who claim an infallible understanding of Scripture while ignoring huge swathes and so much scholarship about Biblical languages, culture and customs.
3. Claims that positions such as mine are not rooted in Scripture and so we can be dismissed as nut jobs, non evangelicals, ...
4. Claims to show grace that do not recognise the God given and God blessed ministries of so many of my colleagues

Some quick, responses from my perspective as a pastor within the Newfrontiers network...

1. I'm not sure it would be fair at all to say that we deny the Holy Spirit's call or activity in women. If the argument is that what is offered by God as a gift/responsibility to one gender must also necessarily be offered to the other (otherwise God would neither be just nor fair) then a complementarian position does obviously see differences/limits (depending on your point of view) but that there are differences doesn't mean everything is denied.
2. I'm not sure the scholarship is being ignored (an argument of course that cuts both ways). You make an effort to read the scholarship presented on both sides and there comes a time when you have to make a judgement on which arguments appear to you most convincing. It seems somewhat unfair to suggest that because we disagree that we are clearly 'ignoring' whatever piece of evidence the other side finds compelling just that at present it hasn't compelled us to change positions.
3. Dave's 3rd point also cuts both ways and caricatures of the other side are never helpful. So while Dave might not like being caricatured as a non-evangelical nut job (and of course we all have differing opinions as to what one of those is - evangelical, not nut job!) then neither would others like the women-hating caricature that is painted of them because they see Scripture differently. At the end of the day, describing people in those terms (of which Mr Driscoll, for example is frequently guilty) is neither respectful or helpful. So please feel free to remind me of this post (gently) if I forget my own rule.
4. In the neighbourhood where I work, there is a Church of England parish with two churches. As part of the team there is a lady vicar who knows and loves Jesus. Our ministries are open to her and her church, so recently she brought several people from her church on to the Alpha course we were running and they came to know Christ. Wonderful. I don't undermine her, or ignore her. Her church sees this issue differently and has given her authority to lead that church. I might not agree with that decision but what am I to do? It's not my place to try and change that or to pretend she doesn't exist it's not my church. So instead I offer her whatever friendship I can and recognise her in her role. God chooses to bless (for reasons of His own choosing) people whose theology is not identical to ours - and I'm grateful for that. If we can't practice generosity towards those who differ then we'll never learn to love our enemies. If I have a narrow view of working even with other evangelicals then I wouldn't work cessationists, infant baptisers, pre-millenialists or churches with women leaders and possibly others as well. As it happens I work closely with all of the above.
   

Dave also questions my asking for grace in this debate with this point.

"At such a point asking for greater grace on both sides is like saying to a slave, you need to accept your fate with grace and in return I the master will be gracious to you my inferior. Indeed Scripture demands that we all stand up for justice, but with love and in non-violent ways."

I agree that Christians should stand up for justice and do so in loving, non-violent ways and women sadly remain victims of injustice at the hands of men. The question which needs answering is along the lines of 'is a bar to governmental leadership in the church an injustice?' Dave clearly thinks the answer is 'Yes'. Others, women included, might answer 'no'. But whatever your position here are 3 reasons why I think grace is needed:

1. If I'm wrong (which I may be), the best way to help me is to show me grace in the disagreement. It's not helpful to anyone to disagree ungraciously.
   
2. If I'm wrong, I need grace to help me change. On whatever point of issue, changing long held views that differ perhaps from culture, upbringing, thousands of years of tradition alone, setting aside the painful wrestling with scripture that would need to be done (again) and leading others into that change all would require grace.
3. If I'm right or wrong (which I might be), I need grace. To honour the women in my church, which I'm privileged to lead and serve, and to encourage them to love God and love people. (I sometimes resent the implication - that I'm not trying to do that, so I need grace there too). Just as my vicar friend needs God's grace now to lead the men in her church.