Focusing our discussions of women in the church*

Within churches of Christ, the discussion about women in the church generally comes down to these areas:
Can women take a leadership role in a congregation?

  • Can women be elders?
  • Can a woman be “the preacher” for a congregation?
  • Can women take a leading role in worship?

    • Can a woman take a teaching role in worship?
    • Can a woman lead a prayer in worship?
    • Can a woman take a speaking role in worship?
    • This would include announcements and scripture reading, among other things.

    • Can women have a participative role in worship? This includes things like passing communion trays.

    As we look at examples from the Bible, I think it helps to keep these areas of focus in mind. There is a temptation to either emphasize the lack of women’s names or emphasize the ones that are there, while never considering how those examples speak to the above activities.

    Does that list seem fairly complete? I know that some would say that behind this are questions about the relative value of women, the giftedness of the Spirit, etc. But in my experience, where the rubber meets the road is praxis: what is actually going on.

    * I recognize that almost every description of this discussion is awkward. Do we call it women in the church? Gender roles? Inclusiveness? I’m not fully satisfied with any of the descriptors, which is one reason I try to vary what I use.

    4 thoughts on “Focusing our discussions of women in the church*

    1. Nick Gill

      I’d only caution that “what’s going on” is almost always driven by the answers to those underlying questions – whether those questions have been explicitly asked or whether they’re functioning as worldview-type questions whose answers are simply assumed.

    2. Harland

      Tim, I’m picking up on the word “praxis” to ask for guidance in two areas:
      1. Theological connections between theology as theory and theology as lived out practice. That is, how do they dynamically give feedback-influence to each other? It seems that “traditional theology” was appropriately criticized for its inertia to depart from the ivory castles–giving precedence to proper interpretation of text over any subsequent actions. And now it seems that the vibrations of liberation theology prioritize the dynamics of action within the current circumstances so as to then be able to more properly read holy documents. I realize that this is extremely tangental to your series. Feel free to disregard and maybe pursue in an informal conversation. [I would say that, generally, the former perspective has held to retain historical and traditional structures. While the latter is part of the motor for “needed change” in our theology.]

      2. Current practices include a wide cast of salaried workers/ministers who are employed for distinctive tasks within a congregation(s). How does the very fact of being worthy of employment affect our view of these same members being authorized (or not) to participate in the tasks related to your questions?

    3. Tim Archer Post author

      Nick, I’ve been surprised, however, to find that for many it’s only about what women are authorized to do. These people might sit through a study of Genesis 3, but only to wait and hear how you’re going to apply it to whether or not women will be passing communion trays in the near future.

    4. Tim Archer Post author

      Harland, I don’t like where liberation theology led many people, but I think it got some things right. Like the rejection of an “intellect only” theology.

      As for hired staff, I’m not sure if there’s a direct connection with participation in worship. Churches had women lead children’s ministries for years, for example, without using them in public worship.

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.