More on Women’s Ordination/Ministry
A couple days ago I posted this as a comment on Keith’s post on women’s ministry according to Tim Keller:
I found Keller’s articulation of deacon, deaconess and elder roles helpful. Just one question, and this question is a concern I keep coming back to : does a church have regular paid salaries for these deaconesses and/or any female staff members? I know it seems like a greedy question, but I think it’s an important sidenote to any discussion on female ordination. Also, is there a specific ordination process for these deaconesses, recognized by the denominations practicing this type of gender specified ministry? If not, I fear this system would easily be destroyed as it would lack credibility. Women called to ministry may be forced to go elsewhere for work due to lack of full-time work and vocational recognition.
I know this is complicated by our view of churches as “businesses”, I just don’t want to limit all substantial positions (monetarily and in terms of time) from women, this seems kind of strange.
Any thoughts?
Again, I’m wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this. I’ve thought about it a lot the last few days, and it’s all that’s keeping me from this sort of position.
Yes, I know of churches that pay women for this and yes, there is an ordination process.
Anglicans for certain have an ordination process for deacons. The Presbyterian Church in America does as well I believe, but it’s not as sexy as the Anglican process, or as complicated probably.
In terms of money, if a church can’t pay their deacons I’m sure this isn’t because of sexism or anything like it, but probably more due to a lack of money. For instance, large churches like Mars Hill are able to pay all their pastor-elders full time salaries. But where else is this the case? In a church like Driscoll’s Mars Hill, women deacons are paid salaries – some are full time and some are part time positions. I believe Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian is similar.
Larissa, most churches can barely afford to pay one minister a living wage, so I doubt a lot of Canadian conservative churches will be able to pay their deacons anything at all. We do seem to be in exile.
But that’s no reason to change positions. I really do find the egalitarian position as a whole wanting exegetically. Sure, there are strong points, but that’s why modified complementarian positions like Blomberg’s and Keller’s I think best fit the whole biblical picture.
Keith:
I think Lara’s question was a bit more specific:
“Also, is there a specific ordination process [and paid salary] for these deaconesses, recognized by the denominations practicing this type of gender specified ministry?”
Obviously full egalitarian churches like the Anglicans and PCC would do this, but her question was: do churches which hold the Keller/Driscoll position ordain and pay full-time teaching deaconesses?
Yes. Mars Hill does for sure. Also, Kellers’ Redeemer PCA does too I believe.
I was looking at the Bayly’s blog and found this comment with reference to Keller and his church:
“Women officers will be “elected” and for now will be called “deaconesses.” And these elected women will serve the Lord’s Supper to the congregation—not “administrate,” you understand; they will “counsel,” “teach,” and “shepherd” men; they will do anything a non-ordained man can do.”
Obviously Bayly is not ok with this. Given the size of Redeemer Presbyterian, I have no doubt that they wouldn’t pay their full time female deacons, just like Mars Hill does.
I really appreciate the stats of Redeemer and Mars Hill! It goes to show that there are people who put their money where their mouth is.
I’m still concerned about smaller churches, just that if a woman feels called to minister to a small congregation we don’t limit this by default. (That is, if in fact you believe a woman can be a solo pastor in a small church as long as she has “gatekeeper” elders in communication with her)
I realise this isn’t going to be the “typical” situation in a middle of the road complementarian church, but I still think it could happen and be blessed by God. It would just assume that either a)male elders were willing to volunteer/get paid part time or b)the woman is directly and regularly responsible to a denominational head/body (i.e. the diocese or what have you).
I remember reading a section of Blomberg that expanded on the different possibilities with this position depending on one’s view of church government. I think we need to take his comment and ponder seriously what kind of government Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy 2 and 3. The word pastor is so confusing because its not in there. As far as I’m concerned, soft complementarianism allows a woman to be a pastor. I’m a little confused though, because this doesn’t seem to be happening in Keller and Driscolls’ churches.
I realise I probably sound a little pushy/crazy. If there is no answer/your answer is the same as above, that’s okay too guys.
I don’t really think that the solutions you’ve outlined would work.
I disagree with some of Blomberg’s applications. From memory he argued from existing church structures and how women could fit into them with a complementarian twist.
Meh. I think that Paul’s argument is referring to local elders in 1 Timothy. This would negate women elders in any sense.
With regards to a woman being paid full time while male elders got paid (some of them?) part time or volunteered … I think this would undermine the complementarian position in practice.
I just had a thought about this: if one is committed to complementarianism, then perhaps pushing the envelope isn’t a wise idea (coming as close to egalitarianism as possible). Of course you don’t want to lean back (even a bit) into a Grudem’esque position, but some of Blomberg’s application’s seemed a bit squirrelly.
I’m reminded of a quote from the Puritan John Cotton: “If you tether a beast at night, he knows the length of the tether by morning.” (Please no one say I’m comparing women to beasts or any other such foolishness. It’s just a pertinent quote).
A wiser approach I think would look at what the Scriptures say about church government and then go from there, instead of taking incorrect church government positions and fitting women into those incorrect systems (where they will find themselves in a more exalted position due to the incorrect view). I can’t see Paul being o.k. with women elders as long as they are under the authority of a male bishop. Blomberg’s off there.
“Meh. I think that Paul’s argument is referring to local elders in 1 Timothy. This would negate women elders in any sense.”
But what if a church doesn’t have a local elder in Paul’s sense? You can say that’s incorrect (based on your exegesis), but that doesn’t stop it from happening. So the question still is pertinent.
“With regards to a woman being paid full time while male elders got paid (some of them?) part time or volunteered … I think this would undermine the complementarian position in practice.”
Any particular reason for that?
“I can’t see Paul being o.k. with women elders as long as they are under the authority of a male bishop. Blomberg’s off there.”
Doesn’t it depend on how those persons are functioning within the given church organization?
I think it would be more ecumenically helpful to start by accepting different views of church structure and work from there, rather than your procedure. But I guess that’s just a place where we can disagree
I just read over what I wrote and I realize that I came across as a blunt jackass. Apologies.
I also think that my objections to Blomberg’s applications don’t hold as strongly as I thought they did.
I talked with Andrew last night and I could see something work where a woman was paid full time to be a shepherd but was under the authority of a male elder board that weren’t paid to work full time.
So ya, what Lara wrote about could happen. I think I’d be uncomfortable about it, but I don’t think that’s necessarily due to the text.