I just noticed a comment within an article at Christianity Today. I think this relates to what you said…”This is one area of doctrine that I cannot and will not say is simply a legitimate difference of opinion.”

Discussing the problem of men in the church necessarily stirs up questions about gender roles. Perhaps no theological debate in the church today incites such personal, emotion-wrought responses. That’s because your views on male headship and egalitarian leadership are not incidental to Christian practice. Let me say this. There is a historical tendency for the church to become engulfed in a theological debate even as the culture whistles past. Today’s church desperately needs biblical teaching on gender roles. But what will it gain the kingdom if one side wins the debate but we all forfeit the culture?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/marchweb-only/110-52.0.html

Tom

I agree that the church should be a pneumatological representation and that our relationships should imitate the mutuality of the trinity. Our incarnation of Christ is via the Spirit and reflective of the will of the Father.

Good points, bro. Grace has discussed this several months ago from much the same perspective, or so it seems to my faulty memory.

I especially agree with this;

All this to say is that I think the battles are a struggle because we’re trying to force the changes into outdated and wrongly conceived imagery.

I’ve witnessed the absurd extreme of that forced structural Procrustean-ism. First, create a “leadership position” that has absolutely no basis in the NT (such as “Worship Leader”), then limit those who can function in that created position to males–only. Then, defend that decision to the bitter end despite the fact that those who may be best equipted/gifted to function in that “leadership position” do not meet the genitalial requirements. The ensueing fight brings out the worst in both sides. The final result is that the power holders drive off the most gifted and dedicated.

Tom

This is all wrong, in my estimation. We need to look at the church as pneumatological, as being filled with the Spirit, not as representational of Jesus. Only thing is we have the Spirit almost entirely focused on showmanship, not organization, that this is rarely done.

The second is kind of related, assuming that the leadership structure itself is valid, with a main leader who is preacher, teacher, prophet, king, all rolled into one. The NT shows a whole lot of different roles, and none of them it seems being particularly entirely like what we would call a lead pastor of today.

All this to say is that I think the battles are a struggle because we’re trying to force the changes into outdated and wrongly conceived imagery.

duncan,
I think we have to live according to what we know is right. However there is a tension in taking a solid stand that we don’t create unnecessary division with those who don’t agree with us on this issue.

LOL Bill,
I also laughed while your name was listed with the post title under recent comments on the sidebar.

Peggy,
Very wise words. I have come to the place where I cannot say this is a neutral difference of opinion. Fortunately I do not have to deal with it on a confrontational level very often. I pray that I will be faithful to all that I am called to, including speaking up when necessary.

Thanks Pam, I’ve got you linked.

Thanks Tom, I hope the discussion on this topic moves beyond the housework and into the deeper issues like mutuality. However, even in that, the conversation is at a deadlock because the comp’s have taken the position that there is not full mutuality in the trinity.

Ron,
Very true, and many complementarians are functionally egalitarian in the home also. There is something about dropping the concept of male headship that is very threatening to both men and women complementarians.

Jamie,
I am not comfortable with my dogmatic feelings about this issue. It looks so black and white when put in writing. Yet I am also uncomfortable with dismissing the underlying conviction and feel it is important to take a clear stand for what I believe and why.

Hopefully I am gracious in practice regarding this topic. I don’t believe in unnecessary division and typically avoid engaging in debate.

That said, having grown up in a complimentarian context, I am at least encouraged that God’s grace extends beyond such issues, working through the lives of Christians with all kinds of flaw theology and practice (myself included). This is not to excuse it, but remind me to be humble, gracious and patient with others, as I know others (and God) must be with me.

Thanks!

Peace,
Jamie

But honestly, I don’t understand why this is an issue. I just don’t get it. On a purely practical basis it doesn’t make sense. It’s been my observation that in most churches if all the men stayed home the place would probably get along just great, maybe even better. Women would teach and lead and minister just fine. Yet if all the women stayed home most churches would fall completely apart. You’d have to be in a serious state of denial not to see that the majority of ministry in most churches is done by women. Realizing that as a man and hearing other men cling to complementarian perspectives is just embarassing.