Pages Navigation Menu

Sarah Starrenburg

Of Course She Can! (Theoretically): Gender in the Egalitarian Church

Of Course She Can! (Theoretically): Gender in the Egalitarian Church

This is a subject I’ve successfully avoided writing about for the almost 7 years that I’ve been blogging.

In fact, I’ve largely avoided talking about it much at all for almost 15 years now. Because no one wants to have this conversation. And even fewer want to hear it raised by a woman.

The topic is gender in the church.

…still – I ask that you consider not closing the browser just yet.

To begin with, I’ll clear up what I’m talking about, and what I’m definitely not talking about.

Firstly, I’m not talking about marriage. Roles and submission in marriage is a whole other thing, and not at issue here at all. I’m talking about women and men in the church in general. The brothers and sisters. Cool?

Complementarian and Egalitarian: What does it mean?

So – in general, Protestant churches doctrinally fall into one of two camps. I shall now summarize them in wildly general brushstrokes as relevant to this piece…

There is Complimentarianism, which holds that the Bible advocates that there are certain roles, ministries and involvement in the church which women are not able to be involved in. The extent and details of what this includes and excludes vary from church to church. What is off limits for women could range from only senior leadership and eldership (or deaconship), through to women needing to remain entirely silent in services, with no involvement in worship, teaching, prophecy or leadership. It also extends to broad gender relations.

Then there is Egalitarianism, which holds that the Bible advocates that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are poured out upon all believers without regard to gender, and that all people should be able to exercise those gifts within the Body of Christ through ministry and leadership.

To pause here for a moment, another thing I’m definitely not talking about is which position is most biblical. That’s a question of enormity, and goes way beyond the capacity of a blog post. Further, I’m really not trying to argue that point. If you hold to complimentarianism; if you attend a complimentarian church; if you’ve really searched the scriptures and you believe that is the most faithful interpretation, then I respect that. It’s not a salvation issue – though it does have serious and significant ramifications on the church. And so we can agree to disagree. I won’t try to argue you around to egalitarianism here.

No, my parameters of discussion here have to do with those churches that do support a position of egalitarianism, and whether that is being upheld as faithfully in practice as it is in position. So my starting point here is this – “If we hold to a position of biblical egalitarianism, then…”

Okay? We all good? We understand I’m not trying to start any ‘which position is more biblical?’ arguments? Excellent. Thanks!

A Movement Birthed in Egalitarianism

There are a number of denominations that hold to egalitarianism, including my own, Australian Christian Churches (formerly Assemblies of God). The Pentecostals in Australia in fact had a particularly egalitarian inception. We got going just after the turn of the 20th century, and by 1930 more than half of our congregations were established and led by women.[1] This was similar in the establishment of Pentecostalism in other countries, including the United States and India.[2]

But the landscape of these churches has shifted.  Examining the state of the ACC in 2009 (the latest statistics I have) only 26% of credential holders were women, and these women held a disproportionate percentage of lower level credentials (special or probationary, not fully ordained).  Women represent only 5.7% of senior pastors – and even these tend to be in smaller churches. When considered in terms of the leadership of the movement, there are very few women on regional and state executives and only one on the National, who was elected in 2009.[3]  Preaching rosters in many egalitarian churches today are similarly weighted heavily in favour of male representation. Perhaps most tellingly, a 2001 examination of the demographics of women in ministry in the AOG found not a single credentialed woman in the denomination under 30.[4]

In other words – we’re going backwards. We’re not raising up and releasing our young women. It becomes clear as we take in the situation that just because churches have a position statement endorsing egalitarianism, does not mean it is a cultural value that is driving praxis.

Avoiding the Subject

Look, I know. I know the assumptions and criticisms and clichés cast upon women who bring up these things…Terms like ‘shrill’, ‘grasping’ and ‘power-hungry’ sometimes make an appearance, explicitly or implicitly, as do ‘nagging’, ‘bitter’, and of course, ‘militant feminist’.

Why do you think I’ve avoided it for so long?

And that’s the thing you see. I’ve avoided it because for many years, the line I’ve taken has been this – It’s not my place to talk about it. Conversations like that need to be driven by those who have the power. It’s the men who need to talk about this stuff. Not the women. Women talking about this stuff just turns people off the conversation. And so on, and so forth. This has been my argument to myself about why it was okay for me to keep my mouth shut.

But then, very recently, a very godly, wise woman who has been around this issue for longer than I’ve been alive challenged me on my silence. She raised the question of me getting involved in talking about this. I explained my line of reasoning on my silence.

I think it’s best these discussions are driven by the men, I said.

Of course, she said.

Of course it would be wonderful if the men talked about it. But they don’t, she said. It would be just fantastic if the Pentecostal pastors got up at conferences and talked about this, she said. But they don’t.

And I finally realised. I was fifteen, you see, when I first noticed the incongruence. I decided if I just waited, some of the very good and godly men around me would surely notice too and raise the issue.

It’s now 15 years later. And waiting doesn’t seem to be working.

And so, I am with great hesitation pulling together what I see, what I’ve read, what I know.


So What’s Going on Then?

Of course, there are plenty of practical rationalizations for why things are the way they are; why the gender imbalance is there.

But then, there are always plenty of rationalizations for institutionalized marginalization.

Ooh, sounds a bit harsh, right? Like I’ve inferred some kind of malicious intent?

But that’s just it. I don’t believe that’s the case at all. There’s no plot or hidden agenda. There’s no backroom committee of baby-boomer men conspiring to keep women out of ministry, out of influence and out of the conversation. And yet, they are largely missing. Why?

I believe there are a few reasons.

Men-toring

One of the most powerful ones is what Shane Clifton, the Director of Research and Head of Theology at Alphacrucis College (the national Bible College of the ACC) calls “the challenge of the need for male patronage”:

“Given the simple fact that most leaders are men, it is vital that women receive mentoring and support from these men. The difficulty is not only the fact that male leaders tend to gravitate more naturally toward the support of younger men… 

More significant is the common fear of cross gender relationships that prevails among conservative Christians.  Public moral failures of prominent pastors in recent decades have contributed to official and unofficial rules and practices that prevent men and women spending any time together alone. While such practices may be well intentioned, they have the unintended consequence of separating women from male leaders and colleagues, reinforcing the glass ceiling that keeps women out of leadership…

Such practices establish a legalistic approach to human relationships and ethics. Just at a time when Pentecostals believe that they have escaped the legalisms of past generations, restrictions against attending the cinema have been replaced with rules preventing open and honest relationships between women and men.  And as St. Paul reminds us, legalism leads to death – in this case, the death of female ministry (ironically, by way of practices that are unlikely to even achieve their intention to prevent infidelity).”[5]

If the current majority of ministerial leaders in the church are men, and they are only mentoring other men in ministry (vocational or otherwise)…. just what do we expect other than the marginalization of women from ministry and leadership? It’s as simple as it is troubling.

We have become so anxious to avoid even the appearance of evil – which, as I’ve discussed previously, is a completely misappropriated verse meant to relate to discerning whether spiritual manifestations are from God or not. We seem to be so phobic about contact between men and women – especially married men and younger women – that we forget that every day in businesses all over the world these kinds of mentoring and skills-development relationships manage to exist in an appropriate and professional manner.

Certainly there are areas of spiritual development and discipleship that should remain man-to-man and woman-to-woman – but this should not by extension exclude mentoring relationships that focus on other areas. There are ways to make it work…if you value the development of young women in their ministry and leadership gifts enough. The risk of men and women sinning together is never best solved simply by isolating the genders from each other. Across history and cultures, that solution has never led anywhere good.

image credit alliance1911 on flickr

An Undefined (but defining) Sense

The second factor I believe is at play in our current situation of gender imbalance is this – I believe there are a great many Christians – and this is perhaps largely due to a lack of explicit theological exposition and teaching on the subject – but who, though theoretically egalitarian, have a general if perhaps undefined sense that leadership, especially leadership in the church, most particularly preaching leadership in the church, is more likely to be found in men. Women can lead, absolutely. No argument here, we’re egalitarian. But it just seems to come more naturally in men.

That’s the sense, the feeling, of the issue. Take a moment to consider – do you feel, deep down, that leadership is just kind’ve slightly more a male thing than a female thing? If so, then it’s very possible you are interpreting masculine as normative. You are seeing ‘the way men tend to lead or preach’ as ‘the right way to lead or preach’. It’s the same thing women writers struggled with a few hundred years ago when they started to write novels that felt nothing like the ones written by men and were therefore deemed unskilled. Women like Jane Austen were told that no-one wanted to read what they had to write, because it didn’t sound like what was currently being defined as ‘good writing’.

If you are perceiving leadership in the masculine-as-norm manner, then you are forcing women who are gifted in this area to conform to masculine patterns they were not designed for, or resign themselves from the field of play. You are limiting the expression of gifts to a very particular kind of woman, those who can manage to ‘play like the boys’. You are robbing the church of the richness of the feminine that is reflective of the other half of God’s image.

And it is not even just about those women who may be called to ministry. It is about what it does to women in the church broadly when no one speaks with their voice – there is no modeling; no representation; and no balance. Furthermore, what does it say to those who are unchurched when they encounter a faith community that purports to value women and men equally, and yet defaults over and over again to a model of male leadership?

The Hard Questions

If, on the other hand, you don’t believe this – if you believe, rather, that leadership and teaching are not any more a male thing than a female thing; if you genuinely prescribe to the position statements of egalitarian churches…then we cannot escape the question of why, after so long and such counter-cultural equality at our beginnings, and in the face of such huge strides in vocational equality in the rest of society around us, WHY the ministry arena – the preaching and leadership within the charismatic, egalitarian church – is so overwhelmingly male.

This is about The Church, not my church, although I’m sure it will probably be interpreted as such by some. But this is certainly not some kind of attack on my Senior Pastor, who commendably overturned all historical precedent in our church to date to bring a thoroughly qualified female elder onto a previously all-male board. That being said, my church is not exempt from the overriding patterns of inconsistency between doctrine and practice when it comes to the questions of women in all levels of ministry and leadership. It is a much bigger issue than one church, or one leadership, or one denomination.

We just can’t ignore it any longer. If we believe that the current gender imbalance is not the mandated biblical pattern, then we must admit that there are systemic issues reinforcing that patterning. And we must, if we are to be loyal to our supposed theology, begin to examine ways to correct those self-reinforcing structures – what Jim Reiher in Australian Pentecostal Studies calls an “unconscious boys club which is both structural and cultural”.[6]

Is it Good Enough?

Let me end with an anecdotal example. When I was doing my theology studies, I had to do a leadership critique on one of the prominent Pentecostal pastors in Australia. It was an overwhelming positive evaluation – in fact I got in trouble and lost marks for not being critical enough of his leadership! But one thing I did notice, amongst all the interviews and articles and materials I went through to research his leadership, was a comment he made when an interviewer asked him about women on eldership –

“It is true that at this point, none of the church Elders are women.  I think it’s something that we need to keep addressing, but I do have one particular key person who has a real strong biblical stance on that, and I think mostly it’s out of respect to them at this point, that I haven’t considered bringing a woman onto the eldership.”[7]

In other words, the exclusion of women was not a deep conviction of the church’s overall position. We need to ask ourselves – is that good enough? Is not wanting to push too hard, not wanting to make anyone uncomfortable, is that good enough? Or, as Willow Creek’s leadership did when it came to the question of women in certain roles, is it beholden on us to search the scriptures and be very, very clear about our position on women, make that known so that everyone knows where they stand, and then pursue that even if it makes some people uncomfortable?[8] General uneasiness does not a theology make.

Indeed, all theology – all bringing together of the scriptures and life – is local theology, since all theologians – by which I mean all pastors and Christians in general – operate, think, construct meaning and construct emphases based on their own particular context and experience of life. However, when there is an overwhelming homogeneity amongst the theologians, leaders, preachers and pastors who hold positions of influence and exposure, this ‘local’ becomes somewhat ‘default’, and is elevated to ‘orthodoxy’. If theology is about bringing together the reality of God and the reality of human experience, then a poor service is done to the collective body of Christ when only a particular segment of human experience is used to make that connection. Surely a vast area of truth is neglected when revelation is only sought from one perspective.


[1] Barry Chant, The Spirit of Pentecost: Origins and Development of the Pentecostal Movement in Australia, 1870-1939 (Macquarie University, 1999), 39.

[2] Mark Hutchinson, “The Contribution of Women to Pentecostalism” in Shane Clifton and Jacqueline Grey, Raising Women Leaders: Perspectives on Liberating Women in Pentecostal and Charismatic Contexts (Sydney: APS, 2009)

[3] Shane Clifton, “Empowering Pentecostal Women”, Presented at the APTA Theological Symposium: Pentecostalism Power and the Exercise of Authority, 2009.

[4] Jacqui Grey, ‘Torn Stockings and Enculturation: Women Pastors in the Australian Assemblies of God”, Australasian Pentecostal Studies, Vol 5-6, 2001

[5] Shane Clifton, ‘Empowering Pentecostal Women’.

[6] Jim Reiher, “Do Assemblies of God Churches in Victoria Really Believe in Women’s Participation in Church Leadership?,” Australasian Pentecostal Studies, no. 7 (March 2003).

[7] Australian story (2005).

[8] Bill and Lynne Hybels, ‘Evangelicals and Gender Equality’, within How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals, Ed. Alan Johnson (Zondervan, 2010).

11 Comments

  1. Thank you for sharing what you see, what you’ve read and what you know, even in the midst of your great hesitation Sarah! Even more food for thought (and action, perhaps?!) after our big conversation last week!

  2. Hey Laura – and thanks for reading it! :)

  3. Unforunately I think the issue is far greater than women in leadership roles. Paul says in Ephesians 5:21 we are to submit to one another because in Genesis the result of the fall was that people would attempt to dominate and control each other, rather than work as equals.
    We need to learn to focus on working together as equals in all areas of life, with compassion, respect, and mutual building.
    The church is built on the leadership of one shepherd, Jesus, and we all have a part to play in the body. Both New and Old Testament give examples of women in leadership, and many examples of dominating leadership that crushes others. Whether the church pastor is male or female, the most important thing is that their motive is love for people, and their method builds others, not self.
    I think the church would function together much more powerfully if we all treated each other with respect, and encouraged each other in our different gifts by embracing the value of every gift in the body of Christ, essential for her to function as God’s light in this world.
    i have been in Senior leadership for 27 years in a husband/wife team (planting & pastoring churches), and am now venturing into the theological world. I think we should not elevate leadership to a superior status, but see it as one role in life. Jesus is now our high priest who lives for ever, so we no longer need an advocate between God and people in order to know God and his ways. We all have access to the Spirit, as he lives in each one of us. We need a healthy post-resurrection (after the cross) theology of the church and to focus on building God’s kingdom in love and unity.
    i agree it is unequal, and much harder for a woman to have a voice that is heard, but I think the whole role of leadership needs to be looked at. I believe the purpose of leadership is to empower others and ensure they have a voice. The leader who is bold enough to give others a voice is a good leader.
    Finally, the most important voice we all need to listen to is God’s voice, and he speaks personally to all of us through his Spirit on earth today. This is the whole purpose of Jesus coming to earth, that we could know God and live his ways through his power. He came to give the poor a voice, and we need to be part of freeing all those who have been oppressed and silenced (male, female, children in every nation), so they can hear God and all have a voice.
    Sue

  4. Hi Sue! Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts! I think you’re so right in drawing our attention to the fact that we should all be seeking first to serve each other in love – such a good point! It’s also very true, as you say, that we’ve become perhaps too fixated on seeing things through a ‘leadership’ lens, when that isn’t really one of the spiritual gifts listed in the Bible – and we should focus on making sure everyone has is able to be ‘heard’ in their individual voice and giftings:) Excited to hear you’re moving into theology – definitely such an stimulating and critical area of the faith community!!

    Thanks again for stopping by!

  5. Have you got any more stats? It’s a dramatic change. Was it slow and steady? Dramatic? Have the numbers grown but far slower than make growth?

  6. Great article. Much appreciated. I’ve been an OMC with ACC for 15 yrs. it’s time to speak out. To avoid this incredibly hopeful gen Y making the same mistakes of the past . Genuine gender unity is blessed by God, it is his intent. Enmity between the sexes is the devils idea…. It should be prevented at all costs.

  7. Hi hes21 – I can’t find enough stats to be able to discern the rate of change – let me know if you come across them:)

    Hi Maylin – thanks for your feedback! I am absolutely with you – I definitely have no interest in elevating or diminishing either gender above the other – we’re all in it together!! I’m sure your input to those coming after you on how to best move forward is invaluable!

  8. Hi Sarah. There is another reason why Godly women and men maybe limited. Church structure which sets up one or two pastors to preach at 1500 or so members “by definition” limits those with teaching or preaching or, x, y or z gifts to remain on the pews. The Early Church with less formal boundaries allowed the operation of gifts to flow.

  9. That’a a great point Lachlan – thanks for weighing in! There are definitely many more questions and answers surrounding the whole discussion that what I’ve put forward here, so I’m hoping it is just a prompt for even more conversations around ideas like yours going forward:)

  10. Hi Sarah, I really enjoyed this post. What I cannot explain however is the the fact that there were more female church planters and missionaries involved then men and somehow wo-men-toring did not successfully take effect either. One would think that even if females mentored females, that Australian Christian Churches still would have maintained the same gender ratio in leadership than approximately 100 years ago. The fact that some churches are regressing in relationship to egalitarian practice, amidst a culture and society where women are increasingly often than not head of households and primary bread winners, is simply bizzarre and seems to be a little out of touch. I think in the not so distant future the reality of this dicotomy may not only point to a church, but a missiological crisis.

  11. Hi Rebecca – thanks for raising some interesting thoughts. I think you’re right in pointing to the fact that the dynamics of the situation point to more factors at play than just mentoring. Regarding the fact that there is this disconnect between the church and society in this area, I agree that this is concerning, and raises some real questions. What’s been interesting to me as part of my work with an international missions organisation is seeing how in some non-Western countries where gender is still more of an issue in society, it can be sometimes less of an issue in the church, with women much more sharing the load of ministry and leadership.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. RHE – the mutuality 2012 synchroblog: a re-blog | Morven's Blog - [...] Of Course She Can! (Theoretically): Gender in the Egalitarian Church by Sarah Starrenburg [...]
  2. RHE- “Mutuality 2012 Synchroblog” | Christian Egalitarian Marriage - [...] Of Course She Can! (Theoretically): Gender in the Egalitarian Church by Sarah Starrenburg [...]
  3. My Top 10 Reads of 2012 | Ideas Change Everything - [...] read this book when I was preparing for this post, after Christine Caine tweeted about it a while back. …

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>