Mandy's Musings

Monday, January 15, 2007

A question about female missionaries

I spent last week at CMS Summer School in the beautiful Blue Mountains. It was a fantastic, if challenging week, but more to come on that later.

The question I wanted to ask is: Why do we think it is OK to send out female missionaries, especially to Africa, to do things on the field like theological education that we do not let them do in Sydney? I heard greatly encouraging tales of women teaching in bible colleges, training the future leaders of the church and people growing in their love and knowledge of our heavenly Father.

But it did raise for me the question: why is it appropriate to go overseas and do these things if it is not appropriate in Sydney?

Is it that gender roles are a second-order issue, so the important thing is getting people out on the field and teaching and training others? Is it that we are wrong not to have more women in theological education in Sydney? Is there something else I am missing?

Labels: ,

posted by Mandy at Monday, January 15, 2007

22 Comments:

  • I've been troubled by this too, Mandy. I think we have been inconsistent in this area. I would be reluctant to support a female missionary who was not focusing on female evangelism...

    By Blogger Craig Schwarze, at Monday, January 15, 2007 11:35:00 am  

  • Is it true that women are not allowed to teach in Sydney Theological colleges? When we were at Moore (6 years ago) we were taught regularly by 2 female lecturers.

    Not sure about the Africa question, but I think that in established bible colleges there is scope for women teaching mixed groups without upsetting the male authority thing. (I think there is much less possibilty of this in a church situation)

    But a good question to ask. What were the women teaching?

    By Blogger Simone R., at Monday, January 15, 2007 1:42:00 pm  

  • Thanks Craig and Simone.

    Is it true that women are not allowed to teach in Sydney Theological colleges?
    Not sure if 'allowed' is the right word. I was at Moore 2003-6 and I was taught part of the Church History 1 Course by a woman, and had visiting female lecturers occassionally in Pastoral Counselling, generally doing a one-off lecture or part thereof. I was never taught by them, but there are also 2 women who take Greek and Hebrew classes. However, there are no full-time female lecturers on faculty at Moore. One reason I would attribute this to is the pastoral relationship between the faculty and students that exists at Moore - it is much more than just a student-teacher relationship, because the faculty have a pastoral responsibility for the students, exemplified by the chaplaincy groups. I'd always thought that this was at least part of the reason that women at Moore did not have overall responsibility for a course or teach theology, but I'm happy to be corrected if that is incorrect.

    Given this pastoral relationship that exists between the students and faculty, can you help me to understand what the scope for women to teach mixed groups in an established bible college setting is?

    The women missionaries were teaching everything from doctrine and biblical theology to how to lead a biblestudy group.

    By Blogger Mandy, at Monday, January 15, 2007 2:10:00 pm  

  • We had NJ for most of first year Church History and my husband was taught all [?] of second year Hebrew by a woman (whose name I've forgotten). I don't think that in either of these cases the overall male teaching authority thing was disturbed - in neither case was the lecturer expected to take pastoral responsibility for the students. It is a similar situation to this which I can imagine female missionaries performing with a clear conscience.

    An example in an Australian context which I think is allowable and should be encouraged-

    My sister-in-law is an evangelical christian with considerable expertise in early english methodism (a PhD). Just as theological students studying this area would read her publications so it would be acceptable for them to learn from her face to face. I don't think that she should be asked to provide the overall shape and direction for their theology but in a well established college - where the foundational work is clearly set by the male leaders - I don't think her running a course would be problematic.

    If female missionaries are viewed as interchangable with male missionaries then I suspect that someone has conceeded far too much somewhere along the line. But it would be very difficult for a woman to refuse to teach - say, doctrine - when no theologically sound man was putting up his hand.

    By Blogger Simone R., at Monday, January 15, 2007 2:53:00 pm  

  • Thanks Simone. I think we largely agree. I think that the organisation of the college and the way the students and faculty relate is key - such that in the first examples you give of your experiences at college, the women who taught you and your husband had no direct pastoral responsibility for the male students.

    Would it be fair to say:
    - It is right and appropriate for there to be male leadership in a thelogical college and for men to have pastoral responsibility for other men.
    - Within this wider context, it is also appropriate for female lecturers to teach both male and female students, however it is not appropriate for them to have pastoral responsibility for the men they are teaching.

    Thus there is room for women to be involved in theological education, but she is always to do so in a way that is different to a man, and under male leadership because men and women are different.

    But it would be very difficult for a woman to refuse to teach - say, doctrine - when no theologically sound man was putting up his hand.
    I guess this is part of the difficulty I have with sending women to do things overseas that we wouldn't think it is right for them to do here. Sure it is heartbreaking to see people not being taught because men are not volunteering to go, but does it make it right for a woman to teach if we think that the bible says that male leadership within the church is not only right and appropriate but what God thinks is best? Even though God blessed Israel through Deborah's reign as judge, it was also an indictment upon the men for their failure to lead. Maybe as we wait and pray God will raise up men for the task.

    By Blogger Mandy, at Monday, January 15, 2007 3:13:00 pm  

  • I think we're very much in agreement which is nice!

    What I'm concerned to argue against is a fundamentalism over male-femaleness in which men can refuse to listen seriously to anything women say for fear of being 'taught' by them.

    I think the position of single female missionary is a very tricky one. To change your convictions on this issue simply because you are working in another culture is, to some extent, to assert a superiority over that race of people that is de-humanising.

    ie. Anglo man is head over Anglo woman but Anglo woman is head over African man...

    surely not what we want to be saying...

    By Blogger Simone R., at Monday, January 15, 2007 3:42:00 pm  

  • Preaching in church and lecturing in a bible college are two different things, Sydney Anglicanism's reductionist view of church notwithstanding.

    Essentially, what occurs in a public church meeting is governed by what is in the bible (ie reading scripture, teaching from scripture, singing, praying, a structure of elders running the church and the ability to discipline). What occurs in a Bible college is different because it is not consciously acting as a NT church. Therefore Women can teach in Bible colleges because lecturers do not (and should not) have the same inherent spiritual leadership position as an elder / pastor of a congregation.

    By Blogger Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight), at Monday, January 15, 2007 4:51:00 pm  

  • Oh... and church also has the celebration of the sacraments.

    By Blogger Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight), at Monday, January 15, 2007 4:55:00 pm  

  • I quite agree that we must be consistent in our theology and practice on this issue. Whether the woman is in Sydney or Timbuktu is irrelevant. But I still want to argue that teaching in a theological college is different from preaching and teaching in the church. I explained this at some length in a comment on your friend Becky's blog and I've just cut and pasted it here:

    Women, church and teaching.

    Well. It seems to me that the bible gives us models for men and women fulfilling complementary roles in two spheres: church and family. (And yes, the overlap between nation and covenant community in the OT does make that a little confusing at times, but I think we can still make the distinction between church and, for example, workplace).

    In the family, the wife is to submit to her husband. In the church the congregation are to submit to their pastor. Which means not only that he should exercise authority by teaching the word, but also that he should exercise authority over admission to the table and other forms of church discipline. Our attitude should not be of blind agreement with everything but of genuine submission. Recognising that as the pastor he has the right to make decisions and to call for obedience even when we disagree.

    For example, in the church where I go, we don't have paedo-communion. I think we should. When the minister explained to the congregation why we had paedo-baptism but not communion I went to talk to him afterwards. Not to try to persuade him but merely to let him know that although I disagree, I want to support his decision as my pastor. So that means I won't be actively encouraging others to become paedo-communionists or starting a campaign for it in the church. He's the pastor, it's his decision and I submit to it, recognising his authority.

    This is where I think the difference is clearest with lecturers. I can disagree with my lecturer, engage in debate, still disagree, go on behaving in the way that I choose and it doesn't affect our relationship as lecturer and student, and it doesn't involve any disobedience on my part. My lecturer doesn't have the authority to require any kind of intellectual or ethical conformity. [This is quite different from being 'authoritative' in an academic sense of being a reliable source of information.]

    But when I disagree with my pastor, I am still required to obey him. And he has the right to discipline me if I don't - he has the right to challenge my beliefs and my behaviour and ultimately, if I refuse to conform, he can excommunicate me from the church. That's quite a different kind of relationship from that which I have with my lecturers.

    So when Paul talks about women 'teaching and having authority over men' I do think that he means the act of preaching to a church is an exercise of authority BUT I don't think that therefore every act of teaching the bible is authoritative in the way that I've tried to explain. Of course the bible always has authority, but its teacher does not always have authority to require obedience of its hearers.

    So where I stand at the moment is that I think it's fine for women to teach in universities and even in seminaries and theological colleges, even in biblical studies. They are not taking on the role of a pastor and it would be quite wrong of them to attempt to do so. College students should be members of churches where they receive pastoral oversight appropriately.

    Where the grey area comes, to my mind, is in college chapel. I don't know what it's like at Moore but at Oak Hill we had communion every week. At Westminster we never do (as far as I'm aware) and chapel makes no pretence of being a church. But at Oak Hill there were a lot of ways in which chapel was like church, not least in celebrating the sacrament. So I never preached in chapel and I wouldn't even if I were a lecturer. Because although I don't think it's quite a church, it's more like a church than anything else.

    Sorry it's a bit long and rambling but I hope you see why I think that the church setting (and indeed our view of church and ministry) matters in making these kind of decisions about women's ministry.

    By Blogger Ros, at Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:21:00 am  

  • Some history: in the 70s, when, if I am right, the existing crop of single female missionaries were sent, it didn't cross anyone's mind that this would be an issue. Partly, I suppose, there was a tacit racism at work; but also, back then, even in Sydney churches, though women didn't preach often, it wasn't thought of as particularly problematic. And, with a shortage of ministers in Africa, it was thought that the emergency conditions over-rode the gender issue (which didn't then exist as it does now).
    There was an upping of the stakes in the 1980s as the push for women's ordination gathered strength. We should be careful not to make those women who have given 30+ years of service feel betrayed by this discussion, btw...

    At TEDS in the US I believe that they have women faculty on account of deciding that the college ain't a church.

    By Blogger michael jensen, at Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:27:00 am  

  • Truly, I'm not meaning to stir, but I'm interested to hear why people think gune and aner in 1 Timothy 2.12 should be translated 'woman' and 'man' rather than 'a wife' and 'a husband' (as per NRSV footnote). The parallel structure to 1 Peter 3 (where it is clearly wives and husbands) with references to dressing codes immediately prior, and the link to Adam and Eve (surely a prototype primarily of marriage, rather than all male/female relationships) suggests to my mind a marriage context for 1 Tim 2 rather than a more general comment about male/female order. The lack of a definite article doesn't seem to present any particular weight towards reading the general woman/man over the specific wife/husband, since there are other instances where context makes this pairing clearly refer to marriage without articles being present. Indeed, a casual and non-exhaustive search for the pairing of gune/aner in the NT suggests that marriage may be the dominant context when the relationship between the two is on view. This is just a thought I've been pondering in recent weeks - feel free to shoot it down if it is silly, but I'd love to hear thoughts.

    By Blogger byron smith, at Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:42:00 pm  

  • I think it's mainly a context issue. In 1 Tim 2 the context (in vv1-7 and 3:1-13) is clearly the church setting rather than the family. And even within vv8-15 there are indications that Paul is thinking of the church gathering, not least in vv11-12 with the mention of learning and teaching. It would seem odd to suggest that a woman could teach and have authority over men so long as her husband were not included.

    By Blogger Ros, at Thursday, January 18, 2007 12:36:00 am  

  • It would seem odd to suggest that a woman could teach and have authority over men so long as her husband were not included.
    Why would this be odd?
    The context of teaching is a church context, but the reason given in vv13-15 from Genesis seems to highlight marriage between Adam and Eve rather than a more generic male/female relation. And the parallel with 1 Peter 3 is suggestive to my mind. Mightn't the focus be the marriage relationship as it is expressed in the Christian gathering? Further thoughts?

    By Blogger byron smith, at Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:52:00 am  

  • Yes, more generally: is wife submitting to husband, or female submitting to male?

    In which case, how can we ever advocate female leadership of men in a secular setting?

    By Blogger michael jensen, at Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:38:00 pm  

  • Hi Mandy (and friends)

    I'm enjoying reading this discussion as this question has been on my mind for a while. I am currently reading a YWAM authored booked called "Why not women?" and finding the arguments rather emotive and short of sufficient backup except that "how could God allow women NOT to use her leadership skills." It appeals to the reader that to NOT "RELEASE" (whatever that means) women into ministry & particularly leadership is to stunt the growth of the church.

    The book angers me with its lack of argument but it helps me think about what is a good and biblical way to think about women in ministry.

    Jo

    By Blogger Unknown, at Friday, January 19, 2007 9:37:00 pm  

  • In which case, how can we ever advocate female leadership of men in a secular setting?

    The context of 1 Timothy 2 is the church...

    By Blogger Craig Schwarze, at Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:57:00 pm  

  • yes, I am well aware of that Craig, but:

    Christian politics has proceeded often on the basis that what is good in the church might just work for the rest of the world. SO: equality between believers became the model for social equality... the loss of distinction between slave and master in the church becomes the pattern for the dissolution of this distinction in the world, and so on... It seems to me that if things are arranged between the genders in one way in the church we ought to advocate this arrangement as good for ALL people in all situations. If it reflects what we are like in the creation order (as goes the strong conservative argument) - then why should it only be so in the church and not in society? Seems inconsistent to me.

    By Blogger michael jensen, at Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:43:00 am  

  • Still waiting for telstra to connect my phone line, so no internet access for most of the week. Catching up on the conversation ...

    It seems to me that if things are arranged between the genders in one way in the church we ought to advocate this arrangement as good for ALL people in all situations. If it reflects what we are like in the creation order (as goes the strong conservative argument) - then why should it only be so in the church and not in society? Seems inconsistent to me.

    I think this is probably the biggest reason that I keep coming back to the issue. It has been pointed out many times that the context in 1 Tim 2 is the church. While it may be referring specifically to a particular husband and a particular wife, this marital relationship seems to be the pattern for wider relationships within the church. More and more recently I have been thinking that if men and women are created differently and that is part of God's good intention in creation, and these differences flow out into roles and responsibilities without making one greater or lesser than the other, then maybe I do think that there are a wider range of roles in society that women shouldn't hold over men.

    By Blogger Mandy, at Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:32:00 pm  

  • Really sorry to do this Mandy (it's Ali here), and everyone else can just tune out for this comment, but am assuming you will hereafter have access to my details and if so could you please send me an email? Want to see if you are interested in canoeing in the Kangaroo Valley for a day with TBT girls ...
    Interesting post here, but am being a little task focussed right now so haven't read it all. Perhaps we can chat about it over a jog :).

    By Blogger Ali, at Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:35:00 pm  

  • Can I come?

    Yes Mandy, I think that the logic of the strong conservative position, which leans on a creation paradigm, must lead to a wider social framework if it is to be consistent.

    My guess however is that most people won't have the stomach to draw this conclusion...even people who hold a very conservative view of women's roles in church.

    By Blogger michael jensen, at Monday, January 22, 2007 8:54:00 am  

  • I think I'm agreeing with Ros - and I don't think i know any blokes who refuse to read Christian books by women on the basis that women shouldn't teach men...

    But there are obviously more questions, such as this one:

    Is it OK for a woman to teach at, say, a Men's Convention or men's breakfast?

    Come at both of those another way: is the only important distinction between teaching in the congregation and out of it, or is there such a thing as 'preaching' and another thing 'teaching / lecturing'.

    Should I be happy to listen to the tape of a woman's sermon? If so, with what attitude should i listen to it? Is it diferent because not in the covenant-family setting, or what??

    Sorry - more questions than answers, but I know you're an intelligent bunch!

    By Blogger Andrew, at Wednesday, January 31, 2007 4:32:00 am  

  • I don't understand the 'covenant-family' language... where does that come from?

    I think when we get to those 'is it ok' questions, though they are well motivated, we are at a rather ludicrous point ...

    By Blogger michael jensen, at Saturday, February 03, 2007 7:29:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home