Is the feminist issue really a slippery slope?

I wanted to join in the fun on the complementarian/egalitarian debate!  After reading the posts from other women on this blog, thinking through my own experiences through the years and taking into account plenty of reading and studying on the topic, I still feel a sense of confusion and lack of intellectual integrity in many (all?) the arguments on both sides.  

The lack of intellectual integrity for complementarians show when they let women missionaries be pastors.  Or when they limit roles of women in a church but when needs arise or someone they like wants the job the rules get bent.  It's shown when they act like anyone interpreting passages otherwise are decidedly not Christian.

On the egalitarian side, lack of intellectual integrity shows when roles really aren't equal--men still hold the majority of leadership positions and receive more serious training in most settings.  Or when a husband and wife are both listed as 'pastor' when clearly it is one or the other that is the pastor and has the training. It's also shown with an unwillingness to admit even a hint of complementarianism in the Bible exists.

Many of us were taught to use a 'slippery slope' mentality on issues of 'serious' theology.  Changes in non-essential theology do not always, in fact rarely, end up dragging one down into non-Christian thought as the slippery slope idea suggests.  Simply build a wall however high and strong you like to keep yourself from falling.

In my first graphic we see that both sides traditionally believe the slipperiness begins at a very specific point: where male authority has any (or no) say.

Let me say first, part of me is still saying, "No, No!! This can't be true, there is a specific point with a slippery, slippery slope."  But, I contend we should believe the slipperiness begins at a very specific point but a very different point--at the point where people are not believing in the creeds, in the Trinity or in things that make you actually Christian.

The kicker, for me, is that this 'oval' is reality.  It just is.  I know of no church or person that espouses anything considered close to traditional, orthodox Christianity that holds entirely to what either side on this debate says they believe.  If you split the argument the way the first chart does, the extreme view on each is the only way to maintain any intellectual integrity. Real life just doesn't work that way.

We can still have complimentarians and egalitarians but we should shift our focus to those on the extreme edges that are decidedly not Christian and work to minister to those hurt by non-Christian thought patterns and practices.  Both extreme submission and extreme equality dehumanizes and is something Christians should unite in standing against.

Albert, Beth, and Chris: A Tale of Three Christians

A Tale of Three Christians

Albert gets up on a soapbox and says, "A woman can't be the head pastor of a church because Paul says she can't. If she says she's called to be a pastor, then she must be confused about her call!"

Albert steps down. Beth steps onto the soapbox and says, "A woman can be the head pastor of a church! If Scripture said otherwise, then of course I would change my thinking. But what Paul says in those passages isn't entirely clear, and I don't really understand it. But he is quite clear about loving one another. And loving one another means welcoming all women who are called to be pastors."

Beth steps down. Now Chris gets up on the soapbox. He says, "A woman can be the head pastor of a church! Paul says they can't, but he was wrong."

The Obvious Agreement

These are generic figures. They stand for countless individuals and churches and a number of denominations.

These days Beth and Chris typically get along, sometimes forming their own churches or denominational affiliations. It's easy for them to work together because they share an obvious agreement: They both agree that a woman can be the head pastor of a church.

The Obvious Disagreement

Beth and Albert often don't get along. Sometimes they just split and go their separate ways. A degree of separation between them is understandable, and may be necessary; if they worship together week by week, eventually Beth is probably going to want to preach, and Albert will have a crisis of conscience when she does.

But sometimes they go further than just not worshiping together. Sometimes they fight. Sometimes they call each other names; Beth might call Albert a narrow-minded fundamentalist; Albert might call Beth a liberal heretic.

It is easy for them to disagree because they have an obvious disagreement: They disagree on the rightness of a woman as the head pastor of a church.

The Underrated Disagreement

Beth and Chris disagree on the authority of Scripture. Beth submits to the authority of Scripture, and Chris does not. This disagreement concerns the importance of the very book on which their religion is based, the Bible. This disagreement is about what a Christian takes to be authoritative. Beth believes Scripture is a sovereign authority. Chris does not.

The Underrated Agreements

Albert and Chris actually agree on what Paul says. If they were all performing a disinterested analysis of the biblical text, Albert and Chris might well get together to convince Beth that her exegesis of Paul is poor!

But here is the really important point: Albert and Beth agree on the fundamental issue, the authority of Scripture, and they should treat each other accordingly: with love and respect.

Albert should try to explain to Beth what he thinks he (and Chris) can see in Scripture that she can't. And Beth should try to explain to Albert why she thinks he's not seeing so clearly, or what she thinks she can see in Scripture that he can't.

In a word, Beth's agreement with Chris runs shallow, but her agreement with Albert runs deep.