Speak Up: Those With Power and Influence (Guest Blog)

This is a blog post by Eugene Echo... a good read!

An Interview with Rob Bell

Well, I finally met Rob Bell last night and had an intense conversation with him. Kind of. Like indirectly.

He was in Seattle for the Seeds of Compassion event with the Dalai Lama. I have no problem with that at all. I would have loved to have been invited to participate but no one called my agent. But since Rob Bell was in town, Off the Map invited him and a few other folks to speak to an intimate crowd of about 150 folks at an event hosted at the Vineyard Community Church.

Rob Bell spoke initially and eloquently for about 15-20 minutes on the thrust behind his upcoming book entitled, Jesus Wants to Save Christians. Here’s a short but fascinating description:

There is a church not too far from us that recently added a $25 million addition to their building. Our local newspaper ran a front-page story not too long ago about a study revealing that one in five people in our city lives in poverty.

This is a book about those two numbers. It’s a book about faith and fear, wealth and war, poverty, power, safety, terror, Bibles, bombs, and homeland insecurity,

It’s about empty empires and the truth that everybody’s a priest, it’s about oppression, occupation, and what happens when Christians support, animate and participate in the very things Jesus came to set people free from.

It’s about what it means to be a part of the church of Jesus in a world where some people fly planes into buildings while others pick up groceries in Hummers.

Ok, that’s when things got a little awkward and we had our indirect conversation. After his chat, Rose Madrid Swetman [co-pastor at Vineyard] came up to interview/dialogue with Rob Bell about the topic of women and leadership in the church. For the record, Rob supports women in leadership and has female elders at his church, Mars Hill [Grand Rapids]. Absolutely no relation to that Mars Hill [Seattle].

And how did she begin her interview? She reads a quote [with permission] from someone named Eugene Cho who wrote the following comment on someone’s blog about the church being a White Man’s World:

…we have to ask how are we as revolutionary followers of Jesus - who debunked the systemic structures during his life - are working, living, ministering, writing, speaking and creating to work towards that end.

Power, voice and influence are not easily pursued [and obtained]. It must be distributed and shared from those who have that very power, voice and influence. And because it is so counter-cultural, we have to be that much more intentional.

As a male, I am embarrassed at times at the manner in which we [men] directly, indirectly, or systemically oppress our sisters. While there’s a legitimate female candidate for the president of this country, there are many [in the church] who still wonder if women should be in leadership. I know that [for them] it’s a biblical issue and not intended to be a personal issue but why would women want to subject themselves to these questions again and again and again…

Rob like others must have thought, “Who the frack is Eugene Cho?”

Actually, I felt bad for Rob because I’m not sure if he had an idea what the conversation was going to be about. Because honestly, he didn’t really impress during the interview. He stumbled through his thoughts and words and I’m not even sure if he understood what Rose was trying to communicate to him.

Rob - for better or worse - is a Christian celebrity. He’s a good guy and I very much dig his humility. The dude is not arrogant or self seeking like someone I know who has a self-righteous pharisaic image of himself praying on his blog banner. But honestly, I am amazed how globally popular and influential he is as proven by his books, NOOMA videos, packed out speaking gigs in venues like the Paramount Theater in Seattle, and even a recent write up in Time Magazine.

It was awkward because my words were quoted but I wasn’t able to dialogue with him. If I had a chance, I think this is what I would have said:

Hey Rob. I’m a growing fan and by the way, I like the buzz haircut.

So, this is what I’m trying to get at.

If you haven’t figured it out yet…It’s a White Man’s world. And well, you are a White Man. In fact, you are an especially powerful and influential White Man. The church, unfortunately, is no different than the structures of the larger culture. It is also dominated by White Men. While women and people of color shouldn’t create a state of dependency on the support of White Men, it is encouraging - nevertheless - to be supported by White Men including those who are visible and influential. This would be you.

Certain people have power and sadly, the power structures are such that it tends to perpetuate the advantages of those who have power. And while there have been advances, I know you will agree that there have been some grave injustices against women throughout the history of the church including the present day. And while you have female elders in your church, I guess the question I want to ask is how are you actively and intentionally supporting and advocating for women through your larger ministry beyond your local church.

Why am I asking this? Because people are listening…

Rob Bell is bluntly, one of the most visible and influential figures of Christianity in the 21st century. He is arguably the face of the emerging Evangelical Christianity in North America. It must be both a burden and blessing and I’m interested how he will use the platform of his visibility to distribute and share that power and influence.

For women and on a lesser level, people of color, it’s an uphill journey. It just is. And if you have to ask…you just don’t understand. And on this uphill journey, it’s uplifting when those who have power can acknowledge and advocate for those on this uphill journey.

Interestingly, Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell both pastor churches called Mars Hill - as I shared earlier. And last year, there was some crazy ruckus because Driscoll called out Rob Bell as a heretic at some sort of leadership conference. Ahh, as the Christian Subculture World Turns.

And for the record, one of my best theological conversations - ever - was with Mark Driscoll over the issue of women in leadership nearly seven years ago over an intense but good lunch. Driscoll has been one of the most vocal, if not the single most vocal antagonist in our generation of women in pastoral/elder leadership. And while I know there are some great things going on with Driscoll and MH Seattle, it is stunning and alarming [depends on your perspective I guess] to see the spread of his theological influence. And so, I guess I’m wondering who might be the other person(s) [of similar or comparable influence] who will speak passionately and prophetically in full support of women in leadership. Why am I asking this question? Because they have the power and influence.

What do you think?

Just Call Her a Children's Pastor (Guest Column)

This article was posted by Andrea Faris at Christians in Context... there are a few things we may not be in FULL agreement with BUT for the most part we are playing in the same ballpark!

May 04, 2008

Just Call Her a Children's Pastor

Ever notice that a man who runs the church's children's ministry is called a children's pastor, but a woman is called a children's director? Well if you hadn't, certainly my woman children's director friend has- and to her credit, she doesn't get real upset about little things like that (last I checked, I think she may even agree with it). In any case, the game is up: those children's directors really are children's pastors. They do all the same stuff, just with a different title to match the different anatomy.

Of course the people who come up with stuff like that are normally godly folks just trying to get the Bible right, and in the attempt to be faithful to 1 Tim. 2:11-14 et. al., pull the titular switcheroo. But I for one have always wondered what Paul would think if he came around our churches only to find that his Spirit-inspired concerns about gender roles in the church, at least at points, got so trivialized. (Well, maybe he'd be too busy telling all the egalitarians just how wrong they'd got his writing to notice how complementarians mess with ministry titles...zing!)

Harold Hoehner wrote an article for the December '07 issue ofJETS entitled, "Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?" in which he makes a point of distinguishing between what the NT calls "gifts" and what it calls "offices." On a number of levels, the article is frankly not that good. Most importantly, Hoehner predicates the case on a false understanding of spiritual gifts (apparently he hasn't read Berding's book) that leads to the plainly counter-intuitive dichotomy between things like doing the work of an evangelist and having the gift of being an evangelist (766-7).

Nonetheless, one point is well-taken: the word-group translated "gift" or "spiritual gift" in English Bibles refers to something distinct from the church office titles of elder, bishop, and deacon especially found in the Pastoral Epistles. This leads Hoehner to conclude that a woman could have the gift of pastor-teacher (Eph. 4:11) and even be ordained as such without necessarily also being an elder, which Hoehner maintains is a position restricted to males in the church.

Despite the article's problems, the noted gift/office distinction still stands, and leads me to conclude this: a woman really could have the spiritual ministry (a better term, following Berding) of a pastor-teacher, as long as it is within the Biblical bounds set for women's ministry roles, esp. in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 (Hoehner tries to get at something like this, but is simply not as clear). Specifically, if her authority is exercised over children and/or women, there is no reason that she could not be exercising her ministry of pastor-teacher.

One more correlating point should be added: "pastor" is an overused term in our churches today, compared to its relative scarcity in the NT. Outside of the Eph. 4 passage, I am not sure of a text that refers to church leaders as "pastors". "Elder" (Gk. presbuteros and/or episkopos) is the more common and explicit term, most importantly within the Pastoral Epistles. That is to say, of course a woman children's "director" is pastoring those children. It does not mean she is exercising the ecclesiological male-only authority of an elder. This understanding of pastoring actually fits better with the Eph. 4 use of the term as a spiritual ministry for the edification of the church, rather than an office per se. There is something more active (for lack of a better word) about pastoring.

So go ahead ladies, call yourselves pastors, as long as you're not doing the stuff that the Bible says is only for males. The issue has a lot more to do with what you do than what you're called. After all, there is no explicit "women can't be elders" text- that is a (reasonable) application from the function-in-action type boundaries set in 1 Tim. 2 compared to what the rest of the Pastorals say about eldership (cf. Blomberg's article in Two Views on Women in Ministry). Maybe the title change would even change the focus for women from "what you are not supposed to do" to "exercising your role in the ministry God has empowered and called you for." And that would be a nice change.

I should add one last comment: this would only work if we properly used the terms "pastor" and "elder" as delineated above. Otherwise, it will probably result in confusion. But I think it is worth going through with both changes together simply because of connotations. "Director" (or whatever other non-biblical word you choose) comes off in my view considerably more demeaning (and actually considerably more authoritative!) than the biblical term "pastor." And like I said, what we want to do is encourage both men and women to fulfill their God-given roles for the sake of His church.

-Andrew Faris

How much prejudice is too much?

What about this issue don't Christians get?

I stand amazed at the tolerance for prejudice that still exists in 2008. Today I got an e-mail from a pastor friend of mine. After today, our relationship has changed. I can't just sit back and listen to people, especially those who call themselves Christians, make racial or gender prejudicial remarks and just nervously laugh, or quietly walk away. This is evil, plain and simple.

Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The e-mail I got contained some racial slurs. I don't want to repeat what they said because it is so horrible but the gist of what they said was, "life would be much better in America if we had a lot less black people." I was pretty horrified by the e-mail. I sat for a moment sort of stunned and kept scrolling back up to make sure it was really the person I thought who sent it to me. I kept saying, "this can't be...it can't be..." but it was.

I was so shocked you might as well have told me the person was...a stripper...a drug dealer...a member of the mafia. I mean, I was SHOCKED. But I guess I shouldn't be. Racial and gender prejudice is still not viewed as a sin by many in the church. People find all kinds of ways to try to justify their words and actions.

One time I was in a room full of Christians and we were talking about places to shop (cause I love shopping!) and someone said, "Oh, don't go to such and such a mall...it's horrible." And I said, "why?" and they said, "oh, it's too dark." And naive ol' little me, I thought she meant there wasn't enough lighting in the place and you couldn't see the merchandise.

When she explained what she meant by "dark" I got upset and said how offended I was by the comment. Instead of apologizing, she and others in the room tried to justify what was said by sharing about what they see as the stereotypical behavior of black people they know. But that didn't cut it with me. I had to get up and leave. Their comments made me sick.

Equal time is a blog about gender equality and I know right now I'm talking about race but the thing is I've noticed that there is much rationalization in the Christian world about both race and gender prejudice. The thing that scares me is that some of our young people are very laissez-faire about this. If you don't realize the seriousness of this just think about all the young people who are now calling each other nigga and cracka and thinking this is somehow cool. This is nothing but a slap in the face to people like Rosa Parks, and all of the people who went before these young people to guarantee that they would have a seat on the bus just like anybody else.

On gender issues I see some of our young ladies who are especially indifferent. Like the young people who think nothing of calling one another racial slurs for fun, so some of today's young women could care less what our foremothers went through for us and some even make light of it. Our foremothers fought a long hard battle just so we could vote. And many young women today could care less about voting. The other day I was on the blog of one young woman who shared that her husband "votes for the both of us" and I was absolutely shocked at the number of young women commenting on the blog who said they considered it wrong to vote differently from their husband, thereby "cancelling out his vote." So if they are not voting the same as their husband they abstain from voting. I just have to wonder if some of these women are also laying at the foot of their husband's bed, calling them Lord... (um, only half kidding there...)

Many of the women who went before us in ministry went through unbelievable challenges to give us the privilege of standing on platforms now, ministering the gospel. Some younger women today don't care about that. In fact they would even sit under the ministry of a man who believes women should not be ministering the gospel or holding leadership positions. There are some younger women in ministry today who wouldn't see anything wrong with voting for a man to be in leadership in their church, fellowship or denomination who doesn't believe in gender equality. They are in living in a sort of complacency or naivety at best to believe that this will not affect the decision making process in leading the organization in which they serve.

Recently a man who doesn't believe that women should pastor was being considered for a prominent position in the denomination in which I serve. (Our fellowship happens to 100% believe in and stand for the equality of women at the highest levels of leadership. It's one of our core values.) Well, this man's views on women are well known. However he pastors a very large church and has great leadership skills. Many people felt his views would not affect our fellowship in any negative way and that we would only benefit from his leadership skills, but I disagree. Even if he were to not stop anything currently going on in the way of opportunities for women, would he pursue further advancement of women? For it's not just a matter of allowing what is happening currently, but in making progress for women now, and for our daughters in the future. I guarantee, progress in this area would not have happened on his watch, had he been elected.

There's a story I was told about some parents who were trying to teach their kids this principle when it came to sin and questionable activities. The kids were asking to do some things the parents just weren't comfortable with and the kids responded, "well, it's not that bad...it's just a little of this...or a little of that..." and so to prove a point the parents went out unbeknownst to the kids and got some dog poop from the back yard. They made a pan of brownies and put just a tiny miniscule bit of poop in the brownie batter. When the brownies were done the parents called the kids to come to the kitchen and began to cut up the brownies and dish them out on plates. Before the kids could take a bite from their plates the Dad said, "Ok kids, just so you know, there is just a tiny bit of dog poop in these brownies from the backyard..."

The kids were totally grossed out and said, "Eeeewww!" and pushed the plates away. The brownies all ended up in the garbage, but not before the parents said, "what's wrong kids? It's just a little bit..."

Would you eat brownies that contained just a bit of poop? Would you buy a bottle of water if it said, "99 percent spring water...1% sewage"? Of course not. Any rational thinking person would not even entertain the thought.

So how much prejudice is too much? Any amount.

A truly Godly person with their head on straight will not even entertain the thought.