Who Can Teach? Reflections on Who Should Be Permitted to Teach in a Whole-Church Setting

1 WHO CAN TEACH? REFLECTIONS ON WHO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TEACH IN A WHOLE-CHURCH SETTING BY ANDREW SAMPSON, GRACE CHURCH TRURO, APRIL 2014 (2ND EDN.) INTRODUCTION Some theology papers talk about their subject matter with a high degree of detachment and objectivity. This is not one of them. It marks the culmination of an intensely personal process of reflection and study that began in earnest almost four years ago. Along the way, I have been particularly helped by two gatherings of friends consisting of astute theological thinkers (that’s how I see them, anyway) from the Commission churches in Cornwall and a number of other churches besides. Some of those men and women will hear their voices echoed in this document, but (as is customary for a writer to say at this point), any gaffes, clangers or forays into out-and-out heresy are solely my responsibility. As I hope to make clear by the end, this paper marks a juncture in a process of study that is ongoing, rather than the end-point. The conclusions are somewhat provisional and relate to how I presently see things rather than to any official church policy. Having said that, I wouldn’t think this paper worth writing if I didn’t have something to say that I thought was worth hearing, and my hope is to challenge the reader to scrutinise his or her thinking at a number of points, and perhaps even to change his or her mind. My primary purpose is to serve the leadership teams of the churches belonging to the Commission group of Newfrontiers churches here in Cornwall, but if leaders elsewhere are also helped to reflect on their own positions on Who Can Teach, then I will be delighted. To begin with, defining a couple of key terms is in order. ‘Egalitarian’ relates to those who believe – often very passionately and on the basis of an evangelical reading of Scripture – that all roles in church life are equally open to men and women. The term ‘egalitarian’ refers to a spectrum of belief rather than a fixed position but, in general, egalitarians would argue that someone’s gender should not preclude them from teaching in a whole-church setting, such as on a Sunday morning. The term ‘complementarian’ relates to those who believe – often equally passionately and on the basis of an evangelical reading of Scripture – that men and women are equal in status, but God has created men and women to have different roles in church and family life. Again, there is a spectrum of complementarian belief but, historically, most people belonging to the complementarian camp would be uncomfortable with a woman bringing teaching to the whole church on a Sunday morning. In this paper, my aim is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the egalitarian-complementarian debate. The literature is vast, the issues are legion, and it would be impossible to do justice to the nuances of the debate in a single project. What I wish to do is to consider the egalitarian- complementarian debate as it touches upon the question of who we should permit to teach in a mixed- gender (henceforth, simply ‘mixed’), whole-congregation setting. My particular focus will be on the issues that are pertinent to our context as members of the Newfrontiers family of churches. Consequently, I will skim over some of the issues that are contentious in the wider church but are largely taken for granted in Newfrontiers circles. Where some of these widely shared ‘Newfrontiers assumptions’ require special justification (e.g. male eldership), interested readers are pointed in the direction of other sources where they might start digging. Given the vastness of the literature on this subject, not to mention the growing number of resources available online, I’ve decided to focus my attention particularly on the stated positions of thinkers in the Newfrontiers family. These are not always easy to find, but I have been helped by several unpublished papers from a number of thinkers who embark on a similar study to my own. Of course, due to their unpublished nature, it is not possible for the majority of readers to check some of my source material for themselves. In the spirit of generosity that I wish to celebrate in this paper, I hope 2 that this weakness will be tolerated, and that my representation of the views of my sparring partners will be trusted. My reason for embarking on this study is because I believe that this issue of Who Can Teach matters now more than ever. Common sense tells us that it’s impossible to be neutral.1 This is because practice in every church implicitly reflects one view or another: you can’t both have and not have women teaching on a Sunday morning; nor can you both have and not have women elders (Ryland, 2011, p. 1). The fact is that every church has a position. The only question is whether that position is carefully considered and biblically informed. No local leadership team can afford not to take the issue seriously. WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN NEWFRONTIERS It may help to share some of my perceptions on where we are presently on the issue of Who Can Teach in the Newfrontiers family. Firstly, it is clear that Newfrontiers has no formal policy on this issue. Terry Virgo, the founder of the Newfrontiers movement, makes no mention of the subject in his list of seventeen values (Virgo, 2009-10; cf. Hosier, 2009-10).2 Having explained the common Newfrontiers practice that ‘women do not teach mixed congregations in our churches’, John Hosier adds, ‘However some take the view that it is possible for a woman to teach a mixed congregation as long as she does so under the oversight of the elders who therefore carry the final authority’ (2005, p. 179). Within a broadly complementarian atmosphere, there is currently a range in the theology and practice of Newfrontiers churches. The lack of a clearly articulated ‘Newfrontiers position’ on Who Can Teach may be entirely appropriate (as I hope to show later), but we have to face up to the fact that one of the unintended consequences is that frequently there is a lack of clarity on the position adopted by different churches. This makes itself evident in two ways. Firstly, what we say we believe is not always reflected in our practice. To be specific, we often default to a ‘hardline’ complementarian position in practice even when that is not our conviction. Andrew Ryland remarks that: In general it is observed that churches which take [a complementarian] position have a practice that falls short of their theology. That is, women feel more restricted than the official policy allows (2011, p. 32). The result is that many people labour under misconceptions about what we actually believe about women’s roles in church life. We may be quick to object when we are lumped together with more hardline complementarians, but it is hardly surprising that this happens when we don’t take the trouble to articulate clearly our position. The second evidence of a lack of clarity in our movement is that our practice often looks inconsistent. I don’t mean that practice differs between local churches (as I shall argue later, this is to be expected and even applauded); rather, I’m pointing to inconsistency of practice within a local church. So we regularly have teaching from men who are not elders on a Sunday, but only very rarely (if ever) invite women to teach. Why is it fine for a mixed congregation to receive teaching from people who hold no governmental office in the church if they’re male, but not if they’re female? It may be that this practice is justifiable. My point here is simply that the situation requires special justification, but this is rarely forthcoming. 1 And not just common sense, as illustrated in the sorry tale of the Bristol University Christian Union (Huffington Post, 2012; Lewis, 2012). 2 It must be said, however, that elsewhere Terry Virgo does hint at his expectation that Newfrontiers churches will regard the ‘authoritative teaching and leading of men’ as ‘territory forbidden to women by Scripture’ (2001, p. 303). 3 A final remark about our current situation is extremely subjective but no less significant for that reason. Over the years, as I’ve spent time talking to women from both inside and outside the Newfrontiers family, I’ve observed that many of these women feel a level of exclusion. Andrew Ryland shares my perception when he writes: A proportion of young women in complementarian churches do not aspire to learn theology, to be strong in faith, to grow in leadership skills, etc. simply because they have ‘picked up’ that these things are NOT for them. This is an issue of church culture that needs urgent attention (2011, p. 4). This is tragic and should fill our hearts with sadness. Somehow or other, the message isn’t getting through that, far from boxing women in and shutting women up, when we adhere faithfully to complementarian principles, ‘we shall see women blossom and flourish into the beautiful potential God has for them’ (Virgo, 2001, p. 303). We are simply not doing well at convincing many women that complementarian theology is good to think. THE WAY FORWARD In this paper, I will be following two lines of inquiry, both of which address the question Who Can Teach? I hesitate to call these ‘parallel lines of inquiry’ because what I’m really looking for is convergence between them.

Load more