Guest Post by Kate Hanch, Ph.D. Student in Theology at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
When I first saw the post about Shane Claiborne and Epiphaneia creating a conference with the proceeds going to a The Mark Driscoll Scholarship Fund for Women in Ministry, I thought “Well, that’s a creative way to do it.”
I realize this idea is very provisional. But the more I read about it, the more I felt uneasy. I say this as a female minister who has spoken about issues related to women in ministry here and here. I say this as a woman who has been bullied by complementarians and egalitarians alike. And, I speak as a graduate student who could use the money for tuition.
Don’t get me wrong—I strongly value the need for attention to the lack of and treatment of female pastors. Many men don’t see this as applying to them, and thus tend to not speak up on the issue. And I admire how Claiborne and Epiphaneia have continually been a prophetic voice in a wide range of justice issues. I even appreciate the humor. (After all, I’ve seen Weird Al twice in concert).
I’m not worried about Mark Driscoll’s feelings. In fact, he needs to and should be critiqued. The complementarianism that he advocates is unbiblical and harmful. Many women’s gifts have been dismissed, and women have been implicitly degraded to a second-class status because of his teachings.
But I do wonder in what ways women are instrumentalized in the naming of this scholarship. Yes, it’s intended to shock, provoke, and cause controversy. But do women in ministry have to be surrounded by controversy, perpetuated by male figures, in order to receive attention?
Here’s why I’m uneasy about it:
As of the time of this writing, I’m unaware in what ways women contributed to the discussion and naming of the scholarship. Even if they did in a fruitful and equal way, I’m still uneasy. There are ways in which people can have good intentions about change, but implicitly underneath, structures remain the same about who has the power to validate. The photo of all men that accompanied the post, along with the name-drops of Will Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas, made me wonder if it could be only men who validate women.
For some women the name “Mark Driscoll or “complementarianism” can evoke real and painful emotions. Women who have left this movement often still hold friendships or familial ties with those who do. They want to navigate how to live out their callings and still be in those relationships. It’s easier said than done. A scholarship with his name could trigger painful memories. The discussion of complementarianism evokes upsetting and painful memories in me.
To establish a scholarship for women doesn’t totally solve the problem. In my Baptist context, women are lamenting that although they are welcomed in seminaries, and even receive preaching and pastoral awards; they aren’t receiving calls from churches. While this is slowly changing, some women leave the denomination for what they perceive to be better horizons. Even denominations that appoint women generally do so to smaller, struggling churches. While this isn’t always a bad thing, it does show where the power really belongs. Scholarships may help women get through seminary, but there needs to be a rethinking of what church means in order for women to actually be called. How does the church, in the terms of Ada María Isasi-Díaz, reflect the kin-dom of God?
I see objectification of women in this. In other words, I see women in ministry as “instruments”, per se, for a larger purpose of the name itself. Both complementarians and egalitarians are guilty of this. Complementarians are more obvious. Subtly, egalitarians may reference a scattering of women in leadership and thereby claim their inclusivity. Or, they may have one woman speaker at a conference, and tout it as a diverse group. (Women of color are especially vulnerable to this tokenism). I perceived the conference that Claiborne and Epiphaneia put on have equal numbers of men and women (although to my knowledge, I didn’t see persons of color in the presentations listed).
In what way does this honor God and humanity? The early church figure Irenaeus suggests that the glory of God is humanity fully alive. This means that it is humanity flourishing in every way possible, including women pastors. Does this scholarship allow women to be “fully alive”, to practice their gifts, to think of new and creative ways to pastor and nurture the church? Does this scholarship really honor women as full images of God?
I encourage the efforts of Claiborne and Epiphaneia to help foster a more just and righteous church (in the Greek, the word is the same) and call attention to a painful problem for many women. I am grateful for their stance. I caution them to think carefully of how they proceed in this to reimagine what the church looks like where everyone has equal say and participation. There can be goodness in this, and I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
the archives near Emmaus 
I agree. I myself am not super comfortable with it either.
I don’t think the name of the scholarship is helpful. It betrays, as you’ve pointed out, a power dynamic in which males are at the helm. Not only that, but it is an underhanded divisive slandering of a minister, whether or not one agrees with Driscoll’s approach or theological position.
I must add, however, a critique of this post. It is obvious that for nearly all of known history women have been given the second place in almost every aspect of social dynamics. But it is becoming more and more the case that women are so sensitive to “anti-female” rhetoric that it is seen in just about everything. I have to wonder if this is healthy. Shouldn’t the desire of the Christian be, first and foremost, to be like Christ, and if that entails standing up for the rights of women, then to do that? Yet I see a trend toward a gospel of female empowerment rather than a gospel of Jesus Christ. I think you’re on to something with this post. In fact, I think it is beyond obvious that your point is well made. I only provide a cautionary comment: don’t change the focus of the gospel from universal reconciliation to feminist reconciliation.
I’m a complementarian, but of a different stripe than Pastor Mark.
This kind of mockery makes little sense to me. My views of complementarianism are indeed different that Pastor Mark’s but that doesn’t permit me to mock him or senselessly deride his views. If this is going to be the approach of egalitarians, it seems askew. Posts like this one are indeed helpful and I agree with the poster.
Personally, I don’t know of anyone who Pastor Mark has kept from ministry. If you are called, regardless of gender, go into ministry. Can’t we disagree on aspects of theology without being uncivil, or less Christian? Perhaps posts like this one will aid in reconciling us all.
Thanks for your comments, Brian, John, and Garet.
John, I do agree that the gospel is for all, and the purpose of this article is to show how even good intentions can have nuanced implications, especially when it the flourishing of all humanity.
What trends do you refer to with female empowerment being equated to the gospel? The gospel does that, and so much more.
Kate, thanks for your response.
The gospel certainly does empower women. Here’s my concern: Instead of focusing on reconciliation and unity in the Church universal, many articles from the “Jesus Feminist” perspective do just the opposite. Laced with satire and cynicism, so many Christians write blogs and articles and books that, either directly or indirectly, slander others, simply because they hold opposing views on particular issues.
It is healthy to disagree with gentleness and grace, which you’ve done here. I suppose I’m sensitive to the centrality of the feminist agenda in your post, because instead of diving readers to the boundary-destroying, pride-stripping, love-embracing arms of Christ, it pushes us toward identifying with one or the other side, or with a new side somewhere between the two. I do appreciate your graciousness, and if the humility in your tone were more common not only would we all be better off but, most importantly, our reconciling God would be more clearly on display to the world. But then, of course, there’d be far fewer famous “Christian” blogs. Because we all love a little gossip and controversy, and we Christians are marvelous in our ability to brand slander as “correction and protection.”
Again, thanks for your gracious tone.
John
“Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:4-7
__
“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such ‘wisdom’ does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.” James 3:9-16
Kate Hanch wrote “The complementarianism that he advocates is unbiblical and harmful.“.
I’m no fan of Mark Driscoll’s impulsive, juvenile effort to share the Gospel for a variety of reasons, but the above claim is clearly not true.
There are honest, God believing Christians on both side of this debate who see their particular position as ‘biblical’. If it were obviously true that complementarianism generally was patently unbliblical, or for that fact egalitarianism was .. there would be no debate. Not only but there is a political element to this debate which is between a desire to make the exegesis of scripture more relevant to ‘a generation’ with different values than a prior patriarchal society and a desire to resist ‘worldly values’ from having efficacy over scriptural interpretation. You presuppose that Mark Driscoll’s flavour of complementarianism differs from that of others but its also not clear that this is true.
Fact is – that in justifying either position people are using and mis-using the bible. Both sides are trying to legitimize their perspective by claiming the Holy Spirit is on their side (some claim the Holy Spirit as the source of their discernment).
Clearly the debate continues to rage because neither side has hit its exegetical home run. Accordingly the above statement is designed to convey polemic rather than fact.
This is pretty interesting. It is entirely true that one of the main problems of “affirmative action” is that the woman or the black will be seen by many as having this good position mainly on the basis of his ethnicity or gender.
Andrew T:
“There are honest, God believing Christians on both side of this debate who see their particular position as ‘biblical’. If it were obviously true that complementarianism generally was patently unbliblical, or for that fact egalitarianism was .. there would be no debate.”
You should think about this statement in light of the [biblical] debates swirling around African-American slavery during the 19th century.
@between:
You make an important observation: our theologizing cannot be limited to lining up proof-texts that “side” with a particular viewpoint. Andrew correctly observes that there are passages that would support egalitarian and complementation ideas, because Scripture is diverse, so we must (while allow Scripture to inform our theologizing) continue to ask what it means to be faithful to the Gospel in our context, which may mean that sometimes we can’t reconcile every passage, yet we must live in the trajectory that seems to the most truthful. This demands a more robust Pneumatology than many allow.
^ Agreed. Pneumatology is usually neglected, or treated as a “have-to”—Maybe a result of our rational European roots?
Probably, which in turn created our bookish (biblicist) Protestantism where we equate prima scriptura with being able to exegete the Letter over the Spirit.
Hi all,
Hope you guys don’t feel silly, but you have been had…
This was a joke by Shane Claibourne!!!
I think you have missed the irony in the comment by Shane. Sorry to burst any bubbles or ruin this article.