The New York Times’ profile of evangelical women’s speaker Priscilla Shirer by writer Molly Worthen (Housewives of God) raises some interesting points about the complementarian view of leadership in church and family, intimating that a functional egalitarianism may more accurately describe the life structure of some popular women leaders in the women’s ministry subculture. An unpopular assessment, but not a new insight. However, what Worthen does accomplish with this piece, unbeknownst to her I suspect, is the uncovering of a related issue for evangelical women—a problem this piece intends to address with Worthen’s help because there is so much more to this story. Worthen writes,
Conservative Bible teachers like Shirer have built a new paradigm for feminine preaching, an ingenious blend of traditional revivalism, modern therapeutic culture and the gabby intimacy of Oprah.
What Worthen has observed about the essence of the women’s ministry paradigm is precisely what many women in the evangelical community are resisting, both complementarian and egalitarian. I’m not so sure, however, that contemporary teachers like Priscilla Shirer have “built” anything as Worthen suggests, but are simply expanding on what was passed down to them from the existing women’s ministry culture. What use to be the church women’s ministry brunch or tea party with an inspirational speaker has evolved into conferences of a much larger scale, but little has really changed. They are so noticeably an amalgamation of an immediate emotional experience (revivalism), pop psychology (modern therapeutic culture) and girl-talk (gabby intimacy). Worthen continues,
This is the biblical-womanhood-industrial complex: a self-conscious alternative to secular feminism that preaches wifely submission while co-opting some feminist ideas to nurture women like Shirer to take the lead, within limits.
Here is where we need to firmly disagree with Worthen. Nothing about a woman taking the lead to teach and mentor other women is a co-opting of “feminist ideas” but rather a fulfillment of the Titus 2 mandate and the Great Commission. There is nothing unbiblical or even extra-biblical in this context. As well, there is no claim to the office of pastor and—I’ll go out on a limb here—women speakers who identify as complementarians are also willingly submitting the content of their teaching to the authority of their own pastoral leadership.
But while Shirer’s brand of women’s ministry may be an alternative to secular feminism, it certainly is not—even for complementarian women—the only alternative to secular feminism. The women’s ministry paradigm has been undergoing a subtle but important shift over the last few years. Many evangelical women are now discussing and operating according to an alternative to the emotional, therapeutic, and pretty-in-pink cliché that has dominated for so long, encouraging women to think beyond the contours of the current paradigm and develop a vision for women’s ministry that more actively and intentionally involves the life of the mind. They are identifying and rejecting the experience-driven model as insufficient because without theological substance any impact is merely temporary.
While many evangelical women’s conferences involve less Scripture and more girl talk, at this conference…Shirer and the other speakers joked about makeup and kidded about long-suffering husbands just to break the ice before preaching messages of sovereignty, sin and repentance that would not have sounded much different had the audience been male.
It’s not so much that evangelical women’s conferences offer little or no scriptural content—I tend to think Worthen is exaggerating this claim—but often what is offered targets the lowest-common denominator or is consistently limited in scope. It is difficult to speak of women’s conferences across the board because I have attended some that have offered excellent theological content for women in different places on her spiritual journey. No two conferences are exactly the same. But a speaker will generally reflect the content of her writing, and there is much to be desired in the what publishers are marketing to women—and the conference circuit is inextricably tied to book promotions. To put it simply, when personal experience or self-esteem is elevated above a proper biblical hermeneutic, or when theological rigor is abandoned because it lacks an entertainment component or is perceived to be the domain of men, then we need to reconsider the conference opportunities we are making available to women.
There is more to the story of women in ministry to women, much more. In the evangelical community, there is a segment of women who desire to know God beyond the emotional encounter. They are seeking theological understanding, desiring to develop a Christian worldview that will permeate every nook and cranny of their life. Some of these women are college or seminary students, some are stay-at-home moms who are reading theologians of the past and teaching their children to understand the doctrines of the church. Some of these women are in a range of professions that aren’t directly connected to church ministry, but they want to know what they believe and why they believe it. They want to be in an active process of developing a Christian worldview and filter their entire life through it. For many of these women, they could care less about the gender debate or they are simply ready to discuss other areas of theology. While cherishing that God has made her woman, she is also asking the questions about her humanity as an image bearer. She isn’t interested in reading Scripture as a woman—an error also made feminist theologians—she wants to read it as a child of God. Many of these women will never attend a women’s conference because the theological conferences generally attended by men primarily offer the depth of content they desire. While Worthen’s article picks up on some truths of the women’s ministry conference circuit, she also misses the issue being raised by evangelical women between the pulpit and the kitchen. There’s more to the story.
November 15th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #1
Thank you for your analysis. I was surprised (given the source) how evenhanded the NYT article was. Ms Worthen clearly has had a significant exposure to the evangelical culture, and seems to not take much out of context.
“Between the pulpit and the kitchen” is a good description of where my own wife stands. She is equally at home at a “Women in the Word” workshop or the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology. In fact, she sat in on the elder training in my (male-led) church to gain a better understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith, since she teaches the corresponding Shorter Catechism to the first- and second-graders in Sunday School.
Still, thirty years ago she promised (despite the scorn of my Aunt Helen) to “obey”, and she has found no reason yet to break that vow.
November 15th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #2
Thanks Mark. I, too, was generally pleased with Worthen’s piece…there’s no surprise in her desire to make it appear that womens ministry is trying to borrow from secular feminism. But I hope she’s able to see the new brand of women’s ministry that focuses on the life of the mind and not the fleeting experience.
November 15th, 2010 | 11:48 am | #3
Very good essay. Thanks.
November 15th, 2010 | 1:27 pm | #4
“Here is where we need to firmly disagree with Worthen.”
Whaaaa? No “gabby intimacy” ala Oprah so as to avoid the crudely blunt statement that there is firm disagreement with Worthen? Whoa.
“Nothing about a woman taking the lead to teach and mentor other women is a co-opting of “feminist ideas” but rather a fulfillment of the Titus 2 mandate and the Great Commission. There is nothing unbiblical or even extra-biblical in this context.
Quite right.
“As well, there is no claim to the office of pastor and—I’ll go out on a limb here—women speakers who identify as complementarians are also willingly submitting the content of their teaching to the authority of their own pastoral leadership.”
Yes. Thank you.
November 15th, 2010 | 2:34 pm | #5
This is where Orthodoxy and Catholicism make more sense. If it is the case that by definition a priest is a male, then it doesn’t matter how many conferences there are for women, nor does it matter how much a woman teaches. There is no usurpation of authority because Sacraments flow exclusively through the priesthood (the lone exception being baptism which can be administered by anyone, although only under extreme circumstances should it be the case that one is not baptized by a priest). This allows women to be free exercise their gifts in ministry be it teaching, preaching, etc.
In Protestantism there is often a lot of confusion about who is supposed to do what and to what extent. Outside of a Sacramental understanding of the Church, life, and the sexes, the framework of meaning collapses.
November 15th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #6
This was a very insightful post. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I would shy away from these conferences if they were as big in the Orthodox world. At the risk of causing offense to some, there are several other female speakers who focus so much on self-esteem and how women need to find their self-esteem from what they read in Scripture–and these speakers turn me off.
I want to read Scripture, understand theology, understand the context within which Scripture was written, and understand church history. And these are things that men tend to be more interested in than women (I know that is a stereotype, but I find it to be true). I do also read Scripture because I ecounter God there and because He speaks to me there–so there is an emotional, spiritual element for me which I think should not be separated from my devotional life–but my faith does not always rely on feelings and emotions. And I want to delve deeper into theology.
I feel fortunate because I have a knowledgable priest and educated friends (Protestants in addition to Orthodox and Catholics) who guide me and lead me to works of theology that will challenge me in my understanding of Scripture and the Church. And I honestly believe there are some wonderful resources out there written by educated Evangelicals; however, I don’t see or read about women who take advantage of these resources too often. Men are the ones–for whatever reason–who predominantly utilize these resources, which is really a shame.
November 16th, 2010 | 12:42 am | #7
I’ll echo orthodoxdj and Alison. I’m an Anglo-Catholic with a lot of Evangelical Protestant friends, and I’ve seen what a struggle it is for some of my women friends to discern their place in the teaching structure of their (Protestant) churches. For me, it’s been entirely straightforward. I’m called to the life of the mind, and to teach — so I study, and I teach at my church (to both men and women). I do so under the authority of my (male) priest. No ambiguity there – my ministry is, and will always be, a lay ministry, subordinate to the ordained (male) ministry leadership of my priest(s). As a result, I am free to develop and use my gifts without anxiety. Since there’s absolutely no question of me thinking that I could be a priest myself, my priest can encourage and mentor me in my teaching without thinking that he’s sending mixed messages about my role in the church.
November 16th, 2010 | 11:46 am | #8
Those evangelical Protestants who are confused might benefit from this and the other resources available there for some biblical arguments from a Reformed view.
It’s true there will be many doctrinal differences between various Protestant denominations that may appear confusing if one is used to an authoritative magisterium governing all doctrine infallibly in theory, but then we’re talking about Protestantism itself, which is a different topic, and not only that schism, but the East-West one as well which happened before the Reformation and likewise suffers from “confusion” or difference in doctrine and sacramental life.
Lastly, simpler solutions are not always better in a complex world, though sometimes they are.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact