From Complementarian to Egalitarian

If a church vote on shifting from complementarian to egalitarian is about 90%, the leaders have been negligent in listening to the people or, which would be worse, the leaders have been insensitive or too powerful to care. At times probably both.

If the vote in favor of moving to egalitarian, which is a term I find inadequate, was under 75%, the vote may have passed but the church will be fractured and fissured.

If it barely passed, tough sledding is ahead.

If the change is top-down, people will do what people do: vote with their butts or their funds.

In Pivot, Laura and I wrote about three degrees of culture change. The next five paragraphs are from Pivot.

While the terms shift, change, and transform can all describe what happens in a culture, they differ significantly from one another. We use shift to refer to shifting one thing in a culture to another place in that same culture. Think of shifting the place of a sermon from the final event to a middle event or shifting a small group ministry from one model to another. Shifts leave a culture undisturbed (although not some people in that culture).

Change in a culture refers to changing something significant in an already existing culture, but which does not deeply change the culture itself. Think of a church calling a new pastor who slides neatly into the older time slot on Sunday morning, but with his own approach to preaching and teaching and leading. Or of a church deciding to change the Sunday sermon from an evangelistic event for seekers to more Bible exposition for Christians. A change in a culture occurs if the church’s leadership decides to call a justice and compassion director to pioneer a new ministry. Changes in a culture have greater capacity to disturb parishioners than do shifts. Changes also have the potential to generate a desire for deep change, which we refer to as transformation. But change does not necessarily entrail transformation.

A culture is a delicate ecosystem; it is possible, but difficult, to transform the whole ecosystem. One change or a few small changes that look good will not transform. And the delicacy of an ecosystem requires respect and caution with changes.

Culture transformation refers to a revolution or renovation from one kind of church to another. Think of a talent or gift-based church transforming into a character formation culture, or from an attractional model of church to a spiritual formation model. Suppose a megachurch’s senior pastor wanted every week to be Super Bowl Sunday. He also planned a few buzz events each year, which meant inviting in some celebrity. Such an attractional model of the church, over time, forms a culture. To undo that culture and to form it into a character-oriented or a spiritual formation-oriented culture counts as a culture transformation. And it takes time! (And is easier to dream about than do.)

Not everyone uses these three terms as we do, but we want to distinguish the three levels: shift, change, and transformation. The most distinctive difference between transformation and shift or change is that the first two are top-down and usually driven by a pastor’s creative vision. A transformation occurs only when ownership and participation happen comprehensively in the church (which does not mean “everyone,” since some in the group inevitably will opt out and change—or shift!—churches).

If the church vote, once again, was about 90% or more, all that happens is a shift or a change. More than cosmetic, but the change will probably not be deep. If it is 75% or below, however, the deep work of transformation will take lots of time – lots of listening, coalition-forming, ownership needs to be taken seriously, patience, patience and more patience – and the standard time by organization-change experts is about seven years.

Which is why I read Gaby Viesca’s article in CT with interest. The next numbered paragraphs are from her excellent article, and the italics are mine for emphasis:

(1)  Oftentimes the people involved in the process are so exhausted from all the work it took to move the church to an egalitarian ministry philosophy that changing the church’s official statement on women seems to be the victory, the destination at the end of a long road, when it is just the beginning of an arduous journey.

(2)  What’s undeniably true in all situations is that no matter how careful and intentional a church might be in its approach to this transition, the process is lengthier and more challenging than anticipated. It’s usually painful and it’s inevitably messy. As a result, many communication strategies inadvertently prioritize messaging (like proper apologetics and careful articulation of a position) and damage control, significantly limiting the energy and focus required to properly set up women to thrive.

(3)  One of the most common pitfalls for newly egalitarian churches is thinking that a statement on women changes everything. This couldn’t be further from the truth. While an official position on women may have changed, generally the systems and values undergirding a church’s culture remain the same. Decades of tradition continue to be at play. Long-held assumptions and expectations placed upon women remain intact, adding layers upon layers of complexity and challenges for women to navigate.

(4)  How can we mitigate this? A good place to start is to consider how your church’s current context—not your statement on women [her emphasis]—supports (or undermines) the inclusion of women in your congregation. [SMcK: I’d change that word “context” to “culture.”]

(5)  Another common pitfall for churches is thinking that by appointing one woman to a specific leadership position, all women are now represented and included. This is especially common in the area of preaching.

(6)  A third pitfall, and perhaps the most painful one, is failing to understand the emotional toll that these significant church transitions take on women. Knowing that the ultimate goal of these discussions is to determine what us, women, can or cannot do based on our gender is especially difficult for me. Who I am as a woman, as a female preacher and pastor, is profoundly connected to the discussion. For many of us, these conversations are deeply personal and fully embodied experiences.

(7)  Churches that want to truly move to an egalitarian model should ask themselves: Are we aware of the particular ways that one-sided conversations have affected, and perhaps continue to affect, the women serving at our church? 

To move from complementarian to egalitarian is either a transformation change or it is nothing but cosmetic. Deep cultural transformations need to occur. Deep transformation takes time. It will need to develop fresh priorities, like character formation instead of butts in pews; it requires practices that form into cultural ownership of egalitarian life; and behind and under it all, God’s grace, the power of the Spirit, and the shaping-power of a congregation’s culture matter the most.