Religious nationalism

 The Church in the late 200’s to early 300’s was experiencing the worst wave of persecution, torture and death to date as an illegal practice in the Roman Empire. Yet when Constantine became emperor over the entire empire, he chose Christianity as an existing unifying factor among the people that he could leverage and use to unite the previously fractured political empire into one unified nation. To this end, he lifted oppressed Christians out of fear and duress and gave them prominence and favor. The leaders who only recently had been tortured now had unfettered access to the palace and throne room of the emperor.

It simply wouldn’t be respectful to represent the burgeoning community of Christ-followers before the head of State while dressed in rags, so clergy adopted finer vestments more appropriate for palace access. The new-found favor had far-reaching influence throughout the practice of Christianity and dramatically changed the tone and flavor of what had previously been an intimate and mystical community, exclusive to only the most vetted and trusted initiates who had completed catechism and could be deemed as safe to include into this rag-tag community of survivors.

With Christianity now an accepted–even socially trendy rite for all of society to now be audience to–sacraments adopted more pomp and circumstance and accoutrements of worship became more glamorous and ornate to measure up to the expectations of a high-society audience. And ultimately, in broad strokes, the role of clergy changed from being cultivators of people and facilitating a regular, mystical encounter with God, to being performers of theatre, engineering an experience that would feel reverent to the audience before them.

Suffice it to say that this downward spiral and deterioration of original Christianity was due to the newfound favor of the political ruler, and the assumption that political favor equalled God’s favor.

As we evaluate current events, this same pattern is visible today, and we believe that Christianity runs the same risk of becoming distorted, disoriented and distasteful as a result.

Women’s roles in the Church

Some people in the Church take issue with women being given the title of pastor. It is claimed that giving this title to women is a slippery-slope to any number of theology threatening hazards, and that our current state-of-affairs is the most “progressive” the church has ever been, to a fault. Again, we believe that Scriptural and historical precedent would paint a different picture.

In the mid-1800’s certain Baptist expressions were ordaining and sending out single women as missionaries around the world at a time when many men were even reluctant to go. Women exhibited the leadership and resolve to take these bold risks to take the good news of Jesus Christ around the world.

Later that same century, as itinerant preachers, healers and evangelists made their way throughout the United States, several of them were women that led the charge and became champions of the faith.

In the early 1900’s however, a theology of Fundamentalism was postulated that, in part, sought to restrict the “liberal” roles that Christian women had taken on. Fundamentalism ultimately had a significant negative effect, both on the view of women’s roles and on the role of the Holy Spirit within the Church. It would take 100 years to move past this dark spot in Church history.

Vocal opponents to women in Church leadership often tout theology outlining Federal Headship, and as an extension, patriarchal headship, supported by the example of the jailer who converted his family. However, they fail to acknowledge the same phenomenon as fulfilled by Lydia converting her own family, demonstrating matriarchal headship. While there is a significant case to be made for the responsibility and validity of patriarchal headship, we believe that Christian men do not understand what it means or how to practically express it, and we also do not believe that it negates the validity of the spiritual authority that women also embody as children of God, daughters of the King of glory, and co-heirs with Christ.

Ultimately, however, we believe that the main issue here is a misapplication of the term “pastor”. The early church did not have staff and employees–there were two official volunteer and elected roles: overseers and servants, or elders and deacons. The term pastor was not applied in this context. Instead, pastor (a shepherd) was identified in Ephesians 4 as one of several roles that God had designed for the healthy growth and development of the community of Christ-followers. A pastor was only designed to exist in cooperation and balance with the other roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist and teacher. And since the elders were assigned the responsibility of leading, nurturing, and teaching the community, the elders were to represent each of these roles, since elders represent the people who God also designed and wired with these roles.

Therefore, we believe it is a moot point to squabble over whether a woman can be given a pastor job title, at the very minimum based on the fact that the Scriptures never make this a job–it is an identity that one is either wired with or not. In fact, the vast majority of people who are wired as pastors probably don’t realize it, and most likely do not hold the title of pastor. They may not even be in ministry.

Finally, by squelching a woman’s ability to grow into and express the wiring God has designed within her–whether as an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher–we are cutting out 50% of the workforce of Christianity! We can pray all day long for the Lord of the harvest to send out workers, but perhaps some Churches are having a hard time finding the workers due to their refusal to invite them to the table.