The problem with preaching on manhood and womanhood in most evangelical churches is that it is simply not being done. Sure, pastors will preach on "gender" occasionally, including on male headship and on female submission, but it is done in an abstract, vague manner that doesn't hit at the cosmic seriousness of this issue. Abstraction cannot replace the avalanche of cultural influences toward feminism on the one hand and a predatory form of pagan patriarchy on the other.

A pastor must be willing to lose his pulpit in order to save it. He cannot simply denounce the same "culture war" opponents that might be demonized by Fox News. He must talk about issues that will be sensitive to people in his own congregation--a dating culture that by its very definition anticipates fornication, the outsourcing of parenting to daycare "professionals" in order to carry out dual-income households, and so forth. A pastor who addresses such issues will find some hostility, but he will also find Christians--and seeking lost people--who are willing to give him a hearing because of his honesty and conviction.

This means, first of all, that complementarian pastors must give up on the notion that one can be comfortably anonymous in the ambient culture and still hold to biblical ideas of manhood and womanhood. If that ever were the case (and I doubt it), it is not the case anymore.

A man who really gets Ephesians 5 is the kind of man who will be willing to work two jobs and live in a trailer to enable his wife to be the primary caregiver of his children. A woman who really understands Proverbs 31 is going to seem to be a "Stepford wife" to those who are accustomed to women making ribald jokes about men and loud complaints about incompetent husbands. A college student serious about biblical manhood and womanhood is going to set parameters for his interactions with the opposite sex that will seem ridiculous to his roommates.

It also means that the pulpit cannot be the only place where discipleship in this area is carried out. Our pastors must give time and attention to discipling younger men, not through some curriculum purchased at the local Christian bookstore but through spending time in an authentic Paul-Timothy type friendship in which the pastor has the credibility--earned through proven wisdom and undisputed love--to encourage and to rebuke.

Christian women must put Titus 2 into practice, not with simply another DVD series from a female celebrity but through women spending time with one another, learning together what it means to be daughters of Sarah.

That takes more time than a stadium event or an emphasis Sunday, but it will change our churches for the better.

This is adapted from a forum from the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Fall 2007), 55-56. 

When churches and evangelical organizations abandon the authority of Scripture, the abandonment usually comes through a gradual process that takes place one decision or one policy revision at a time.

Operation Mobilization, a venerable evangelical missions organization founded in 1957 by George Verwer, is on the cusp of making one such crucial revision to its operating policy, one that sadly compromises biblical authority.

As reported earlier by Gender Blog, OM leadership is meeting this week in Germany and is considering the adoption of a statement that will fully embrace the egalitarian view of women in positions of ministerial leadership within the organization.

Since its inception, OM has held to the sole authority of Scripture as its confessional statement attests. However, the policy under consideration seems to be an attempt at forging a "middle ground" on the issue of women in ministry.

But no middle ground truly exists when it comes to gender roles and the clear teaching of Scripture, CBMW President  Randy Stinson argues. OM's proposal in reality represents the embrace of egalitarianism and a move away from biblical authority, Stinson said.

"While leading CBMW over the last eight years, I have had a unique vantage point from which to observe many changes in the evangelical community with regard to gender.  The various organizations, when comprised of both egalitarians and complementarians, usually end up with position statements that are egalitarian.  The argument goes something like, "we have both views represented in the organization, we don't want to alienate or offend one another, we are focused on the ‘big picture' of the Gospel and do not want to spend time dealing with secondary issues, so we will have a policy that allows for both views.

"This is exactly what is happening over the next few days in Germany as Operation Mobilization International is considering an egalitarian position statement that will apply to the whole organization. When experience trumps the clear teaching of Scripture, and when the God-given parameters of the exercise of gifts are ignored, the only option is egalitarianism.

"This is how the church is influenced.  One policy change here, one confessional statement there, and the authority of the Word of God is undermined, the church is weakened, the home is weakened, and an entire organization sends a message to its employees and the rest of the world that it is not necessary to completely live according to the precepts of God.

"Please pray for George Verwer, the International Director Peter Maiden, and the other leaders of OM who are meeting this week.  Ask God to encourage them to resist the pressures of culture and stand firm on the clear and consistant teaching of God's Word."

You can expect updates on this situation from Gender Blog.

Operation Mobilization has been proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations since 1957. Today, OM has more than 4,000 missionaries working in some 100 countries, many of whom are planting churches and assisting existing congregations in the proclamation of the Gospel. OM seeks to take the Gospel to peoples among whom Christ is least known.

Yesterday, the annual meeting of OM's International Executive Committee (ILC) opened in Germany. On the agenda for the committee's consideration is a document that represents a full embrace of an egalitarian view of gender roles within OM leadership. The document, which appears in full below, asserts that "divine calling and gifting rather than gender" will be OM's guiding principle in the future appointment of leaders.   

In a brief introduction to the statement, OM leaders admitted that  "not everyone in OM will be able to sign up to this statement as their personal conviction" but hoped the document will provide "a consensus position that we will be able to embrace collectively."  

If agreed by the IEC, the statement will be presented to OM's General Council and, if agreed upon at that level, will be added to the organization's International Policy Manual. The committee will continue to meet and consider the document through March 8. Gender Blog will continue to provide updates as this decision process unfolds. 

We are asking all complementarians to pray for the International Executive Committee to reject this proposal and maintian a strong commitment to biblical authority on gender issues.

The statement under consideration reads as follows:

We affirm that God created men and women to work together in equal complementary partnership, each fulfilling their God-given ministry. We believe that divine calling and gifting rather than gender should be the most important factor in the selection of members for leadership within the movement. We believe that leadership and public ministry within the movement may include both men and women. We commit ourselves to maintain the unity of the Spirit and our calling as servants of Christ. Therefore we will give due consideration to calling, giftedness, cultural appropriateness and the local church context in our leadership appointments.

OM members are drawn from many different cultures, denominations and backgrounds. Inevitably, therefore, there will be differences of outlook on some matters including major theological questions the Church has grappled with over the years. These would include baptism, church government, eschatology, charismatic gifts etc. In matters that are not fundamental to the basic character of the Gospel, OMers are expected to respect each other's personal convictions. As a movement we desire to organise ourselves in a way that is agreeable to the clear teaching of the whole of Scripture, believing that this is the way in which we will please God. Our understanding of the basic principles of leadership is that it is based on our submission to Christ and should be shared, gentle, serving and loving. Our prayer is that as God has poured out His Spirit upon us without regard to gender and He has shed abroad His gifts and fruits in the Church, we might as men and women, married and single work together more effectively to achieve our God-given goals.

We recognise that some evangelical scholars and church leaders believe that the biblical teaching on male headship implies that leadership should be limited to men. We also recognise that some evangelical studies in biblical hermeneutics have led other scholars and church leaders to believe that leadership should include both men and women. As there are OMers who adopt each of these positions, we believe that the issue of women in leadership is one on which we must agree to differ. Yet while we agree to differ, we affirm these guidelines as our practice as a movement.

As Christians, we need to think biblically about every aspect of life. This requires us to speak boldly when the Bible speaks, but never going beyond the bounds of biblical authority. With this in mind, we can biblically analyze an issue over male leadership that made national headlines in an offbeat manner earlier this month. First, the facts:

On Feb. 13, the Kansas City Star reported that prep basketball referee Michelle Campbell was not allowed to officiate at a boys' game at St. Mary's because of her gender. Her officiating partner, Darin Putthoff, said that a St. Mary's official explained it to him by saying it would be putting a woman in a position of authority over boys. The academy is a private Roman Catholic school in St. Mary's, Kansas.

The Rev. Vicente A. Griego, the school's headmaster, has recently clarified St. Mary's objection to the female referee, saying it was not a matter of headship; instead, he said, "the formation of adolescent boys is best accomplished by male role models, as the formation of girls is best accomplished by women. Hence in boys' athletic competitions, it is important that the various role models (coaches and referees) be men."

Further, Griego intimated a concern for Campbell's safety: "Our school aims to instill in our boys the proper respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we cannot place them in an aggressive athletic competition where they are forced to play inhibited by their concern about running into a female referee."

The story gained national attention with dozens of newspapers carrying first and second-day stories on the incident and Sports Illustrated posting an article at its website SI.com. The slighted referee, Michelle Campbell, made an appearance on "Good Morning, America," and has reportedly been contacted by the "Dr. Phil" program. Predictably, words such as "misogyny" were tossed about freely as the secular media weighed St. Mary's rationale for forbidding the female referee.

What can be learned from this incident? From a biblical viewpoint, how are we to assess the actions of St. Mary's officials?

First, as in all things, the principle of sola Scriptura must be asserted. Scripture is clear about male headship in the home and the church, but does not necessarily apply to other arenas such as athletics. For this reason, argument from biblical headship really doesn't fly in this situation. In other words, it would not have been inherently sinful to allow a woman to officiate a boys basketball game. We must be careful to not place restrictions on women that go beyond the teaching of Scripture.

Second, the goal of having male role models for growing boys is certainly noble and should be applauded. Ideally, school officials would have stipulated that desire earlier to those responsible for assigning referees. It seems the school's chief mistake here was not being clear about this from the outset.

Third, we must take care in assigning such words as "misogyny" too quickly. Misogyny is defined as "hatred, mistrust or dislike for women." Officials specifically articulated a desire to instill in its boys a deep respect for women. That is anything but misogynistic (even if the possibility of a boy "running into the referee" seems a bit remote given the training officials undergo about proper positioning during games).

Analyzing incidents like these can serve as a training ground for Christians learning to apply the Bible to every aspect of life.

Wade Burleson is a Baptist pastor in Enid, Oklahoma who recently observed that both complementarians and evangelical egalitarians profess to have a high view of scripture. Burleson also noted a comment made by complementarian author Mary Kassian that evangelical feminists "compromise" the Bible - a comment which appears on the homepage of the CBMW.

In response to Kassian's remark, Burleson asks the following question:

"I would like to sincerely ask Mary - and other complementarian evangelical friends - a very serious question. Is it not possible to be a conservative, evangelical Christian who believes in the infallible and sufficient Word of God and come to egalitarianism through a study of the sacred text?"

The short answer to the question is "yes." It is possible, and it is indeed common for people who affirm the truthfulness and the authority of the Bible to adopt interpretations that in effect contradict and undermine their otherwise orthodox affirmation. In other words, it is possible for professing Bible-believers to be inconsistent.

But in giving that answer, we have to remember that the debate between biblical feminists and complementarians has never really been about who professes to affirm the Bible. There are plenty of egalitarians who profess fealty to the sacred text. That's not the issue. The question is whether they are fulfilling their stated allegiance to the text when they adopt egalitarian interpretations and practices. As a complementarian, I have to conclude that they are not.

What do we make, therefore, of those who hold egalitarian views? Can an egalitarian be saved? I would answer, "Yes, of course." As far as I know, I was an egalitarian when I was saved. Can an egalitarian promote his views without harming himself and those he influences? No. Can an egalitarian knowingly suppress the Bible's teaching on the matter and still be called a Christian? I am not prepared to pronounce judgment on any individual, but at least one mark of a genuine Christian is the willingness to submit to biblical truth (1 John 4:6).

In saying this, however, there's no double standard. All serious Christians have to test themselves continually on this point. Does my understanding of God's word comport with my stated commitment to the same? Part of Christian growth and discipleship is about taking every thought captive and making it obedient to King Jesus (2 Corinthians 10:5). As I look back over the years of my own life, I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have seen erroneous interpretations of the text give way to sound ones. At no time would I have said that God was indifferent to my error on account of my commitment to inerrancy. After all, what kind of a disciple professes a high view of the Bible while consciously undermining what the Bible teaches? Not any kind of disciple that Jesus would recognize (Matthew 7:21).

What does all of this have to do with the gender debates? Those of us involved in the conversation must not be content merely that the other side professes a high view of scripture. If my complementarian understanding of the Bible is wrong, then I am doing damage to myself and to others whom I influence with my views, and I need to be corrected no matter how loudly I profess inerrancy. If the egalitarians are wrong, then they are doing damage to themselves and to those whom they influence, and they need to be lovingly corrected no matter how vociferously they may profess allegiance to the text.

Burleson says that egalitarians "believe their views to be completely biblical." I'm sure that they do. But that is quite beside the point. The question is whether their views are biblical, and I believe that the weight of the evidence shows that they are not. How are we going to resolve this impasse? It's not going to be by glossing over the differences or by affirming everybody's views as equally valid evangelical options. They are not. Somebody's right; and somebody's wrong. Love requires us to be honest about that (Proverbs 27:6).