The longstanding conversation about the biblical understanding of the role of women in the church has led to a plethora of local church expressions of this theology, all of which sit across a wide spectrum of what has been termed “complementarian” and “egalitarian.” Amid heated debates and stalemates over how to interpret and apply certain texts, scholarly settings like conferences and “four views”-types of publications can model a kind of commitment to vigorous-yet-congenial dialogue, providing a model for unity in the church. However, in many churches unity has not flourished, with this topic still leading to division and worse, the alienation of some from the church altogether. The current political, religious, and ideological landscape doesn’t help, with believers vulnerable to a kind of media discipleship exhibiting divisive rhetoric, cancel culture, and an overall climate of distrust. This purpose of this paper is to open a conversation on this matter, but this is not a new and improved theological position on women’s roles. Instead, this paper will ask the pragmatic question: can we do more to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3)? The following will propose several action items toward the attempt to hold both “sides” together, championing unity and mission as primary to the task.
First, it is sometimes pointed out that the role of women is not a “primary” issue in terms of salvation. (The issue becomes “primary” in our ecclesiology—what can women do and not do in the local church?) My first proposal: What if, within local churches, members approached their views on women’s roles (whether “complementarian” or “egalitarian”) as just that—not primary? This is difficult, since many hold their position firmly, believing that the other “side” is harming the church with its own view. Indeed, many on both sides of the issue—complementarian and egalitarian—believe this to be true, and often for good reason! The difficult invitation is for believers on both sides to assume “the other” holds theirs as the result of a good faith interpretation of the biblical evidence—without vilifying them. Second, if both “sides” of the issue agree in theory that men and women reflecting the image of God are equally valuable to Him, can a given local church invite multiple perspectives to speak into how differing views and resulting practices create the experience of one’s value being disparaged? Third, I will discuss how our ecclesial structures might better reflect the collection of diverse views that make up our local congregations. Can we avoid echo chambers that vie for the “winning” vote? How might each local expression creatively and humbly shift its practices so that men and women experience welcome in their context? What if our commitment to land together was primary? This will take compromise, mutual submission, and not always “getting our way,” while prioritizing the goals of unity (1 Cor 1:10) and love (John 13:35) as we seek together to pursue Christ and his mission (Matt 28:19).