No Girls Allowed in the Elephant Room
Becoming the Great Us, Essays, Featured, Part of the Solution — By Carole Smith Turner on October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
Last year Ben Arment blogged about the first, The Elephant Room a one day gathering of high profile and influential church leaders, who get together to discuss issues that they classify as “Elephants in the room” in the church.
So I watched the clip of current and former pastors discussing theology and afterward I commented on the post, “Is the fact that there are no women at this event the real elephant in the room?” or something to that effect.
And he responded by saying it was for pastors and church leaders and by asking me why the church that I attend, HPC, didn’t have any women speakers at the ARC conference that they had just hosted. (again, paraphrasing him and myself, not sure what exactly was said)
I replied that I was not an employee at HPC so I couldn’t speak for them but I was happy to say that next years ARC conference had two women lined up to speak, Christine Cain and Priscilla Shier and I said, “having these ladies as speakers is progress, and I will take progress any day.”
So I want to say right off that this post is not intended as a slam against The Elephant Room, yes I am publicly stating a disagreement that I have with it but my hope is that this post will lay out a case for progress.
According to Wikepedia…
“Elephant in the room” is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.[1]
It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with the looming big issue.
The other day I saw a blog post on Carlos Whittaker’s blog, that was basically an ad for the new Elephant Room that will be coming out in January.
I watched the trailer and went to the site to read up on the event. I even went to a couple sites to read about the controversy surrounding the invitation of TD Jakes to the event.
But again, there were no women pastors or leaders invited to the event.
As expected, the comment section of Carlos’s post immediately lit up with questions and/or comments concerning the lack of women, again, at this gathering of leaders.
Matt, one of the organizers responded with this.. Well, as the host of the event, James McDonald has stated that the
purposes to get PASTORS together to discuss relevant issues. James McDonald is a pretty open Complimentarian, so the fact that he hasn’t included any women shouldn’t surprise anyone. Why people get upset about that makes no sense to me. If an Egalitarian held a like event and included women pastors, why would people be surprised? Hosts can invite whoever they want.
He also post this..
While I don’t want to speak for anyone involved with the event, I think it’s because no one has even gotten into a discussion about Complimentarian vs egalitarian theology and had anything good come from it. The people in their camps, especially as pastors, aren’t going to change their mind or sway anyone else. And my assumption is that James McDonald decides the topics that are going to be discussed and then invites speakers based on that list. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if at a future event he opens up the debate and invites a woman pastor, or at least someone with egalitarian views.
I appreciate Matt’s reply, it seems honest and straight forward. And I am glad to see that he thinks it may be opened up in the future (although as he stated, he can’t speak for the organizer) to women or egalitarians.
But I’d like to dissect what he said and what The Elephant Room web site states as its “purpose statement” for this Elephant room.
First off, Matt says,
James McDonald is a pretty open Complimentarian, so the fact that he hasn’t included any women shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Why would a complimentarian have a problem with having a women leader be a part of the discussion? I know they believe that women have very designated rolls and I know that some, like Mark Driscoll, don’t believe that women should teach men at all, but do they also believe that a female church leader, even one who strictly teaches only women, would have nothing to contribute to a conversation with other male church leaders? Is a woman’s opinion, even when they are as educated or more educated perhaps than the men she is having a discussion with, only allowed if offered from her designated spot standing over a sink full of dishes or from the passenger side of a vehicle? Or is it that they believe a women should not be allowed to contribute to a conversation of “leaders” at all?
I am honestly seeking the answer to this question.
If that is the case then I’m all for their right to believe what they want, but I think it’s disingenuous to sell an event with lines such as..“..the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach..”
But Matt points out, when discussing the issue of Complimentatrian vs Egalitarian, The people in their camps, especially as pastors, aren’t going to change their mind or sway anyone else.
So does he not see that the very same thing could be said about all of the other issues being discussed in The Elephant Room? I thought the purpose was to address hard issues that everyone wants to avoid, the hard issues, you know, the Elephants in the Room?
And if THIS isn’t an Elephant in the Room, I don’t know what is.
At the end of the Purpose Statement it says..
Look for guests from all places and belief systems. Don’t be surprised if you hear a conversation with someone that offends you or denies the faith as you see it. If the conversation can be helpful, clarifying, insistent or illuminating, or if we hope it will be . . . you will find it in the Elephant Room.
If the above quoted statements are indeed the purpose of the event, then a women leader should be welcomed (..hear a conversation with someone that offends you or denies the faith as you see it..) and the huge Elephant of the role of women in church, should be one that is discussed (If the conversation can be helpful, clarifying, insistent or illuminating) based simply on the stated purpose of this event.
Tags: complimentarianism, egalitarianism, the Elephant Room
9 Comments
Great job laying the issue out there. There is a circularity in the logic to keep women out that defies entry.
I believe it is important to understand that this is the second Elephant Room. The first was basically a bunch of pastors that were in agreement on most things, although there was a really interesting discussion regarding the use of culture in worship services. Chandler, Driscoll, Platt, McDonald and others differ in the use of culture, but are pretty much on the same page theologically.
For this second Elephant Room they are opening up and discussing differences of understanding in essential theology. Based on if it is successful, it should determine the path for future Elephant Rooms – it will either expand and continue to explore these issues, or it will contract to like-minded people.
Personally, I hope it continues to expand. I am a Complementarian but believe the issue should be discussed frequently since many evangelctals do not believe the matter to be “settled.”
I went to The Elephant Room website, but couldn’t find any place to comment there. Or yet. There’s a place called “conversations”, but it isn’t set up yet. I was going to quote their statements to them and ask why women aren’t allowed. So I’m guessing us second-classers are allowed to attend in the audience. I suppose.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
In the 19th century, the American church was severely divided over the issue of slavery. In fact, three major denominations split over it…some Christians maintained that the Bible endorsed slavery, while others, Northerners, were abolitionists. At the time, the issue of slavery was considered so contentious that some maintained that it was best to just let it go and not let it distract from the true mission of the church.
I believe that in the church today the issue of the injustice of inequality of women is the same and that in a generation or two to come, our ancestors shall look back upon us and wonder, How could the church treat women that way?
That is the greater issue with the Elephant men. Of course anyone is free to invite whomever they please to whatever soiree is organized, but the problem here, as the writer has pointed out, is the blatant omission of women because They Are Women.
That, my friends, is known as inequality. Not complementarianism, but inequality. When half the church is excluded because of gender, it is not an issue of doctrine, but an issue of justice.
I’m not pleased with how the conference is structured, but perhaps we should assume the best motives for the organizers. Until proven otherwise, perhaps we should look at these pastors as people on a learning curve.
Structurally, the exclusion of women is unacceptable. But perhaps there’s room for charity when considering personal motivation.
Pam:
Please note, the way in which you articulate your argument discounts complementarianism by making it a moral issue based on your opinion. You have simplified the argument by suggesting anyone in disagreement on this issue is immoral. Not only is your methodology dismissive of differing opinions, you exacerbate the issue by illustrating slavery as being equal to an imbalance in opportunity; this is fallacy. It is worth considering that this validates the aversion to such debate.
Great article, Carol. Thank you.
My wife recently said to me, “Christians and Rap Music are very oppressive to women”.
Isn’t that the truth.
I would love to be in the Elephant Room, absolutely. However, perhaps another elephant in the room is that these men assume that as “influential leaders”, if they finally get themselves in gear and talk about hot button issues that the church will slowly talk and unify…whereas the true work of unification takes years and years of faithful followers, not in some media spotlight, working in the shadows and growing as a community together.
I’ve taken part of many “let’s talk about the elephants in the room” conversations and it’s awesome to see God’s Spirit move. Let’s agitate to get invited to this Elephant Room sure, but let’s not forget the vital piece of talking about these issues amongst ourselves.
It’s funny that there never seems to be as much of an uproar when men are excluded from Christian’s Women’s Confrences, Women’s Breakfasts, Women’s Retreats, etc… The church that I attend presently has a “complimentarian” view of men and women. I find that they place a great deal of importance on our roles as women in the church. Could it be that culturally, especially outside of the church, that our roles are still seen as being not as important? Even within the church, does this cultural attitute creep in? Men and women are biologically different, have different thought processes, have different behaviours (some cultural, some biological) and I think when we turn a blind eye to that and try to paint both sexes with the same brush in the name of “equality”, then we do our selves a big dis-service.
Pam, I take it that you have never attended an exclusively women’s event, and that would one take place, you would be as vocal in your objections to it?