That's not enough.

The notion that some may not support, believe in or acknowledge women in leadership unless there is a situation where no one else (ahem, ahem-- other guys) steps up to lead seems a little shady. I mean really folks do we want to go down this slippery slope? Now if you're wondering if I conjured this up on my own... I assure you I have not. This is an idea I have heard on countless occasions.

I recognize in large part that this is meant to be a neutral statement. Folks that resonate with the above sentiment usually feel that it is kind and even open. But unfortunately, that message continues to support, maintain and perpetuate the idea that women are not called to be in leadership and that only under the circumstance that there is no other male to fill the need then perhaps an exception can be made. And that, my friends, is completely unacceptable. It is dehumanizing and does not hold to the capability, dignity and integrity of the female identity.

This idea of exception has been perpetuated over history-- remember 'Rosie the Riveter'? A time, in not too distant history, when men were off to war women were called into the work place to create munition and machinery, but when those men came home the expectation was that women return to their womanly duties, obligations and responsibilities in the home, ultimately being forced to leave their jobs. I won't even get started about the inequities of the work place when women stepped into those roles. However, this World War II reality called on women through advertisement campaigns to send the message of just how needed they were in the work place, how necessary it was for women to participate in order to preserve and sustain the American way, how EVERY American citizen had the responsibility to contribute to the war effort, and how women had the capabilities and talents to fulfill the need. When men returned these messages disappeared and a female's desire to contribute to their community outside the home was discouraged and unacceptable.

This is a justice issue.

You see, we've continued to function in this manner. We are willing to make exceptions only when it benefits us in a particular way-- in order to protect our comforts, powers and privilege. There is no inclusion, collaboration or dignity in that.

So what will be the final authority on whether or not women can serve in leadership? Every authoritative voice (biblical interpretation, science, education) have found support or evidence to undermine inclusivity of women in leadership. Inevitably, as Christians we want to know what does the Bible say? Is this biblical or just some crazy feminist notion?

I hold to the conviction that God has been equipping both men and women to leadership all throughout the Bible. The passages that folks typically use to argue that women should not be in leadership are: I Corinthians 11 & 14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:9-15. Paul uses some strong language to set some parameters for conduct within the church. My problem with how many have used/interpreted these texts to support their arguments is that they've dissected the text and cut it up to use certain admonishments in isolation from the Bible as a whole, as well as completely ignoring or not adhering to certain exhortations to the church and elevating certain aspects of the text to fit their prescribed ideology. For instance, in I Corinthians 11 there are specific ideas for how one should conduct him/herself when praying or prophesying in the church-- it speaks to cultural ways of behaving that we just don't adhere to or practice in our contemporary setting. These include: women praying or prophesying with their heads covered, men avoiding long hair, men praying without heads covered, etc. We just don't practice these things. Yet, admonishments about the conduct of women in church settings are held as central arguments and reasons for why women cannot lead.

The reality is that there is great ambiguity as to who exactly Paul was addressing in these texts particularly I Timothy 2. Paul's address in I Timothy 2 was most likely addressed to a specific group of wives who were interrupting service to ask questions that could be just as easily talked about at home. These questions and conversation were actually a distraction to the flow of the church service. It seems to me that Paul was specifically speaking to an 'in house' matter/ a 'local congregational' matter that was taking place in a specific church. What can be learned from this text is that as local members of the body sometimes there are behaviors and actions taking place in our home churches that are not edifying/encouraging/appropriate for the entire church community. If that is the case, we have the authority and freedom in grace to speak openly and boldly about such things. In addition, if this was to be interpreted and used as a universal text for all women (in all time periods, settings and situations) then we would have to isolate it from other texts such as Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus). You see, if we use texts like I Timothy 2 or 2 Timothy 3:6-7 as evidence that women are not to be in leadership-- thus they are not equal due to the hierarchical structures of the church based on these few instructions we are flying in direct opposition of the very nature of God's heart for all people as evidenced throughout the entire Bible and upheld in texts such as Galatians 3:28 and the creation account.

In the creation account we see that God's desire for humanity was one of: equality, unity, community and shared responsibility, especially as we are reminded that every person is created in God's image. People have used the word 'helper' in Genesis that is used to describe women's roles as inferior or lower status position. In actuality the translation of the word 'helper' is 'ezer knegdo' which means protector or rescuer. Here is an excerpt from the Called and Gifted publication put out by the Evangelical Covenant Denomination: The Hebrew words 'ezer knegdoare used as a descriptor for woman in Genesis 2:18. 'ezeris frequently translated as “helper,” which some have come to interpret or understand as an inferior or one in a supporting role. Unlike the English word “helper,” the Hebrew 'ezerimplies no inferiority; in fact, this word most frequently refers to God in the Old Testament, meaning protector or rescuer. Its modifier, knegdo, means “suitable,” “face to face,” “equivalent to,” or “visible,” and indicates that God created an equivalent human being to be a good companion for man. This rules out authority and subordination for either man or woman.

The reality is is that throughout the entire Bible women are gifted and ordained to leadership positions and are acknowledged as equal in the economics of God. We see women like the Judge Debra, The Priestess in Acts, Lydia and Anna the prophetess who anointed Jesus when he was presented to her in Luke 2. Many women were called and gifted to perpetuate the story of God and to bring the gospel to pass through Christ's lineage-- women like Ruth. And in Proverbs 31 you have the Epilogue of the wife of Noble Character. The woman described was a leader, a business woman in her community. She was respected and revered by those in her community because of her gifts of wisdom and discernment and essentially is a leader in her family. We cannot overlook these biblical examples of female leadership which provides support to the reality that God ordains & equips women to lead their families and communities.