High Functional Load

There have been some excellent comments on my last two posts here and here so I would like to respond as best I can. I think this one states the problem well,

Many to most would argue that since it is a non-salvific issue, it is a “tier 2” issue that should be dealt with in the church (sorry for the dangling prep), not in a parachurch ministry. I think that is Robinson’s argument. Plus, if one stakes a claim on comp/egal being a delineation that IV holds as not salvation-oriented, but just a tick below and would therefore be dangerous, it would stand to reason that open theism (Pinnock and Boyd) and trajectory hermeneutics (Webb) would fall in that same category, given they are at odds with a biblical view of God and the claims of the bible itself (or so I would see it).

Here is my response. I do not think that InterVarsity, as an egalitarian organization, holds that the egal/comp debate is salvific. However, it has to hold as a strong position on this issue just the same, because otherwise the leadership of some of its staff would be undermined. So, although the debate does not relate to how Christians come to Christ, it does relate to how the organization functions. It would not be possible to run an organization with female leadership, if both points of view were held in equal regard. This issue has a high functional load for the organization.

I acknowledge that many complementarians do not feel that parachurch leadership must be organized in a complementarian fashion, and I appreciate their openness. However, the original discussion brought up complementarians such as John Piper and Al Mohler, who, I am convinced, do not approve of female leadership in parachurch organizations. I make this assumption because a central tenet of CBMW is that women are not designed to lead men from creation.

I consider Piper and Mohler as men who hold to the basic articulated tenets of CBMW. I think this is fair. Likewise, I do not assume that all other complementarians share CBMW's views.

Regarding the acceptance of Clark Pinnock's theology by InterVarsity, I believe that it is in the nature of InterVarsity, as an organization on a secular campus, that they interact with Christians of a wide range of belief, including those who function within the "liberal" range. Clark Pinnock, in particular, graduated with honours from Toronto, the school I later attended. He spoke at our InterVarsity chapter at that time. He is, in a sense, one of InterVarsity's fledglings. Whatever you may think of his theology, he is known to InterVarsity staff and has always been a part of the larger family.

It is my opinion that some of the theologians who are accepted by InterVarsity come from within. They operate in the academic world as scholars in the field and have respect as academics and faithful Christians. I realise that they represent a greater range of belief than some consider evangelicals should. I can't resolve this now.

In further thoughts on complementarianism. I have some basic beliefs. First, I do not think that it is a great suffering for women who aspire to leadership to not be allowed to be leaders in the church. However, I do believe strongly that not having women leaders in the church is an enormous and outrageous suffering for women who attend church. Susan Hunt of CBMW articulates this position well.

Men do not intend to inflict more damage on women. Many just do not know how to deal with women in crisis appropriately and compassionately. It is difficult for men to understand the emotions of these women; but other women can be the interpreters of those feelings. When I admitted this, my emotions became productive. I realized that women, including myself, must be the advocates to church leaders for emotionally and physically bruised women.

Quite simply Susan Hunt states that women are to be the defenders of women. This is a simple fact of life. Women need women leaders in decision-making positions, in positions of authority in the church. This is a basic human need.