Cru finds itself in debate over women’s roles in ministry

This is why para-church ministries must be understood as just that - an extension of the church - and are not released from ecclesiastical protocols merely because they are not in a congregational setting. Ah but what do misogynistic Biblical Allegiants know?

with a slightly differing approach.

It seems to me that the difficulty for both Cru and Daniel Harman is that neither have the ability to determine whether this situation would constitute an abuse of male headship because they are trying to define “authority” outside of a church-based/elder/pastoral context, i.e. apart from where the authority is invested which is in the leadership of the local church.

Even within complementarians, there are shades of difference in whether or not a situation like this would constitute an exercise of authority. For example, John Frame has worked through a similar challenge for the PCA in respect to whether or not women could potentially teach mixed adult SS classes and do so in a way that doesn’t undermine male headship. He includes considerations like context, topic, style, and whether there is clearly defined male eldership (within the PCA, authority rests in ordination not simply teaching). http://www.frame-poythress.org/may-women-teach-adult-sunday-school-classes/

Anyway…. the point is that para-church organizations, like Cru, have no way to determine what constitutes “exercising authority” because they are divorced from the context of local church leadership. Similarly though, Daniel Harman doesn’t have the capacity to determine that this constitutes an abuse of authority by himself because his decision is also divorced from a local church context.

Reactions? (I’m sure there will be some. :-))

No, my concern was exactly the opposite. The fact that para-church ministries are divorced from ecclesiastical authority is what puts them in these conundrums in the first place.

If there is a clearly established authority through the local church, you have the ability to determine if a certain situation undermines male headship—you have offices, you have definitions of authority, you have ordination, etc. that give you a framework in which to weigh whether or not it contradicts how authority should be exercised and expressed. Without that, you have no base line other than your own private feeling.

I mean, without an established male eldership, without a clearly defined authority in the first place, whose authority would these women be usurping? If you say men in general, then the conversation devolves into all kinds of weirdness about whether women can teach boys, at what age they must stop, whether women can teach anything at all at to a mixed group at the collegiate level or whether they can even evangelize men, etc.

So I’m saying that the lack of connectedness to the local church creates a situation where you can’t even begin the process of determining whether this practice in violation of II Timothy.

The funny thing that I’ve observed is that the churches that are more highly structured and protect the office of elder/pastor via strict ordination are also the ones who are most able to successfully engage women in a variety of ministries within church life. It’s almost as if, because authority is clearly defined, you don’t have to worry all the time about whether a particular thing might possibly usurp it. Those without clearly defined offices for exercising authority are the ones who are most obsessed by what a woman should and shouldn’t be doing.

The other place the para-church issue comes into play is in Christian education—I’ve seen lots of situations where a church would hold one standard of expectation for their church leadership and entirely different ones for their school leadership, even within the same organization! I think we’re ultimately on the same page about that one.

God used a Navigator to lead me Him when I was a young staff sergeant in the USAF, and I was involved with them for the rest of my career and for the first few years after retirement. Of course, the Navs and Cru are not the same organizations, so what is said here reflects my experiences. “Your mileage may vary.”

It is my opinion that parachurch organizations such as the Navigators want it both ways. They are willing to work with churches when it benefits them. Most Navigator representatives have made presentations to churches for financial support. Many of them are members of a local church, though it’s usually a “sending” or “home” church in another state. A handful of representatives were ordained. Membership is a church may give access to a certain target group. I’ve known a good number of Navigators who chafed at the idea that their ministry was an extension of a local church. A few were downright anti-church. They looked down on local church ministry, spoke of it in disparaging terms, and if they felt a person with whom they worked was not good enough for their idea of ministry, well, then “they can go to the church and teach Sunday School.”

Any parachurch representative who seeks formal theological education will eventually run afoul of the organization. Yes, you read that correctly. That was Daniel Harman’s “mistake,” in my opinion. Organizations such as the Navigators were created to intentionally avoid local church control. It’s in their organizational DNA. There are exceptions, of course. The Navigators Church Discipleship Ministries works closely with local churches and oversees the excellent 2:7 Series of study materials.

This past summer we had lunch with a Navigator couple whom we’ve known and supported for many years. When I told him that I want nothing to do with the Navigators organizationally, he asked me if I had been “wounded.” “Yes,” I answered, “but I went to seminary and that ruins me.” He didn’t respond.