(Missed part 10?  Read it here.  Or start from the beginning.)

The Church

We turn now to the topic of men and women in the Church.  As with divorce, this is a difficult topic to address in a small space, because practices vary widely.  The presentation in these chapters — both of her own position and of the positions of those she disagrees with — is pretty mixed.  That is to say, she raises some valid points about churches that prioritize male leadership, and she also demonstrates some misunderstanding; she makes some viable points about her own position, and she demonstrates a less-than-developed understanding of it, as well.

Leadership Potential

She first takes issue with all men being treated “as leaders or potential leaders.” (p. 195)  This seems to reflect the hesitance about male leadership in the home that we saw in earlier chapters, because if we consider that all men are “potential” husbands (if not actual husbands), then all men are either leaders or potential leaders.  Of course not all of them will become church leaders, but similar preparation is appropriate for both.  (Note that the biblical requirements for elders parallel leadership in the household of faith with leadership in the household. 1 Tim. 3:4-5,12)

Male Representation

She then takes issue with churches that take a household-based approach to membership.  “In a household or family membership approach, families are treated as a unit instead of as individuals who have individual membership responsibilities and privileges.” (p. 196)  Although this can be taken to some extremes, there is nothing inherently “anti-woman” about this approach.  The emphasis is not on “men” or “women” but, as her statement indicated, a family “unit” rather than “individuals.”  One might disagree with this approach, but one ought to do so by engaging with the biblical argument made for it, and without treating it as an attack on women or a celebration of men.

Other Concerns

There are vital concerns raised here about the potential for “relegat[ing women] to the status of throw pillows,” as Miller puts it, “pretty but not essential” (p. 198), the potential for acting as though women need men to mediate for them like priests, not overlooking the need to teach women in theology, etc.  There are some hints of straw men scattered throughout, but it’s not too bad.

Why Elder Leadership…but Not Household Leadership?

Similar topics carry through to the following chapter, about women in the church, which also talks a good bit about church leadership.  (It also carries through to the follow-up chapter about what male ordination does and doesn’t mean.)  The most puzzling thing about this section is that the assertions about the purpose and function of church leaders are largely very sound  — and yet Miller doesn’t seem to have articulated any understanding of why church leadership has the purpose or function that it does, and has completely written off similar concepts as relevant for household leadership.

“We don’t need priests, but we do need elders, overseers, shepherds, and stewards to teach, guide, discipline, and protect us.” (p. 212)  “There is authority in the offices of the church, as we discussed in chapter 1.  However, the emphasis of these offices isn’t on power and privilege but on the responsibilities that the leaders have to protect and care for the congregation, who are their brothers and sisters in Christ.” (p. 213)

She’s spot-on here.  I don’t know any traditionalists who would disagree with this.  Significantly, traditionalists also believe the same basic concepts are true of husbands and fathers in the home.  They have responsibilities to those under their care, and the authority necessary to carry out those responsibilities.  It isn’t clear why being taught, guided, disciplined, and/or protected is acceptable in the church, but apparently rejected in the home, or why husbands are presumed to be seeking power and privilege while elders are simply carrying out their responsibilities.

Underlying this confusion is the fact that Miller hasn’t provided a coherent explanation for the basis of this authority — at least not one that doesn’t contradict the earlier arguments regarding the household.

So this section is, overall, good, but tends to leave the attentive reader wondering if she’s missing something, since it doesn’t seem to “fit” with earlier portions of the book.

Go to part 12.