I like Thabiti Anyabwile’s blog, and he’s recently been going through a series around the whole complementarian thing. I thought his most recent post was good, and challenging. Here’s a quote from it, but I’d encourage you to read the whole thing:
Younger women are steered toward home and domestic life rather than service on the mission field. Single women are often counseled to build their lives around an anticipated husband by delaying commitment to the mission field “until they find a spouse.” We sometimes encourage sisters to wait on the Lord for missions in order to actively seek a spouse and family. It seems we should reverse this: we should encourage the sisters to wait on the Lord for spouse and family while actively seeking to be on mission.
One of the most read posts on this blog was one a bit ago about female bishops…
So it caught my eye when Tom Wright (who I think is great) announced that despite the fact he’s in favour of female bishops he doesn’t think the Church of England should do it:
I read a story in the newspapers recently that the Church of England had started the process of potentially enabling ladies to serve as bishops. Of course there are two sides to the debate – one side didn’t ever want ladies to become vicars so will vote against this move (and likely lose), the other side believes in equal rights.
Now, I don’t want to start a massive argument here but I would like to genuinely ask a question of those in favour of female bishops & church leaders. Jesus appointed leaders over the early church in the form of his twelve disciples, all of whom were male.
My question is: why did he choose only men if he wanted us to have both men and women leading? Whenever I’ve asked this question before I’ve been answered in only one way, which is that men were leaders in the culture at that time…but the last time I checked Jesus wasn’t the biggest fan of conforming to society!
Genuinely, I’d like an answer – thanks