The Church Split Argument
for no women in leadership
The Argument: “If our church allowed women to be pastors and leaders, there would be a huge church split. Many members who hold to the traditional ways would leave. People would be angry, distrustful, fearful, or suspicious. Why welcome that turmoil when we are getting along just fine right now?”
Counterargument 1: If no one in the church is asking for women pastors or leaders, if the gospel is not being slandered because of the exclusion or inclusion of women in these positions, if a church has no women gifted in leadership and plenty of men who are, then yes, the turmoil resulting in such a change seems ungrounded. But this argument sounds like half this church would be content with change and the other half would not.
Counterargument 2: This argument uses the current state of things to determine how to proceed: if it isn’t broken, why fix it? This is a reactive approach to church leadership rather than a proactive approach. A proactive approach sets goals, makes plans, is innovative, and forward-thinking. A reactive approach is more preventative, defensive, and unprepared. Churches, families, and businesses seem to thrive best with a proactive approach to improving leadership rather than a reactive approach.
Counterargument 3: This argument sounds like a sudden change would be sprung on a congregation without corporate discussions, input, prayer, forewarning, or explanations. Such a lack of preparation for a seemingly big change may indeed result in a church split. But the decision to include women in leadership does not necessitate a sudden shift with no implementation/transition plan.
Counterargument 4: This argument suggests that having women in leadership does not align with the church’s traditional values. For a fruitful discussion, members and leaders alike would need to agree on their church’s values and objectives. If adding women to leadership aligns with their church’s values and objectives, then there is grounds for change.
For more arguments and counterarguments, click on the links below:
I don’t know IF this is an issue in other bible centered churches since Granada has been my only church. I have never been an elder so i don’t know if it ever comes up amongst the elders as a point of discussion and eventual decision. I do know that the Apostle Paul said, in essence, that he does not allow a woman to teach (with ‘thus saith The Lord’ authority) in the churches he establishes. There are many scriptural teachings that i find extremely difficult to obey, many conversations with the indwelling Spirt where i become dangerously close to insubordination with God... however, it always comes back to what it says in the scriptures and whether or not i want to obey or disobey the written word.
I would say that we, the Church, just continue the way we have in this area for the last 2000 years. It has gotten us this far and seems to work well, if it is not broken, why tinker with it IF that tinkering could be going against the Spirit-led practice of an apostle who had an extremely unique personal relationship with the risen, ascended Son of God, which none of our elders seem to have.