Why Aren’t Complementarians Training Women to Teach and Preach?

Frontier church planting and missions can helpfully expose hidden weaknesses in Christianity where it is more established. Like trying to carve a homestead out of the wilderness, there’s something stark and clarifying about planting churches where there are none. You quickly find out there are certain very important skills and tools that you need, but which you didn’t really prioritize back home.

For us, our time on the field has exposed that many complementarian churches are not training even their most gifted women in how to teach and preach the Bible. They are training their women to value good teaching and preaching from the Bible, and to discern good teaching and preaching from the fluff – and these are very good things. Yet it needs to be said that sitting under good preaching and recognizing it is not the same thing as being trained in how to do it. One might sit under good preaching for decades and not be able to prepare for and deliver a good lesson or sermon. This is because training is needed that shows, behind the scenes, what the process looks like to faithfully study, structure, write, and deliver a sermon or lesson. And then that training needs to be cemented with practice.

When complementarian churches send their women to the mission field, where ministry must often be done in gender-segregated environments and where female missionaries vastly outnumber male missionaries, these women are finding themselves in contexts where teaching or preaching to other women is needed. However, they suddenly realize that they are unequipped to study a text, prepare it to be taught, and then deliver it skillfully. Once again, years of sitting under faithful teaching and preaching will not often lead to the ability to reproduce that teaching or preaching. Nor will years of personal and small group Bible study, as valuable as these experiences are.

This is a curious oversight because we convictional complementarians are not against women teaching and preaching. We just believe that God in his wisdom has designated specific environments for that kind of ministry to take place. There is some variation among complementarians on what is biblical and what is not, but in general, most believe that women are called to teach and preach authoritatively to other women and to children (Titus 2:3-5). And that certain forms of public verbal ministry are also beneficial in the broader mixed congregation as well, such as prayer, testimonies, and other related forms of sharing (1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14:26, Acts 21:9). All of these common forms of ministry by women are understood as taking place under the authority of the church’s pastors, and can and do take place without women functioning in the authority, office, or role of elders/pastors/overseers. This kind of posture is, in my view, the best way to thread the needle given the nuanced picture the New Testament gives us for women in the church. It’s not a simple all-or-nothing, but a thoughtful yes and thoughtful no.

I assume that most of my readers will be complementarian, but even if that is the case, it must be repeated that we believe these distinctions are those of spiritual role, not of spiritual value or equality, nor necessarily of ability. Men and women are indeed created different in important ways, but they are both made equally in the image of God, and in Christ they are both equal coheirs of eternal life (1 Pet 3:7, Gen 1:27). Men and women can both possess strong gifts of teaching and preaching. But we believe that the Bible teaches that God has ordained that only qualified men take the role and ministry of authoritative teacher and preacher when the church is gathered for worship as a spiritual family. In our postmodern age, God’s reasons for doing this are increasingly hard for us to resonate with and understand, but it’s precisely places like this where we find out if we are Christians of the Book, rather than merely Christians of our particular slice of time and culture.

We should remember that women and children make up approximately three-quarters of most churches. That means that certain women will be spiritually qualified to teach and preach to around 75% of those in the congregation. Men won’t sit under the teaching and preaching of these women, but that’s no reason to assume that women don’t need training for the many opportunities they have to serve the other three-quarters of the church body. Few would say they want lower quality teaching and preaching in our kids’ and women-only gatherings, but if we’re not actually training the women in our churches to teach and preach, then we are in some sense showing that we feel a subpar ministry of the word for the women and kids is just fine after all.

To bring it back to a frontier missions context, if my wife or a woman on my team overseas has the chance to preach the word to a room full of Muslim or believing Central Asian women, I want her to bring it. We need her to be able to teach or preach in a way that is faithful to the text and in a way that is skillful so that the hearer is not distracted by an unclear or poorly structured message. But most of our female colleagues currently being sent to the mission field will need to receive this kind of training after they arrive, because they’re not getting it from their sending churches and seminaries. If we’re not training our missionary women in these ways, some of our most gifted saints, then are we training any women in this way?

My wife and I have raised this issue in a number of contexts over the years and the response tends to be pretty lukewarm. My sense is that there is an emotional discomfort with introducing more formalized teaching and preaching training for women because of a fear that that might somehow lead toward something egalitarian down the line. How exactly this would happen is unclear. But that anxious feeling is enough to keep us from wrestling with the problem until we have clarity – and then actually changing our structures to account for the need. Yet there is nothing about training complementarian women to teach and preach that means they will somehow become egalitarian in the process. In fact, if they are receiving better training in rightly dividing the word, chances are they’ll become even more established in their convictions.

Similar to Christians who won’t partner with others who differ theologically because of a vague fear of compromise, Christians who won’t train women to teach and preach because of a similar angst first need to pursue greater clarity. Once they have conscience-clarity on the places and times where women are called and free to teach and preach, then they can go about the practicalities of equipping them for this ministry without fear. But if that basic work of clarity is not done, the anxious fog of potential compromise will often keep any movement from happening.

But would women preaching or teaching to other women or to children somehow undermine the elders’ ministry of the word? This is the main thrust of the objections we’ve heard over the years. This could indeed happen if such preaching and teaching were happening independently of pastoral leadership (the same goes for lone ranger men preaching and teaching). But healthy churches often train and raise up men to preach and teach who themselves do not become pastors, and this is understood to be simply another way the saints are equipped to do the work of the ministry. When a faithful brother is mentored in teaching and preaching and then goes on to do this at a men’s breakfast, at the homeless shelter, or at a student gathering, this is not viewed as a threat to the pulpit – but instead a submissive extension of it. The same can be true of women preaching and teaching other women inside and outside of the church.

What would it take for complementarian churches to provide this kind of training for their women who are preparing for ministry contexts such as the mission field, church planting teams, or women’s ministries? This will require not just answering the concerns and ambiguous fears we might have, but also creating structures that are more fully consistent with our beliefs.

At the very least, training and practice are needed. Women must be given access to training that will help them learn how to teach and preach expositionally – such as the excellent Simeon Trust workshops. But then, just like any learner, they will need opportunities to practice that skill on the front end in order to become proficient. They will also need opportunities to practice over time so that they don’t grow rusty, but instead steadily improve. The local church is the very best place for these opportunities to be offered.

Practically, many local churches don’t yet have women who can lead this kind of training, so pastors will need to find appropriate ways to listen to and give feedback to women who are learning to teach and preach. Can this be done without violating the principle that women should not teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)? Given the fact that the pastors are present to train and assess, I would contend that there is no problem with the authority dynamics going on here. After all, a bible college student taking Preaching I is not somehow exercising authority over his professor as he preaches his sermon for a grade. For churches who might not be comfortable with this, there may be gifted women in sister churches who can instead lead this kind of time.

But I imagine the greatest hurdle toward training women to teach and preach is simple busyness. Faithful pastors are often swamped with the many needs of ministry. So, in the place of training, a very understandable trust and grateful relief are extended to the servant-hearted women who fill the teaching roles needed in the church. This may be accompanied by the (faulty) assumption that since these women are sitting under the faithful preaching of the word week in and week out, that will be enough. Or, that these women will be able to train themselves through reading, podcasts, and other resources – and to be fair, some do. But many will struggle, wishing they had the chance to apprentice in this weighty and dangerous work. It’s very understandable that pastoral busyness has prevented women from being trained to teach and preach, but surely even the busiest church could get creative and fit in a Saturday morning training every quarter or so. In the end, we will prioritize what we value.

Let us consider how much better it would be if we intentionally equipped our sisters to teach and preach. This is so that when they find themselves in the appropriate contexts, they are free to bring it – to proclaim the word faithfully and skillfully because they’ve seen it modeled. But more than that, because they’ve also been trained, given chances for practice and feedback, and given the freedom and trust to go out and do it well.

I know this would make a difference on the front lines of the mission field. I’d wager it would make a difference in your local church as well.

To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.

For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.

Photos are from Unsplash.com

Preachers, Watch Your Idioms

Our home church in Kentucky is quite diverse. Over the years, there has been in-service translation in a number of different languages. Currently, we have a crew of Afghan believers who sit up in the balcony. One of them with good English translates the sermon for his friends sitting around him. Occasionally, a brother preaching will use a particularly confusing idiom and I will glance up at their section, wondering if the translator will even make an attempt at that one or just let it go. There are times where he doesn’t seem to know what to do with a given phrase, and even from far away I can see the struggle. Should he try to translate it, and risk communicating the wrong meaning, or just let it go and hope it wasn’t too important of a point?

The same thing that makes idioms so useful (and even fun) is what also makes them so dangerous. Idioms are phrases that vividly communicate a package of meaning in their local language context, but a meaning that can’t be understand from the direct sense of the words themselves. Because they are missing the cultural and historical context, an outsider listening isn’t able to understand that the meaning of the whole is completely different from the meaning of the parts. Consider English idioms such as “break a leg” or “shoot the breeze.” If you were an English learner, how would you ever guess that these phrases mean “good luck” and “casual conversation,” respectively?

This can be true even in the same language, as I have I sometimes learned the hard way. “Shotgun wedding” did not mean what I thought it did. And yes, I learned this by using it in the wrong way around my future in-laws. Growing up as an American in Melanesia with missionaries from other English-speaking countries, we also found out that there were certain phrases of everyday American English that had very problematic meanings in other dialects of English. “Say I had a nose-bleed, not what you would say in America,” is one of these early lessons that I remember receiving from an Australian auntie.

But if idioms can be problematic even from one dialect of a language to another, they are exponentially more problematic when it comes to translation from one language to another. I’ve written before about the hazards of second-language sermons, where you think that saying “we trust in the person and work of Christ” means, simply, trusting in who Jesus is and what he did. But your trusty local-believer-sermon-checker just laughs and tells you that you just said we trust in the relatives of Jesus, since “person and work of” is a local idiom for someone’s kinfolk. Never mind when you offhandedly say things like “on fire for Jesus.”

When preaching in another language, one learns quickly to purge your English manuscript from as many idioms as possible, since the idioms of your language almost never translate directly – and even seemingly-direct phrases can prove to be local idioms. But if you are not preaching in another language, and instead preaching in your own tongue, it’s all too easy to forget about your idioms. If any of your congregation are non-native English speakers, or if there is any translation going on in your service, then for the sake of clarity, you’ve got to watch your idioms.

If you want to pay more attention to clarity in this area, here are some practical ways to do this:

Know your audience. Watching your idioms is very helpful if your audience is linguistically diverse. But if you are speaking (or writing, as I am here) primarily to native English speakers or those with very high levels of English, this is not as much of a concern.
Make sure your main points are not expressed in idiomatic language. This ensures that everyone present is at least able to understand the main outline of your teaching. Instead of “Christian, Jesus calls the shots,” say, “Christian, Jesus is our leader.”
Scan your manuscript beforehand for any idioms that could be replaced with simpler, more direct language. Then, replace as many of them as possible.
If you really like a given idiom, you can still use it, just be sure to define it when you use it. A simple half-sentence definition following the idiom means you can (ahem) have your cake and eat it too.
Regularly ask your translators or non-native English speaking attendees if there are phrases you use that are hard to understand. If you have a regular rhythm of sermon review, this could fit well into that time. If you have not learned another language, you might be unaware of what is idiomatic speech versus literal. In this case, believers from other language groups can help you learn how to “see” the idioms your language is full of.
Americans, watch your sports idioms. This is a very common area where American preachers, preachers, and writers assume common understanding when it’s often not there.
Pray for interpreters and translators. Their job is not easy and they often have limited time to weigh the pros and cons of a more meaning-based translation vs. word for word. Strive to make their job easier, not harder.

Preachers, our goal is clarity. Paul asks for prayer that he might make his proclamation of Christ clear, which is how he knows he ought to speak (Col 4:3-4). If Paul needed help with this, then so do we. Paying attention to our idioms can be one part of how we strive for greater clarity.

I’ll leave you with a classic video that highlights what can happen if you are preaching through translation. While it’s rarely ever this bad, many a missionary can indeed resonate with what is parodied here.

To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.

For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.

Photos are from Unsplash.com

Please Pass the Meat

The sermon was a rough one. The visiting American pastor never had us turn to a specific text. Instead, his half hour encouragement was a creative string of allusions to bible stories, anecdotes, and illustrations. Everyone in the gathering who had gotten out their bibles eventually put them away.

I sighed and looked around the room. Once again, half a dozen locals were attending the international church service. It was bad enough that the expat community was being served the equivalent of spiritual yogurt water (in case you’re not familiar with yogurt water, it’s not very much by way of sustenance). But locals tend to view Western pastors with a kind of awe, and often accept any content or form of teaching as faithful and worthy of emulation – simply because of the category of person who is delivering it.

I grimaced, seeing that a couple of our church-plant’s English-speaking local guys were in attendance, Darius* and Alan*. They seemed to be focusing intently on the sermon.

My wife and I shifted in our seats uncomfortably and I reminded myself that the mission field is merely a reflection of the state of evangelicalism in the sending countries. It’s not realistic to believe that our corner of Central Asia will somehow be isolated from some of the West’s more unfortunate Christian-ish exports. Joyce Meyer has already been translated into the local language, anti-Trinitarian cults have made their appearance (and are allegedly financing one of our former leaders-in-training), and the satellite TV channels are full of Benny Hinn-styled preachers. At least this sermonette’s main point was to encourage us to not be discouraged in sharing the gospel. Not a bad aim at all. But alas, the method and modeling were definitely lamentable.

After the service was finished, Darius made his way over to me.

“So, what did you think of the sermon?” he asked.

I bit my lip and half-smiled/half-grimaced, not sure what I should say. Darius has not always been the strongest when it comes to discernment, and tends to be quite drawn to the novel and the exciting. But he leaned in.

“That guy didn’t even have a text!” Darius whispered loudly, gesturing wildly with both his arms in the expressive body language of our locals (I have often maintained that our people group’s intonation and hand gestures make them the Italians of Central Asia). “He just told a bunch of stories… and he even added some details that aren’t there!”

My eyebrows rose in welcome surprise. Darius was not taken in by the creative delivery. Instead, his new – but apparently growing – convictions of ministry alarm bells had been going off.

“Darius,” I told him, “I’m very encouraged that you were concerned about that sermon. You’re right. He didn’t have a text he was explaining. He never asked us to open our Bibles. He did mess up some of the details of the Bible stories he told. Take note, when we have an opportunity to feed the people of God, we should attempt to prepare a feast, not merely pass out some snacks.”

Darius smiled and threw up his hands again. “What can I do? I learned from you guys about preaching.” Then he made his way over to the table where the sunflower seeds and chai were set out.

This final comment was particularly encouraging and humbling. My teammate and I who serve as temporary elders of our church plant are not eloquent preachers in the local language. Perhaps we will be five or ten years down the road, but right now we make it our aim to simply be clear, and to model basic expositional preaching in a second language – that is, preaching that makes the main points of the text the main points of the sermon and which seeks to faithfully explain the intent of the author. I’m still too tied to my manuscript. My colleague has more freedom in this way, but faces his own unique challenges while preaching in the local tongue from an English outline to our small group of believers. We often make comical language mistakes.

“We are insane,” instead of “We are not complete yet,” and “What should you do if you have a heart attack when you want want to give an offering?” instead of “What if you have a divided heart…?” have been a couple of our more recent bloopers. May God bless the long-suffering ears of these local believers who sit under our teaching week after week.

We have deeply invested in the simple method of steady, weekly, regular proclamation and explanation of God’s word. No flash, no bling. We sit in a circle of chairs and the preacher sits with another chair in front of him to serve as his pulpit. We took a couple years to get through Matthew and are currently taking a couple years to get through John, interspersed now and then by pressing topics or a recent series on the characteristics of a healthy church.

At times we are tempted to feel as if this steady sowing of God’s word is not accomplishing much. Much contemporary missiology calls into question the act of preaching altogether, alleging that it is a Western form import from the Reformation and not as effective as things such as DBS – Discovery Bible Studies. We don’t really buy those arguments though. Most of them betray a woeful ignorance of global church history (historically, preachers always, always emerge when new peoples are reached or awakenings take place), not to mention an under-baked understanding of the centrality of proclamation throughout the Scriptures.

The hardest doubts to handle have to do simply with how slowly people grow and change. After five years of this kind of unpacking of God’s word, how is it that more has seemingly not sunk in? How is it that character is not maturing more quickly and knowledge taking deeper root? Are we doing something wrong?

In faith, we believe that an unrelenting teaching and preaching ministry will eventually result in faithfulness and fruitfulness. But it sure is encouraging when we get to see a glimmer of that future. Darius noticed some very important things during that English church service. That noticing was evidence of growth in spiritual discernment. And spiritual discernment – that comes from soaking in the Word of God.

Preachers and teachers, keep on preaching and teaching, in season and out. And if by chance you ever get to preach on the mission field, please, for our sake, preach the Word. Don’t dumb it down either for the missionaries or for the locals.

Pass on serving mere yogurt water. Instead, serve them up a feast of some good solid meat.

*names changed for security

Photo by DJ Johnson on Unsplash