Commentary: Ascent on women in ministry, Part 1

Given the current conversation and controversy surrounding women in ministry, and the kind mention by the Baptist Standard of Ascent a few weeks ago, I have been asked multiple times, “What is Ascent’s position on women in ministry, especially since both ‘egalitarians’ and ‘complementarians’ fully participate in the movement?”

Since Ascent was Baptist-birthed—though not Baptist-bound—with many key leaders from around Texas, this question has had a particular resonance given the recent decisions of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the direction of the Canadian National Baptist Convention.

Setting the context

Before I answer the question asked of me so regularly, I would like to set the broader context as I see it.

First, for anyone to engage this question, I think every honest exegete of the Scriptures—heavy emphasis on honest—ought to be able to acknowledge there is biblical data for both complementarian and egalitarian views.

I believe what most serious students of Scripture do, while studying the matter, is:

1. Examine all the data.
2. Weigh the data and prioritize the data.
3. Decide how they believe they can faithfully practice the data.

However, everyone should be able to acknowledge their final decision still has data, even substantial data, that stands in tension with their held view. In fact, it is their prioritization of the data—and everyone prioritizes—that lands them in their position.

I land personally somewhere around the mutualist/soft egalitarian view (see below), because I think it best represents the sweep of the scriptural witness. Yet, I can easily sympathize with those who do not.

Range of views

In my experience, here are the range of views that arise from the effort described above. There are likely more than described here. Understanding these range of views should help all of us inform our relationships with other churches within cooperative or connectional structures.

1. Hard complementarian: a strict division of gender roles with men holding all leadership.

2. Soft complementarian with a restrictive lean connectionally.

3. Soft complementarian with an expansive lean connectionally. I think Jeff Iorg, current president of the SBC Executive Committee, holds this view, though I doubt he would ever state it.

4. Complementarian in oversight—such as elder, senior pastor—and preaching while being egalitarian elsewhere.

5. Complementarian in oversight while being egalitarian elsewhere, including preaching.

6. Shared leadership where men and women serve together in oversight and service without hierarchy. This usually involves some form of co-pastoring—not as husband and wife—and often, though not always, a team of more than two people.

7. Egalitarian in the church but slightly complementarian in the family. This is not a well-known view, but it is an important addition to the conversation and continuum.

I personally find it to be one of the most interesting theologically, as it dispels of the illogical claim often coming from complementarians that the government of the home has correspondence with the government of the church. It is based on an understanding of the family structure being an institution of the “present age” and the church being an institution of the “age to come.”

8. Mutualist with gender distinction, though not hierarchy. A view very similar to the above except there is no real authority “over” based on gender, but there is a recognition that gender is real, the genders are different and complementary in the most genuine sense and with good purpose.

9. Soft egalitarian.

10. Hard egalitarian.

In addition, there are also examples of co-pastoring between husband and wife that could fall into a few of the above categories.

Plus, there are plenty of examples where the views of the lead or senior pastor and the position of the church are not one and the same, even as there are plenty of churches who say they are egalitarian but would not likely select a female as senior pastor, though their position says they would.

Lastly, there is also the reality some may put the categories above in a different order on the continuum.

An illustration from the gridiron

In my explanation of this continuum, when it comes to churches cooperating or connecting with one another in some kind of association, I tell folks to imagine two sides of a football field—one comprised of all complementarians and the other comprised of a range of soft complementarians with an expansive lean, continuing down the field to egalitarians.

The complementarian who sits on the 49-yard line of either half is not much different from the other, except one leans toward cooperating connectionally with egalitarians—and the range of views in between—and one does not. The SBC most clearly leans in the “noncooperative” direction.

In contrast, Ascent is on the egalitarian side of the field. We support women in ministry—full stop. Such a position is expressed in our theological affirmations, our values, in our leadership, and in our practical work through efforts like the Junia Network.

However, leaders and churches from soft complementarians with an expansive lean all the way to hard egalitarians cooperate in Ascent. These views can cohere with one another rather easily on a connectional level.

In our leadership and practice, we are more toward the mutualist/soft egalitarian posture, but 49-yard soft complementarians are wanted and welcomed with joy, provided they know which side of the field they are on.

How is this possible?

I will detail that in Part 2, not only because it helps explain Ascent’s position, but it also provides a framework for other associations, networks, and conventions to consider that hold a similar space theologically and missiologically within the broader church in North America.

Chris Backert is senior director of the Ascent Movement.