Transforming Church Cultures with Women-led Egalitarianism
Background
I grew up around male-centred and male dominated leadership in the home and in the church. When I first had to grapple with what I believed about women leaders, I had to do a lot of reconstruction. It was in the late 1980s, a time when evangelical groups were picking sides on where they stood on the role of women in the church, bolstered by the launch of the Centre for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (est. 1987), and Christians for Biblical Equality (est. 1988). I remember reading both positions, and forming a stance I still hold to today. I take a ‘giftive’ approach to the issue and say with a tinge of humour, if God would stop giving gifts of leadership to women, then I wouldn’t be obligated to equip them for works of service in accordance with their gifts. What I recognized all too late, was that I was still participating in traditions build to uphold male norms of leadership training, development and advancement. This is where Anna Morgan’s work, Growing Women in Ministry, is instructive.
The Difference For Women Leaders
She has been able to frame what is unique for women leaders who have often had to learn how to adapt, camouflage, or settle within environments that do not fully appreciate the differences they experience. But rather than advocate for separated leadership environments, she has identified seven distinct but intertwined processes of leadership development that form women as leaders, to enable women to integrate in a shared environment with men.
Three of these processes are internal: spiritual development, cognitive development, and emotional intelligence development. These three aspects deal with the spirit, the mind, and the soul of a female leader. Two of these processes are external and involve a woman’s ministry environment and home life. The last two processes help form a female leader’s influence: building leadership relationships and developing effective public and private communication. These processes are made possible by key leadership opportunities and accelerated by validation. All the processes work together to form a female leader who has influence. [1]
Women and Men Shaping Ministry Environments Together
Morgan’s chapter on how external ministry environment shapes women leaders touched on some of the hard realities that women leaders face: “theological and cultural resistance, gender bias, a pay gap, and even at times harassment and abuse.” [2] For male leaders, these dynamics require thoughtful and unsettling reflection, and a willingness to explore together with women leaders how ministry environments can adapt to accompany the divinely shaped internal processes that they carry as women.
I see some new possibilities by co-creating the future of leadership development that is good for men and women. Men can be challenged to grow in the processes that women embrace more naturally. Morgan refers to Frances Adeney’s work on female mission theology. The themes that resonate with feminist approaches “include selflessness, embodiment, empowerment, relationality, invitation, celebration of diversity, unity, respect, humility, receptiveness, willingness to express emotion (even in scholarly works), dialogue and listening, working in community, education, and healing.36” [3] Men ought to grow in all of these areas as well, but may need women to mentor them. There is a strong resonance to themes picked up in Anabel Beerel’s critique of contemporary leadership theories in Rethinking Leadership, where she concludes that for all leaders in contemporary Western settings,
A combination of systemic leadership, adaptive leadership, and transpersonal leadership would seem to be an optimal mix. It would include the importance of new realities through environmental changes, systems thinking, the distinction between adaptive and technical work, and the important aspect of ego development and evolution. In the new world that is emerging, hopefully, new leaders will step forward who can lead with both head and heart and who will help shape a more sustainable world – a world of balance and harmony and a world filled with meaning and hope. [4]
Beerel’s manifesto here is contextually important for both men and women, but it does not favour one gender over another.
Leading in an Egalitarian Society
If this invitation for co-creating leadership pathways that honour full inclusion for women and men together is good for leaders regardless of gender, honours a giftive approach, affirms partnership [5], and humility [6], then it will also strengthen the influence of our shared witness for Christ in our time. In an era with increasing recognition to what women are able to uniquely bring to the leadership table, I firmly welcome their direction.
For leaders who serve in Canada, the question is clear: Will we honour the inter-gender relational dynamics of leadership, and offer mentor opportunities and interactions to both women and men in an emotionally-intelligent manner, creating what Morgan calls a ‘female-leader-affirming leadership culture’? [7] It will not only create healthier leaders, but will add to the credibility of our witness in an egalitarian society.
_______________
[1] Anna R.Morgan, Growing Women in Ministry: Seven Aspects of Leadership Development, 1st ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 2024, 53
[2] Growing, 127.
[3] Quote from Frances S. Adeney, Women and Christian Mission, 29, 31, 53, 59, 92–93, 98–99, in Growing, 68.
[4] Anabel Beerel, Rethinking Leadership: A Critique of Contemporary Theories (1st ed., Routledge), 2021, 387.
[5] Growing, 162. See also Ruth Haley Barton, Equal to the Task: Men and Women in Partnership, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity), 1998.
[6] See also Wilmer G. Villacorta, Tug of War: The Downward Ascent of Power, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 2017. Growing, 34.
[7] Growing, 162.
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh is a catalyst for peacemaking and intercultural teams, speaker, theologian and consultant. He is the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and the Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.15 responses to “Transforming Church Cultures with Women-led Egalitarianism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Joel,
I appreciate your giftive approach. Not that it upholds the ideas of male leadership, but I see it more like Peter’s vision of the sheet of animals descending from heaven. Just as God told Peter to not call anything unclean that he has called clean, if God has gifted women the gifts of leadership how can we deny the use of their gifting.
Have your family and the church you grew up in adapted their views at all over the years regarding women in leadership?
Hey Jeff. I am not sure I understand the correlation to Peter’s vision, unless you mean that Peter had a clear interpretation of God’s ways, and it was God who gave him an opposing idea and commanded him to not reject it.
The giftive approach is a bit like that: ‘don’t call un-gifted those whom the Lord has gifted.’
I have found that this approach has created space for women leaders among those who believed that to be unacceptable. The tropes are that ‘women trying to lead will always fail’ or ‘when women lead, men leave’, yet there are exceptional, pioneering women who lead out of calling, gifting, and a supportive environment who draw in men and women together. Some of the church denominations I grew up in have adapted. Within my family, not all have adjusted, but it has given space for the women to lead without restraint.
Joel, that is exactly what I meant.
Joel, I love your focus on men and women co-creating a way forward. Often, men will implement solutions but have not invited women to speak into the solution. How might we have those conversations that lead to co-creation and co-delivery?
Graham, I think the incorporating a fuller awareness of the processes of leader formation and affirmation that Morgan has identified in her research gives space for co-creation.
I am in ongoing conversation with Cathie Ostapchuk, from the WEA Women’s Commission, EFC Partnership Catalyst and co-founder of Gather Women about equipping Denominations and Church leadership environments for more fulsome, women-included planning prep and execution of ideas.
Our denomination is one of the EFC Affiliates who are participating in the “Women in the Canadian Evangelical Church” research project whose results are coming up in 2026, which has been led by women and men together.
TAC may benefit from encouragement to participate with others who are acknowledging our conversational creation and delivery need to become more gender-inclusive.
Thanks Joel. In the contexts your are in, what are some practical next steps that can be taken to create the culture you write about in your post?
Joel, my question is similar to Ryan’s. What is a practical step or change you want to make to help bring ‘female-leader-affirming leadership culture’ to your context?
Ryan and Kari. Because I serve across the breadth of 50 Denominations who vary on their theology and practice, and because I work on a global scale, where cultural norms affect this (see my question on Glyn’s post), I support women-led initiatives, and value, model and support co-creation and female-led work within the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Movement. These have a way of bringing influence.
Hi Joel, I am curious how the current congregation where you worship, and the sectors where you serve, approach women in leadership. Your post seems to be considering how to implement a deeper dive into developing female leadership. If I am reading it correctly, how do you think it will be received?
Diane. Thanks for this question. the deeper dive works both incrementally and generationally. I’m not one for ‘quotas.’ Morgan shared the stats in the most egalitarian denominations, and they have not achieved 50% of leadership. It’s more about creating a culture that welcomes, affirms and values the development of women leaders at every level. It will always be received in myriad ways, but through identification and inclusion, and male-female allyship, things move along in a simple yet God-honouring way. Rob Dixon’s book on being “Allies in Ministry” comes out next year.
Hi Joel,
How can male leaders actively participate in reshaping ministry environments to address systemic challenges faced by women, such as gender bias and exclusion, without reinforcing existing power imbalances?
Shela, there’s no perfect way to do this. To men, my challenge would be, ‘Speak with women, not for them.’ Also, there is an opportunity for men to increase in self-awareness. As a preacher, I formerly was unaware of any womanist perspectives on passages, or illustrations that consider the range of needs across genders, as well as cultures, generations, ability, and learning styles. Agarwal in her chapter on Gender Bias in “Sway” said, “there is change, but it is glacial.” (251).
Joel,
I love the line that if God would some gifting women with leadership capabilities then you wouldn’t have to empower them. As you work across denominations has this issue been a factor in the willingness of bringing people to the table?
Hey Adam.
For my own denomination, it is my impression that “complementarians” are feeling more marginalized, and a few of these pastors and churches are responding by withdrawal from the EMCC. Yet most have been willing to move forward with women and men shaping the leadership landscape together with grace and curiosity.
Joel, I love this post, thank you. My question is related to your response to Adam’s question, I think. As you look at those in your denomination who are reevaluating their commitment to complementarianism, what was it that caused you to change your stance originally? Is there anything to offer others who are willing to wrestle with that question, as you did?