Jory Micah: If Matt Chandler Had a Degree, Sopposedly He'd Be an Egalitarian
William Murphy. Source. CC BY-SA 2.0 Recently Jory Micah, a relatively well-known advocate of women pastors, argued that Matt Chandler teaches the most unjust evangelical doctrine (that women cannot be pastors) and that this is due to his lack of seminary education. She continued to criticize Chandler on Twitter and explain her position:
Wake up folks.@MattChandler74 is planting churches through @Acts29 all over the world & spreading complementarian injustice rapidly.
— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) February 2, 2017
In Micah's view, male pastors without seminary education like Chandler push complementarian teachings because they are insecure, thus perpetuating the injustice of sending women to seminary without the possibility of receiving a pastoral position. And this scenario in which a woman goes to seminary without gaining a pastoral position is what makes complementarianism the most unjust doctrine of evangelicalism. Seminaries admit female students with the promise of a pastoral career, which does not materialize and female students are left with 80 grand in debt (see also: here):
Women are graduating from complementarian seminaries with 80 grand debt & can't get pastoral jobs, but men can get jobs with no seminary.
— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) February 2, 2017
I find Micah's critique of Chandler and of evangelicalism's supposedly most unjust doctrine wanting. In fact, I find her critique of Chandler to be unfounded, assuming that an educated person could only hold to the egalitarian position (women can be pastors). I also find her critique of evangelicalism to be parochial, something that can only proffered in America which is supposedly the centre of the evangelical faith. Critique of Chandler Micah cites insecurity over lack of education as the reason why Chandler and others like him prevent women from partaking of pastoral roles in their churches. Her critique seems over-the-top. In the first place, Christian traditions across the globe employ various educated leaders who would essentially agree with Chandler. The Roman Catholic tradition, The Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Coptic tradition, the international Anglican tradition, and others hold to a complementarian position on pastoral leadership. It is really a Western emphasis, to some degree, to push an egalitarian position as the rational position, and many would be aghast to hear Micah claim that education leads to egalitarianism. Micah might respond by saying that these traditions have been influenced by imperialism:
.@wagraham I wrote my ma thesis on the early church & comp doctrine didn't exist at all in the first two centuries. Women led in all roles.
— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) February 2, 2017
.@wagraham it was not until the empire got involved with Christianity that patriarchy started getting mixed in, in the 3rd or 4th centuries
— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) February 2, 2017
In my experience in reading the documents of the early church, a practice I have engaged in academically and for pleasure, I have yet to see evidence of an egalitarian church in either the 2nd or 1st century. Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD) can say without explanation: "Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned." The death of Perpetua, the wisdom of Macrina, and the godly influence of Monica represent the high respect and valuable ministry that women had in the early years of the church. But I am not sure I could locate even one example in the early church where a woman lead a church as the pastor or bishop. Women did, however, prophecy in the early church as the Montanist group illustrates. To cite one example at length, consider how Justin Martyr describes the early church's worship and uses only masculine terms to speak of the pastor:
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine to the presider (τᾦ πρεστῶτι) of the brethren. After he takes these things, he thanks and honours the Father of all by the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Apologia Prima, PG, 65). And on the day which is named "sun," all who live in cities or the country gather in once place. The memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as time permits. When he has stopped reading (παυσαμἐνου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντας), the presider (ὁ προεστὼς) encourages and exhorts through the word towards the imitation of these good things. (Apologia, Prima, PG, 67)
Justin narrates male leadership within early Christian worship services, using gender specific nouns as he describes the function of the presider (pastor) of the service. Critique of Evangelicalism Micah also calls complementarian doctrine the most unjust doctrine of the evangelical church, because women go into debt when they go to seminary and cannot find jobs afterwards. In response, I note two things. First, wouldn't this make seminaries and not evangelicalism unjust for admitting women, who incur 80 thousand dollars of debt in the false promise of employment? If it is the case that women can find only a few pastoral jobs but seminaries sell their education to these women as a means to get a pastoral job, then is not the seminary at fault for false advertising? Should not a responsible seminary admit only 10 instead of a 100 women into their institution because only 10 women will find jobs not 100? If Micah is only thinking of complementarian seminaries, then her critique does not make sense. Complementarian seminaries do train women, but they clearly articulate by their complementarian confession that they promise no pastoral role for a women who graduates. In this case, a woman attends, knowing that she cannot become a pastor afterwards, though she may engage in other churchly duties or in positions outside the church. How is it the seminary or evangelical church's fault in this scenario that a woman cannot get pastoral position? I suppose Micah would respond that the first situation is caused by unjust complementarian pastors without proper education and the second situation remains a problem because it is part of this larger unjust system. And this leads to my second response: Micah's critique is a critique that only makes sense if one thinks that America is all that matters in terms of Evangelical Christianity. Only in the West does her unjust accusation make sense. Global traditions of Christianity, as noted, flourish under the doctrines of complementarianism. In the US, where the seminary industry has success and a visible minority of Christians advocate for egalitarianism, Micah can cite lack of education and male insecurity as the source of complementarian theology and gain applause. Hers is an imperious claim. The empire of America and its evangelical culture warriors push for women in pastoral ministry and anyone who gets in the legion's way are, of course, barbarians. The uneducated peasants must be pushed aside for the land-holding equites. If anyone is at fault for women being in debt after seminary, it is the seminary who promised falsely that jobs were available. It is also the fault of ivory tower westerners who feel that their piece of the world (be it Canada or the US) is the whole picture of the Evangelical church, who advocate that women should go into pastoral ministry when they know that positions don't exist for them. The billions of global Christians and the history of Christianity matter very little to one who has been educated in North America. After all, can the church really be just if it hasn't bought into the ideas of modern Western exegesis? Conclusion Complementariansim is part of the churchly tradition and the position of the majority of global Christianity. I would also argue, though not here, that the Bible itself advocates a kind of complementarianism. I am sure Jory Micah has experienced not a little unkindness from men in ministry, and I don't doubt that some of her critiques are valid. We must be aware that numerous abuses of complementarianism exist due to an union of patriarchalism and complementarianism. Along with Micah, Christians of any stripe should always and clearly condemn the abuses of patriarchy and return to a Biblical form of complementarianism. One that can affirm the great privilege of being a woman or of being a man.