« Back to Issue 17

Do Women Complement Men in Ministry?

By Ruth Gouldbourne.

Complimentarity in ministry is language which we use easily and often appropriately of the different ways in which men and women minister, and therefore of the strengths and mutual aid which they can offer one another. As one who has been shaped by traditions which have not affirmed the ordained ministry as a valid calling for women, it has been a language and a model which has been very powerful in helping me to make sense of my calling and my perception of ministry. However, I want to suggest in this article that it is not always a helpful way of approaching the mutual ministry which men and women share, not because it is an invalid model, but because it can, without careful scrutiny, continue to undergird assumptions which might be better questioned.

In the early stages of my thinking about and then practising ministry, there was a clear agenda of complementarity; which I affirmed and found helpful. However, it began to be less life-giving as a language as I explored my own calling to ministry within a congregation, and found that I was being expected, and more important, was expecting myself, to fulfil certain roles, not because I was particularly gifted in them, but because that was what women did.

The role I found it hard to question, because it was not seen so much as a role as an innate capacity, was that of nurturer and care-giver. The normally unspoken, but sometimes explicit, understanding of complementarity in ministry which surrounded much of my training, and my early service in churches was that where women were particularly strong (and by implication, where men were weak and needed help) was in the giving of pastoral support and care. Such an assumption may come as a surprise to ministers of an older generation. It is my hunch that the explicit development of such an assumption parallels the rise in the managerial model of ministry, which has increased the emphasis, in certain types of ministry, on patterns of leadership, management and enabling which draw heavily (and sometimes helpfully) on modern management techniques. Whether or not that is the case, it is my experience that the general expectation among churches and among ministers is that women are better care givers, and encouragers - and that this is what is meant by complementarity in ministry.

I do not want to give the impression that this is a mistaken pattern. Many women are gifted in these areas and do offer something very particular in the way of a ministry of nurture and support. My contention is that the assumption to which such a pattern can lead (namely that women will fill such roles by virtue of being women, and that men filling them may be only second best) is a denial of what could be meant by complementarity in its fullest form.

An unbiblical assumption

There are three main problems with this sort of assumption. First, it is not biblical - for two reasons. It suggests that there is an incompleteness in an individual which means that they are less than the fullness of humanity. Obviously, there is a level at which this is true. We are none of us complete, and the biblical emphasis on community and body makes this clear. We need each other to function as the Body of Christ. We need each other to discover the meaning of humanity in all its richness and variety. But we all need each other, in all our variety, not simply in the differences between male and female. To argue that complementarity has something particular to say about the roles of men and women is to limit it too closely. While the writer of Genesis says that the image of God was represented by the man and the woman, it is surely in their capacity of presenting the whole potential of humanity, rather than simply the class 'male' and the class 'female'.

The other reason why it is not true to the biblical truth is that, by extension, it would suggest that Christ was less than whole, since his earthly ministry was that of a man. This is surely not a helpful road to go down, for several reasons. It is not the biblical witness that Christ was less than the fullness of humanity, just as he was the fullness of the Godhead. To suggest that Christ does not represent women as well as men in being human is to leave open the possibility that women are not saved in the same way as men. And, finally, we can see in the ministry of Christ a great emphasis on nurture and care which, according to the complementarity model I have encountered, is a path down which men need not follow him.

The truth is that complementarity reaches much further than male and female.

The need to question cultural stereotypes

However, the issue of complementarity as developed from the words in Gen. 1.27 would not be a problem, and would be open to the patterns I am suggesting, if we could use it to question the cultural and social norms which all too often become our underlying assumptions. To speak of women as bearing the affective, caring and nurturing role is to perpetuate a cultural stereotype in a way which is unhelpful for all of us, male and female, who share in ministry. It carries two assumptions with it: that men cannot care and that women can do nothing else. Put like that, the absurdity of the suggestion is clear. Put like that, most people would unhesitatingly reject the position. However, it remains the case that, when we interview people about their call to ministry, it takes a conscious effort not to concentrate on the caring aspects with women, but to include those same caring aspects in the discussion with men. It remains the case that congregations will, if looking to strengthen a team, especially in terms of pastoral care, often look for a woman, while in searching for an evangelist, for example, the expectation is that a man will more appropriately fill that role.

It is true that many women are gifted in the capacities of nurture and care. It is also true that many more are socialised into such positions, and carry them out with skill, dedication and ability. But there remain the women for whom these are not gifts, and the men for whom they are and who then find themselves unable to minister in their strengths because the ground is already taken. When we did not recognise women in ordained ministry, there were more openings for men to work in these gifts and to offer them for the blessing of the church. Now that we have recognised the call of God to women as well as men, we must be careful not to close down certain areas of ministry in the name of complementarity.

Personality analyses of clergy

The third question I want to raise arises from a survey of various clergy based on personality theory conducted by Professor Leslie Francis. In it, he has come up with some interesting conclusions about female and male characteristics in those who go into ministry1 . He points out that, using the Eysenck personality analysis, in the general population men record higher scores than women on the indices of extraversion and psychoticism, while women record higher scores on the indices of neurotics and the lie scale. However, on applying the scales to a large mixed group of ordinands, Francis drew the following conclusions: male ordinands are characteristically introverts; female ordinands score significantly lower than the general female population on the neuroticism scale and there is, on the whole, an apparent gender reversal among male and female clergy. From these conclusions he goes on to suggest that:

"in the population as a whole the pattern of working relationships and expectations established between men and women is formed, at least in part, on well established gender differences in basic personality profiles. In the population as a whole, men tend to be more extroverted than women. This means that, according to Eysenck's account of extraversion, men are characterised as more sociable, lively, assertive, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent and venturesome. In the population as a whole women tend to be more neurotic than men are. This means, according to Eysenck's account of neuroticism, women are characterised as more anxious, depressed, tense, irrational shy, moody, emotional, suffering from feelings of guilt and low self-esteem. In the population as a whole, women record lower scales on the psychoticism scale. This means that, according to Eysenck's account of pyschoticism, women are characterised as more empathic, unselfish, altruistic, warm, peaceful and generally more tender-minded. although possibly less socially decisive individuals. Among contemporary Anglican ordinands, however, these established gender differences are radically disturbed. According to the psychoticism scores, the female ordinands are no less tough-minded than the male ordinands. According to the neuroticism scores, the female ordinands are no less stable than the male ordinands. On both of these criteria the female ordinands record a characteristically masculine profile. According to the extraversion scores the female ordinands emerge as slightly more extraverted than men in general, while the male ordinands emerge as slightly more introverted than women in general. On this criterion, the gender expectations are reversed, with the female ordinands recording a characteristically masculine profile and the male ordinands recording a characteristically feminine profile."2

If the majority of men entering the ministry score highly in the categories which are normally associated with nurturing and care, are we damaging them if we limit the possibilities of such roles being carried out? And likewise, if the majority of women entering the ministry do not function best in these roles, what are we denying ourselves as churches in putting them into such positions?

Conclusions, recommendations and unanswered questions

I believe that the areas I have highlighted leave us with several areas to look at more closely. First, there is clearly more work to be done on what it means to say that we are, both individually and in community, bearers of the image of God. There is a profound truth in asserting that we do not bear this image solely as individuals. But if we get no further in thinking of it than men and women needing each other to supply what the other does not have, then we have not progressed very far. We are still viewing ourselves and each other in categories rather than in our uniqueness, and categorisation will lead to a diminution of the possibilities we allow each other. The image of God is surely to be discovered in community, but that is community in all its richness, variety and struggle, and not simply in the polarity of male and female.

Second, we still have some hard questioning to do about the roles and positions we 'automatically' assign to men and women in ministry. How much are such roles determined by individual gifts and calling, and how much by the cultural and social patterns which shape how we see ourselves and others? The limit of expectation we put on each other as a result of such patterns can lead us to the position of denying the riches of the gifts God has given the church, not through any ill-will, but simply because we forget to think about other possibilities.

Third, what are the patterns we allow to flourish, and sometimes even set up ourselves with regard to expectations about ministry? As more and more women enter ministry, and often undertake 'difficult' placements, are we truly exploring the ways in which God is calling us to develop ministry and church life for the 21st century, or are we perpetuating older patterns which now no longer serve? And, as a footnote to that, are we at all in danger of seeing the pattern that has obtained in other professions that, as women become more accepted, so the status of the position is diminished (see for example, the history of typists)? I do not for a moment want to suggest that the status of ministry is something to be protected, except insofar as any calling from God is a privilege to be taken seriously. If the gifts of men in nurture and care are sidelined in the expectation that women can do it better, then we may find that men who would otherwise be fulfilling their call in the churches are serving elsewhere - just as women have done for generations, when their gifts and calling were not recognised.

All of this is very preliminary. It may well be that some reading this have done more thinking and exploration on these issues, and can take them forward or want to disagree with me. On either count, I would be delighted to hear. Of one thing I am sure. When God calls us to the service of the church in ministry, it is as individuals, uniquely gifted and with the weaknesses that are ours as well. We are not called in categories, nor can we serve in such. To explore complementarity in all its fullness is to receive God's gifts and to discover how much more God has to give.

The Revd Ruth Gouldbourne lectures in Church History at Bristol Baptist College. She delivered the 1997-98 Whitley Lectures.