Male and female leadership complementary

[tansy]

I posted this in the first thread, but it was suggested that I post it as a new thread.

Some answers may have already been discussed in some of the other threads I've now seen have been started, so please ignore this post if so

Would you say that female leadership complements male leadership, and that ideally you would have both forms in a church setting...and how would, say, a female pastor work with a male under-pastor (or whatever the equivalent is in one's particular church). Or should we indeed have any kind of heirarchy that seems to raise one person over another?
When I first became a Christian, I kind of had this mental or inner picture of all believers, men and women, actually just kind of working together as one, led by the Holy Spirit and no one person being more 'important' or 'higher' than another. Maybe rather idealistic. However, once I was kind of seeing a load of believers outside by a river and everyone praying for and laying hands on one another, helping each other, whoever they might be and no-one really in over-all charge. But probably a flight of fancy

 

[Paidiske]

Just some thoughts off the top of my head... I'll be interested to hear what others have to say, too.

I think that ideally leadership is always shared. It's not good to have a model where one person dominates too much. I don't know that you always have to strive for gender balance - nor is it always practical - but I think that shared leadership should deliberately be diverse.

What I mean by that is get people with different gifts, personalities, life experiences and so forth in, and that will enrich the process of leadership and make it more likely that whatever you're doing will be done well (and justly). Including men and women is one obvious way to do that.

Some groups do deliberately avoid any formalised leadership and that can work, usually (ime) in smaller groups. I don't think formalised leadership is intrinsically bad, but it comes with its own problems and temptations and boundaries have to be very carefully thought through to keep it healthy.

As to the specific question of how a woman in leadership would work with a man under her leadership, that puzzles me a bit. Why would it be different from any other leader/assistant arrangement?

 

[tansy]

Just some thoughts off the top of my head... I'll be interested to hear what others have to say, too.



As to the specific question of how a woman in leadership would work with a man under her leadership, that puzzles me a bit. Why would it be different from any other leader/assistant arrangement?

I only ask that, simply because I've not had much experience of it...yes, the music group I was a part of had a woman leader, things like that. But I was thinking more of, say, if it were a woman bishop with vicars under her, or maybe a pastor and assistant pastor - there are so many ways that churches organise things, I can't exactly be specific.
It seems to me that, at least in secular areas, women in leadership, for example Queen Elizabeth 1st, Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister, also women who have got to the top in business, are very 'strong', they seem to have what might be thought of as masculine qualities. Tough, actually is a better word than strong. But perhaps they have had to be like that as maybe historically, they have had to fight against prejudice and a kind of perception of women being weak-minded and dotty...or something. Which of course is not true...there are weak-minded and 'dotty' people both male and female.

 

[Paidiske]

I've certainly known some "dotty" male bishops.

I've had the blessing of working with a range of very different men and women. Each person has their own leadership style (and indeed their own take on what leadership means in their context), and their own personality. I don't particularly think differences line up neatly on male/female lines.

If I can think of any difference, actually, I think people who are parents do leadership differently than people who don't have children. In my experience people who have children - men and women - tend to be more flexible.

 

[tansy]

Just some thoughts off the top of my head... I'll be interested to hear what others have to say, too.

I think that ideally leadership is always shared. It's not good to have a model where one person dominates too much. I don't know that you always have to strive for gender balance - nor is it always practical - but I think that shared leadership should deliberately be diverse.

What I mean by that is get people with different gifts, personalities, life experiences and so forth in, and that will enrich the process of leadership and make it more likely that whatever you're doing will be done well (and justly). Including men and women is one obvious way to do that.

Some groups do deliberately avoid any formalised leadership and that can work, usually (ime) in smaller groups. I don't think formalised leadership is intrinsically bad, but it comes with its own problems and temptations and boundaries have to be very carefully thought through to keep it healthy.

Yes, as you say, people have different skills, gifts, strengths and weaknesses, so I suppose that if you had two people in equal leadership, one might be better or more suited to one aspect of it than another, so they might do more in that dirction. Makes sense to me.
And, yes, I suppose one always does have to have leadership..but it absolutely depends on how it's done. Jesus of course was the perfect leader, meek and humble in heart.
I daresay you've noticed that some people seem to be natural leaders...even in the school playground..also, when you get a group of people together, they instinctively seem to 'know' and turn towards a specific person in the group (sometimes the wrong person), but they do recognise, say, when someone's more knowledgable or whatever than they are.

 

[tansy]

I've certainly known some "dotty" male bishops.

I've had the blessing of working with a range of very different men and women. Each person has their own leadership style (and indeed their own take on what leadership means in their context), and their own personality. I don't particularly think differences line up neatly on male/female lines.

If I can think of any difference, actually, I think people who are parents do leadership differently than people who don't have children. In my experience people who have children - men and women - tend to be more flexible.

Yes, I think that generally speaking, if they've had children, it would give them an edge. Having said that, it all depends on what their previous background was. One of our vicars who had (grown-up children) was perhaps a little less flexible (at least to begin with), but I think that was because of where he'd been stationed, as it were, before - also the school he'd gone to.
On the other hand, one vicar we had was immensely flexible and he wasn't married, nor had children

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, where you've been trained makes a huge difference! It colours your whole approach to ministry.

 

[Tigger45]

We have a male and female pastor combo at our church. Previously we had another third pastor who was the senior pastor until he and his wife took a teaching opportunity in China. We ended up voting the male pastor as senior pastor but it's fair to add he does have a Phd in theology and our female pastor's husband has failing health and she frequently needs to take off time to care for him.

 

[Dave-W]

I think that ideally leadership is always shared. It's not good to have a model where one person dominates too much.

That is how I understand the descriptions of the local churches in Acts - a plurality of elders without a head honcho.

 

[Dave-W]

Oh, where you've been trained makes a huge difference! It colours your whole approach to ministry.

I am sure it does.

However, there is a set of books I think should be required reading by any seminary or bible school. (and I think none of them are actually required anywhere with one exception)

But that is quite off topic.

 

[Fantine]

We have a Presbyterian husband/wife pastoral team in our town (and another Presbyterian husband/wife team moved to another state--following the wife's ministerial promotion). They are both terrific, met in seminary, have divided things up in ways that best suit their talents and gifts.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...
Would you say that female leadership complements male leadership, and that ideally you would have both forms in a church setting.....

Yes I think that's needed, but because the female voice has been silenced to death the pendulem will swing until both voices come together to create the whole of what God has been saying to the church.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That is how I understand the descriptions of the local churches in Acts - a plurality of elders without a head honcho.

That's the true model of the early church with everyone bringing their gifts to the altar, some with song, some with prophesy, and someone making sure it doesn't get disorderly ie: that things not of God don't enter in.

 

[Tigger45]

Our associate pastor, who is female, announced a few weeks ago that she would be retiring. She's turning 70 and her husband is in his 80's. Anyway we have two pastoral candidates that we are considering. One male and the other female. The male candidate preached and had a meet and greet last Sunday and its the female candidate's turn today. I'm a voting member and plan on being there. Our outgoing pastor mentioned that female candidates have fewer opportunities due to there being fewer female clergy friendly congregations and that she would love to see a female replace her.

 

[Paidiske]

The fewer opportunities thing can be true. Especially when we are younger; people seem more willing to accept women of a more mature age in ministry.

But a candidate still needs to be the right person. I've seen a lot of damage done when a church thinks, "Oh, well, this women isn't really all that great, but we want to support women (etc) so we will appoint her."

 

[JRichard68]

One of the things I appreciated about the Presbyterian church I attended occasionally before I moved was that they had several female Associate Pastors. The denomination (PCUSA) also ordained several female Senior Pastors, and many churches in our area had such. I've never really understood the push to exclude them from the Office, as women are quite capable of carrying out the duties. I also believe a case can be made at least for women Elders under Paul's ministry, if not higher offices.

 

[Dave-W]

One of the things I appreciated about the Presbyterian church I attended occasionally before I moved was that they had several female Associate Pastors. The denomination (PCUSA) also ordained several female Senior Pastors,

My dad was one of the most vehement people I ever met against female leadership in the church. Later on I found it amazingly amusing that the denomination that ordained him (Wesleyan Methodist) was one of the first to ordain women to the pastorate, having done so about a century before his ordination. (1853)

Women in Ministry Historical View | The Wesleyan Church