What Ways Are You Supporting Women in Leadership?

I think something really gets lost when "women in leadership" is equated with "women in ecclesiastical office".  The two are not the same, yet I think in the church too often we use the first as shorthand for the second.  This is unhelpful.  One thing it does is paints churches who hold to the historically orthodox position on women in ecclesiastical office as against the use and appreciation of women's gifts in the life of the church.  Such could not be further from the truth.

I am very supportive of women in leadership.  There are a plethora of ways in which women can and do have leadership roles in the life of the church without ever holding ecclesiastical office.  I have observed and celebrated it all my life. 

The CRC has placed itself in an awkward position.  It has decreed that two exclusive positions are both correct.  One would suppose that such an incoherent position would only be able to survive in the long term if both positions were allowed to exist side-by-side with impartiality.  Yet such has not been the case.  The CRC puts its institutional weight behind egalitarianism while marginalizing complementarianism.  For example we have the denominational ministry called Women's Ministry which states explicitly "We affirm and support women in all levels of leadership."  This ministry then uses denominational resources and platforms to promote teachings and practices at the expense of the other position that the denomination ostensibly holds as "a" biblical position.  We also see practices at synod that are not only inconsiderate by also seem to be designed to purposely marginalize complementarians and affirmatively violate their consciences.  

It is hard to see this pattern leading to greater denominational unity or cohesiveness over time.  In fact, it seems almost designed to either "convert" or drive out a portion of the church so that over time one position is normalized while the other position is marginalized to the point of being considered unacceptable.  Perhaps this was inevitable given the logical incoherence of a position that says that "A" and "Not A" are both true.