When I read the works of men like John Piper, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan I am amazed at the depth of their biblical knowledge and the keenness of their personal application. At the same time, I am astounded that these theological giants could justify the heirarchal authority of men, support the suppression of gifted women, and conform to the gender prejudice common in many evanglical churches.
Gilbert Bilezikian says it right: "The Scripture absolutely forbids racial, class and gender discrimination ... Scripture rules out gender-based hierarchy" (A Challenge for Proponents of Female Subordination).So how is it possible to believe the gospel and articulate so clearly the doctrine of justification by faith alone, yet miss how this doctrine severs the root of racism, ethnocentrism and gender bias forever? Even more, how can one’s life be so out of step with one’s theology? Here are some things to keep in mind as we seek to learn from the good and the bad we see in our fathers in the faith.
-
1. Do not separate belief from practice.
The one thing we cannot do is to explain away our theological heroes attitudes and actions by appealing to the church's traditions. It’s true we must take into consideration church history in order to understand men like Piper and Mohler and refrain from unnecessary vilification. But we must make sure that as we point out that the general church tradition from which they come we does not diminish the sinfulness of their practice. Otherwise, we run the risk of elevating right doctrine over right practice in a way that departs from the teaching of the apostles.Attitudes and actions matter. When Paul confronted Peter for separating himself from the Gentiles, he wasn’t worried that Peter had abandoned justification as a doctrine. Paul called him out because Peter was denying the truth by his practice. In other words, we cannot paper over the sinful actions of theologial heroes by appealing to the soundness of their doctrinal beliefs. And let’s be clear. Racial, ethnic and gender superiority is antithetical to the doctrine upon which the church of Jesus Christ stands or falls.
2. Hold fast to the vertical and horizontal aspects of justification.
In Ephesians 2:8–10 Paul removes any ground for our boasting before God. Human mouths are machines of perpetual self-justification. The doctrine of justification by faith alone shuts down the machines. "Not from works, so that no one can boast!"But notice next where Paul turns for the rest of Ephesians 2. The evidence of justification is the replacement of racial prejudice with the Spirit-filled temple of God: the church. “He is our peace, who made both groups one and tore down the dividing wall of hostility" (verses 11–22).
Do you see how Paul holds together both the horizontal and vertical aspects of justification?
The evil antithesis of justification vertically is self-righteous legalism: “I reach upward to God by my moral superiority.”But Paul will have none of this. The one true God will save his one sinful people in one simple way — through faith in Jesus the Messiah. (Romans 3:27–28)
The evil antithesis of justification horizontally is self-righteous gender hierachy: “I reach over others because of my gender superiority.”
3. Remember that justification by faith levels us all.
So what do we do with our heroes? For starters, we cannot stand smugly and chide them for their shortcomings. We would then ourselves be guilty of denying justification because we would be speaking from a place of moral superiority and chronological snobbery. Justification by faith alone kills the pride that comes from legalism, racism, pedigree, and yes, even chronology. We are no more righteous because of our time period than they were in theirs.It also won’t do for us to abandon the theology of Piper, Mohler and others simply because they were wrong on gender superiority. All theology must be measured by its fidelity to the truth of God’s Word, not by our ability to live up to God’s Word. So what to do?
Instead of abandoning the biblical understanding of justification expressed eloquently through our heroes despite their flaws, we ought to lean harder into it. Here’s the glorious truth: the reality they saw so clearly provides the answer to the sin they didn’t.
In other words, they discerned the reality of justification by faith alone better than they discerned the sinfulness in their own hearts and lives. And it’s that reality of justification by faith alone that levels us all and drives us to our knees — thankful for the clear example of horrendously flawed theologians articulating the only doctrine that gives hope to all of us who are horrendously flawed.
Teaching female subordination to males is a great evil, but even gender bias cannot stand in the way of the grace and glory of the gospel. And just as we learn from the blind spots of the generations who have gone before us, we trust that the blood of Christ will cover our own blind spots. That’s why the more we walk with God, the more we cry like David: “Cleanse me from my hidden faults.”
It’s only in the security of being wrapped up in the righteousness of Christ that we can say, “Challenge me, Lord. Change me, Lord. Expose my wickedness.” And in the midst of it all, we cling to the hope that God’s grace is bigger than our biggest flaws.
_______________________________________________
The post of irony above is built on the premise of Trevin Wax in his excellent article entitled "What to Do with Our Slavery-Affirming Theological Heroes?" Whereas Trevin has written looking at past generations, I have used his words to look forward and write for future generations.
26 comments:
One of the biggest frustrations as a Christian woman in my twenties early thirties was to not be able to talk theology with both men and women. I was shunned as if being friends with males in our church was to lead to adultery, which was furthest from my mind.
This was not because I was a flirt or an adulterous woman, but because I was a woman. I was a woman who wanted to know more about the Bible and Christ. My father and I would talk theology for hours and for that I am grateful. My father never made my sister and I feel that as women we had to be silent or that there was not anything we couldn't do. But, I cannot say that for the rest of the church I attended at the time.
It was frustrating to hear all that God has in store for the Christian and then realize they were speaking of Christian men not women, who were to stay having children, teaching women, and do the hospitality at funerals, weddings, and church functions.
Debbie,
Great comment! Dee and I are sitting at Panera discussing this post (and some "book ideas"). Wish you were here! By the way, Dee says "Hi".
Wade,
We love your post!
Thankful that you guys are doing what you do.
I wish I was there too Dee and Deb. I had a wonderful time when the two of you were here!
Wade,
You said:
"When I read the works of men like John Piper, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan I am amazed at the depth of their biblical knowledge and the keenness of their personal application. At the same time, I am astounded that these theological giants could justify the heirarchal authority of men, support the suppression of gifted women, and conform to the gender prejudice common in many evanglical churches."
Theological giants are usually those who preach a popular theology, not necessarily a correct theology. Teaching a correct theology will more than likely reap punishment rather than populariaty. The first people to speak out against slavery were not well received among slave owners. Right or wrong, there are still a lot of men who love the idea of keeping women in a place of submission and they willingly use the shackes of theology to do so.
signed;
63 yr old male who raised three daughters.
I'll assure you that these men do not teach what they do concerning the roles of men and women out of a desire for popularity. They teach them because they truly believe (as do I) that the scriptures teach the complimentarian position. Egalitarianism is way more popular today in modern Christendom.
John Wylie
(a 41 year old with 3 daughters that I'm crazy about)
Wade, I enjoy your blog and agree with you on many things but this is an issue where I still have many questions. I do not think that differing roles somehow implies inequality.
I think that both Special revelation (scripture) and Natural revelation (Nature) reveal that males and females of all species were created to perform different roles within the family/community. This does not imply in-equality. If men and women were created to perform inter-changeable roles, then why are men and women physically so different? Aside from the obvious sexual anatomy, why do men and women have different skeletal and muscular structures with the female being weaker? Why are Men's and Women's brains, as a result of Estrogen and Testosterone, wired differently?
I don't believe it is patriarchal to say that Men and Women were created to perform different roles and neither role is more valuable than the other.
John - Egalitarianism may seem more popular to you, but I can say that as a moderately conservative Christian woman with gifts that would be considered more "male" that it is not. At least not where I am.
Ray - Then why does my husband have the gifts of helps and mercy and I have the gifts of leadership and teaching? He's a manly male and I'm a feminine female, but our spiritual gifts are just the opposite of what would be assumed to be "natural". The happiest times I've had were leading and teaching in the Christian setting. (Yes, to mixed groups.) My husband would rather help someone load a moving van and loves to watch me teach.
I realize experience alone does not suffice for sound theology, but seeing how God uses us so clearly in different ways was one of the things that finally set us free in Christ.
Ray
Why are there women who are excellent surgeons? Why are there men who are superb elementary school teachers? You say our brains are wired differently yet I find women assuming just about every role that a man can do with the exception of sports.So, does the fact that a woman cannot play football on the same level as a man, prove that women are not able to teach men?
Separate but equal...really? The fallacy of that argument was proven by segregation. It was separate but not equal. That is the same in the church. The one who is a leader is the one who has the power in any organization, including the church. We pretend that the nursery worker is "equal" to the pastor but, deep down inside, everyone knows that it does not play out that way.
John -
You're the father of 3 daughters, but you can't begin to understand what it feels like to spend your entire life in a church that teaches there is no male or female in Christ, but in practice makes it clear that women fall into a subgroup of membership. There is no room for love in that practice and it flies in the face of all the Bible teaches about grace.
Ray - You talk about men and women being physically different, and having brains that are wired differently, but can you cite any verse that indicates that spiritual gifts are gender based?
As followers of Christ, either we believe that there is no male or female in Christ, or we don't. We either believe that our sons and daughters will prophesy - with prophecy being one of the spiritual gifts designed to edify the church - or we don't.
As a woman who has followed Christ for nearly 50 years, I don't feel remotely loved by my brothers in Christ who tell me by their actions that I'm "less than" by virtue of my gender. Jesus did not treat women that way, and His followers shouldn't either.
John and Ray,
I think the ladies probably answered much better than I could!
I appreciate you both and the work for the kingdom in which you are involved. Without surprise, I agree with the ladies! :)
My views on this issue are not popular in the theological circles in which I am most comfortable: conservative, evangelical, etc...
But I believe my views are biblical, and the point I am making in this post is that our theoloical forefathers thought slavery justified BASED ON SCRIPTURE - and now no conservative evangelical would dare prove slavery justified by Scripture. I am saying there is coming a day when MALE AUTHORITY will be a doctrine from which conservative, Bible-believing Christians will turn away in shame.
For it is not Biblical--no matter what Piper and Mohler say.
I don't think its a question of whether women are "able" to teach men. Certainly they are able. Its a question of roles. Are men and women created to perform the same roles in the family and the Church? I think the answer of scripture is no.
How does someone hail Al Mohler a “Theological Hero” when he said:
“A person can come to Christ without full knowledge of all that Christians believe, but once aware of the Bible’s teachings cannot reject the Virgin Birth.”
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13319&Itemid=53
Does his belief do away with ‘once saved always saved’?
Ray,
When Mary was asked to do ‘her role’ of helping her sister in the kitchen, what ‘role’ did Jesus reply that was better and would not be taken from her? (Luke 10:42)
Wonder if Jesus thinks the role of pastor might be better than a nursery worker.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Al Mohler along with Paige Patterson that wrote a letter criticizing the IMB for having ‘women over men’?
“Heroes” can lead people astray from passing the BFM 2000 (puts women in their place) to drinking Kool-Aid.
Rex Ray,
I think you may be missing the point. The article is a word for word reproduction of another man's article on theological heroes of the past and their endorsement of slavery. Piper's, Mohlers, and Ligon's names were substituted for the names of past theologians and female subordination was substituted for slavery. It's not a post on the merits of Mohler's theological acumen; its a post showing the irony of those who wish to scold dead theologians for their acceptance of slavery are turning blind eyes toward modern theologians and their subordination of women.
Hope that helps clarify for you.
Ray
Let me present you with a scenario. This is not meant to be a political statement, merely an example of potential pitfalls with the "different roles" model. Let's say Michelle Bachmann, an evangelical, became President of the United States (a woman will one day so this is not far-fetched).
She attends a church in which women are not allowed to teach men or have "authority" over a man. Suppose a class was proposed "The Christian Role in Government." I went to church once which offered such a course.
Supposing that Bachman was willing to teach the course, along with being POTUS. Now, there is a guy in the church who has next to no personal experience with such a subject but he is willing to teach the course.
Tell me why it would be "against Scripture" for Bachman to teach such a course. Also, could you please define for me what "being in authority" actually means in a practical sense?
Since a woman can be anything in society, what actually happens in the spiritual world when such a woman comes into the church? Why could a man learn something about Christianity from President Bachmann in the real world and not learn the exact same principle in the church world?
Wade,
Trevin praised Mohler:
1. Amazed at the depth of his biblical knowledge.
2. Theological giant
3. Theological hero
4. Discerned justification by faith alone
Trevin criticized Mohler.
1. Justified the hierarchal authority of men
2. Suppressed gifted women
3. Missed how ‘justification by faith alone’ severed gender bias forever
4. His life was out of step with his theology
5. The soundness of his doctrinal beliefs cannot paper over his sinful actions
6. He was wrong on gender superiority
7. He discerned justification by faith alone better than he discerned the sinfulness of his own heart and life
8. Horrendously flawed theologian teaching female subordination to males is a great evil.
In a court of law, all that Trevin wrote would be thrown out because there were no facts—only the opinion of Trevin.
Wade, all I was trying to do was give ‘facts’ to Trevin’s opinion. My first comment was to disagree with Mohler’s ‘justification by faith alone’ by showing his hypocrisy of a Christian having to believe in the virgin birth to remain a Christian.
You wrote: “The post of irony above is built
WOW! I FINALLY GET IT! THE JOKE IS ON ME. Even your hope of helping me didn’t sink in till now.
The question is do I delete this and start over? Oh well, I don’t mind looking like a fool…at least not all the time. Someone wrote a day without a laugh is wasted. I’m having mine now.
May I point out that "I get all the powerful, influential and acclaimed jobs in the church; you get to serve luncheons, change diapers and clean up after me" is not "different roles." Neither is, "I get to be in authority over you in the home and you get to submit." "Roles" are temporary parts that people play, that they move into and out of at different points in their lives. An inferior position that one is born to fill and can never change is not a "role."
In this case, "different roles" is a euphemism for "lower caste." It makes the doctrine go down easier to say "different roles," but that's not really what it's all about.
WB, reading your blog and others highly supportive of you; I get the sense that you have come to epitomize the perfect Baptist pastor with the ideal perspective on Scripture. How do you handle the accolades my friend.
Are you the only emperor with clothes?
Seneca
Rex,
You and I may not always agree on things theological. But we both agree on appreciating honesty. I now appreciate yours more than ever. Especially when it is being honest at your own expense and you honestly don't care. Honesty it is. That, my friend, is appreciated.
'authority' . . .
'He spoke as One having authority'
I think the 'Good Shepherd' may have been one of the favorite 'iconic' images of Christos Kyrios on the walls of the early Christian catacombs, because this great Lord bore the lamb on His Shoulders and carried the lamb 'home'. That 'image' needs to be implanted deeply in the psyche of all who serve the Church, in whatever capacity.
There is wonderful picture of Our Lord used by Ambrose to speak to those who would 'lord it over' the ones they serve:
"“For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off. For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel Luke 15:5 carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off. And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” Ecclesiastes 7:17 for restraint should temper righteousness. For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said: “Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” Matthew 11:28 So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God. Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek; persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others. . . "
Rex,
I love it when you can see the light bulb go on in the middle of a sentence.... Laughing.
No need to delete. You don't look like a fool at all. I agree with Paul--your honest transparency is refreshing.
Wade
To Burlesons—Thanks!
That’s the nicest things I’ve had said to me in a long time.
I’ll have to make mistakes more often.
"I'll assure you that these men do not teach what they do concerning the roles of men and women out of a desire for popularity. They teach them because they truly believe (as do I) that the scriptures teach the complimentarian position."
It was interesting that Piper preached after two women preachers at the Passion Conference. Seems he is more flexible that we thought on what is biblical.
Ray, When it comes to roles, what on earth do you do with Joanna in Luke 8? It says nothing about her husbands "permission" or even support for her traveling all over the country with Jesus supporting him out of her own resources.
Seems the bible teaches one thing but yet we see actions modeled differently. Perhaps we need to go back and look that thing more in context and take a hard long look at word meanings, grammar, etc in Greek. After all, the message at Pentecost is for the church age.
Wade,
Only you can manage to twist, mock, and affirm my original writing in one blog post. You really are one of a kind.
Trevin,
I do believe we are "uniquely and wonderfully made" (a catechism I taught our children when they were young), so I accept your statement "you really are one of a kind" as a compliment. Glad you stopped in and read the post!
Post a Comment