Titanic - further thoughts
I am amazed that people are still retweeting John Piper's recent comments linking the Titanic Disaster with the benefits of complementarianism.
Here is the tweet for those who missed it:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
In my original blog I tried show the nonsense of linking this tragedy with either the defence of your theological position or the critique of an opposing one.
Here I want to consider a few more of the generally accepted facts of the Titanic disaster and see whether it is fair to view it as decrying egalitarianism.
Whilst some numbers cannot be given as absolute (there may have been unregistered passenger etc) It is said that the following is a well accepted assessment of the survivors.
200 of the 319 First-Class passengers survived (63%)
117 out of 269 Second-Class passengers survived (43%)
172 out of 699 of the Third-Class passengers survived (25%)
It is hard to resist the thought that in an egalitarian environment the percentages would have been similar for each class.
In light of this it is hard to take seriously Pastor Piper's comment. I remain amazed that he would not consider the wider picture before trying to attack egalitarianism in such a fashion.
Egalitarianism is not just a moment to allow women to find equality with men but also a valuable force that has allowed for the possibility that class will not be the currency by which people, including Pastor Piper, will be judged.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
John Piper using a Titanic Iceberg to Sink Egalitarianism
In a recent, Tweet Pastor John Piper (@johnpiper), made the following comment:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
Women in Ministry: A Question of Womanhood
It is very difficult to consider a subject like this without projecting ones own prejudices upon the topic.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Message from a Coward
According to the ever manly Mark Driscoll I and my fellow British preachers are a bunch of cowards who need to man up.
You might forgive me for feeling a little offended at this point but I don't. That may well be because I am a coward and I would rather not cause a fuss. Or it may be due to the fact that Mark really doesn't know what the heaven he is talking about.
I was tempted to think that he was accusing us of cowardice because we are afraid to stand for the gospel, or that we were silent on such issues as human rights or social justice; but no!
We are lily-livered, no good, sons of Brits, because HE hasn't heard of us.
'Name one' he says in his call to find brave British preachers. Well I could name thousands and I don't know all of them.
Mark has offered a defence on his website that seems set to placate his many fans here in the UK and suggests that it was all the interviewers fault because he is a liberal; and probably a Brit, and by implication a coward.
In his web statement, however, Pastor Mark reveals something that may well be at the heart of both his recent statement and his style of speaking.
He tells us that he and, his wife Grace, are both graduates in the ultra modern subject of communications. He confesses that when it comes to the way the media works he knows his stuff.
Could it be that sales of his recently launched book will be helped by some free twitter publicity if he makes a few controversial statements.
You gotta admire his bravery.
You might forgive me for feeling a little offended at this point but I don't. That may well be because I am a coward and I would rather not cause a fuss. Or it may be due to the fact that Mark really doesn't know what the heaven he is talking about.
I was tempted to think that he was accusing us of cowardice because we are afraid to stand for the gospel, or that we were silent on such issues as human rights or social justice; but no!
We are lily-livered, no good, sons of Brits, because HE hasn't heard of us.
'Name one' he says in his call to find brave British preachers. Well I could name thousands and I don't know all of them.
Mark has offered a defence on his website that seems set to placate his many fans here in the UK and suggests that it was all the interviewers fault because he is a liberal; and probably a Brit, and by implication a coward.
In his web statement, however, Pastor Mark reveals something that may well be at the heart of both his recent statement and his style of speaking.
He tells us that he and, his wife Grace, are both graduates in the ultra modern subject of communications. He confesses that when it comes to the way the media works he knows his stuff.
Could it be that sales of his recently launched book will be helped by some free twitter publicity if he makes a few controversial statements.
You gotta admire his bravery.
Blue Like a Retracted Love Story
What can I say about Donald Miller's blog post that hasn't already been said?
I was almost tempted to say nothing because I genuinely don't like a fuss and Don has taken the trouble of removing his words from his usually excellent site.
Then I read his retraction statement and I thought for a while.....
If our the Blue Like Jazz author had perhaps retracted the sentiment he had written then I probably would not have responded any further, but it appears that he has intentions of republishing his thoughts at another time.
In light of this I offer you (1) his retraction statement, (2) his original article.
I have enjoyed Donald's work in the past but I am, as a father of four daughters, saddened by what these words reveal about his view of women as needing to be validated by men.
(1) His retraction statement
‘Last week I wrote a couple blogs about living a good love story. As many of you know, I write blogs on a whim. Essentially, I’m thinking out loud. What I never expected was to incur the amount of traffic the blog received. And for that matter, the feedback both negative and positive.
To be honest, I wrote the blogs and never reread them, even after all the traffic. I’m writing books at the moment and didn’t feel the need to go back. I write blogs, misspellings and all, as a way of journaling through ideas. That said, after receiving critical feedback from people I greatly respect (along with support from people I greatly respect) I feared a backlash. Not a personal backlash, mind you, but a backlash against the actual ideas the blog presented. That is, I feared many would say “who are you to tell me how to live or how to love, I’m going to do anything I want.”
I’ve seen this sort of backlash before in other arenas. I’m convinced a number of preachers drive as many people away from Jesus as they invite toward Jesus through the harshness of their rhetoric. I’m not interested, then, in driving people away from a good love story simply because I used language and presented ideas they found offensive. Especially when the ideas were generated in no more than half an hour.
Another reason to take the blog down is that love and sexuality is complicated. To address sexual matters, especially, is often a graceless conversation, and yet a conversation that can only be healing in a tone of complete and utter grace. My blog, while straight and toned to the language many use while talking over a beer, lacked the tone of grace. That was an enormous mistake on my part.
That said, I’ll be revamping the blog posts into some sort of file that I can release to the public in time. I assure you, I’ll be checking with my harshest critics before doing so to make sure I’m not offending more people than I honestly care to offend, and that the article brings more light than heat to the topic.
If anything I said personally offended you, will you accept my deepest and most sincere apology? My romantic and sexual history is dismal, which is nothing I hide because I am covered and confident of the grace of God. I’m not interested and see no benefit in shaming anybody. Any shame that was conveyed, I assure you, was unintentional and that sort of rhetoric has never worked to make me a better or more pure man and I’ve no interest in using it as a tool.
With much love and sincere appreciation,
Don’
(2) How to live a Great Love Story, Vol 1 (For the Girls)
Living a great love story doesn’t look like winning the lottery, it looks like training for a marathon. It’s hard work and you have to do the work long before you ever meet Mr. Right, otherwise you’ll be the girl who shows up for the marathon having eaten a gallon of ice cream every night, listening to Taylor Swift songs and watching love stories about vampires. No good man can run with that girl, not for much longer than a mile.
In movies and books, there are formulas for great love stories. Not all movies follow them, but we can depend on a variation on certain themes. They go something like this:
1. Boy meets girl.
2. Boy falls in love with girl.
3. Girl is a bit hesitant knowing her heart is tender and could get hurt.
4. Boy proves himself strong enough to handle and defend her heart.
5. Girl trusts boy and they live happily ever after.
All love stories are different, of course, but these are central themes that weave in and out of the good ones. And if they don’t, the stories are normally tragedies.
Juliet does not trust Romeo right away, for instance, but he pursues her and he wins her love. The same goes with the characters in The Notebook and Twilight (I confess I labored through both) and in the great romantic novels of Jane Eyrie and Charles Dickens and so on and so on.
So, if these are the principles of a great love story, how do we play them out in our lives? How do we live a great love story? Here are some suggestions:
1. Don’t hook up: Girls shouldn’t make it too easy on the guy. Don’t hook up, in other words. A recent article in Scientific American revealed when a girl hooks up with a guy, she esteems him very highly. She may think of him as powerful or famous, somebody who is strong. But the opposite is actually true from the guys perspective. Guys hook up with girls they find less attractive and sexually easy. All they want is sex, and so if they perceive she will give them sex and then get out of their lives, they are going to jump at the chance. The girl may feel very wanted and beautiful but the truth is he’s insulting her. If he thought of her with respect, he’d sit and ask questions about her life and her family. He’d try to get to know her because he wants to develop a friendship and perhaps a romantic relationship. In other words, guys don’t hook up with girls they would marry. They marry the girls they get nervous around and are made to pursue.
So, if you become a “hook up” girl you get labeled, in the minds of guys as a girl you really don’t have to fight for. And when your husband finds out you were the “hook up” girl he’s going to have to have a lot of grace, which is fine, it just puts you in the category of “charity” in his mind and not “equal” or “partner.” He may still love you, but he will have serious questions about whether you’re in the kind of shape it takes to run a marathon. Unless you get over it and move on and do a period of time where you put it all behind you, he will and honestly should lose respect for you. Respect is not free. Respect is earned. Grace is free, but grace and respect are different.
2. Make him work for it: When a guy is made to fight for a girl, he esteems her much more highly. She becomes more attractive in his eyes, and for that matter she becomes more attractive to other men, too. That said, most of the time this will backfire because lots of guys are just looking for cheap and slutty sex and for her to get lost afterward. Still, it’s your chance to weed them out. And believe me, girls, there are a lot of weeds.
3. Weed them out: Guys who are just looking for a hook up need to hit the road. By weeding them out you definitely end up with a smaller pool of guys to choose from. It’s unfortunate and that is truly bad news. But there’s good news, too. There are fewer girls with the strength to not have one night stands, and those girls become much, much more attractive to men. Those are the girls who present a challenge, and who are esteemed more highly. These are the girls guys recognize as the kind of women they want to partner with in raising a family. In other words, it’s a great strategy to be more attractive to a smaller group than cheap and easy to a larger group. Plus, the stronger guys are up for the work while the weaker guys are just trying to get laid.
4. Be willing to suffer: What this means for you is that your love story needs to have a lot of lonely crying in it. Believe it or not, there will come a day when a man will fall madly in love with you and you will have the honor of sitting down with him one special night to explain that, while you weren’t perfect, you turned down plenty of guys and and cried yourself to sleep hoping somebody would come around and treat you with respect. He will be honored by this, and he will love you and feel humbled. If he doesn’t have the same story, he will feel intensely convicted and unworthy. You’ll really be giving him the foundation he needs to love your heart.
5. Have some faith: I’ve noticed that most women who complain a good man won’t come along are actually interested in the wrong guys. They make lists of their perfect gentleman coming to rescue them meanwhile they’re hooking up with guys who have a track record of just having sex with random women. Really? Your husband won’t really care what you say, he will care what you do. We tell our love stories with our actions, not our words. Life isn’t a Taylor Swift song, with all the hardship left out. It works more like a Normal Mailer novel, with all the gritty garbage left in. Stop falling for the romantic version of life, and start realizing that a romantic story is told with an enormous amount of pain, sacrifice, suffering and patience.
6. Don’t be thirteen: Unless you’re thirteen, ladies, grow up. Many women claim that men just won’t grow up, but then you sit and talk to them and realize they haven’t grown up either. They aren’t strong enough to demand something more from their men. They aren’t strong enough to say no to a guy who just wants to use them. These are all elements of immaturity. And it’s the stuff of a bad love story. A good man will attract a good woman. And a victim will attract a predator. Stop acting like a victim. If you want a strong man who can protect you and your children, stop trolling for predators by crying all the time. Act like a dignified woman who believes her company is valuable and should come at a price.
So, if you want a great love story, start training for it today. Start suffering, like somebody training for a marathon. Do the pain, suffer through the nights where you cry in your pillow, have some faith and stop cheapening your love story with scenes you’ll never be able to edit out.
You’re love story may not work, it’s true. Plenty of them don’t. But the chances of your love story succeeding are greatly increased when, on race day, you can actually run.
So, what do you do if you’ve completely screwed this up:
1. Be honest about it. Don’t hide it. If you went through a slutty season, don’t act like you were a helpless victim, a sweet girl who got caught up. You probably weren’t. A confession and an excuse are entirely different. Excuses talk about being hurt or drunk or being lied to. Confessions start with a radical and real understanding of how bad your human nature actually is and how you were caught up in a selfish search for validation and pleasure. Don’t lie to yourself and don’t lie to him. Don’t act like the sweet girl who “accidentally made twenty-five mistakes.” He won’t trust you because what you say and what you’ve done are different.
No good man is going to marry a woman with multiple personalities. And besides that, you’d be surprised at how much unbelievable trust you can build by being brutally honest. You shouldn’t share a bunch of details, but you should definitely share you went through a slutty season and have very few, if any, excuses. But now you want more. Now you want to put that behind you and build a love story. Honesty is very rare, and an honest girl is a girl you can build a family with, regardless of her past. I really mean this, too. If you’re brutally honest about your motives (keep the details vague, ladies. I’m serious about this. He doesn’t need visual images) then you ARE BUILDING TRUST and he can love you. If you play the victim, he’s going to walk away. And he should. A victim is great material for a counselor, but not for a husband.
2. Find out why you did what you did. Why are you capable of having sex without love or commitment? What are you using sex to accomplish? When those questions are a mystery to you, you aren’t healthy enough to get married and no good man should marry you. Those questions need to be answered and understood in a way that the two of you can build on as a foundation
3. Start training for the freaking marathon. Marriage is the hardest job you’ll ever have. It works nothing like a hookup. The sex is more sloppy and vulnerable and affected by all kinds of emotional contexts. If you’re used to one off sex acts where you’re having crazy experiences, you’re husband is never going to be able to match up because, well, he’s got to stick around and do the laundry and argue with you about the electricity bill. That’s not sexy stuff, that’s the stuff of real love stories. It feels boring in the moment, but twenty years in you’ll be crying your eyes out over this man who stuck with you through the thick and thin and who honestly didn’t care that you got fat! Why not give yourself to the one who didn’t care whether you got fat than give yourself to the one who makes you feel like you’ve got to throw up after eating a lolly-pop? That kind of love story sucks so stop living it!
4. Work through your need to be validated by men. You’re going to marry a man, not men. So cut the slutty dresses and facebook photos. Start acting like a woman a man can partner with to build a family, not a woman who would make a great romp on a drunk and emotionally foggy friday night. And stop using alcohol as an excuse. Nobody gets drunk and accidentally sleeps with a hamster. You know what you’re doing, drunk or not, so cut it out. In other words, become the woman who fits the character in the love story you want to live.
5. Don’t act. Don’t pretend. Don’t pretend to be a wholesome girl who is starting over when you’re secretly still wanting to hook up. These changes need to be internal and they need to be real. You are going to have to go through the withdrawal of using guys for validation. If it helps, just know you’ll stand before God one day and you want him to be proud of you. That’s the only thing that helped me stop validating myself with women. I couldn’t do it for Paige, but I could do it for God. Turns out God loves Paige more than I do. Go figure. Anyway, get over the acting part and start doing the real living part. Every great story demands enormous sacrifice. Start sacrificing your validation with other men to make a real love story happen.
Tell a great love story and you’ll dazzle the world. Do the work and enjoy the benefits. The world needs some great love stories, but few people are willing to do what it takes to tell them. No wonder we all love them so much.
Do you want a great love story. Do you want to run the marathon it takes to be married to the same man after fifty years. Do you want him to look you in the eyes with so much respect it bring tears to his. If you do, start training for the marathon. No good story comes easy. A great love story is still possible. Go for it!
Should women teach? Only if we don't tell anyone!
Take a cursory glance at the subject of complementarianism and you would be excused for making the assumption that it represents a single set of beliefs regarding the role of men and women in the church.
Begin a dialogue with church leaders who claim to hold to this theology, however, and you will see that behind the united front there are a myriad of views on offer.
Here is the problem as I see it:
Most of the key teachers on the subject (Gruden et al) speak of the bible prohibiting women in three main areas: senior church leadership, teaching ministry, and government within the home.
For sure Grudem's supplementary explanations hold less and less water the further you probe*, but at a surface level the teaching is firm: women cannot be elders/pastors/ministers, they cannot teach the main body of the church, and they cannot usurp the 'natural' order of male leadership in the home.
Judging from the dialogue I have had with leaders in local churches the situation is not quite so well defined.
Most of these local church leaders talk of the limitation to women as only being in the area of eldership.
Teaching, evangelism, small group leadership, youth work, it seems are all open to both sexes.
Given that the complementarian position is primarily a theological one it seems somewhat disingenuous of local church leaders to pay lip service to such teaching by maintaining male elderships, whilst in practice 'using' women to fulfil much of the churches ministry on the ground.
I have repeatedly tried to put this point to leaders (male) only for it to be dismissed as not important because, in their view at least, women have enough freedom within which to fulfil their destiny.
So here is the problem:
When pressed on why they hold to the limitation of women the call is always made to scripture.
When pressed, however, about how women might fulfil their gifts/calling we are offered examples of how women are released in the local church: in essence saying that there is no cause for concern.
Now correct me if I am wrong but is this not an example of male leaders wanting to have their ecclesiological cake and eating it.
On the one hand the theological position is that women should not lead or teach but at a local level they can do so given the right set of circumstances.
And what are those circumstances:
1. We don't call her an elder
2. She only teaches young people, kids, women, or the unchurched (apparently evangelists and missionaries can be female).
Or (I suspect this is probably the truth in most cases)
3. Nobody in head office gets to hear about it.
Either way the situation seems untenable and plain wrong at so many levels.
If you are going to say that women should not teach then don't pretend that the bible somehow means it is ok if she is speaking to kids or if she is on the mission field.
If you are saying that women should not lead then don't fudge the issue by saying that she can lead when it is convenient for the church to do so but not otherwise.
If, however, you are going to view these scriptures as having some contextual meaning (which in practice you obviously do) don't condemn us egalitarians for daring see a wider more liberating context for all of God's children.
My concern is that church leaders find such things too inconvenient to consider at the moment so they give a theological nod to the theology whilst adopting a more pragmatic approach on the the ground.
My hope is that the continued presentation of an egalitarian position will eventually make the issue impossible to ignore.
* Wayne Grudem agrees that it is ok for women to write books but he prefers to see that as having a chat over coffee rather than teaching.
Begin a dialogue with church leaders who claim to hold to this theology, however, and you will see that behind the united front there are a myriad of views on offer.
Here is the problem as I see it:
Most of the key teachers on the subject (Gruden et al) speak of the bible prohibiting women in three main areas: senior church leadership, teaching ministry, and government within the home.
For sure Grudem's supplementary explanations hold less and less water the further you probe*, but at a surface level the teaching is firm: women cannot be elders/pastors/ministers, they cannot teach the main body of the church, and they cannot usurp the 'natural' order of male leadership in the home.
Judging from the dialogue I have had with leaders in local churches the situation is not quite so well defined.
Most of these local church leaders talk of the limitation to women as only being in the area of eldership.
Teaching, evangelism, small group leadership, youth work, it seems are all open to both sexes.
Given that the complementarian position is primarily a theological one it seems somewhat disingenuous of local church leaders to pay lip service to such teaching by maintaining male elderships, whilst in practice 'using' women to fulfil much of the churches ministry on the ground.
I have repeatedly tried to put this point to leaders (male) only for it to be dismissed as not important because, in their view at least, women have enough freedom within which to fulfil their destiny.
So here is the problem:
When pressed on why they hold to the limitation of women the call is always made to scripture.
When pressed, however, about how women might fulfil their gifts/calling we are offered examples of how women are released in the local church: in essence saying that there is no cause for concern.
Now correct me if I am wrong but is this not an example of male leaders wanting to have their ecclesiological cake and eating it.
On the one hand the theological position is that women should not lead or teach but at a local level they can do so given the right set of circumstances.
And what are those circumstances:
1. We don't call her an elder
2. She only teaches young people, kids, women, or the unchurched (apparently evangelists and missionaries can be female).
Or (I suspect this is probably the truth in most cases)
3. Nobody in head office gets to hear about it.
Either way the situation seems untenable and plain wrong at so many levels.
If you are going to say that women should not teach then don't pretend that the bible somehow means it is ok if she is speaking to kids or if she is on the mission field.
If you are saying that women should not lead then don't fudge the issue by saying that she can lead when it is convenient for the church to do so but not otherwise.
If, however, you are going to view these scriptures as having some contextual meaning (which in practice you obviously do) don't condemn us egalitarians for daring see a wider more liberating context for all of God's children.
My concern is that church leaders find such things too inconvenient to consider at the moment so they give a theological nod to the theology whilst adopting a more pragmatic approach on the the ground.
My hope is that the continued presentation of an egalitarian position will eventually make the issue impossible to ignore.
* Wayne Grudem agrees that it is ok for women to write books but he prefers to see that as having a chat over coffee rather than teaching.
Mark Driscoll and the Gospel according to Quincy
I am sad to say that I am old enough to remember the first showing of the TV programmed Quincy starring Jack Clugman back in 1976. The star was 54 years old and could be considered middle-aged as the pilot aired.
A regular component of the show, as with many of the other series of that particular decade, regularly set the male lead in a relationship with various women much younger than himself (see the opening title shots for proof of this).
Many movies followed a similar pattern in presenting a culture in which older men always got the younger women.
One can't help but imagine that back then most of the producers, writers, and directors were all middle-aged men; if so it would be in their own interest to present such things as acceptable.
In and of itself it might not seem an important fact but it does show the link between those in power and the culture they produce.
This brings me to the complementarian gang of pastors currently occupying a position of vocal influence upon the evangelical church.
Pastor Mark Driscoll and others are the guys (literally) in positions of power and as such they have a responsibility to help set the right culture.
It is in their continued interest to maintain the status quo in their particular brand of church; men making the rules in favour of a male dominated culture - sound familiar.
As a man (and a middle-aged one at that) I can only imagine the pain felt by any woman trying to fulfil her gift in one of these churches. It saddens me that so many of the men who have a voice have remained silent and allowed the prevailing culture to stand.
Looking at the re-runs of Quincy and other similar shows they look remarkably out dated and somewhat ridiculous now.
I hope that one day we will look back on the complementarian argument in a similar way; but given the recent resurgence in such teaching it will take women and men of courage to make a stand for the type of freedom implicit in the gospel story.
A regular component of the show, as with many of the other series of that particular decade, regularly set the male lead in a relationship with various women much younger than himself (see the opening title shots for proof of this).
Many movies followed a similar pattern in presenting a culture in which older men always got the younger women.
One can't help but imagine that back then most of the producers, writers, and directors were all middle-aged men; if so it would be in their own interest to present such things as acceptable.
In and of itself it might not seem an important fact but it does show the link between those in power and the culture they produce.
This brings me to the complementarian gang of pastors currently occupying a position of vocal influence upon the evangelical church.
Pastor Mark Driscoll and others are the guys (literally) in positions of power and as such they have a responsibility to help set the right culture.
It is in their continued interest to maintain the status quo in their particular brand of church; men making the rules in favour of a male dominated culture - sound familiar.
As a man (and a middle-aged one at that) I can only imagine the pain felt by any woman trying to fulfil her gift in one of these churches. It saddens me that so many of the men who have a voice have remained silent and allowed the prevailing culture to stand.
Looking at the re-runs of Quincy and other similar shows they look remarkably out dated and somewhat ridiculous now.
I hope that one day we will look back on the complementarian argument in a similar way; but given the recent resurgence in such teaching it will take women and men of courage to make a stand for the type of freedom implicit in the gospel story.
Nicer Than God
Following Mark Driscoll's recent effemigate comments about worship leaders and his subsequent less than apologetic climb down, it seems that some in the Christian bloggasphere are getting pangs of sympathy for the Seatle beefcake of a pastor.
Some have even claimed he is the 'probably one of the most uncharitably & unfairly read USA Evangelicals'.
Others have started to call Pastor Mark a brother again hoping that his non-apology is a sign that he is willing to change.
It is at this point that most good-thinking Christians start to feel the effects of having a conscience again and begin to question whether they should back off from offering any further criticism.
Whilst I too understand these feelings I have a gut feeling that the issues raised by Pastor Mark's regular comments and theological ideas are too important to fall under the axe of Christian reasonableness.
I am quite sure that both those who advocated slavery and those who currently discriminating against women, gays, and seemingly effeminate looking worship leaders have the ability to sound nice and decent when the need arises.
I can't help thinking that Pastor Mark's response is more of a fillip towards his constituency rather than an apology to those who he has offended.
I understand the need to follow biblical patterns in the way we conduct our relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ but that is no excuse for becoming nicer than God and ignoring partiality where it raises it's ugly head.
Some have even claimed he is the 'probably one of the most uncharitably & unfairly read USA Evangelicals'.
Others have started to call Pastor Mark a brother again hoping that his non-apology is a sign that he is willing to change.
It is at this point that most good-thinking Christians start to feel the effects of having a conscience again and begin to question whether they should back off from offering any further criticism.
Whilst I too understand these feelings I have a gut feeling that the issues raised by Pastor Mark's regular comments and theological ideas are too important to fall under the axe of Christian reasonableness.
I am quite sure that both those who advocated slavery and those who currently discriminating against women, gays, and seemingly effeminate looking worship leaders have the ability to sound nice and decent when the need arises.
I can't help thinking that Pastor Mark's response is more of a fillip towards his constituency rather than an apology to those who he has offended.
I understand the need to follow biblical patterns in the way we conduct our relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ but that is no excuse for becoming nicer than God and ignoring partiality where it raises it's ugly head.
Rooted Openness
Rooted-Openness
The Big Story and the Irreducible Core
Having just lived through the relatively tumultuous storm of Hellgate during which the Mars Hill Bible Church pastor Rob Bell asked some very awkward questions.
The more vocal wing of the evangelical church in the USA responded with the sort of outrage usually reserved for lefty liberals rather than one of their own.
In what seemed to resemble a Monty Python scene, the calvanistic big guns exclaimed 'He's not an evangelical, he's a very naughty boy!'
The speed and manner with which they disowned him suggests they were already waiting for a moment to issue divorce papers.
What saddens me most about the whole issue is that it became almost impossible to have a sensible conversation about the subject without the feeling that you too were being both labelled and dismissed in the process.
In a world that loves labels it is quite difficult to continue a dialogue without looking for suitable terms to describe the position you occupy.
Whether you use Evangelical, Calvinist, Arminian, Liberal, Emergent, or other it must be seen that belief exists as more of a spectrum than distinct groupings.
People like Brian Mclaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell have attempted to provide a vocabulary for those who are exploring what is perceived as a more progressive theology.
Other voices have worked hard to limit the effect of what appeared to be a growing movement away from the centre of a traditional evangelical position. Of course even this is more of a spectrum than a definitive ecclesiological standpoint.
There have been others, in particular Jim Belcher in his book Deep Church, who have tried to navigate a middle ground in the hope of presenting a third way.
I enjoyed Jim's book but again felt that another title didn't fully reflect the spectrum of belief described.
I understand that we do need titles and descriptions in order to locate various beliefs in a framework that allows us to address the issues concerned in a meaningful and productive way.
A further problem encountered when trying to navigate these waters is that the UK scene is significantly different to the US. In this regard some of the language and reference points offered need to interpreted for a different context.
Having studied this subject for some time (even before I heard the phrase emergent) I want to offer some thoughts on my own way of navigation.
I have chosen the two motifs of Rootedness and Openness to best describe my approach. I have long felt that the best way of finding location on the theological and ecclesiological landscape is to occupy a place of tension between two ideas.
In doing so one is free from the fear of both stagnation and excess.
Jim Belcher offers something of this but probably falls victim to an urge to affirm a prescribed tradition. I don't mean this in a critical way but just as an observation.
My suggestion of rooted-openness attempts to offer both the acknowledgement of the need for defined reference points and the understanding that there will always be a spectrum of belief.
**Rootedness**
For my own context I have attempted to describe an irreducible core of belief that is rooted in both the biblical narratives and the testimony of the historic church.
In one sense, because this is a highly personal process and by nature has to be contexualised, it should not matter to anyone else what prescription I have given to this.
In practice however, and because our faith is intended to be of a corporate nature, we will always need to offer explanation so that others can learn from our journey and we can learn from them.
For me the central component of this irreducible core is the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would locate this centrality in a Trinitarian understanding of the story.
There are, of course, other elements to this core but this is not important for what I am attempting to describe here at this moment.
What matters here most is that we begin a journey to discover our own irreducible core in which we might become rooted.
It seems to me that churches that develop a core that is too wide at this point risk including ideas that limit the possibility of discussion both within the group and with other churches.
I would include here ideas such as eschatology and ecclesiology that are often held with an unhealthy reverence.
Either way I would encourage you to discover an irreducible core within which you can put down roots.
**Openness**
It seems all too easy for us to close our minds too quickly to conflicting voices. I feel this has happened recently in response to Rob Bell. I am not sure that on every point I fully agree with Rob but I do eagerly welcome his input. He has provided a vocabulary for many within the church who have struggled with certain presumptions made of scripture.
It is my assessment that all Rob really said was that it is possible to both uphold the bible and see things in a different way to that traditionally delivered within evangelicalism.
He gives room for ideas often ignored by much of the evangelical church. He has often been accused of being vague on some issues but that is the point; some of the ideas we have counted as definitive are up for discussion. Why are we so frightened of such dialogue?
I would like to suggest that we develop an openness to the possibility of a bigger story. Brian Mclaren suggests such when he offers the idea that God could have been communicating with the native American indians long before Europeans brought the stories of Jesus.
What perhaps saddens me most is that many of those who offer a criticism to the likes of McLaren, Bell, and Pagitt fail to offer a view on such ideas, preferring to speak against the very idea of raising questions about perceived evangelical belief.
Further than this such critics often fail to address the questions raised prefering to simple accuse others of questioning God when they are in fact questioning a theology.
Whatever theological position we hold we must always agree that our beliefs will never fully explain God; otherwise our beliefs themselves would become an idol.
In this regard it is perhaps not the question or questioner who should be exposed but our inability to conceive that others might hold valid opposing views when seeking to find an explanation for God, life, and the universe.
Openness leaves room for an understanding of God in ways outside of both our experience and theological construct. Holding this in tension with a Rootedness in an irreducible core centred on the person of Jesus Christ brings a check to how far my openness might take me.
You may well see the above as an attempt to decry existing theological and ecclesiological labels only to replace them with alternatives. This is a constant danger in such an exercise as this.
I believe however that introducing the idea of a spectrum of belief held in tension between two seemingly opposite locations allows for a broader discussion than the mere acceptance of a single label. Hopefully this understanding of spectrum might act as an antedote to much of the tribal theological turf wars we continue to see.
In truth I believe that behind all labels is the kind of spectrum of which I write. My goal is to encourage us to develop a new conversation as we admit this to be true.
If we enquire of the term evangelical for example we will soon discover that it has the possibility of revealing a variety of spectrums behind this seemingly definitive label.
One can be an Evangelical Charismatic or an Evangelical calvinist. In actuality these may or may not be mutually exclusive, however the fact of their existence reveals the probability of a spectrum of belief.
Where to now?
I believe this to be a highly personal journey that is best done in community, through the influence biblical narrative, the teachings of the church, the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Some of my findings may well cause others to cry 'He's not an evangelical, he's a very naughty boy!' but that is a risk I am willing to take.
I will endeavour to discover what it means to be rooted in the historic Christian faith whilst being open to the enormity of God's salvation story for all of his creation.
I hope to find others on a similar path with whom I can travel.
The Big Story and the Irreducible Core
Having just lived through the relatively tumultuous storm of Hellgate during which the Mars Hill Bible Church pastor Rob Bell asked some very awkward questions.
The more vocal wing of the evangelical church in the USA responded with the sort of outrage usually reserved for lefty liberals rather than one of their own.
In what seemed to resemble a Monty Python scene, the calvanistic big guns exclaimed 'He's not an evangelical, he's a very naughty boy!'
The speed and manner with which they disowned him suggests they were already waiting for a moment to issue divorce papers.
What saddens me most about the whole issue is that it became almost impossible to have a sensible conversation about the subject without the feeling that you too were being both labelled and dismissed in the process.
In a world that loves labels it is quite difficult to continue a dialogue without looking for suitable terms to describe the position you occupy.
Whether you use Evangelical, Calvinist, Arminian, Liberal, Emergent, or other it must be seen that belief exists as more of a spectrum than distinct groupings.
People like Brian Mclaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell have attempted to provide a vocabulary for those who are exploring what is perceived as a more progressive theology.
Other voices have worked hard to limit the effect of what appeared to be a growing movement away from the centre of a traditional evangelical position. Of course even this is more of a spectrum than a definitive ecclesiological standpoint.
There have been others, in particular Jim Belcher in his book Deep Church, who have tried to navigate a middle ground in the hope of presenting a third way.
I enjoyed Jim's book but again felt that another title didn't fully reflect the spectrum of belief described.
I understand that we do need titles and descriptions in order to locate various beliefs in a framework that allows us to address the issues concerned in a meaningful and productive way.
A further problem encountered when trying to navigate these waters is that the UK scene is significantly different to the US. In this regard some of the language and reference points offered need to interpreted for a different context.
Having studied this subject for some time (even before I heard the phrase emergent) I want to offer some thoughts on my own way of navigation.
I have chosen the two motifs of Rootedness and Openness to best describe my approach. I have long felt that the best way of finding location on the theological and ecclesiological landscape is to occupy a place of tension between two ideas.
In doing so one is free from the fear of both stagnation and excess.
Jim Belcher offers something of this but probably falls victim to an urge to affirm a prescribed tradition. I don't mean this in a critical way but just as an observation.
My suggestion of rooted-openness attempts to offer both the acknowledgement of the need for defined reference points and the understanding that there will always be a spectrum of belief.
**Rootedness**
For my own context I have attempted to describe an irreducible core of belief that is rooted in both the biblical narratives and the testimony of the historic church.
In one sense, because this is a highly personal process and by nature has to be contexualised, it should not matter to anyone else what prescription I have given to this.
In practice however, and because our faith is intended to be of a corporate nature, we will always need to offer explanation so that others can learn from our journey and we can learn from them.
For me the central component of this irreducible core is the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would locate this centrality in a Trinitarian understanding of the story.
There are, of course, other elements to this core but this is not important for what I am attempting to describe here at this moment.
What matters here most is that we begin a journey to discover our own irreducible core in which we might become rooted.
It seems to me that churches that develop a core that is too wide at this point risk including ideas that limit the possibility of discussion both within the group and with other churches.
I would include here ideas such as eschatology and ecclesiology that are often held with an unhealthy reverence.
Either way I would encourage you to discover an irreducible core within which you can put down roots.
**Openness**
It seems all too easy for us to close our minds too quickly to conflicting voices. I feel this has happened recently in response to Rob Bell. I am not sure that on every point I fully agree with Rob but I do eagerly welcome his input. He has provided a vocabulary for many within the church who have struggled with certain presumptions made of scripture.
It is my assessment that all Rob really said was that it is possible to both uphold the bible and see things in a different way to that traditionally delivered within evangelicalism.
He gives room for ideas often ignored by much of the evangelical church. He has often been accused of being vague on some issues but that is the point; some of the ideas we have counted as definitive are up for discussion. Why are we so frightened of such dialogue?
I would like to suggest that we develop an openness to the possibility of a bigger story. Brian Mclaren suggests such when he offers the idea that God could have been communicating with the native American indians long before Europeans brought the stories of Jesus.
What perhaps saddens me most is that many of those who offer a criticism to the likes of McLaren, Bell, and Pagitt fail to offer a view on such ideas, preferring to speak against the very idea of raising questions about perceived evangelical belief.
Further than this such critics often fail to address the questions raised prefering to simple accuse others of questioning God when they are in fact questioning a theology.
Whatever theological position we hold we must always agree that our beliefs will never fully explain God; otherwise our beliefs themselves would become an idol.
In this regard it is perhaps not the question or questioner who should be exposed but our inability to conceive that others might hold valid opposing views when seeking to find an explanation for God, life, and the universe.
Openness leaves room for an understanding of God in ways outside of both our experience and theological construct. Holding this in tension with a Rootedness in an irreducible core centred on the person of Jesus Christ brings a check to how far my openness might take me.
You may well see the above as an attempt to decry existing theological and ecclesiological labels only to replace them with alternatives. This is a constant danger in such an exercise as this.
I believe however that introducing the idea of a spectrum of belief held in tension between two seemingly opposite locations allows for a broader discussion than the mere acceptance of a single label. Hopefully this understanding of spectrum might act as an antedote to much of the tribal theological turf wars we continue to see.
In truth I believe that behind all labels is the kind of spectrum of which I write. My goal is to encourage us to develop a new conversation as we admit this to be true.
If we enquire of the term evangelical for example we will soon discover that it has the possibility of revealing a variety of spectrums behind this seemingly definitive label.
One can be an Evangelical Charismatic or an Evangelical calvinist. In actuality these may or may not be mutually exclusive, however the fact of their existence reveals the probability of a spectrum of belief.
Where to now?
I believe this to be a highly personal journey that is best done in community, through the influence biblical narrative, the teachings of the church, the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Some of my findings may well cause others to cry 'He's not an evangelical, he's a very naughty boy!' but that is a risk I am willing to take.
I will endeavour to discover what it means to be rooted in the historic Christian faith whilst being open to the enormity of God's salvation story for all of his creation.
I hope to find others on a similar path with whom I can travel.
Francis Chan and a Humble View of Eternal Punishment
As Francis Chan releases his antidote to Rob Bell's controversial best seller it seems that some have been drawn in by the humble and conciliatory style of his promotional video. Don't be fooled by the tone however this is a fine example of sophistry.
He employs the sophists skills of presenting an argument that is hard to disagree with only to deliver a conclusion that is not really connected with his original thrust. It goes like this:
1. It's good to study
2. Study is a humbling process
3. This is a very important subject
4. Some people have spoken about it with a lack of care
5. God's ways are not our ways
6. We need to be careful
All the way through these points his hearers nod in agreement - what is there to disagree with.
He then goes on to present a Calvinistic understanding of the subject as if this is the only way in which we can be true to his previous points.
It is sophistry because you can agree with his first points and still come to a different theological view point.
His humble style is appealing but not necessarily affirmation that he is right. Yet it is this style and his initial points that make people think that his conclusion must be correct not the veracity of his conclusion.
I look forward to reading the book for more humble calvinistic insights.
He employs the sophists skills of presenting an argument that is hard to disagree with only to deliver a conclusion that is not really connected with his original thrust. It goes like this:
1. It's good to study
2. Study is a humbling process
3. This is a very important subject
4. Some people have spoken about it with a lack of care
5. God's ways are not our ways
6. We need to be careful
All the way through these points his hearers nod in agreement - what is there to disagree with.
He then goes on to present a Calvinistic understanding of the subject as if this is the only way in which we can be true to his previous points.
It is sophistry because you can agree with his first points and still come to a different theological view point.
His humble style is appealing but not necessarily affirmation that he is right. Yet it is this style and his initial points that make people think that his conclusion must be correct not the veracity of his conclusion.
I look forward to reading the book for more humble calvinistic insights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)