The Reformed church is deeply divided over many issues, not the least of which is gender roles, or even more fundamentally perhaps (depending on how we are defining things), gender itself, what it means to be a man, and what does it mean to be a woman. What is masculinity and femininity? What does the Bible have to say about this, if anything at all?
It should be pointed out that this crisis mirrors the very real issues in our nations today, especially here in the United States, concerning gender/sexuality, etc. It is quite likely that the #metoo movement has been able to take root in the church as well because there are real issues of abuse, and because there are real instances of primarily women lying about being abused, stretching the truth, etc. Both men and women are sexual sinners, and I have seen and/or heard of both of these situations, men abusing and women lying about abuse.
This of course means that the church is very worldly, rather than the world being very churchly. We are having a difficult time speaking with one voice as the Church concerning gender, sexuality, racial issues within and outside of the Church, etc. But we have had these issues for a long time, and other issues that lead to these much bigger issues. We do not know how to worship God because we hardly know who God is. Is it any wonder, not knowing God well, that we do not know ourselves, men and women made in God's image, well?
Five years ago if you asked me if I was "part of the patriarchy" I would have said no, and that I was a complementarian. The word patriarchy, for me at that time, was largely a modern movement and had a bunch of bad apples and bad examples in it. Think Doug Phillips in Reformed circles, but in more broadly evangelical churches, there are plenty of names to choose from too. Doug Wilson would have come up as well, and I knew little about him, mostly that he promoted the serious error of Federal Vision theology, that you get in the covenant of grace by faith, but stay in by works. I did read his book Wordsmithy in Bible college, and found it very helpful, so I figured he couldn't be all bad so long as I avoided his theology.
Fast forward five years. If you asked me today if I am "part of the patriarchy" I would probably reply, "if you have to ask, does it even matter how I respond?" To be asked if you are part of the patriarchy is not much different than being asked if you are FV. It means you are already suspect, prideful, manipulative, quite possibly abusive, and probably a man.
Doug Wilson's theology is nowhere near as problematic as it is claimed. At least, not today. Whether he was different 10-15 years ago I cannot say, but it doesn't seem that he has changed that much. I think his paedocommunion is wrong, but he is no heretic. Those who are inclined to denounce him, if they can't pin him down on his orthodoxy, will turn to his orthopraxy. There were two abuse cases that I know of in his church, and many say he completely mangled them both. I've read a lot about that and talked to those involved at some level, more indirectly than directly involved but involved nonetheless. My sense is that he and his church probably could have done some things better, but nothing rises to the level of being defrocked or anything like that.
But I belabor that matter because it underscores the divide between the "Theology Gals" types and the "patriarchal" types. I've only listened to a couple of TG episodes of their podcast, but I am speaking not just of TG proper but those who gravitate toward that movement/way of thinking. We can call them thin complementarians though I realize they would likely eschew that label. I think many in this camp are women who have either been sexually abused, or know someone who has, and it has come either directly at the hands of a minister, or they believe a minister has messed up dealing with a sexual abuse case very badly, and probably because the pastor's theology makes him out to be something close to a misogynist and male supremacist.
Now, I'd like to say up front that such ministers, and men in the church, do exist. So do pedophiles, and homosexuals, and racists, and abortionists. Again, the church is very worldly across the board right now, so producing examples of such isn't going to be exceedingly difficult. But I also believe that there are plenty of women in the church who are simply liars, or who perhaps had a consensual relationship with a man, and then turned the story into rape, abuse, etc. Those examples wouldn't be hard to produce either, except that in this cultural climate, which is also pervading the church, you are simply supposed to believe all women, without seemingly examining the claims first. It may be that this is a knee-jerk reaction, an overreaction, to real abuse cases by men, preying on women. It doesn't change the fact that it is overreaction and harmful.
But let us argue this by supposing the worst case scenario. What if the church was full of raping men and ministers who either joined in or turned a blind eye to the situation. What if virtually no women were lying and there really was an epidemic of physical and sexual abuse in the church that is so one-sided that men really ought to just shut up and let women preach a little, like a Deborah ruling because Barak is too afraid, compromised, wicked, or whatever?
Well, even in such a scenario, I'd still throw my hat in with patriarchy, because it is biblical. Men ruling poorly, men ruling wickedly, does not overthrow God's rule that men must rule, that men must lead in love and righteousness. This is true in the home, in the church, and in society. It cannot be any other way. Those who cry foul saying Scripture doesn't speak about women's role in society aren't reading their Bibles carefully, not unlike some who won't accept paedobaptism because there isn't a verse that says "baptize yo babies". The word Trinity isn't in Scripture either, and though I realize this issue, again, goes all the way back up to our theology of God, ESS and all that, my point here is simply that it is a weak argument to deny a doctrine simply because you have to do a little extra work in studying Scripture to deduce it. And really, once you see it, you discover how it was staring you in the face all along.
So I have become somewhat more patriarchal, I guess you could say, over the last five years. But the seeds of that were already in me, always in me far as I know. I don't really want a woman in combat, if I see a woman struggling to carry her groceries or push something heavy, I am quite inclined to help her and take pity (of course that's true for a man as well, but the pity and sympathy is different, because men are not women, and women are not men). I do want healthy families and home-cooked meals, and women who take pride in doing what God calls them to do with the home and with the children, for their husbands and for God's glory.
I don't agree with everything that flies under the banner of "patriarchy". Hyper-homeschoolerism where the girls wear jean skirts down below their heels, and where boys and girls are always segregated, is a great way to lead to sexual abuse and sexual rebellion. Men can seize leadership in such a way that they think of it just as that, a seizure, rather than a solemn responsibility entrusted to them by God for the good of others, and for their own good and the glory of God. Such men may be quite vocal, and put on quite the front, but in time their wicked fruit will manifest. Those men should be soundly and roundly condemned, driven out of the pulpit, and never allowed to return if the sin is severe enough (let's not debate what that line is right now). There can be a general bully-ness or alpha-male personality that is pushy and not, you know, southern, but just cranky and frankly selfish. So yes, sometimes that personality is prone to certain strands of wickedness, but sometimes the pushiness is necessary, raising your voice is necessary, persevering and being urged to persevere and toughen up is necessary. Again, let's not debate where the line is, sometimes it is less a line than it is wisdom, skill, and mingling firmness with encouragement and not just rebuke.
But when I begin to hear women, seemingly unawares, indirectly or even sometimes directly indicate that men get to have all the fun, that washing dishes and taking care of the home, being a homemaker, is just a fabrication of the fifties, I really have to scratch my head. Doesn't Scripture command women to be homemakers, working at home and submitting to their husbands and loving their children (Tit. 2:4-5)? Is there a symmetrical command for men to do the same? Of course not, because men and women are not symmetrical. They are asymmetrical.
That's why God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. Hey wait a minute, isn't that a cutesy argument against homosexuality, why are you bring it up in this context Booher? Ah, because they are connected, because the fundamental issue here is what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. Blur those distinctions enough, and you lose not just biblical gender roles, but biblical genders, or sexes, male and female, whatever you want to call it. Lose that, and transgenderism, not to mention LGB, is fair game.
I know it is hard for someone who has been sexually abused, or been around that, and has seen or suspected coverups from clergy, to hear this. When your vision is colored, when you have skin in the game, it is difficult to think clearly for anyone, male or female. But we still must do so. We still must hold fast to Scripture. Men are always going to fail us, except for Jesus, and yet Jesus has still chosen to work through fallible, sinful, bumbling men. Women are supposed to help these men, not hinder them. Men are supposed to love and cherish these women, valuing their help, recognize they are helping them to lead their families, and lead in the world, and are indispensable and necessary to the cause of Christ and His kingdom AS WOMEN, WIVES, and MOTHERS.
If Doug Wilson recorded a video in a pink tutu and announced he has embraced cross-dressing and is thinking about transitioning into a woman, that would be disturbing on several levels. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change what Scripture says. Pastors perverting the Word of God is terrible, but it doesn't change the truth of God, it doesn't change the Word of God. Hypocritical Christians and Christianity does not change Christianity's truthiness, and that Christ's kingdom cannot fail and will prevail, that righteousness will reign in the end as the waters cover the seas. We, here too, must walk by faith and not by sight.
As many know, R.C. Sproul Jr. has had many failings lately in his life. I would be more sympathetic if he wasn't writing the things he is still writing and recording videos of him teaching. If he seemed genuinely repentant and was bearing fruit of repentance rather than rubbing elbows with Tchividjian, I wouldn't even say this. But it illustrates my point. From what I have heard, even privately, this man has some serious sin issues and has greatly harmed his family. That is awful. Just the same, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of what he taught me and others at Reformation Bible College was, as we might have put it in class, "pure gold".
Gold is good. And many will try to imitate it in cheap and perhaps dangerous and harmful ways. Patriarchy is good, is biblical and natural, and because it is so good and valuable it too will try to be imitated by unworthy scoundrels. But that cannot allow us to, in response perhaps to real abuse and pain, from men, turn around and handle the situation in such a way that it is almost worse than the crime by men. After all, to go and change what God has decreed, even unintentionally, about what it means to be an image bearer of God, male and female, is no small sin. To put it into practice is unthinkable, it is to side with the world, the flesh, and the devil. To find a false cure that is really a darker poison.
Our Father, who is in heaven, reigns. He made man first, to rule and reign, to teach and instruct by word and the example of a godly life. He made women after, to help men in this glorious endeavor, to follow man's lead insofar as men lead in righteousness (1 Tim. 2:12-14). When men fail to do this, the solution is to point to the Word of God and urge men to lead down that path, not to usurp patriarchy and shrug off God's rule.
Obedience is the way forward, and it always is. Repentance and returning to the true path is always the way forward, rather than trying to beat a new one and introduce revisionist (church) history which will only lead to darkness further snuffing out the light, where the sexual chaos and sexual abuse of women at the hands of men that we currently see will only intensify and mutate into something even more grotesque. You can read about it in the Bible when it talks about Sodom and Gomorrah, and you can see it in the public reading hours in our libraries.
The Theology Gals crowd needs to hear and recognize this, that their train leads to destruction, but the patriarchal crowd, those who wear that label in one shade or another, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, also need to sharpen and examine their own views in all the crossfire, to remember we are far better at preaching than practicing, and recognize that we got to where we are in large measure due to weak men not leading well, by abdicating duty, being abusive, or simply not standing up to pushy women and instead enabling them to do their bidding, be their mouthpiece, clean up their own mess.
And what effect should this have on the two sides? Simply that the patriarchalists would speak the truth, with love, and the Theology Gals would listen, with gladness.
Comments
Post a Comment