The Despised Ones

May 18, 2013 — 2 Comments

despised

This is a guest post from Morgan Guyton about our new blogging collective, The Despised Ones. I’m so pumped to be a part of this disreputable brood.

Also, Morgan is, like, really smart, you guys. He’s basically the Master Splinter of The Despised Ones.

–

You may have noticed that an eery looking emblem recently appeared on my blog with some Greek and Hebrew along with a reference to 1 Corinthians 1:28, one of my favorite verses in the Bible: “He has chosen the despised ones and those who are not to bring to nothing the things that are.” Several nights ago, I got into a casual conversation with my blogger friends Zach Hoag and T.C. Moore. We decided to join forces in some fashion under the banner of “The Despised Ones.” We made a logo and invited some friends to join us, whatever it is that we will end up doing.

It all started when T.C. Moore wrote the following as his facebook status update:

There’s a peculiar tribe of radicals discovering they are not alone. They come from all different traditions and expressions of the church, but they share many common characteristics:

Their message is centered on Jesus the Messiah; their definition of power is the cruciform love of God revealed on the Cross; they proclaim Jesus Lord and King, not Caesar; they won’t bow down to nationalistic idolatry, nor will they be co-opted by any of the powers that be; their Gospel is good news to those on the margins; they live in authentic community in eschatological hope; they embody the life of the age to come; they live as pilgrims and sojourners in this world, because God is building a new city among them; they live in solidarity with the hurting, and celebrate the new covenant with joy; God is using them to renew all things.

They are Jesus-disciples, and they are turning the world upside-down.

This sounded a lot like what 1 Corinthians 1:28 says, so I shared it with T.C. and Zach. Essentially what we’re talking about is a specific set of priorities in thinking about the shape of the kingdom of God and the vocation of Christian disciples. When Jesus calls us to take up our crosses and follow Him, He’s not just telling us to engage in “self-sacrifice” through accruing a certain quota of volunteer service hours or smiling pleasantly a certain number of times at people who are being unpleasant to us. Taking up your cross is not about carrying a heavy load; it’s about renouncing your social status.

To take up your cross in a literal, 1st century sense would mean to join the procession of those who have been condemned to die in their march out of the city gates, which in figurative 21st century terms would mean to join the company of those who are despised by the world, the modern-day equivalents of “the prostitutes and tax collectors [who] are entering the kingdom of heaven ahead of [those who think they are the gatekeepers of heaven]” (Matthew 21:31). I’ll let you fill in those blanks. It means that we sit at the feet of those who are despised by the world and allow them to teach and judge us.

In 1 Corinthians 6:4, Paul makes a very interesting statement that I happen to think has been mistranslated by just about every English version of the Bible. The Corinthians had been in a power struggle which has gotten ugly and turned litigious. Particularly scandalous to Paul is that believers have gone outside of the church to the pagan courts to rule in their disputes. Paul says in Greek, βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τούτους καθίζετε.

The NRSV translates this: “If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?” The NIV says, “Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?” It is very telling about the Bible translators of the NRSV and NIV that they could not conceive of the possibility that when Paul uses the phrase ἐξουθενημένους (“despised ones”), he mightnot be making his own moralistic judgment about the people he’s talking about. They must not have looked back to 1 Corinthians 1:28 where Paul uses the same word in a slightly different form, ἐξουθενημένα, to talk about the people whom God has anointed to “bring to nothing the things that are.”

If we take Paul’s statement at face value without making a moralistic judgment about the ἐξουθενημένους, then what Paul is saying literally is this: “Therefore if you have disputes about daily life, then let the despised ones in your church be the judges.” Recall that 1 Corinthians is the book where Paul exclaims, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20). We think we’re so sophisticated, but the truth is that outsiders who have no status and thus no artifice could probably do a better job of resolving our silly squabbles with one another better than we could. And it’s their lack of worldly dignity and anxiety over appearances that makes the despised ones people we should listen to and take seriously.

When Jesus says, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44), He’s not commanding us to put on some latex gloves and dish out soup for poor people once a month so that we can feel good about ourselves. He’s telling us to put ourselves beneath “the least of our brothers and sisters” with whom He directly identifies Himself (Matthew 25:40). Let the despised ones be your judges!

Jesus is the king who makes Himself the despised one (Philippians 2:7) so that His disciples would learn to “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit [but] rather, in humility value others above yourselves” (Philippians 2:3). To follow our despised messiah, we need to proactively examine ourselves for “selfish ambitions” and “vain conceits” that are corrupting our motives for what we do. The freedom of discipleship requires our utter abandonment of worldly dignity, which all too often has a lot more currency inside the church than without. We need to be unashamed to be despised by others even within the church who have turned church into a place where worldly status is affirmed and reinforced rather than subverted and eschewed.

In any case, T.C. and Zach and I decided to band together in some fashion with other bloggers and rebel Christians who understand their Christian vocation similarly and are willing to be despised. I’m not sure where this will evolve. We’ll have to listen to the Holy Spirit. When John Wesley decided on April 2, 1739 to preach outside of the official Anglican pulpit in the streets and fields of England, he wrote in his journal: “At four in the afternoon I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation.” Wesley was a despised one; there have been many others.

Oh and the Hebrew on the emblem is bani b’li shem, which means “sons with no name,” a phrase that expresses the aristocratic presumption that if you don’t belong to a family with a name, you’re clearly a bad or at least untrustworthy person. In the South particularly, we talk about whether so-and-so is “from a good family.” Job uses this phrase in Job 30:8 to describe the filthy peasants whose company he has been reduced to after he loses his princely wealth and status. Basically, it’s another way of saying ἐξουθενημένα. How does the NRSV translate this phrase? “A senseless, disreputable brood.” Yup. That’s us!

In Church, Theology , , , , , , , ,
permalink

A False Gospel of Reconciliation

May 17, 2013 — 34 Comments

photo

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. /2 Corinthians 5

I begin with this passage for one reason: I believe in the “ministry of reconciliation.”

And I want to frame everything that follows here in the gospel that truly reconciles. I have no interest in contradicting that gospel. I have no interest in abandoning it. I aim to give my life to experiencing and sharing in that very same message.

But here’s the thing.

There’s a false gospel on the loose in the evangelical church.

And it is nothing less than a diabolical doctrine that comes clothed in a bright, angelic, counterfeit message of “reconciliation.” It is a word entrenched in institutional power and amplified by hierarchies reaching up into the halls of religious academia and pressing deep into the world of prestigious publishing. Far from a message that subverts the empire of selfish power and control by reweaving justice and peace, this gospel is one that glorifies the way of empire, often calling it “God” and claiming to be his ambassadors. Then, when injustice strikes, instead of healing there is worse abusing; instead of honesty and advocacy, complicity.

And the ministers still mouthing “reconciliation.”

It’s an old, old story really, but it is playing out with new people in new ways. I’ve written before about the current lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries and how it represents a rapidly approaching counseling cliff for the evangelical church at large – a cliff especially perilous when conservative churches deal with matters of abuse. Well, this week, more allegations were filed against SGM, and they are horrific. And, as of now, the major evangelical institutions that are closely connected to SGM – namely, The Gospel Coalition (where C.J. Mahaney, a defendant in the suit and founding leader of the SGM movement, is a council member) and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (major supporter/ally of C.J. and SGM, with President Al Mohler as close friend and staunch defender of C.J.) – have not issued anything in the way of cautionary or even concerned statements regarding the man or the movement (that I am aware of). There has been total silence about a celebrity preacher and an organization that is now literally inundated with accusations of sexually and physically abusing children and conspiring to cover it all up over many years. Nor have any/many connected big-name individual leaders, themselves also institutionally powerful, come out with words of warning or grieving. Instead, powerful men like John Piper have made gestures of support in the midst of C.J. and SGM’s legal troubles.

The silence is deafening.

Just like it was when priest after bishop after archbishop in the Catholic Church were convicted and exposed having maintained silence and conspiracy and complicity all the way until the court’s verdict finally came down. And just like it is even afterwards, as Vatican supporters try to minimize the atrocities committed, citing statistics and percentages and “we’re doing pretty good, considering”‘s. Because that’s how it goes with power. That’s just the way empire does things.

Hey, here’s an idea. Where’s the guy that’s willing to lose his job by coming out with some STRONG statements of alarm, warning, grief, and mourning, at the sheer wretchedness of these allegations? Where’s the guy who doesn’t care if the leg bone’s connected to the thigh bone from whence his big publishing deal cometh and decides to tear the freaking tarp off of this twisted metal wreck of a system that halts and hesitates to even empathize with these victims and weep with those who weep at the first sign of their weeping (not to mention their months of legal case-building)? I mean, we all know how this ends, right? WE ALL KNOW HOW THIS ENDS.

But this is the way the false gospel works, and it’s an old, old story. This false gospel starts with a false god – a god who is anger. Yes, the god of this SGM movement was said to be just that – gracious – but the seedy backdrop behind this notion of grace is a god of sadistic and irrational rage. C.J.’s famous quip that we are all doing “better than we deserve” is grounded in the idea of a god of such cruelty that no matter what injustice we may have suffered in life – or perpetrated – all is better than what we really deserve, which is unending conscious torture at the hands of a concentration camp commander christ. So don’t complain! Stop being depressed! And if, by some miracle of miniscule probability, you have been chosen for eternal life by the sovereignly electing mind of this raging god (a matter, of course, to be discerned by your SGM elders), then no matter what happens to you post-regeneration, you REALLY have no reason to whine!

The most grotesque allegations to come out of this lawsuit have to do with the culture of “gospel-centered reconciliation” in this movement, where victims of abuse – often, children – were simply told to “forgive” and “reconcile” with their adult church member/leader abusers. I mean, it’s better than you deserve, right? So get over it. And smack dab in the center of this demonic-gospel culture were leaders who rise to levels of immense influence over their cruelly “humbled” people, all the while claiming to be humble themselves. These guys held the keys out of unspeakable eternal hells, and that gave them unspeakable power. Yet because the hell inside of some of them was almost as bad as anything postmortem, they perpetrated their patriarchal darkness upon innocent little ones, and then helped each other keep the concealing tarp firmly intact.*

And this false gospel of reconciliation doesn’t stop here. It is not only reserved for churches fraught with sex abuse scandals. It rears its ugly head in all kinds of conservative evangelical circles, taking the similar shape of pain-denying theologies that counsel victims to get over it and get back together with those who harmed them. The gospel is about reconciliation, right? So if your spouse hits you, forgive them and reconcile. And if your kids are starving because of a father’s gambling, get some counseling from an elder and make it work, honey. And if some friends cheated you in business, or a church member is spreading vicious lies about you, or a family member won’t stop manipulating you into situations of terrible emotional pain, hey, it’s better than you deserve because you’re a hellbound sinner too, so just reconcile with them because that’s what grace means (i.e., subjecting yourself to present pains presumably less than the eternal pain of conscious torment in hellfire).

This is all BS.

And it’s BS because it twists the truth of the ministry of reconciliation into something that perpetuates the abuse of power instead of subversively stopping it.

See, in a very present and real sense, right now, God is at work to reconcile and restore the entire cosmos to shalom, to peace and justice and wholeness:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. /Colossians 1

This cosmic dimension of true gospel reconciliation takes precedence over all interpersonal situations of wrongdoing, conflict, or abuse. The goal toward which the resurrected Jesus is working in the world right now is not some imaginary peace where people “reconcile” in name only while the abuse is never stopped and the wrong never righted. No, this is instead a total bending of the violent and unjust world back toward God’s shalom, until it is completely put to rights on the final day.

Thus, any ministry of reconciliation that does not, as a matter of first importance, advocate for the innocent and safeguard the physical and emotional protection, not exposure, of the people entrusted to the church, is no ministry of reconciliation at all.

Because reconciliation is right.

Reconciliation bends things back to to justice and peace.

And reconciliation, rightly lived as part of God’s cosmic work to restore all things, always subverts the empire of unjust power and control. It messes with thrones and powers and rulers and authorities. It takes them to task.

And forgiveness, which is the fundamental heart-level releasing of those who have done us wrong to the capable hand of God, hoping and praying for their redemption, refusing to live in bitterness and resentment (even in the midst of our righteous anger), endeavoring to love even our enemies, does not require a faux interpersonal reconciliation that merely opens us back up to the dangerous abuses of power that caused so much pain in the first place.

Because that’s not what God is up to in the world. He is angry over abuses like these, to be sure, but that is precisely because he is not that sadistic, irrational being who is callous to all earthly pain in contrast to the eternal pain he intends to inflict upon the non-elect (and of which all are deserving). God is not anger.

God is love.

And that love is what any and every victim of injustice truly deserves.

–

What do you think about this case, and about this issue? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

*And remember, though I am responding strongly to the allegations as they have been presented – and I believe everyone should react strongly to them – they are not yet legal facts. We do not wait for a verdict before we speak out or empathize with the victims (because that is injustice in and of itself), but we respect due process before passing the final verdict ourselves.

[Update 5/17/13 8:30pm: Today's civil suit hearing has run into a severe statute of limitations setback. Read more here. It appears that some of the plaintiffs' allegations may still be admissible, and a criminal trial may be forthcoming. Regardless, the court of common sense will cast a strong verdict in light of the evidence, and the truth will shine, no matter what. Let's just hope that the abusers and complicit institutions and leaders are all held accountable.]

In Church, Theology , , , , , , , , ,
permalink
tdmspictureholder

My Interview on the Drew Marshall Show

May 11, 2013 — Leave a comment

Last week I was on the Drew Marshall Show, a Toronto-based radio show on faith and culture. I was a tad nervous, and I talk too slow for radio sometimes. But it was fun to chat about the book and the blog. Enjoy!

In Culture, Theology , , , , , , ,
permalink

Review: Prodigal Christianity, Part 1

May 10, 2013 — 2 Comments

4140326212916_a8A7gkDt_l

[graphic: Andres Jasso]

Some books show up at just the right time.

In a recent review of Creating a Missional Culture by J.R. Woodward, I wrote about how the practical stories and ecclesial exhortations in the book felt like the timely, comforting voice of God to me in the midst of fresh heartache from closing our church plant, Dwell, last August.

Prodigal Christianity by my two friends David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw has been a well-timed book, to be sure.

But in a different sort of way.

It hasn’t been a personal comfort in the midst of heartache or crisis or transition, so much as an affirmation of a much bigger web of belief and life that has been forming around me and my family over the last ten years. Through Bible college and marriage and beginning in ministry and planting a church and writing a book and closing a church, we have been on a journey, a journey into what Fitch and Holsclaw call the “far country” of our post-Christendom culture in need of a prodigal God and a prodigal church. And our passion for our friends and neighbors experiencing the love of Jesus and life in the kingdom of God has continually drawn us beyond the typical options of conservative/reformed or progressive/emergence/liberal Christianities. Because those options just don’t seem to be working.

To sum up a ten year journey and the missional cry of our heart for another way to be Christian is no small feat – and yet, this, and nothing less, is what Prodigal Christianity accomplishes.

And I’m exceedingly grateful for that.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a respectable book review if there wasn’t some kind of critique :) . And, as it happens, I have three minor gripes to get out of the way here in Part 1, before getting to all the major glow in Part 2. So let’s get on with the gripes…

First, an obvious fundamental premise of the book is the fact that North America has transitioned into straight-up post-Christendom cultural status. I live in the least religious city in the least religious state in the U.S. – so I enthusiastically concur! There is no doubt that the church is no longer operating from a position of power in the broader society of the U.S. and Canada. But the authors’ presentation of this in Chapter 1 and throughout didn’t go far enough, in my opinion. Specifically, there is a tendency in missional literature in general to talk about “post-Christendom” or “post-Christian” as referencing bygone better days, days when Judeo-Christian belief, worship, and morality held sway in society and nasty secularism and pluralism had not yet messed things up. This then tips dangerously close to the moralistic power-narrative of the religious right, that America is a “Christian nation” and we must take the nation back for God (via church influence and American political power)!

I am 100% sure that Dave and Geoff do not take that position (quite the contrary), but there seemed to be a lack of clarity around this, especially in Chapter 1. I would like to have seen the authors present a more anabaptist definition of Christendom – that is, Christendom = Christ + (worldly) kingdoms, the ungodly merging of the church’s politic with the corrupt, violent, and unjust political powers that be. This is, of course, part of the story of the church in North America. Political corruption has been a huge part of the decline and decay of the church’s witness, right up to the present moment. Thus, the church is no longer prominent and powerful in society – which opens up the door for an amazing opportunity to regain true witness and be transformative salt and light without seizing worldly power. (Btw, Chapter 10 on pluralism redeems some of this quite nicely.)

Second, the sexuality chapter, Chapter 8, for all of its wonderful exhortation towards an “open and mutually transforming” church community, made a key misstep in opening with the illustration of a Christian with pedophiliac urges. I’m particularly sensitive to issues of sexual orientation/civil rights in the church since my state was the first to legalize gay marriage via the legislative process; and it seemed unnecessary/awkward to compare a sexual urge (like pedophilia) that, if acted on, leads to harmful and illegal sexual abuse, with other sexual behaviors (like homosexuality) that don’t entail abuse at all. This kind of flattening of “sexual struggles” or “sexual brokenness” hinders rather than helps our discernment process, in my opinion.

At the same time, though, I was pleased that the authors gave a clear word on same-sex relationships: “Even if we do not believe same-sex sexual relations are normative for Christian life and practice (which we, Dave and Geoff, do not), we must still enter the missional far country recognizing that God is already at work in these places.”

Third, I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT DAVE AND GEOFF SUGGESTED THAT TONY JONES REPRESENTS A NEWER FORM OF MAINLINE CHRISTIANITY. SERIOUSLY. HOW DARE THEY.

Of course, I’m joking.

This third gripe is not a gripe at all but a reinforcing WELL DONE to the authors for being willing to say some hard things about a much-applauded progressive movement in the church – emergence Christianity. Though Dave and Geoff are clearly passionate about missionally engaging progressive culture, they are highlighting a boundary: the church’s gospel does not need to be reframed as a “progressive gospel” but must rather become an embodiment of the same hope of incarnation, resurrection, rescue, and renewal present in the early church. This is the kind of gospel that has “the substance on which we can live,” and the gospel our culture – and all cultures – desperately need in rooted, contextual expressions.

Indeed, the first two gripes are well solved by this one principle. Personal and even cultural transformation are possible when this substantial gospel is in view. The Introduction sets up the warp and woof of the book’s prodigal gospel message quite well:

To be Christian is to learn to become prodigal.

Such a prodigal Christianity will be generous. It may be so generous and welcoming that it will seem scandalous. Yet it compromises nothing of the transformative nature of the gospel. A prodigal Christianity will not rely on pronouncements given from a seat of authority. But we will enter humbly and vulnerably, bringing God’s hospitality to the places of mission. A prodigal Christianity will not rely on the basic foundations of Christendom because it always journeys far beyond these places into the missional far country, where there is no prior witness. Yet prodigal Christianity will not merely accommodate the new cultures it meets because it comes bearing a story, our story, the good news (gospel) of the prodigal God.

We’ll look at this prodigal message in more detail over the weekend…But for now, what do you think? Have you read the book? Do you agree with the gripes – and the praise? Does the subject matter trigger anything for you? I’d love to hear!

Screen-Shot-2013-03-19-at-7.37.52-PM

In Church, Theology , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Stanley Hauerwas on the Definition of a Christian

May 5, 2013 — 5 Comments

For me, wow.

What about for you? Does Hauerwas get the definition right here?

In Theology , , ,
permalink

Dexter: You’re Lost

May 4, 2013 — 2 Comments

Loving the official poster and trailer for Dexter Season 8, starting on Sunday June 30th. Can’t wait to see what the writers have in store for the final installment of Dexter’s story – will he ever be whole again? First, the trailer:

And the poster:

o-DEXTER-SEASON-8-570

Yay!

In Culture, Theology , , , , , , ,
permalink

Three Complementarians & a Mutualist

May 3, 2013 — 45 Comments

three-men-and-a-baby-1024x576

[Warning: longish post. Also, Tom Selleck.]

So now that Smokin’ Hot Fest 2013 has died down somewhat, I figured I’d deliver on my promise to talk a little bit more about the theological root of the demeaning, misogynistic evangelical fruit that I surveyed in the first post on the topic.

It’s time, you guys. Time to talk about…complementarianism.

Now, I know that the uninitiated will find that word cumbersome and confusing. Does this have something to do with complimenting people? Like, “Nice job!”-ism? Worse, does it have something to do with that particular compliment that some evangelical bros are wont to tweet and sermonize about, the smokin’ hot compliment?

Well, yes and no.

Really, complementarianism describes a biblically-derived complementary view of gender roles in marriage, home, and church. That is, each gender – male and female – is different from the other, with different roles to play in these particular spheres of life; but each role is not “better or worse” than the other. Instead, each role complements the other! It’s all good, homeboys and homegirls (so long as both the homeboy and homegirl in question each stay within their particularly defined roles). Yet, as these roles are unpacked it becomes clear that there is not just gender diversity but gender hierarchy at work. Men are uniquely called to take the “highest” leadership positions in both the home (head) and church (elder/pastor), and women are called to other “lower” tasks that generally imply submission to male leadership.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are the current Christendom guardians of the complementarian worldview (in North America at least) and they sum it up rather nicely in these first points of their audacious-sounding “Danvers Statement”:

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

2. the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood;

3. the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives…

Etc.

Before one can even scratch down to the content, there is something striking right here on the surface: antagonism. While complementarians are generally self-consciously biblical in their argumentation – beginning with creation in Genesis and plodding their way through the propositions of Paul – this opening statement deals with a decidedly cultural battle. It is antagonism towards the “contemporary developments” of “feminist egalitarianism,” etc., that has moved the men of Danvers to make a statement. And that’s why it has become my conviction that the complementarian worldview, as it currently stands, is far more political than theological.

That said, I used to be a complementarian. My complementarianism even blossomed in half-hearted public “hot wife” talk in order to be one of the guys. It was part of the young, cool conservative evangelical package, and I was playing my “gender role.”

As such, I’ve seen a spectrum within the complementarian school of thought. There’s some nuance here. So without further ado, I want to introduce you to three complementarians, who differ in their particular perspective and delivery. Like the “three men” represented above, they all hold onto a strongly defined maleness, with much proverbial hair on their proverbial chests (though one of them is a little bit more like Steve Guttenberg).

1. The Conservative Complementarian (or, the Selleck). This guy was one of the Danvers men, and he stands for everything conservative and culturally/politically antagonistic about the complementarian position. For him, the goal is to produce statements, white papers, and apologetics against the evils of feminism, egalitarianism, and “gender/women’s studies.” The Bible’s black and whiteness on this issue is beyond dispute for this khaki-and-polo wearing stud, and while he may not tweet about his smokin’ hot wife, he will intentionally suppress her both at home and in the church. (His wife will be inculturated enough to believe that she wants this kind of demeaning submission and stifling restriction.) And, when men in his church emotionally and physically abuse their wives, he’ll discourage law enforcement/court involvement/professional counseling, and simply “bring it to the elders” (see here & here).

2. The Cool Complementarian (or, the Danson). This guy LOVES tweeting about his smokin’ hot wife. Because he’s clear about what men and women are and do in their very different roles, he knows that women like to look hot and to have their husbands tell 8,000 internet followers they look hot every freaking date night. And, he knows that his wife’s “nagging” at home is a problem and she needs to learn to submit and respect him. In fact, it’s also getting to be a problem that she isn’t “available and awesome” enough for him in the bedroom. But no worries – a Song of Solomon podcast and a few more “hot” tweets should fix all that!

3. The Common-Sense Complementarian (or, the Guttenberg). This guy is the redeeming quality of the complementarian worldview. I know this guy, and I respect this guy. He is theoretically on board with complementarian gender roles in marriage, home, and church. But he is highly critical and super suspect of both the conservative and the cool complementarians. He makes no bones about the fact that his complementarianism is completely different from Mark Driscoll’s – because the stuff that dude says is CRAZY. His chastened, common-sense approach is theologically conservative/traditional but practically careful to affirm a baseline equality (he’ll even use the word “egalitarian”). He respects his wife, and all women, and treats them as equals even if he can’t offer them an elder position or Sunday morning sermon slot (he’ll find every way around that, though, to empower women in the church). In the end, his actions don’t create suppression or misogyny, per se; but he is yet connected to an overall theology that often does.

Now that we got our three men out of the way, let’s talk about the baby.

Ok, this is precisely where that metaphor breaks down. Forget the baby.

Instead, I want to briefly introduce the mutualist, the one who stands as a counterpoint to all this complementarian manliness. Mutualism may not have a Christendom guardian organization, nor even a theological Wikipedia page, but it is one way of identifying a growing Christian (and evangelical) perspective that makes a strong objection to the demeaning, misogynistic culture that complementarianism often creates. And the mutualist is self-consciously biblical, just like the complementarian claims to be.

The baseline belief is that the narrative trajectory of scripture, both Old to New Testaments, summed up in Jesus and his gospel, speaks loudest of gender mutuality, not complementarity/hierarchy.

The examples of high female leadership in the narrative (from Deborah to Mary to Junia) are buoyed up by a much bigger theme: the oneness-equality of the genders in creation and new creation. We are all created in the image and likeness of God equally (male and female), all children of the creator-God equally. While sin and brokenness tamper with this unity (Genesis 3), the new creation in Christ super-affirms it:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3).

Further, this oneness results in a mutuality within the body of Christ as all submit to Jesus as Head and then to each other as equal members:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5).

The mutualist believes that this gospel oneness manifesting in mutual submission to Jesus and each other, equally among both genders, is the guiding principle for all other questions regarding roles and callings. She is saying to her complementarian brothers that the monolithic categories of difference between gender roles for which they are arguing have been effectively wiped out by Jesus and his redeeming work of new creation. Now, everyone is free to be exactly who they are, as human beings, in Christ, as gifted members of the body of Christ, together!

Because mutualism is a basline biblical/gospel category, it embraces the beauty of egalitarianism and feminism. And, in affirming all people being exactly who they are as human beings in Christ, it is also inclusive of differences in gender roles and callings as they are simply lived out and expressed. It even affirms complementarity, while denying hierarchy! The kind of “headship” in marriage, for instance, that Paul goes on to propositionally describe in Ephesians 5 is not regarded as a “bad authority thing” but rather a description of a husband’s gifting in an already mutually submitted marriage (verse 21 comes before verse 22). Yet, the manifestation of this “headship” is not monolithic, nor are the particulars set in stone, for it is subject, again, to the narrative of new creation and gospel that resoundingly shouts out the mutuality of our oneness-equality in Christ.

The mutualist reminds us that her view is grounded in scripture, so much so that it is not mainly a political or cultural signifier, as the statement of the Danvers men seems to be. She is painting a picture that is fundamentally non-antagonistic. She’s saying, “Deborah happened! Mary is a thing! And Paul wasn’t embarrassed that the Holy Spirit made Junia an authoritative apostle, leading men, just as he wasn’t ashamed that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles!” The hierarchy of gender roles has been wiped out, not by cultural feminism, but by God, and even the trajectory of Paul’s letters flies unmistakably in the direction of full and equal leadership in the church among genders. She says with Scot McKnight:

I don’t think the traditional complementarian view is biblical. I think it’s anti-biblical.

But there’s something else about the mutualist that everyone should know. As biblically-rooted as she is, she has also generally been hurt by that same Bible in the past. She is familiar with the existential reality of pain inflicted by the unrighteous wielding of the Word, especially upon women and children. She’s seen the abuse. She’s seen the misogyny. She’s been suppressed and demeaned.

And the Jesus she knows – existentially, experientially – simply cannot be ok with what she’s seen.

The gospel simply has to be better news than all of that mess.

And you know what?

She’s right.

–

So, what do you think? Are you one of the three complementarians, or are you a mutualist? Or have I missed your “type”? Let me know!

In Church, Theology , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink