You may have heard. Mark Driscoll resigned. If you don't know who that is, he was the founder and pastor of the Mars Hill church in Seattle, Washington. It boasts some 14,000 members and is known for its leading edge feel. "Last Easter, for example, the church's 15 locations in five states packed in more than 21,000 attendees for its service, and another 50,000 people watched the downtown Seattle service online."
I am not here to oppose or defend Mark Driscoll. He resigned because "I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit." So, okay. I won't second guess him. What I am noticing is that 1) it made the mainstream media (the story I quote here is from MSN) and 2) the reasons they are offering are ... awful.
Driscoll wasn't charged with heresy or immorality. He was just domineering (1 Peter 5:3). But MSN offers, "some of Driscoll’s theological views have been cited as opposing modern sensibilities." Like? "Complementarianism", for example. And here, in front of God and the world, we encounter a problem. A pastor has resigned because his message opposes "modern sensibilities". You know, like Jesus did with His messages. And Paul did with his. And the Bible promises it will. Complementarianism, for instance, is biblical. God created male and female with equal dignity and equal worth, but they have different roles to play ... because the Bible says so. Driscoll wasn't asked to take a leave of absence because he taught biblical values, but that's what MSN would have us believe.
As I said, I'm not here to oppose or defend the man. But when the media fails to understand and offers the completely false suggestion that correct theology should not oppose modern sensibilities, they're just illustrating the problem: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18).
22 comments:
Yep. 1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.
Yes, I was thinking of that one and Jesus's claim that the world would hate us and Paul's claim that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and particularly Solomon's "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." (Prov 16:25).
When it comes to religious matters, I'm only shocked when the media gets it RIGHT!
You must rarely be shocked, then.
Sorry, but complementarianism is not of Jesus, he taught and modeled a different way, one where ALL where invited to the table.
And his defiance of "modern sensibilities" was more centered on spinning against the tradition of the age -- which included patriarchy, misogyny, inequality, etc. And if you followed the Driscoll controversy at all, his un-Jesus-like behavior and deeds (exclusionary, hateful rhetoric, often "lying for Jesus") contributed significantly to his downfall.
But the point is, Driscoll, in his theology, is more akin to pharisaical thinking of the 1st century than the way of Jesus. And that type of complementarianism carries with it the baggage of hate, injustice, violence, etc.
Sorry, Naum, but Jesus did not teach egalitarianism. Jesus did not deny patriarchy. (God was "Father", not "Mother" or "He/She/It" or any other such thing.) Jesus defied the modern sensibilities of His day by doing good on the Sabbath and allowing His disciples to pick food on the Sabbath and arguing that the goodness of the Pharisees was not good enough.
Driscoll admits that he was wrong in his rhetoric and domineering attitudes, but you're wrong in linking necessarily complementarianism (found all over Scripture) and "hate, injustice, violence, etc. Do some who hold to complementarianism have those features as well? Well, of course. But not as part of the definition of the concept. As part of a failure to comprehend. (And, seriously, man, where would you get the idea that complementarianism means "not all are invited to the table"?)
I don't think that word means what Naum thinks it means.
(And, seriously, man, where would you get the idea that complementarianism means "not all are invited to the table"?)
Because that's exactly what it means and the edicts issued from it -- that women (one half the populations) are deemed "less than" and not worthy of being leaders (in the church and/or society).
And in total contradiction to the model of Jesus -- where in the early church, women, indeed served as (a) his closest disciples and (b) in Paul's letters that illustrate women leaders.
Well, then, methinks David is right. You don't think that word means what I think it means (or what Driscoll thought it meant). Part of the basic definition includes "God created male and female with equal dignity and equal worth." To argue, then, that "are deemed 'less than'" entirely misses the definition, doesn't it? (Note, also, that there isn't a scrap of room in complementarianism for any hint that women aren't to be Christ's closest disciples. I'm trying to figure out what misguided soul would have even made the hint of that suggestion.)
Complementarianism simply argues that God made male and female as complements, equal in value and serving in roles that complement one another. This is consistent with all of the varying texts addressing different instructions to men and to women as well as the authority structure of 1 Corinthians 11 (etc.).
and not worthy of being leaders (in the church and/or society)
Complementarianism says there are different roles for men and women in the church and the home. It has nothing to say about anything in "society."
Complementarianism simply argues that God made male and female as complements, equal in value and serving in roles that complement one another.
And an essential part of that definition (and as practiced by those churches that champion complementarianism) is that leadership roles are for men and support roles are for women.
This hierarchical complementarianism is a form of patriarchalism. Hierarchical complementarianism is founded upon the belief of ontological ineptitude. To say that men and women are "complements" of each other and that men are given the gifts of leadership in this arrangement is to argue that women are ontologically inept when it comes to leadership. That is, women are permanently lacking and incompetent in leadership spheres (ineptitude) because of the kinds of beings they are, namely women (ontology). That is the belief at the heart of hierarchical complementarianism--ontological ineptitude--that reveals its patriarchal nature.
And I don't think this notion of "dividing" God's nature between the genders is cogent or biblical. Jesus, as a single, reflected the full image of God. Thus, in conforming to the image of Jesus every person, of whatever gender, is called to reflect the full image of God.
" Hierarchical complementarianism is founded upon the belief of ontological ineptitude."
I don't mean to be rude, Naum, but that is false at best and a lie at worst. Complementarianism is founded on the Genesis text I alluded to and stands firmly on "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor 11:3). You will likely like to dismiss the clear text and its meaning and that's fine, but nothing in there suggests "ineptitude".
Look, to say, "Women are better at multitasking" is not a suggestion that men are inept or less valuable. But when Paul said, "I do not allow women to teach or usurp authority over men", that had to mean something else and if it meant what he said, then it's evil at its core. I disagree. I don't have a problem saying that my wife is better at managing the checkbook than I am and not finding an insult in it. She has no problem acquiescing to my superior talents with tech stuff and she doesn't think I've dubbed her as inept.
What it comes down to, at the core, is whether or not the text supports it. It does. So the only way to disagree is to disagree with 1) the plain meaning of the text and 2) 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy that agreed with the text. That doesn't disturb you, I know, but I'm not able to go there without finding a serious suggestion of an ontological ineptitude of the Spirit.
Great discussion. Stan, I love how you put things. You're definitely gifted in the area of communication. I'm referring specifically to this: "I don't have a problem saying that my wife is better at managing the checkbook than I am and not finding an insult in it. She has no problem acquiescing to my superior talents with tech stuff and she doesn't think I've dubbed her as inept."
I'm not sure if it's pride or self-esteem, a combination of both or just what we learn from society today that has people convinced that we must all be equal at everything (well, it's OK for women to be BETTER at some things, but not for men to be, or at least not to say it out loud) and if someone dare say that one group is more suited at something due to natural abilities, then they are haters or bigots or something...
Men were created to fill certain roles and women were created to fill certain roles. Because of the purpose for which we were created, each of us is naturally more suited for our respective positions. That doesn't make men any better or more valid than women or vice-versa.
It's like the whole house-wife thing. Society has been trained that for a woman to stay home, manage the household, the kids and the other things that cannot be done at the office that this makes her inferior.
This thinking has caused these things to be neglected which leads to confused children, less family time for bonding and working out issues and other responsibilities that go un-met.
I think this has had HUGE negative implications on the family structure and is at the root of many social, economic and moral problems we have in America today. No one knows their intended role anymore and everything is getting mixed up.
All because of pride.
Yes, Mike, isn't it funny that it's perfectly suitable and even commendable to claim that women are better than men, but never that a man might be better than a woman at something? Odd. (Not really, given the rise of radical feminism in the last 50 years as well as Gen 3:16.)
Interesting, also, that stories like the study that claimed that women who are homemakers are happier than those who are not never seem to get much air time. And how women prior to the modern onslaught of feminism weren't at all as miserable as today's woman seems to think they must have been ... forever until their liberation occurred.
Seriously, Naum, if you are going to decry a theology based on an improper use of that theology, then you are going to have to abandon Christianity. Complementarianism specifically states that men and women are equal in value and status in the Kingdom, but differ in roles. Those roles do not commute any sense of value, unless you make it so. Being a church elder doesn't make that man better than any woman in that church. He may not even be as spiritually mature as some of the women, but it isn't about value, it is about role. If someone says otherwise and still holds to complementarianism, then they aren't understanding it. That doesn't make it any less valid though. How about evangelism? You believe we should evangelize? Well, so did the Crusaders. Oh, now you can't believe in evangelism. Sinful people will always be around to twist the truth, but that doesn't mean the truth isn't true.
Naum,
In the military, does the squad leader have more human value than a member of his squad? Is the squad leader a better person than a member of his squad?
What about the platoon leader vs the squad leader -- does the platoon leader have more human value than the squad leader?
The whole point is that their is a need for a leadership hierarchy, whether in an organization (e.g. church) or in a small unit (e.g. family unit). This does not reduce the worthiness of those under authority.
…if you are going to decry a theology based on an improper use of that theology, then you are going to have to abandon Christianity.
Wow, that's a heavy charge, especially considering that most Bible scholars and theologians (excepting fundamentalist, conservative denominations like Southern Baptists and "traditional" Catholic/Orthodox, though many theologians in the Catholic tradition push against complementarianism). See Gordon Fee, Roger Olson, Scot McKnight, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, etc.
Jesus gospel says ALL people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. So when you cut off half the population from leadership roles, you are indeed, proclaiming that they are "less than".
You misunderstood, Naum. Your argument, essentially, was "People misuse the idea, so it is faulty." If that is your approach, people misuse Christianity, so it is faulty. He wasn't saying that Christianity was predicated on complementarianism. He was addressing your accusation that it's false because some people link ineptitude or misogyny to it. We (you and I) agree that misogyny and the accusation of ineptitude is faulty. You eliminate complementarianism on that basis, and I eliminate those faulty add-ons on that basis.
How are you not getting this? What role you play doesn't dictate what your worth is. Pastors are not more valuable or better morally or more important than leymen. You can't have a brain function with no body. The hand is not of less value than the eye, they play different but equal roles. How is this a hard concept for you. The Bible even spells it out almost exactly like that. Having a position of authority does not change the value. In our fallen world that may be the perception or outcome, but in the Biblical worldview that is not the way of it. Equal in worth, different in roles. Why you keep accusing us of saying otherwise is insane.
How are you not getting this? What role you play doesn't dictate what your worth is. Pastors are not more valuable or better morally or more important than leymen. You can't have a brain function with no body. The hand is not of less value than the eye, they play different but equal roles. How is this a hard concept for you. The Bible even spells it out almost exactly like that. Having a position of authority does not change the value. In our fallen world that may be the perception or outcome, but in the Biblical worldview that is not the way of it. Equal in worth, different in roles. Why you keep accusing us of saying otherwise is insane.
No, it's you who don't get it -- if you do not have a seat at the leadership table (or right to vote or participate, or even just limited to "support" role), you are trumped and in essence, it does mean you are "less than" in worth. Without a vote, or being auto-precluded from a leadership role most certainly means "less than". And it goes against what Jesus and Paul modeled in the Bible. See the bible scholar/theologians I listed above on the matter.
David, Naum, reading into church polity the secular preferred government policy ("government by the people"), he will not allow the possibility that role and value are different. I don't suppose he will admit that at another juncture in life. I don't guess, for instance, that anyone who is not a computer programmer like he is is deemed "less than" because they don't fulfill that role. It only works in church leadership, you see. And no amount of Scripture or logic will make a difference. The fact that Jesus was subservient to the Father must, by this logic, make Jesus "less than", but since that's not church polity either, he won't apply it there, either. So let it go. It's one of those impasses between a "I read the Bible for what it says" and a "I read the Bible with one eye on culture and another on what I want it to say" types. (Probably not fair, but it just looks that way too often.)
Naum has the same sort of twisted eisegesis as a troll now banned. The leftists who make the Bible fit their agenda rather than learn what it really says, spend much of their time trolling the internet trying to get more followers of their false teachings.
Post a Comment