rhettsmith.com

You are a brave man, Rhett. But that's why I love your blog. You are unafraid. I would like to say that I am shocked but I am not. The most recent copy Christianity Today has an article on substitutionary atonement by Mark Dever. I love the title... No Substitute for the Substitute. The tag line is "Some evangelicals argue that for centuries we've misunderstood the meaning of Christ's atonement. Really?"

Seems like a pretty extreme statement to me, which ironically is what Dever is accusing others of. If you read Scot MicKnight's stuff on the atonement, he is not saying what Dever's is claiming. He is saying that the Scriptures speak of other views of the atonement, and that substitution was not the primary view in histiory until after Anslem in 1000 AD.

The article, as well as your links remind me of what a friend told me once. He was asked what he thought about Calvinistic and reformed theology. His reply was he had yet to meet anyone who subcribed to that particular theology that was not arrogant and combative.

Sad isn't it.

Rhett,

"How is it that in Article 16 they can discriminate against women, but then in Article 17 say that any discrimination is betraying the gospel."

Granted, I see your point. But I think that you are reading your own presupposition into the articles. Article 16 essentially says that setting distinctions between men and women and their roles in the ministy is not discrimination (in the way that we generally think of negative discrimination). So by asserting that they "discriminate against women" in Article 16, you are ignoring what they have explicitly said.

Then in article 17 they are speaking of discrimination in the negative way -which they had just afore mentioned would not include distinctive roles for men and women in the ministry.

Now, if by "discriminate" you mean simply "to make a distinction" then we have a category error because the two words are synonomous. Even you must admit that we can't not discriminate (make distinctions in a non-negative way).

But if by using "discrimination" you mean to imply a negative connotation then I think that discrimination and distinction become two different words (given the context).

I think that your argument is not with the Articles themselves - for they seem to clearly define their terms when refering to distinction and discrimination. Your argument is with their theology.

Also, as a side note, I think you are taking the entire article 17 out of its intended context. The article from top to bottom is about the oppression of African Americans and other "tongues and tribes and peoples and nations." So in context, the part you quoted earlier could read like this, "We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, [racial] discrimination, or [racial] division without betraying the Gospel." The word "racial" before the word "prejudice" is the word (adjective) that is to describe the words (nouns) that follow: "prejudice", "discrimination", and "division".

I'd love to hear what you think. As I have mentioned to you before, I disageree with some of the distinctions of my pastor (MacArthur) between men and women - I believe that women should be allowed to be deacons (Phoebe, Romans 16). But I do agree with him that the Bible is explicitly clear about a woman's role in regards to preaching (1 TIm 2:12).

How are we to deal with the following passages?

"There is no longer Jew no Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer make nor female; for all of you are one in Christ." [Galatians 3.28]

It appears that Paul is directly speaking to the erasure of social disticntions on some level, is he not?

"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives [or compatriots] who were in prison with me; they are prominant among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me." [Romans 16.7]

In some texts, Junia has been changed to Junias [a male refernce]. Yet the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts contian the name Julia.

I wonder if the articls are not in fact seeing truth through a preconcieved theological lens as well. As we all do. Everyone has an interpretive lens through which they see and read the text. This includes upbringing, education, and church affiliation. This is nt a bad thing, but just a reality that we need to keep in mind. I just don't think issues like these are as easy as we sometomes think.

Obviously these gentlemen are great scholars and thinkers, yet we must admit that there are great scholars and thinkers who foundationally disagree with them. Both love Jesus dearly. The part that seems to hurt is the divisive language of exclusion [i.e. "we have the right perspective and everything else is destructive to the true interpretation of the gospel, which we have."] that permeates the articles. [But perhaps that is my own take on them.]

Perhaps there is a better way.

We need to be ruled by grace and love. Remember, Jesus reserved his harshed words for those who were religious and exclusionary of others. I need that reminder everyday.

Rhett,
Great post. You are not beating a dead horse. The horse is unfortunately alive and well and John MacArthur, John Piper and R.C. Sproul are riding it into the sunset. But their day is almost over and Evangelical-Town is looking for a new sharif, deputy and chief of police.

I liked your last post on this issue as well, I've just been to busty to comment lately.

We were discussing last night (a prof had some of us over for pizza & beer) anyway we were dicussing how if we take seriously a social Trinity model and not just an economic Trinity ("Article VI") than we can see the Holy Spirit (the life giver, nurturer) as our mother or the feminine face of God. Im not sure about all of this yet (still new to me) but I was thinking that concept could be a mavelous help with these types of problems. I don't know what do ya think?

Wayne

So would you forbid these men to speak for you at your church or conference?

I agree (mostly) with austin. Jesus repeatedly tried to tell his Apostles that no one role is greater than the other. Man makes these distinctions. Paul repeatedly defines the role of women and of men. He DOES NOT state that women are less than men. Just that they are different. Ask any Pastor how well he could do in his sermon, if the person in the nursery was not taking care of the screaming baby, while it was throwing up on her or pooping on her while she changes its diaper. Sure most people see the Pastor, and very few even notice the servant in the nursery or the person who cleans the church. God sees them both and gives as much glory, reward, and love to the servants as he does to the one that Man notices and gives all the acclamation to.

Rhett, you seem to be a product of Feminism. They shout that if a person is not up front getting all the worldly attention and fame then she is nothing. WHAT AN INSULT to all the Godly women in the Bible! When you find women in the position of having to lead, then you have found a place where the male leadership has failed. Just look at a few of the most famous women: Esther, her king had failed to rule wisely and carefully, Ruth and Naomi, their male relatives had failed in their duty. Deborah in Judges, Barak was fearful and lacking in faith.

It is a worldly humanistic view, that one role in life is better or worse than another role. That is certainly not a Biblical view. So please Rhett, tell me, where does your outrage come from? Does it come from a worldly �sensitivity�, or does it come from real, biblically based, righteous indignation? I would urge you to ask those questions of God and yourself. If you wish you could share the biblical basis for your answer.

Interesting to me that in your purusing of some blogs you stumbled upon news of an evangelical conference and your knee-jerk reaction is to find where you disagree with what's going on, highlight it, mock the proponents (oh I'm sorry, I forgot they influenced you a while back... that makes it okay), and write off the whole endeavor. What about celebrating the good of what was being sought in that conference which was the statement that Christians from various denominations and traditions can and should have fellowship around the core teachings of the gospel?

Who's being "arrogant and combative" here?

Wayne - "are riding it into the sunset... their day is almost over" what in the world does that mean? So if we disagree with someone we just hope they die so we don't have to listen to them anymore? Wow, great example of love and respect for a Christian brother.

Come on guys, I realize you aren't excited about complimentarians. If you ask me that statement is somewhat misplaced in a document that is trying to communicate "the essentials." But really, let's try and have some more responsible and understanding blogging and commenting.

SEZ

Scott,

You say.

"What about celebrating the good of what was being sought in that conference which was the statement that Christians from various denominations and traditions can and should have fellowship around the core teachings of the gospel?"

And yeah. That sounds good. But after looking over all the Confession's Articles, it really limits those who can sit around the table and have fellowship with one another. Because the core teachings of the gospel as defined by four men is very limiting and exclusive to who they really believe are "brothers" and can have fellowship with. They can assert those articles and that's fine....but their intro. to the Confession sets out a very exclusive agenda.

We stand from different perspectives. You see this conference as a great thing and as important in bringing people together around the core of the gospel...I see it very differently.

Rhett

Rhett,

It is always easier to criticize then to praise.

The stated purpose for that statement at the conference was that they didn't want to hold a conference for "the gospel" as if it was a slogan with no substance. That statement is their attempt at putting substance to the phrase "the gospel." Sure its going to have errors, omissions, etc. But I unashamedly celebrate that effort to put substance to Christ's Good News which is so often stripped of any meaning (even if my fleshing out of that substance would look different then the T4G guys).

What I would love to see is you interact with some portions of that statement you actually do agree with. Are you saying that you disagree with their desire to understand what the gospel is and encourage people in the universal church to hold to it? Perhaps you could comment more on what you consider an "exclusive agenda." Because from my understanding, the gospel (as presented in Jesus words as well as the rest of the NT) has some exclusive claims built into its very core. Do you disagree with that? How do you measure when something is inclusive enough without being too exclusive? Is exclusivity by definition an abhorrent quality?

Taking a pot shot at this statement's view on women in the church as an effort to discredit the whole endeavor is dirty pool. What could be benficial for the blogging public is for you to not encourage presupposing the worthlessness of an endeavor based on one area of disagreement but the thoughtful engagement of ideas beginning from areas of agreement and proceeding to concerns as a matter of course.

Rhett you and I do stand from different perspectives and I won't sit here and pretend we don't. But I just get frustrated when I see people who appear to be quick to write a thing off for a portion that is not the point of the grander endeavor. I know I do that and that is probably why I am sensitive to it. I don't mean to judge your motives or your thoughtfullness but I do mean to encourage us all towards more responsible and Christ-like conversation.

I would hope that you hold me to the same pursuit and inform me if in this case my concerns are misplaced.

SEZ

Scott,

Fair enough. I will look over the Articles more this week and see if I can find any commonality with the confession at the T4G Conference.

I think we both have our sensitive areas...mine just happens to be the women in ministry issue right now since I have a lot of female friends in ministry and a lot who have been hurt by the rhetoric I was discussing.

Thanks for the thoughts...

rhett

I certainly understand, I think we all have some sensitive areas.

I'll look forward to you further thoughts on the T4G confession, statement, or whatever it is as you have the time.

Blessings,
SEZ

Hey Rhett -
A very good post, and I wanted to let you know I linked to it back at my blog (couldn't get the trackback to work).

Rhett-

I appreciate your thoughts and although, as a complimentarian I disagree, I value anyone willing to enter into the marketplace of ideas. Let me try to explain the seemingly contradictory statements by exposing a common egalitarian mistake.

A true complimentarian will never deny the ontological equality of every human on earth. Be it male, female, black, white, asian, tall, short, etc. To assume that we are claiming anything but that by not affirming women in Church leadership is commiting a category mistake. The issue is not one of ontology, but rather one of deontolgy. An ethical concern, not a metaphysical one. When Paul writes things like: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12 NIV) and "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (Eph 5:22-24 NIV) he is not denying that women hold an equal status before God, but that their duties lie in other areas than leading the Church body.

Thank you for your post, I am always interested in topics involved with this debate.

In Christ,
Joseph J. Truhler

Rhett,

Thanks for your post and for the discussion that has resulted on this issue. I'm in agreement and have been playing my part over on the Jollyblogger in response.

Peace,
Jim

Rhett,
Found your post via the Jolly Blogger, I believe he disagreed with you. Thank you for your comments about the articles. I myself am a woman minister who have been hurt long ago by the rhetoric and actions of the Southern Baptist and those who exclude Women as ministers. I am not surprised at their excluding women or the articles. I will be interested to see what is done with the statement and how this all plays out in the long run. I think it is great that the "men" were together for the Gospel, may it be a beginning that leads to us all being together for the gospel. You can see my post at vicar of wadley.blogspotcom

You might be interested in George and Dora Winston's "RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN: An Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism".

What a responsibility these men of T4G take on. What if they are wrong, they will one day give account for all the women who did not accomplish what they could have for the kingdom because of that constant shadow placed on them.

Here's a part of the Winstons' journey on this issue as he addresses mission leaders.

"For many years, I have been haunted by the fact that dozens of clear passages of Scriptures, both in the OT and NT, seem to contradict a few NT passages. For instance, How could Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, be a prophetess and a judge over Israel and speak with authority to Barak while women today are not permitted to speak in the Church or hold any kind of office? And what of her husband? Was this not going against his authority as a husband? How do we explain that? (I add to his words: I don't think complementarianism does)

Questions of that nature kept nagging at me. Could these apparent contradictions be resolved in a way that demonstrates the great coherence, harmony and truth of the Word of God? Being a firm believer in the innerancy of Scripture the answer in my mind was a resounding "yes it can be done!". The question was "How?"

In "RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN: an Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism", my wife Dora and I set out to answer that "How" question. We took the stance that there is no problem with the Word of God, only with our understanding of it and we checked out ALL passages related to the issue, even remote ones.

We have come to believe that developing a biblical theology of women in ALL spheres of authority enables leaders to reconcile the pressures encountered on the mission field with gifted women and the respect due for the Word of God...."

I have found their book to be outstanding and If you find it interesting, I have a suggestion. perhaps you could place their book on your site with a picture of it or a link. it is found on Amazon.

I'd love to hear what you think of the book.

In Christ,
J. Mel

I wonder if people would be able to read this with an open heart and an engaged mind?

http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/rebecca/archives/000262.php

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: