Sorry, I Don't Feel Your Pain

I'm Not a Democrat

Donald Trump was the last of the Republican possibilities I wanted to see nominated as my Party's candidate for President. Once he was nominated, I was certain that he would lose. I thought his defeat would lead to the loss of Republican control of the Senate and possibly to Republican control of the House. I expected post-defeat infighting to break out in the Party and wondered whether or when the Party would rebuild itself and compete for the Presidency again.

I told my wife that once we passed Labor Day I did not want to watch news and political analysis on television. I would find it too depressing and anxiety producing. On election night, I, recovering from a total knee replacement a few days before, went to bed very early, figuring I could wake up and hear that Mrs. Clinton had won rather than stay up and watch her victory unfold. But I had a restless night, woke up, and found myself unable to sleep at 11:00. So I got up, turned on the TV, and watched the Trump victory unfold.

For a long period after Trump was nominated I was very doubtful I would vote for him. I was embarrassed by him. I wondered about his competence to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Could I do what I had never done and vote for a Democrat for President? Would I "throw my vote away" and vote for a third Party candidate? Perhaps I would not cast a vote for President. 

But slowly in fits and starts I came to the decision that I could and would vote for Trump. Why? I did what a lot of voters do on Election Day. I came home. I toyed with the other possibilities, but, as a lifelong Republican, I decided I would not leave home. I'd vote for my Party's candidate and hope for the best (though I still felt certain he would lose).

I would like you to notice that I did not study the Scriptures or pray for guidance till I felt I knew what God wanted me to do. I did not vote for Trump to advance the cause of the Kingdom of God. I voted as a citizen of the United States and a member of the Republican Party. I did what I thought would be best for the country and my Party. Might I have made a mistake? Yes. Might I come to regret my vote? Yes. But did I sin or avoid sin by my vote? No.

This brings me to the feelings of distress being expressed by some evangelicals about the 80% of white evangelicals who voted for Trump. Thabiti Anyabwile wonders "what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?": "Congratulations white evangelicalism on your candidate's win. I do not understand you and I think you just sealed some awful fate." Jemar Tisby invokes the lamentations of Job and Jeremiah to give expression to the anguish he and others feel. Muta Mwenya finds the election of Trump evokes a cry from his heart for the apocalypse now: "We win at the consummation of all things in Christ Jesus our King. That is my only consolation in these quiet hours of the night. Donald Trump is president. Even so, come Lord Jesus." Mike Higgins raises the possibilities of real or metaphorical civil wars as a consequence of Trump's election: "Pray that we don’t have an active aggressive civil war on our hands in the country. Protests or civil disobediences that raise the visibility or volume over what’s being abuse, ignored or forgotten in our country may be warranted, but the church should be present in these events to keep the event at a manageable 'temperature.' Pray that we don’t have a passive aggressive, clandestine civil war on our hands in the US Church. Pray that gains in Racial Reconciliation are not lost. If the numbers are right, there is a definite split between Black and White Evangelicals..."

As these brothers see it, the reality is this: Blacks and other minorities have experienced abuse. Blacks in particular can identify with Israel, an enslaved and abused minority in Egypt. Unfortunately white evangelical Christians have themselves been the abusers of African Americans or failed to speak up against their abuse. White evangelicals have aligned themselves with the Republican Party which has not been sympathetic with the concerns of minorities but rather has become a home of racists and nationalists. Lately, however, there has been progress as black and white Christians have worked toward racial reconciliation. But this election has exposed the reality that white evangelicals have not come so far as black evangelicals hoped. The black minority feel they have been betrayed by white evangelicals who voted for Trump.

Thabiti Anyabwile describes the problem: 

At 80 percent, white evangelicalism en masse sided with Mr. Trump over and against the concerns of fellow evangelicals weary of his alienating and divisive rhetoric and campaign promises. Based on correspondence during the campaign and following the election, it seems clear to me that that voting decision will likely put a deep chill on efforts at reconciliation and co-belligerence in the culture. For many, evangelicals expressed solidarity (again) with some of the worst aspects of American history and culture while abandoning brothers and sisters of like precious faith. Coming back from that may be difficult.

The perspective of these brothers is the same as that of Falwell, Kennedy, Criswell, and the Moral Majority. They were on God's side, and God was on their side. Their champion was Ronald Reagan. The election of Reagan moved forward the cause of Christ and his kingdom. 

These brothers believe that God is on their side and they on God's. Their cause(s) is the cause of the kingdom of God. To them Trump was not just someone they disagreed with but the enemy of the kingdom of God. The 80% of white evangelicals who voted for Trump voted against the interests of the kingdom of God, betrayed their black brothers and sisters (who ask, "How could you?"), and proved themselves unreliable allies in the righteous causes highest on the list of black priorities.

All this was hogwash in the days of Falwell, and it's all hogwash today. This is not about Christian theology or practice. It's politics. That's all it is. Just politics. The joy that the Moral Majority felt when Reagan triumphed was not righteous joy but political joy. The grief felt by these black brothers is not righteous grief but political grief. The reason most white evangelicals voted for Trump is that most white evangelicals are conservatives and Republicans. The reason these black evangelical brothers feel betrayed is because they are liberals and Democrats. 

Two weeks ago the Florida Gators defeated the Georgia Bulldogs. I did not feel the pain of the Bulldogs, not because I lack Christian compassion, but because they are Bulldogs and I am a Gator. Last week the Texas A&M Aggies put a big time beating on the Gators. The grief I felt was football grief, and I did not ask the Aggies to feel my pain. 

Now, if you are licking your wounds because the Democrat candidate lost and the Republican candidate won, I understand your feelings. Been there, done that many times. But your pain is political. Sorry, but l don't feel it. The candidate I decided was best for the interests of the country and my party won.

  

   

Reformation Earthquake: Three Epicenters

Reformation Day 2016

The date that marks the beginning of the Protestant Reformation is October 31, 1517. No one could have known it then, but what happened that day set in motion an earthquake whose aftershocks are still being felt in the western churches today.

That earthquake had three epicenters, one in Wittenberg with Martin Luther, another in Geneva with John Calvin, and still another in Canterbury with Thomas Cranmer.

What were the contributions of each of these men?

Wittenberg: Martin Luther (1483-1546)

On October 31, 1517, the eve of All Saints' Day, the monk Martin Luther nailed a statement to the church door in Wittenberg, offering to debate his Ninety-five

Luther

Theses. At the time what most troubled Luther was the sale of indulgences which were said to obtain remission of the temporal punishments of sin for the individual or for a loved one in purgatory. Tetzel, their salesman, is supposed to have created a couplet to aid the sale of the indulgences:

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings 

the soul from purgatory springs

There are two contributions I associate with Martin Luther.

Supremacy of Scripture. Luther was required to appear and answer for his condemned writings at an assembly held at Worms and presided over by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V. The man who represented the Empire and the Roman Catholic Church was John Eck. Eck laid Luther's writings on a table, and asked if the writings were Luther's and if Luther stood by what he had written. Luther was backed into a corner. Would he assert that what he had written was the truth or would he submit to the church and recant his writings as being in error? His famous answer was:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.

Secularists and theological liberals like to think that Luther struck a blow for the supremacy of individual autonomy against authority, particularly church authority. That's wishful thinking. Luther had studied the Bible and become convinced that the Roman Catholic Church now held serious error. Popes and church councils could make mistakes and had. What then was the ultimate authority? God speaking in Holy Scripture. The Scriptures stood above the church and its hierarchy. The church had to submit to Scripture interpreted by the use of God-given reason.

What Luther did was serious and revolutionary in his day. It put his life in danger, but, more important, it could potentially put people's souls in danger. It was not his intent to undermine the church or its legitimate authority. He surely was not thinking to assert the authority of private judgment, every man alone with his Bible and the Holy Spirit deciding what Scripture says and what he would believe. But what was he to do with the dilemma? Would he choose to submit himself to the authority of the church or would he call upon the church to submit itself to the authority of Holy Scripture?

Luther's choice had consequences he could not have foreseen and which he would surely reject. He did not mean to make every man his own pope or to subject the church to seemingly endless divisions. Nevertheless, Luther made the right choice. The Bible is the supreme authority, and even the church in its teaching ministry must submit to the Scriptures.

Centrality of Justification. Luther faced a theological and personal problem. The theological problem was, "How can a man be right (justified = accepted as righteous) with God?" The personal problem was, "How can I be right with God?" Luther believed that God is righteous and that God requires righteousness of us. But how can man who is a sinner be righteous before a perfectly righteous God? Luther tried very hard to be a righteous man, but, no matter how hard he tried and how successful he was, he always came up short. His best wasn't good enough. His conscience tormented him. He was frustrated with himself and angry with God, because what God demanded of him Luther could not produce.

The breakthrough that opened all of the Scriptures to Luther came as he contemplated Romans 1:17: "For therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to to faith; as it is written,The just shall live by faith." To this point his understanding had been that God is righteous, that God requires that man attain righteousness by doing the things commanded by the law and the church, and that God in righteousness must condemn and punish unrighteous man. Then he realized that the righteousness of which Paul speaks is the righteousness that God provides in Christ and is received by faith. Forgiveness comes from Christ's dying for our sin. Righteousness is found wholly in Christ (an "alien" or "outside us" righteousness) and is imputed (accounted) to us. We are saved by the grace of God alone, not by human co-operation with God. We are saved by faith alone, not by human works or goodness.

In recent years, the theologian N.T. Wright (with others) has challenged Luther and asserted that he (and the other Reformers) did not understand Paul. For Luther justification is a legal term having to do whom God regards as righteous; for Wright it is a relational term having to do with membership among God's covenant people. Justification for Luther is about the doctrine of salvation; for Wright it is about the doctrine of the church. For Luther justification is individual; for Wright it is communal. For Luther we are justified (declared righteous) by faith in Christ and his righteousness; for Wright we are justified (included among God's people) by acknowledging and following Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

Anglican Gerald Bray has written: "Nowadays some people claim that the righteousness of God refers primarily to the covenant community of God's people, something which was achieved by the works of the law in the Old Testament and is now by the church as the body of Christ." After pointing that this "communitarian" view was held neither by Roman Catholics or Protestants (both of whom Wright believes wrong because they did understand Paul's religious background), Bray says, "Either way (R.C. or Protestant) it (justification) applied to individuals not groups and modern theories to the contrary notwithstanding, this approach still seems to be the one that is most faithful to the meaning of the Biblical text" (The Faith We Confess, pp. 74-75).

Luther said of justification by faith alone,"This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification, is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness."


Geneva: John Calvin (1509-1564)

Luther was bombastic; Calvin was rational. Luther was hot; Calvin was cool (though he had a temper).  Luther was the man I'd like to drink beer with on Friday; Calvin was the man whose class

Calvin

I'd like to attend on Monday. I'd like to sit at Luther's table; I'd like to sit beneath Calvin's pulpit. I'd prefer Luther's style; I'd prefer Calvin's content. Two of Calvin's best biographers are Anglicans, T.H.L. Parker and Alister McGrath.

There are two contributions I associate with John Calvin.

Clarity of the Commentaries. Calvin produced commentaries on almost all the books of the Bible. Calvin's commentaries are scholarly, but clear, concise, pastoral, and practical. Though written 450 years ago they remain very helpful aids to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Joseph Haroutunian of McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, writes:

...we find Calvin bent upon establishing what a given author in fact said...Allegorizing was misunderstanding, and misunderstanding was the evil a scholar had to avoid by all means... he was protesting not against finding a spiritual meaning in a passage, but against finding one that was not there. The Word of God written for the upbuilding of the church was of course spiritual, but in the primary sense of leading to the knowledge of God and obedience to him. Calvin’s “literalism” establishes rather than dissolves the mystery of the Word of God, provided for the Christian’s help and comfort.  

...Calvin was a conscientious historical critic. His comments did not degenerate into the undisciplined exhortation which often goes with “practical preaching.” He neither practiced nor encouraged irresponsibility toward “the genuine sense” of Scripture...any “spiritual” meaning other than one derived from the author’sintention was at once misleading and unedifying.

One has only to consult Calvin on a few given passages of Scripture to recognize that he is indeed a teacher without an equal. Calvin comments with the conviction that any passage of Scripture he may examine contains a Word of God full of God’s wisdom, applicable to the condition of his hearers and readers in one respect or another. This conviction enables him to respond to the Bible with a vitality and intelligence... 

Dr. Haroutunian sums up nicely:

Calvin published his Commentaries to give his readers insight into the Word of God and to point out its relevance to their own life and situation. To this end he cultivated accuracy, brevity, and lucidity. He achieved his purpose to a degree that has aroused the admiration and gratitude of generations of readers. And in this day...a man who would understand his Bible will do well to have Calvin’s Commentaries within easy reach.

System of the Theology. When Mortimer Adler of the University of Chicago was asked by William F. Buckley if there was anything omitted that he wished had been included in the Great Books series, he replied "Calvin." The second edition of the Great Books included a whole volume (20) with selections from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Historian Will Durant counted the Institutes among the world's ten most influential books. Calvin scholar John T. McNeill wrote, "Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is one of the few books that have profoundly affected the course of history."

Calvin was the first of the Reformers to produce what we now call a systematic theology, the first edition published in 1536, the final much fuller edition in 1559. The structure of the work is the traditional Christian catechesis: The Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. With this structure Calvin deals with all the essential subjects of theology, including the Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc.

A systematic theology is an effort to organize the teaching of the Bible in categories such as the doctrine of God or the doctrine of salvation. The Institutes are a systematic exposition of the Christian faith, an explanation and defense of the historic catholic faith. Calvin reveals an excellent working knowledge of the church fathers, whom he greatly respects. More important Calvin consciously intends to go "back to the source" and ground all of theology in the Holy Scriptures.

Recently the whole idea of systematic theology has been questioned by many scholars, including N.T. Wright (see above). The criticism is that systematic theology imposes an order and system on the Bible so that the message of the Bible is distorted. The way to approach and understand the Bible is by means of exegesis (vocabulary, grammar, historical setting, immediate context) and in light of Biblical theology (the unfolding of God's saving work in the Bible and its history). Systematic theology is categorized as "scholastic" because it takes a "scientific" approach to the Bible, treating it as though it were another department in the curriculum of the university.

This objection to systematic theology seems to me wrong. Systematic theology begins with the conviction that the Bible is a book of truth given to us by God. It is true that truth is not revealed to us in the abstract but concretely in history. God has spoken in the Bible progressively, revealing himself and his plan of salvation. However, while God revealed himself progressively in history, God does not contradict himself. What God has revealed is harmonious with itself.  Systematic theology believes that God has so constructed the human mind and human language as to lead us to think about truths in categories. The truths of God's Word can be developed and understood in relationship with one one another. Systematic theology answers the questions, "What does the Bible say about....?" and, "How does what God says about x relate to what he says about y?" Exegetical theology, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are not enemies or even rivals but friends who work together and mutually support each other.

Biographer T.H.L. Parker brings together Calvin the exegete and Calvin the theologian:

"I am eager for people to know Calvin not because he was without flaws, or because he was the most influential theologian of the last 500 years (which he was), or because he shaped Western culture (which he did), but because he took the Bible so seriously, and because what he saw on every page was the majesty of God and the glory of Christ.

Canterbury: Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

There is one man who links Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Thomas Cranmer. Martin Bucer was the friend of all three. Bucer came to the Protestant faith under the influence of Martin Luther. Later in Strasbourg he influenced John Calvin. After his exile to England, he had an impact on the Reformation there, especially on the second Book of Common Prayer.

Of the three Reformers we are considering, only Cranmer died for the Protestant faith. Cranmer

Cranmer

served as Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Henry had set the church and nation free from Rome, but he wasn't much interested in reformation of the church's worship and doctrine. Cranmer was, and, when Edward VI, still a boy and a convinced Protestant, succeeded his father, the reformation made real progress. However, Edward died still a teenager and was succeeded by his half-sister and Henry's daughter, the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor. She reversed the reformation and eventually had Cranmer burned at the stake.

There are two contributions I associate with Cranmer.

Book of Common Prayer.The primary factor that led me to Anglicanism was The Book of Common Prayer. I came to believe that the so-called "directed worship" of Presbyterianism allowed for all the chaos of worship one sees across the spectrum of evangelicalism.The only solution I saw and see is prescribed worship, and I believed that the Prayer Book provided ordered, Biblical, Protestant, reverent worship. I came also to believe that there is no reason to drive a wedge between written prayers and the spirit of prayer. And, as one friend (a Prayer Book user but not an Anglican) puts it, "If you can do better than the Prayer Book with free prayer, have it." My conviction is that the Prayer Book gives us substance to pray that would never occur to the vast majority of evangelical ministers or people. To put it another way, my heart resonates with the Prayer Book.

Cranmer wanted to reform the church's worship to make it consistent with Protestant theology while conserving what he could of  the historic liturgy. James Wood in his introduction to the Penguin edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer writes:

Theologically the 1559/1662 Book of Common Prayer is both radical and conservative. Its Protestantism can be felt in its emphasis on man's sinful depravity, and on the unearned gift of God's salvation (justification by faith alone, not by good works). One scholar has said that "the triple beat of sin-grace-faith runs through the whole book." 

...

Cranmer ensured that the Anglican Prayer Book took a definite position on the fraught (and violent) issue of the eucharistic "real presence"...This insistence can be felt in the words the presiding minister says to the Anglican communicant as he offers the sacraments: 

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, andfeed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

Still...the Book of Prayer was also an eclectic and consoling, even conservative document, the least revolutionary and more Catholic of the European Protestant liturgies...Along with the services of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion the 1662 Prayer Book has a calendar of the church year; a list of saints' days...liturgies for special days...; and services for the Burial of the Dead...and so on. Gordon James points out that it was clever of Cranmer to borrow collects and prayers from the English Catholic and monastic traditions, from Greek Orthodox and from old Spanish rites...

Above all, the Book of Common Prayer offered Cranmer's language as a kind of binding agent, a rhetoric both lofty and local, archaic and familiar...  

Articles of Religion. In addition to the Prayer Book Cranmer also gave us the Articles of Religion. One of the things that troubled me about the branch of Presbyterianism of which I was a part was subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. I heard man after man take no exceptions and offer no clarifying statements. Every time I wondered, "With as many words and and the amount of detail there is in these documents, how can this be?" While I believe that the Westminster Standards, which as J.I. Packer points out were written by an Assembly the majority of whom were Anglicans, are a most excellent statement of Christian faith, I appreciate the Articles for their brevity.

But what kind of doctrine is found in the Articles?They are catholic in that they affirm the catholic theology of the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. But they are also clearly Protestant, as distinct from Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies, in places reflecting Lutheran theology and in other places (especially on Baptism and the Lord's Supper) reflecting Calvinistic (Reformed) theology. Gerald Bray has written:

The Thirty-nine Articles are usually printed with the 1662 Prayer Book, but they have a different history (from The Prayer Book)...The Articles were given official status by King Charles I in 1628; since then they have been the accepted doctrinal standards of the Church of England. Other Anglican churches have received them to a greater or lesser degree...it has to be said that most Anglicans today are scarcely aware of their existence. Even the clergy have seldom studied them, and only evangelicals now take them seriously as doctrine. 

The Articles are not a comprehensive systematic theology in the way that the Westminster Confession is, but they do address questions of theological controversy in a systematic way. In that sense, they are more advanced than earlier Protestant doctrinal statements. They start with the doctrine of God, go on to list the canon of Scripture, and then get into more controversial subjects. Justification by faith alone is clearly stated, and there is also a clear defense of predestination. The sacraments are numbered as two only, and they are defined as witnesses to the Gospel. Towards the end there are articles defining the powers of the civil magistrate, along with one that sanctions the two books of Homilies, collections of sermons in which the doctrines of the Articles and Prayer Book are more fully expounded... perhaps their brief and judicious statements will one day gain them greater acceptance within the wider Reformed community.

I would prefer for Anglicans not to separate Cranmer the liturgist Cranmer from Cranmer the theologian and not to separte the Prayer Book from The Articles. The Prayer Book and the Articles come to us from the same author (in the main) and should be assumed to be in harmony with one another.  On the great Protestant doctrines of the authority of Scripture and of justification by faith alone they are one. On the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion there is to my mind no conflict between them nor between them and the Continental Reformed. The Prayer Book and the Articles give doctrine which is truly catholic and decidedly Protestant.

Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer. An earthquake with three epicenters. May the quake continue to roll.

Trump Talks Dirty and Worse

What's a Conservative to Do?

I feel it important for me to say once again that this is my personal Blog where I express my personal views about matters social, political, and sometimes religious. What I write here should not be linked to my parish or my denomination. No one who reads what I write at this Blog should, after reading, say anything more than, "That's what Bill Smith thinks, and you know what that's worth."

Throughout the Republican primary season Donald Trump and Ted Cruz traded places as the candidate I most hoped would not get the nomination. Donald Trump because he is a boor, a loud-mouth egotist behind whose facade I suspect is a lot of insecurity. Ted Cruz because he is the un-Reagan, the kind of purist-absolutist conservative who alienates his colleagues and can't get anything done. I could have been happy with any of the others though my preferences were Rubio, Bush, and Kasich in that order.

My friends over at World Magazine have called for Donald Trump to step aside. I wish he would step aside and said so on Saturday, hoping Mike Pence would take his place before Sunday's debate. World is trying to be consistent. When the Lewinsky scandal broke, World called for Bill Clinton to resign. (I was a columnist then and wrote a couple of columns on the subject of the scandal.) Now it has come out that Trump groped women, which by today's standards could lead to his being accused of sexual assault. He also bragged of his acts using lewd language. World believes they must demand the same from Trump they demanded from Clinton.

But, as World admits, Trump is not going to step aside. That means that on November 8, the country is going to elect either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as President of the United States. Come next January either Trump or Clinton is going to be sworn in as President of the United States.

With that said, I offer a little perspective on Trump's language and actions. I wonder if Trump's language and behavior present us with a unique moral challenge.

Language. In 1962 I was released from the custody of Pensacola Christian School. Fortunately for me they had not yet built a prison for high school inmates. So I moved on to Pensacola High School at age 14. It was a shock to move from a class of about 30 to a school with several thousand. A big part of the shock had to do with PE class. I remember doing squat-thrusts on the tennis courts in August and ending up with blisters on the palms of my hands. Then there was the locker room. Here I heard words of which I did not know the definition. I heard boys calling for other boys to come do for or to them acts I could not imagine. The things they talked about doing to or with girls was beyond the most lustful imaginations I had in junior high at PCS. I also worked on my father's construction crew in high school and college. There, too, I had to figure out a new vocabulary and a new world of behaviors. The counsel the foreman gave me just before my honeymoon was reprehensible.

I expect many who are condemning Trump's language have laughed hearing Richard Pryor concerts. He was a genius as a comedian, but his vocabulary was awful, particularly as he talked about women and their bodies. People who have said people don't talk in locker rooms the way Trump did may forget the language of rappers and comedians or, as Darryl Hart has noted, Beyonce.

None of what I just described, or many experiences I could add, justify the crude, lewd, sexually charged language which I have heard. That Trump, now a seventy-year old, who was not and probably is not a Christian believer, should have talked the way he did ten years ago is not surprising or shocking to me. It is condemnable, but it is not surprising or shocking. He is one of those guys who never moved on from high school locker room. And, if you hang out in a golf club or other locker room that does not include women, you are likely to hear such talk today.

Behavior. That the moral behavior of Trump puts him in the class with Clinton and thus merits the call by World, seeking consistency, for him to step aside is not disputable. But, perhaps that is not the point. In my lifetime there have been three Presidents whose behavior has paralleled the Trump of the past (what Trump is today I do not know). There was John F. Kennedy, a user of women and prolific adulterer whose staff not only enabled but helped him to procure and to gratify himself with women. There was Lyndon B. Johnson, who was used to imposing his will on people of both sexes, who like Kennedy was a user of women and adulterer and whose language was crude. Then, of course there was William J. Clinton who groped, used, abused, and is accused of raping women as a Governor and as President. All three defeated men who by comparison were sexual prudes - Nixon, Goldwater, and H.W. And all three were, despite their sexual behavior, relatively successful as Presidents. (Yeah, I know, there was the Vietnam thing with LBJ.)

Times have changed for sure. Men and women are mixed in the workplace, the military, and even the locker room. The government has definitions and rules which are quoted by Joe Carter at the Gospel Coalition website as he condemns fellow evangelicals who have stuck with Trump:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. When the harassment becomes physical it becomes sexual assault, which the U.S. Justice Department defines as any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Harassment can include activities such as a business owner walking in on female underlings while they are naked and discussing in front of females employees which ones he’d like to have sex with (and asking other men in the room which ones they’d like to have sex with). Harrassment becomes assault when it includes forcible kissing, groping, or grabbing a person’s genitals without her consent.

These are new definitions and rules for men of Trump's generation. They grew up with the mindset, "Do what you can get away with doing." That was true of Christian boys who were not doing the really bad stuff: "Take a kiss if you can get a kiss." This is to say it was different in the Trump days. I am disqualified by age from saying how men view things today. The sexual revolution has turned out to be a double edged sword for everyone. Things are much freer. Today you can do whatever you want with whomever you want whenever you want wherever you want, but you better make sure he or she is consenting at every step of the way. No one can condemn you for what you do. They better not or they will be condemned. But you better be sure, no matter how many "yeses" there have been along the way, that there has been nothing that can be construed as a "no" or you can be in big trouble. The only rule left about sex is the rule of consent. But this is not the world in which 70 year old men grew up.

Am I defending Trump? No. I am giving perspective. Do I think his speech and behavior are OK? Not for a moment. I condemn both. If Trump tried to grope one of my granddaughters or spoke about her with the language he used, my instinct would be to end his mortal life. Am I endorsing Trump? No, I am not.

I am saying the choice is between two candidates. One is a lecherous, foul-mouthed man whose knowledge, self-control, and judgment are at best questionable. The other is a woman who believes it is a sacred right to kill full term babies who have not yet entered the birth canal and who has enabled her husband's treating women as Trump has. The reality is that one of those two persons will be elected President.

I might be wrong, but I think Trump is done for and that almost certainly Hillary Clinton will be elected President - probably by a wide margin. I think that the conservative movement whose vehicle is the Republican Party, will be in disarray. The House may be retained, but the Presidency, and very likely the Senate, will be lost. 

What am I going to do? I don't know. I can duck for two reasons. First, living in the state which elected Tim Kaine as Senator, it is highly unlikely my vote will make any difference in the Presidential race. Second, I am scheduled for my second knee replacement on November 4 so will not be venturing out on November 8. I can vote only if I go get a an absentee ballot. 

But what is the "Christian" thing to do? There isn't one. So you may (1) vote for Clinton, (2) vote for Trump, (3) vote for a third party candidate, or (4) not vote for a Presidential candidate. Make the best decision you can.You might do something stupid, something you'll live to regret, but you won't sin. We're electing a President of this secular republic. For that you need wisdom, discretion, instinct, and intuition to decide what is best for the republic at this time and which, if either, candidate is most likely to accomplish it. Still doesn't answer the question does it?  

I Do or Maybe I Don't

There is a lot of talk about "privilege" - talk of the privileges other people have and the negative impact that status of privilege has on those who do not share it. Of course, there is white privilege. And if you break that down further within the Black community there is light-skinned privilege. Then there is male privilege. And if you look at that more closely within the female community there is blond privilege. 

As a member of the disadvantaged old community, I would like more emphasis on youth privilege. For instance, I think doctors should be required to ask the 18 year old the same questions he/she asks 70 year olds: "Have you fallen within the last 6 months? Do you feel safe in your home? Can you recite the alphabet beginning with A and ending with C?" (My answer one time to the nurse who asked me the first question was, "If I had, I wouldn't tell you.")

Recently I came across a Blog post titled "Consent is everything." It's a variation of the theme of male privilege:

Men, you hold the place of privilege and power in your conservative evangelical churches. Your physical, ecclesiastical, and familial dominance put you in a dangerous and fragile position. 

The "Consent" Blog even carries the now ubiquitous "trigger warning." I will follow through and offer my own trigger warning. His Blog and my response deal with topics of sex, marriage, consent, and the reality of abuse within marriage.

He cites several cases (I will not repeat the acts he reports) and asks, if you were were a pastor, if you would label them abusive (and possibly report them). His answer:

I suppose the answer depends on whether or not these things occur while you are a member of an OPC or a PCA church. Yes, it turns out that while “The World” seems perfectly clear about these things, actual pastors in the OPC and PCA who found themselves confronted with these exact situations in their churches told the victims that they hadn’t been abused at all. Their reason? According to them, consent is irrelevant to a Christian sexual ethic. 

He believes a pastor who does not say yes to his question, and the sessions that support their pastor, should be subject to church discipline. He says you don't have to know the details to agree with him about these pastors and sessions being subject to discipline. They are guilty, apart from the facts, because they did not consider the issue of consent:

My gut reaction on encountering this information was that these pastors should be defrocked and the sessions disciplined. By refusing to address abuse, they are complicit in it. By manipulating or bullying victims into not reporting abuse, they become perpetrators of abuse themselves. Such men are wolves, no matter how pretty their pulpit words may be. You don’t need to know the details of those cases to agree with me here. The issue is that before the details of the case can come to adjudication, their refusal to consider the consent of the abused relevant to the case already determines the outcome. That this happens among us belies how deeply and shamefully confused we are about the issue of consent.

For the writer consent really is everything. Why is it not in conservative churches? Because, he says, we are suspicious of and resistant to perspectives that come to us from the world. Consent is one of those perspectives that originates in the world:

I understand some of the reasons for our confusion. As many see it, the church’s “worldview” differs from "The World’s", and we feel defensive about this. Our ideology makes us suspicious that the world tells insidious lies about pretty much everything, and we should maintain constant vigilance against its deception. Of the insidious lies we think "The World" tells, one is that I own myself. And so many conservative Christians suspect that talk of one’s well being, one’s feelings, one’s self determination, and yes, their consent to sexual intimacy even within the marriage bond, encodes their 'wretched grasping after autonomy,' the very sin that Eve gave into in the garden. Being good Christians, steeped in the language of scripture, we counter that our bodies are not our own, and that the marriage bond is built on mutual submission, sacrifice, and selflessness.

He asks what "a theology of consent would look like." He knows, of course, that there are no Biblical passages to expound to say what he thinks needs to be said. So he reasons from his understanding of Christ, which frankly does not seem to derive from the Bible, but which, if it were derived from the Bible, would not lead to his conclusions by good and necessary inference: 

... I’m the first to admit that the issues are complex. Being prone to philosophizing, I’m usually glad to take a mental meander through the analysis of subjectivity, of agency, and so on. And as an armchair theologian, I’d find it fascinating to pick apart the trinitarian heterodoxies and christologies that animate today’s debates about complementarianism. But as satisfying as those sentences would be to me, and to other like-minded folks, I fear that indulging our impulses to argumentation would obscure our vision of the bright light of any Christian ethic, sexual or otherwise: Jesus, the God-man, incarnate Lord, the heart of our faith. 

From Him there resounds a “yes” so compelling and penetrating that it echos in our hearts, expressing itself in our own “yes” to what Jesus has accomplished in us, through history. Our yes emanates from beyond mere acquiescence or submission, arising not from need but from the fullness of union with the risen and glorified Christ. The yes of Christ joins the being of one to the being of another. Do you desire a union with others who are joined in the same way to their savior, that echoes your union with Him? Do you desire it with your wife or with your husband? Then why would you settle for anything less than their “yes” in that expression of intimacy that is yours alone to share? And how does your entire being not rebel at the wickedness of extracting that intimacy to the sound of their “no”?

There are several things to note:

1. This is another example of something that to me seems rampant: "Grid thinking." You put on the glasses of a perspective, and then you see everything perfectly through that perspective. There are good grids: The Apostles Creed or the Confessions of the churches. These creeds and confessions keep us from error as we exegete and teach the Bible. I compare what I have come up with looking at Scripture to what the church says is settled doctrine, and, if I disagree, I am probably wrong, and in any case should not teach it for truth. But a sociological or political view is not a grid through which a Christian can safely view everything else. The fact that I am a capitalist does not mean I should condemn Joseph for laying up food in government barns or the early Jerusalem church for holding all things in common. The writer of the blog has taken a grid from the world and thinks that pastors or sessions who do not see things through his grid are benighted.

2. He describes three cases and acknowledges he does not give us the details; he tells us about the pastoral counsel given in these situations and asks us to rely on his very brief reports of what the pastors said; he says these pastors and their sessions need to be disciplined by higher authorities. Now, if he accurately describes the three cases, I agree with his point of view regarding those cases. If he accurately describes the pastoral counsel, I would question its wisdom. But you would have to know a whole lot more than he tells you even to consider launching an inquiry, much less entering a disciplinary case against these pastors and elders.

3. He ignores and so does not address our civilization's historical view of marriage. Civilizations accumulated wisdom is far more reliable than a trendy contemporary view. 

Understand what I am saying. I believe "not tonight honey" should, after a little pleading of one's case, be "not tonight." But it also needs to be pointed out that historically the "I do" of the Christian marriage ceremony, is a statement of implied consent. That's why we have the concept of "conjugal rights." There is in the law an assumption that the two parties who enter into marriage then have a "right" to sexual relations. A brief definition from Webster of conjugal rights is:"the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship: the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife." My guess is that in writing his "Consent" blog the author was not aware of such rights, and, had he been aware, would have considered this an antiquated concept that represents a society where male privilege prevailed. Civilization deserves the benefit of the doubt and ought not to be quickly and thoughtlessly jettisoned.

4. The most important deficiency of the blog is that, apart from confused and misused Christology, the writer does not wrestle at all with the relevant passages of Scripture. There are all the cases of marriage in the Old Testament to consider. There are Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 in the New Testament. And there is this:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

No "theology of consent" that does not understand and wrestle with the implications and applications of the words of the Apostle, which are the words of God, is a theology of consent. Consent is one thing, but, if the Apostle is right, far from everything.

Now those who feel guilty about your youth privilege may ease your consciences by sending reparations to me. I will accept them on behalf of the whole class of old people. Make your check out to "Bill "the Curmudgeon" Smith. 

As soon as your deposited check the bank clears,

You'll be free from your guilt, and tears, and fears. 

       

Get Me a Beer, Eve! Pronto!

Fighting the Bible with the Bible

Eve, baby, be a sweetheart
and get me a cold one.

"It's like deja vu all over again" (Yogi Berra). We have passed this way before. St. Paul was not at his best when he was concrete: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 1 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Timothy 2:11,12). He was at his best when he was general: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:28). St. Paul himself did not see in his lifetime the implications of what he wrote in his first letter (Galatians). Toward the end of his life (1 Timothy) he had not yet applied his Galatians insight to his understanding of relations between men and women in the church.

We also have heard before that "headship" in the Bible means "source" as in the "headwaters" of the Mississippi River. Headship does not imply authority as in "headmaster" of the school. So we have been getting this thing about male headship wrong. Man is not the head (leader) of woman, but the head (source) of woman for woman was made from man.

Sam Powell shares the Blog page My Only Comfort with Barbara Roberts. He has recently published a Blog Headship Is Not Hierarchy. He writes:

Before the fall, before sin entered the world, Adam and Eve served God perfectly. They did not live for themselves; their desires were not to have power over each other, but they both lived as they were created – as one flesh, in perfect unbroken harmony. We can have no idea what this was like, since our state now is far different. If by “hierarchy” you mean that Adam ruled his wife and she submitted to his desires, I reject that. It has no basis in scripture. If by hierarchy you mean an order of creation, that I happily accept, as Paul wrote

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Ti 2:1 KJV)

This I wholeheartedly confess, believing the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. I am hesitant to try to apply this beyond how Paul applies this, however, since I have no idea what it looked like practically before the fall. I think it is reading to much into the text to say that this means that Adam ruled over his wife.

Mr. Powell accepts that in the order of creation man is prior. From this he seems willing to derive no more than a chronological fact. However, God established nothing else about the relationship between man and woman by the prior creation of Adam. It seems to me that that is very hard to maintain in light of the Apostle's use of the chronology:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (Timothy 3:12-14).

St. Paul appears to argue: (1) Women may not teach or exercise authority over a men in church. (2) Why? (a) Adam was created first. (b) Woman was deceived by the serpent and became a transgressor. Or, put another way: Women should not teach or exercise authority over men in church, because God established male leadership by creating Adam first and because, when Eve turned the relationship upside down, she was deceived and became a transgressor.

It seems that Mr. Powell does not want to deal with the implications of the prior creation of Adam as those implications are drawn out by the Apostle himself. I surmise this must be because it does not fit this thesis that headship does not mean hierarchy. He illustrates his point by an absurd imaginary situation in the Garden:

Did Adam sit on the couch and say “Woman, beer me and shut those kids up!” I think not. He did not rule his wife. They both served God and one another perfectly, being without sin. This is the only thing that I meant when I said, “There was no hint of hierarchy before the fall.”

For Mr. Powell hierarchy is a consequence of sin, and like all consequences of sin, we much labor to reverse the curse. Adam did no leading in the Garden, because Adam didn't have a hierarchical bone in his sinless body. The relationship between Adam and Eve in the Garden was egalitarian. As redeemed people for whom it is now possible not to sin (posse non pecare), let us make our way back to the Garden.

However, if St. Paul is right, then hierarchy goes back to the pre-Fall Garden. We can't imagine Adm saying from his couch, "Woman beer me and shut those kids up!" (who says, "Beer me"?), but we can imagine him saying, "Let's till that field over there today and then let's go to the peach orchard and tend the trees." Without sin he would would have made the decision without selfishness, and without sin, she would have willingly complied. Sin did not introduce hierarchy based on headship; it screwed it up.

Given the recent interest in the "finalization" ESV's translation of Genesis 3:16 (from "Your desire shall be for your husband," to "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband"), Mr. Powell has an interesting take:

After the fall is a world I can relate to. Men and women became idolaters and rebels. They were covenant breakers, serving themselves and their own lusts. The curse that came upon the relationship was that the desire of the woman would be “toward the man”, which I still interpret to mean that she would retain the longing for the one flesh relationship that she would be unable to have, because he would instead rule over her. This is different than before, and part of the curse, and not good. She, in her unregenerate state, would respond to this rule in a variety of ways, depending on her personality. Despair, hopelessness, manipulation, domination – but it would be a life of slavery and degradation after the fall, which she would resist in various ways, because she would still be human. And she would still long for her husband.

Both Adam and Eve are now sinners, and both being told the consequences of their rebellion. But notice that the woman's part in Genesis 3:16 is good:"...she would retain the the longing for the one flesh relationship that she would be unable to have." Why would her noble desire be frustrated? "...because he instead would rule over her." Man's rule disrupts woman's desire for intimacy. Woman's sin comes in her response to man's sin of rule:

She, in her unregenerate state, would respond to this rule in a variety of ways, depending on her personality. Despair, hopelessness, manipulation, domination – but it would be a life of slavery and degradation after the fall, which she would resist in various ways, because she would still be human. And she would still long for her husband.

Woman's desire for intimacy is met by man's rule which then provokes sinful responses from woman. In the pre-Fall Garden there was no rule. Rule is the result of sin. Rule denies to women the one-flesh relationship they desire.

With the accomplishment of redemption through Jesus Christ the relationship between man and woman is changed:

The husband’s job is not to rule over his wife, enforce the rules, or be the commander and king at home in his castle, for it is not his castle. The home belongs to Christ. He is not to usurp Christ’s role as the king of kings, but he is to emulate Christ in only one way, according to the text. He is to love her.

This fits beautifully with Jesus’ definition of authority in John 13: 

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;

3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

(John 13:1-5 KJV)

We cannot claim the smallest amount of authority that Jesus has. All authority has been given into his hands. And yet, he took the lowest place and washed his disciples’ feet. Wow.

Then look what he says,

12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. (Joh 13:12-15 KJV)

The husband is not called to emulate Christ in "rule" but in only one way - to love his wife. Christ showed husbands the way to love by his treatment of his disciples in the Upper Room. He got up, removed his outer clothing, wrapped an towel around his waist, and then took a basin and washed each disciple's feet, drying them with the towel around his waist. Christ has all authority, but he exercised it by washing his disciples' feet. This is the only authority a husband has - authority to wash feet.

How does this husbandly authority work out?

So in answer to the question, “Do I believe that the husband has authority in the home?” My answer is “Yes. Certainly. There is no way around it. He is to wash his wife’s feet, serve her, do good to her, love her – even, as Paul says, give himself for her.

This is far different than the curse of Genesis 3:16. It turns it on its head. Instead of either the man or the woman serving themselves, their lusts, their goals and desires, both are to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. That’s not me saying this. That’s Jesus Christ...

The husband isn’t the boss, the commander, the chief, the king. All of that belongs to Christ. Rather, the husband is the head, and she is the body. He is to nourish, cherish and love her as his body, because she is his body. That’s the point. To ask the question, “But isn’t he still in charge?” is to miss the point entirely. Do you think that she will turn into a harpy if you neglect to command her for a day? Whom did you marry? Is she not also an heir of eternal life and a firstborn son of God in Jesus Christ?

So for you husbands insisting that you are the head of your home, take it seriously. Go home, cook dinner, draw her a bath, do the dishes, put the kids to bed. Ask her what she is thinking. Talk about her dreams and fears. Assume she also is led by the Holy Spirit and trying to serve her Lord with a pure heart. Do all the modern equivalents of washing the feet. This is what Jesus is talking about.

Remember that we are bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb, and do not belong to ourselves. Husbands don’t belong to themselves, and wives don’t belong to themselves. All belong to Christ, and the husband is to take the lead in service and love.

Yes, I believe that the husband is the head of the home. But not like the president is head of the country. But like Jesus is the head of the church – flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. And he washes our feet, and took the lowest place. This is our example.

The husband's authority has nothing to do hierarchy, nothing to do with a position of institutional headship to which he has has been appointed by God, nothing to do with leading his wife and home, nothing to do with decision-making or direction-setting. The husband's authority is nothing like a head of government or leaders of the church (or is theirs like the husband's?). He can cook supper, wash dishes, put the kids to bed, ask questions (about her), and listen.

However, this has got to leave wives confused when they read Biblical exhortations to them that make no sense if they have husbands whose whole concept authority is washing her feet:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24).

I suppose they can submit to having their feet washed.
Or, what about their following the example of poor Sarah?

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (1 Peter 3:5.6)

I suppose they can imagine poor Sarah watching Abraham coming with the basin and the water and thinking to herself, "I really don't want my feet washed tonight," but saying, "Yes, my lord, you may wash my feet."

I would go on, but I was cooking supper when Susan called from the living room, "Come wash my feet and beer me!" I had no choice but to exercise my authority and comply.

I read this kind of stuff, and I feel just the slightest sympathy for Tim Bayly.

 

Let Me Be Man*

Mamas, Don't Make Your Boys Grow Up To Be Females**

Several weeks ago I was recovering from knee replacement surgery, when the little lady came into the room and said, "I'm going outside to move mulch." This meant she was going to go to the mulch pile, load up the wheelbarrow, push it to shrubbery beds, then unload and spread the mulch, repeat, repeat. I responded to her announcement with, "I don't think that's a good idea." "Why?" she impertinently asked. I explained: "(1) You're still recovering from two knee replacements, both of which had complications, in the last 9 months (2) You're a girl."

From time to time I looked through the windows to watch her moving mulch. And, as things like this tend to go ("Give her and inch; she'll take a mile"), one thing led to another. Soon she was digging up and moving 20 years of accumulated dirt that covered the driveway of the Rectory we moved into in June. I watched helplessly. 

I am still hesitant to be seen by the neighbors, such is my shame. I have not recovered from a shaming I received in Louisville, MS, over 30 years ago. This happened because I allowed her to mow the grass. A neighbor, who wrote a gossip column for the weekly newspaper, said to a church member, "That woman works all the time. That man - I don't know what he does." This is surely vindication of Tim and David Bayly. Had I not permitted this rebellion against her sex, I could have saved myself untold embarrassment. 

There is a discussion within the evangelical-reformed community about men, women, egalitarianism, complementarianism, and Trinitarianism. It has been going on for what seems like eternity. It is beginning to look like it will go on ad infinitum if not ad nauseum. 

People such as the Baylys hate the word "complementarianism" which they regard as a weasel word. Hiding behind complementarianism is egalitarianism. What the Bible teaches, they say, is patriarchy ("father rule") which is grounded in the Fatherhood of God and the "eternal economic submission of the Son to the Father." 

On the other side of the discussion there is growing dissatisfaction with the word "complementarianism" by writers such as Rachel Miller and Aimee Byrd. They believe that the word is tainted for at least two reasons: (1) Its use can amount to "patriarchy." (2) It has become connected to subordination within the Trinity. Rachel Miller says, "We need a new name", though she does not have one to suggest. 

It is unfortunate that the doctrine of the Trinity has got entangled with the doctrine of the sexes. The fault for this lies with those advocates of patriarchy who assert that female submission applies to all male-female interfaces, not just home and church, and that it reflects the eternal submission of the Son to the Father.

Rightly the other side has vigorously asserted the doctrine of the eternal, ontological equality of the Father and the Son (the Spirit, too). On this they are entirely right. 

But I also have a suspicion as I read those who oppose patriarchy. Let me put it like this: I agree with you that female submission is limited to marriage and church. It does not apply to the the workplace, the state, or other institutions. But, I wonder if you are not becoming uncomfortable with female submission altogether, including submission in marriage and church. What changes do you want in the way males and females relate to one another in marriage and church? What qualifications would you apply to male headship and female submission? When may a wife not be submissive to her own husband an all things? When may a woman teach and exercise authority in the church? What problems do you have with the "traditional" Christian understanding and practice of male-female relations? 

In my view what those who oppose the proponents of patriarchy need to say is, "The Persons or the Trinity are equal. The doctrine of the Trinity has nothing to do with the relations of men and women. Whether there is subordination or equality among the Persons of the Godhead is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Male-female relations are prescribed in texts of the Bible that deal with the subject. Now let's exegete, discuss, and debate these texts. (Those who hold to patriarchy will likely resist as they "need" the subordination of the Son to the Father for their doctrine of male-female relations. On the other hand, the doctrine of Trinitarian equality has nothing to do with the complementarian view of male-female relations.)

I have digressed. What interests me today is the dust-up about the First Things  article "Why Men and Women Are Not Equal" written by Glenn Stanton. Stanton writes: 

Women create, shape, and maintain human culture. Manners exist because women exist. Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.

Both Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller have pushed back hard against this heresy. Rachel quotes a friend with approval:

Worthy men do not need to adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room, because they are gentlemen no matter whose company they find themselves in. Worthy men act honorably because they are worthy men, whether they are in a room full of men, mixed company, or alone!

I think Mr. Stanton's use of "civilization" is too broad. There is much more to forming, preserving, and passing on civilization than what women do. But he is right, despite the denials of women such as Ms. Byrd and Ms. Miller, that women do have a much needed "civilizing" effect on males. Males do act differently when women are present, and that, contrary to Aimee and Rachel, is as it should be.

What is hard to push back against is the observable reality that boys and girls, men and women are different. It's ontology.

Watch boys playing. They will knock each other down. They may spit. They might play "chicken fight" in the pool. Now introduce girls into the mix. There may be a few girls who will mix it up with the boys, but generally the play changes when girls are part of it. This is one reason that boys will object to having to play with the girls. You don't knock a girl down, or spit in front of her, or try to "drown' her, because your mama and daddy taught you to treat girls different. But, it is not wrong if boys, playing without the girls, are boys.

It is true of men, too. There are things that men who are friends may do if they are by themselves and no women are present. They may pee in the woods. Or pass gas loudly and laugh about it. Or use the indelicate word my wife hates for that particular
bodily function. They may smoke cigars and drink beer. They might say "hell" instead of "heck." They might skinny dip in the pool. And they, too, may spit. Introduce women into the mix, and the dynamics change. They change, not because what the men were doing is bad, but because they are not appropriate when women are present.

Not only will boys be boys, they must be if there is any future for civilization. The problem with the flattening of male-female differences is not that girls will become boys but that boys will become girls. And that's bad. Who will have the chicken fights? Who will kill things and bring them home? Who will rescue the young damsels? Who are going to be the lineman and linebackers in football? Who will smoke the cigars? Who are going to fight the wars?

The big problem we have today is not with overly masculine men. It is with girly boys. The war on boys has had a lot of success.

My wife lived part of her life with six males. (Or, as she sometimes said, she lived with six male members, only she didn't say "male members.") Through those years she often made two observations: (1) She was very thankful she was not a guy. (2) Since her least favorite human beings are adolescent girls, she was very glad she had only boys.

When the six of us males were together, we often acted like guys. When she came into the room our conversation and behavior changed. Why? Not because she is delicate or weak. Not because we were doing anything wrong. But because she is a woman. Because we showed her deference as the wife and mother of our home. Because I had been trained by my parents, and we had trained our boys that men and women are different and that there are ways to act around men that are not appropriate around women. If we did not, she kicked butts and took names. But if she were to have to deal some of the evangelical-reformed women who are blogging today, she would be baffled by the problems they write about that to her are non-problems.

But I have a nagging question: What does it say about me ontologically that the little lady moved the mulch when I said not to move the mulch. What does it mean that this morning when I was working on this, I took a break, opened the back door, and found her washing the car?


* With thanks to Elizabeth Elliot (Let Me Be Woman)

** With thanks to Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings

Ali Doesn't Like Me

Was His Original Last Name Clay?

Darryl Hart, who sometimes has the audacity to criticize me, is one of my favorite thinkers. His The Lost Soul of American Protestantism  is on my list of the Top Ten Books I have read. His books on Machen and Nevin are among my favorites.

Even when criticizing me (see above) he has done me the favor of promoting my blogs, this one and The Christian Curmudgeon. Today I am grateful for his passing mention of my blog about Last Chance U in his August 22 Mitt '16. (I was especially pleased with the "trigger alert" for bad language given in connection with the referenced Blog.)

The reason for my gratitude for Darryl's mention is that he provoked a commenter named "Ali" who does not approve of me or what I write - not that he is by any means unique in his disapproval.

I like Ali for his spiritual discernment based on Darryl's one word reference to me as "Curmudgeon":

didn’t read the article, though can a person boasting being ‘curmudgeonly’ be a very reliable champion of the fruit of the Spirit?

What makes this insight so impressive is that Ali makes his judgment quicker and with less information than Peter's insight concerning Simon (Acts 8:23) and Paul's concerning Elymas (Acts 13:10). If this sort of stuff amuses you, you can find more funny stuff by Ali and by those who support me in the comments section that follows Darryl's Mitt '16.

But I have my own discerning question. In this day of Islamic terrorism how much confidence should we have in the comments of one named Ali?