Is Doug Wilson Lucifer in the Flesh?

Is The Omnibus Evidence?

My Wife Advising Boehner

To say that John Boehner doesn't like Ted Cruz would be a great political understatement. Recently he called Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh" and said, "I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life." These are added to his previously describing Cruz as a "jackass" and "false prophet." So great is the animosity that Boehner has toward Cruz that Boehner declared that he would not vote for Cruz if he were the Republican nominee for President.

To say that Rachel Miller doesn't like Doug Wilson would be a great theological understatement. She probably would not call Doug a SOB, at least not in writing, but she might pray an imprecatory Psalm or two against him. She has nothing but righteous indignation toward the man. 

She has gone to great lengths (Carl Trueman referring to her as "the indefatigable Rachel Miller") to expose plagiarism in his writings. There seems no doubt that he has "heavily borrowed" from others and that this is quite unacceptable on the part of a man who considers himself an academic. 

Yet, as I have thought about this, I have recalled the case of a most beloved and highly respected man, now deceased, who wrote a book much used by Reformed and Evangelical men. But I noted many years ago that his book much relied on a book on the same subject written by a mainline Presbyterian professor I had read in seminary. I have wondered how this happened.  I know this teacher was not a dishonest man. I have constructed this possible scenario in my mind: He read the best books in preparing lectures on this subject. I expect he made copious notes and copied lengthy quotes for his lecture notes. As he taught the subject year after year, this material became "his." Eventually he decided to turn his lecture notes into a book. When he did, there was a significant amount of "borrowed" material included. I bring this up, not to defend Doug Wilson's use of others' material, but to say that men can do what the good professor did and what Wilson did without being evil men - and this is especially the case where there are not professional editors to guide the writing process, to check for errors, and to make sure such things do not happen. Now, Wilson may be a thoroughly bad man, but I do not think his incorporation of material written by others is conclusive proof of it.

On May 3 Rachel published Doug Wilson's Influence on "Classical Christian Education". Let me say I am not a fan of Doug Wilson nor a devotee of Classical Christian Education. When years ago I served on the board of a Christian school that read a Wilson book and watched some Wilson lectures, I was unimpressed. When the school introduced Latin and made other curriculum changes, I did not object, but I was not a cheerleader either. My view of Classical Christian Education is that it is one way to skin the cat, but not the only or necessarily superior one. 

Rachel's concern in this essay is with The Omnibus Curriculum, which is for Grades 7-12 and is based on The Great Books. Her goal is clear:

My purpose is to illustrate that the content of the Omnibus Curriculum has been influenced in many ways by Wilson and his heterodox views. I would strongly caution any family or school against purchasing and using this curriculum.

Rachel's first criticism of the Omnibus curriculum has to do with credentials:

First is the issue of credentials. As Wilson’s own credentials are questionable, he has never been to seminary or been ordained, it seems that many of the Omnibus essay authors do not have the credentials one would expect from this type of curricula...

The bulk of the essays and sessions were written by Wilson, his family members, and CREC pastors and elders. Wilson wrote over 30 of them himself. Many of his essays were on literature outside the areas of his educational background. His degrees are in philosophy and classical studies. In Texas, in order to certify to teach at the secondary level, a teacher has to have a certain number of college hours in a subject. To use myself as an example, I have the credit hours to certify in History, English, and Spanish.

While Wilson lamented in Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning that many teachers in today’s schools are not experts in their subject matter (RLTL, Kindle Locations 1587-1589), it doesn’t seem that the authors of the Omnibus essays and sessions fared much better, with a few notable exceptions. Gene Edward Veith and David Ayers, among other college faculty, are clearly qualified to write on the topics of their essays. Other authors may also be qualified, but without biographical information, it’s hard to know.

A few comments: 1. The curriculum is a classical liberal arts curriculum, and Wilson's formal education in "philosophy and classical studies" is just the kind of background that is suited to a liberal arts curriculum. 2. Wilson is (a) smart and (b) self-educated beyond his formal education. No one could otherwise hold his own in debates with the late Christopher Hitchens. Not a few fine scholars, writers, polemicists, theologians, and preachers, lacking "credentials," have combined native intelligence with wide-reading to make themselves more than competent.  3. Why would a homeschooler of all persons put such an emphasis on formal academic credentials? Do not homeschoolers contend that an ordinary parent is competent to educate a child in all the essential subjects? And, it is worth noting that plenty of people are more than competent to teach and write without academic credentials. Professor John Murray, for instance, had no PhD. 4. The way to judge the material is not by the names or degrees of the authors but by the quality of their work. 

Then there is slavery:

Wilson’s views on slavery and history show up in the Omnibus curriculum. Those familiar with Wilson’s book Black and Tan should recognize the line of thought in these quotes. I should note that not all of the following quotes were written by Wilson. Many of the examples here and further down will be from other authors, but the point is that views that Wilson has made public through his own writing appear in these Omnibus essays and sessions.

(1) I find it interesting that Wilson is held responsible not only for the the things he has said (which she quotes) but for the things others have said (which she also quotes). (2) It is true that Wilson's views of slavery are both impolitic and questionable. But, they are not historically anomalous. Rachel calls herself "a daughter of the Reformation." The Reformers views of slavery, and other subjects, were most unenlightened. She has also in the past identified herself as Southern Presbyterian. Try reading Dabney. (3) On the subject of slavery a modern writer can scarcely quote the Apostles Paul and Peter without being accused of moral evil. Wilson may very well be wrong (or at least unbalanced) in his views of slavery, along with Steve Wilkins and others, but to hold a view that is not that of the majority of one's own day does not necessarily discredit the holder of the views.

Rachel also calls out Wilson's view of the American Revolution: 

Wilson’s views on revolution and American independence are also apparent in the Omnibus essays. In Wilson’s essay “American and French Revolutions Compared,” Wilson explains why he calls the Revolutionary War a War of Independence:

Nevertheless, clear-headed Americans knew that what they had fought for was of a completely different order than what the French Revolution was seeking to establish. To blur them together is to be guilty of an historical slander, and it is to throw away one of the great achievements of the American founding—a righteous heritage. So we have already noted that War of Independence is the better name for our founding war. But in conclusion, let’s use the word revolution in order to set the two side by side, that we may look at them directly. The American revolution was legal; the French revolution was illegal. The American revolution was constitutional; the French revolution was unconstitutional. The American revolution was defensive; the French revolution was offensive. The American revolution was conservative; the French revolution was radical. The American revolution fought to preserve the existing form of government; the French revolution fought to annihilate the existing form of government. The American revolution had a clear and definite object; the French revolution never had a clear and definite object. The American revolution was righteous; the French revolution was unrighteous. (Omnibus VI: American and French Revolutions Compared, pg. 137)

(1) To this I can ask, "What's the problem?" (2) Perhaps Rachel would be interested to read a similar view by Abraham Kuyper in his Lectures on Calvinism given at Princeton. (3) It might also interest Rachel to know that there are Christians who would differer with Wilson for a different reason: they do not see the American Revolution as righteous at all, but as a rebellion against the instituted government. (4) Yankees like to talk about the Civil War. Southerners about the War between the States. The choice of terms about the wars beginning in 1776 and 1861 expresses different views of the nature of those wars, but it is hardly a knock on The Omnibus Curriculum that it introduces students to the profound differences between the American and French revolutions.

As Rachel puts it, "next up the Federal Vision":

The first two quotes demonstrate the influence of Federal Vision teaching on justification:

Abraham was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised, therefore his right standing before God was based on his faith, not any good deeds. (Etter, Omnibus 1: Romans, pg. 518)
And,

James is significant in that it shapes our thinking in several important areas. First, it provides the perfect balance to the writings of Paul concerning true, saving faith. (Etter, Omnibus 1: James, pg. 527)

This is the Federal Vision? If so, then countless Reformed writers one would never associate with the Federal Vision are Federal Visionists. The quotes as they stand seem to be a rather standard statement on the relation between Paul and James. 

Another evidence of the influence of the Federal Vision: 

This quote from an essay and session on Robin Hood says that Christians can use deceit: 

Is it proper to deceive deceitful people? Can we trick the wicked? Although Christians must use it extremely wisely and carefully, deceit can be a legitimate weapon against the wicked. (N.D. Wilson, Josh Stevenson, Omnibus II: The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood 370 (teacher’s edition))

This is a sticky ethical issue. It is often put this way: "If you are hiding Jews in your attic, and the Germans knock on your door and ask, 'Are you hiding Jews here?' may you say, 'No'?" Did the Israelites sin by feigning a frontal attack on Ai? For that matter, can you look right and go left in basketball? The view that Christians may use deceit, while questionable, is hardly distinctive to Rachel's bugaboo. 

Steve Wilkins is criticized for his view that it was a mistake for the New England Settlers to get rid of the liturgical calendar and substitute for it a national calendar. Steve's view is interesting, novel, and probably wrong, but it is hardly distinctive of the Federal Vision. Rather Rachel's pointing to Steve's view is evidence of her pointing to the Christian Year as the root of every kind of evil. 

Next comes N.T. Wright:

N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul have clearly influenced a couple of essays:

Paul was preaching a new cosmos, a new order, in Christ. The resurrection of Christ had already happened, and this reality was going to permeate the old social order and, as a result was going to overthrow it. (Wilson, Etter, Omnibus III: Philemon, pg. 279)

 And

 And the gospel is not just about getting people’s souls into heaven when they die. The gospel does promise that, but it also promises far more. That “more” includes the transformation of all the cultures of all men. (Wilson, Fischer, Steveson, Omnibus III: Slave Narratives, pg. 203) And,

Wright is quoted in a couple of other essays and his books are included in the books recommended for additional reading.

I find myself within conservative Anglicanism sometimes disagreeing with the view of some of my brethren that N.T. Wright has saved the church from grave misunderstandings because Wright understands the worlds of Second Temple Judaism and Greek culture better than all who went before him. In my view this is hogwash. But N.T. Wright has a lot worthwhile to say (as has been noted by a number of his critics), is worth reading, and is helpful (when read with discernment) in understanding the Scriptures. The presence of Wright is not the presence of evil. 

The first quote Rachel cites is the sort of thing that one finds in Wright, and, while it can be disagreed with, it is the sort of thing that one can also find in any number of commentaries on, for instance, Colossians. The second quote could be found to be said by any number of "cultural transformationalists."

The influence of Wright is not the presence of heresy.

Where Wilson, Wilkins, and Wright are found, Jim Jordan must be near:

When God created Adam, He put him in a garden, naked as a newborn. He told Adam to carry out the priestly task of “serving and guarding” the garden (Gen. 2:15). Adam was allowed to eat from the Tree of Life, but before he received the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge he had to grow up. Life is for babies; knowledge or wisdom is for adults, who have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14). Eventually, Yahweh would have allowed Adam to eat the fruit of knowledge, and his eyes would have been opened to judge and rule (cf. Ps. 11:4; Heb. 4:13). Eventually, Adam would have grown up from priest to king. (Leithart, Omnibus IV: Proverbs, pg 13)

 And,  

“Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect,” Jesus tells His disciples in Matthew 5:48. When we hear that, we usually cringe, thinking that Jesus is being totally unreasonable. How can we be perfect? Don’t we still sin? Jesus’ demands are too hard for us, and we might decide that Jesus doesn’t really mean what He says. Jesus does mean what He says, but we often misunderstand it. In the Bible, the word “perfect” doesn’t usually mean “without sin.” Instead, it means “mature.” Jacob was a “perfect” man (Gen. 27:25), and so was Job (Job 1:8). Neither one was sinless, but they were both “complete.” They were both “grown-ups.” That is what the Bible is all about—showing us how to be “perfect,” to be “grown-ups.” Adam was a baby in the Garden of Eden, as naked as a newborn. God planned for him to grow up and put on a crown and a royal robe of glory. But Adam acted just like a baby, grabbing the food he wasn’t supposed to have, and so God put him out of the Garden. When Jesus came, though, He came to bring us to maturity. Jesus came to make us “perfect”—all grown up.  (Leithart, Omnibus IV: Phillipians and Colossians, 377)

One could hardly be less a fan of James Jordan than I. He is in my view speculative, imaginative, and novel as an exegete and theologian. But, does Rachel really think that the word "perfect" as used in the New Testament means always moral perfection and not "completeness, arrival at the the goal - maturity"? Is the man of God who is "perfect in every good work" morally perfect in every good work?

Rachel objects that the subject of paedo-communion is offered for discussion in the curriculum:

At one point, the Omnibus session recommends that students debate the issue of paedocommunion. It’s interesting to note the reasoning behind the suggestion:

Paedocommunion In our discussions on the Lord’s Supper, we discussed the differences of opinion between the four groups regarding the presence of Christ. We did not touch upon another debated issue regarding Communion—that is, the question of who should participate in this sacrament. While most churches only allow adults and older children to participate in the Lord’s Supper, more churches are now practicing what is known as paedocommunion, or child communion. Today, we are going to debate the question of who should participate in the Lord’s Supper. (Wilson, Etter, Omnibus V: Institutes of the Christian Religion, pg 307, emphasis added)

There is a live debate about paedo-communion as about the presence of Christ in the Supper. The only question I have about this is that in light of the fact that the Orthodox churches practice paedo-communion, that the Roman Catholic church allows first communion before confirmation, that many Protestant churches practice paedo-communion, and that there are those within Rachel's own conservative Presbyterian denomination who believe in but do not practice paedo-communion, it is really inappropriate to allow students in grades 7-12 to consider and debate the views?

Then, of course, there must be patriarchy:

Wilson’s patriarchal views are also frequently seen in the Omnibus curriculum.

Genesis 2 describes the origins of sexual difference. How does Genesis 2 define masculinity and femininity? Genesis 2 shows that Adam is created to “cultivate and keep” the garden (2:15) and that Eve is created to assist him in this task. Adam is the leader, initiator, beginner of things. And he is also the guardian who protects Eve from spiritual and physical assaults. He puts his strength to work in service and sacrifice. (Leithart, Omnibus II: Macbeth, pg 195-196)

 And,

From a Christian perspective, feminism must be seen as a reaction to the sins and abdication of men. If men were genuinely devoted to Christ-like masculinity, if they truly gave themselves for their wives and daughters as Jesus did for His bride, if men honored women as their glory and crown, the feminist movement would have had very little impact. Feminism is a movement about women, but it is just as importantly a movement that poses questions to men. What does it mean to be a man? Christian men are not supposed to be brutal, but Christian men are not supposed to be stuffed teddy bears either. Where is the balance? (Leithart, Omnibus II: Macbeth, pg 1)
And,

Why is Deborah’s victory over Jabin and Sisera bittersweet for Israel? It was bittersweet because on one hand, it was a great victory for Israel, and Deborah was a godly, decisive, courageous judge and prophetess in Israel. On the other hand, when she implored Barak to lead Israel into battle, he would only comply if she went along. She warned him that a woman would receive credit. The bitterness lies in the cowardice and laziness of the men in Israel. In her wisdom (and subtlety) Deborah praises “the princes of Israel who willingly fought” (5:9). (Lusk, Becker, Omnibus IV: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, pg. 487) 

And,

 Egalitarianism can mean many different things. I am here using it to describe the philosophy that, while much more obviously present today, was very much a part of the modern outlook in the nineteenth century: the idea that there must be no (or few) boundaries or hierarchies in human relationships and that all people must be “equal” in every possible way. This goes well beyond equal treatment under the law to include equality of income and lifestyle, and the rejection of traditional, biblical roles that give different, complementary spheres to the work and life of men and women, ruler and subject, master and servant. (Newsom, Omnibus VI: Battle Cry of Freedom pg. 274 End note 5)

I have conducted weddings in which I read the Ephesians 5 passage about husbands loving their wives and wives submitting to their husbands and looked out on the congregation to see people (not of my own congregations) looking at me as though I had read from the Koran. Rachel belongs to the school of "very thin-anorexic complementarians," who struggle with Ephesians 5 unless wifely submission is mitigated by "mutual submission" (which is large exegetical mistake) so any kind of robust complementarianism is seen as patriarchy of the Bayly and Wilson (at his worst - though he is smarter and more nuanced than the Baylys) sort. While one can find hints of patriarchy in the quotes above, it is difficult to find them particularly objectionable from a Biblical view, even if one does not accept them without exception.

The same can be said of Rachel's objections to comments on marriage:

Wilson’s teachings on marriage also appear in the Omnibus essays and sessions:

Paul views men and women as equal in worth, but different in nature and function. Men and women are created equally in the image of God; indeed, they can only fully image God in community with one another. Further, men and women share equally in the Fall and participate equally in Christ’s redemptive work. But they are also profoundly different, and those differences are more than just a matter of biology. Men and women were designed to complement one another, with their strengths and weaknesses fitting one another like two pieces of a puzzle. Men were made for taking initiative and exercising responsible leadership in both church and home, which the Bible calls “headship.” Women were designed to be helpers and completers. The woman’s role is different, but no less valuable than the man’s. Further, these roles are not arbitrary; they fit with our God-given natures as men and women. We see these basic orientations laid out in Genesis 1–3, where the man’s primary focus is his work in the world (3:17–19), while the woman’s primary focus is the home (3:16); by fulfilling these roles, men and women together rule over God’s good creation (1:26–28) (Lusk, Omnibus VI: 1 and 2 Timothy, pg. 446)

 And, 

These complementary gender roles are most clearly seen in marriage (Eph. 5:21ff). The man is the head of his household, taking responsibility for the state of those under his care. He is the primary leader, protector, and provider. The woman is to be in submission to her husband, as his helper, not because she is inferior to him (after all, God is called “helper” more than anyone else in Scripture!), but because he needs her support and aid to fulfill his calling in the world. John Piper defines masculinity and femininity this way: At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.13 These are excellent Pauline definitions. There are biblical/theological models that help us understand how men and woman can be equal yet relate asymmetrically to one another. In the Trinity, the Father and Son share in the same “Godness.” They are equal in every way. But they are not interchangeable pieces because they have different roles to play. In the economy of creation and redemption, the Son submits Himself to the Father (1 Cor. 11:2ff). (Lusk, Omnibus VI: 1 and 2 Timothy, pg 449)

When Rachel finds John Piper, John MacArthur, and Jay Adams as ones to be be warned against because of their views regarding marriage (and I differ from all three), it is not surprising that such historically conventional teaching on marriage is quoted as though it were self-evident that is it false and dangerous.

Now, I am going to ignore the sex and nudity stuff Rachel mentions. I will only point out that I have seen at least one of those pictures she prints in Schaeffer's How Shall We Then Live?

I don't much like Doug Wilson. I don't read him. If I lived in Moscow, Idaho, I would not go to Doug Wilson's church, or send my kids to his school or college. If I were starting a Christian school, I would not follow the Classical Christian model. If I were a homeschooler I would not use The Omnibus. But then I wouldn't go to the Campus Church at Pensacola Christian, ever subject my kids to Pensacola Christian School, or ever use the Abeka curriculum. I expect the latter is the bigger danger to conservative Reformed homeschoolers than Doug Wilson. Having been through the Abeka school before the Abeka curriculum was produced, I would, if I had to choose between Abeka and The Omnibus, much prefer a curriculum that treated me like a person to be educated and not an animal to be trained. But, as in this election year, I would prefer "neither of the the above." But I am a "Never Abeka" man.

Necessary exposure of error is a friend of truth. Obsession with a person is not. 

An Anorexic Complementarian

Wendy, Wendy, What Went Wrong?

                                             -Mike Love, Brian Wilson

Wendy Alsup, used to be a deacon at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, is published in CharismaMagazine , has written three books, loves theology, math, and whales, attends a small Presbyterian Church in South Carolina, and writes a Blog titled Practical Theology for Women. When asked once, "Why target women?" she answered:

Certainly everyone needs theology—I just think women are underrepresented as target audiences of theological texts and the theological community in general. There are very few women’s books that emphasize theology. Most of the classes I’ve taught had a mainly female audience. Therefore that is where my particular burden is. (emphasis mine)

On April 22 she published A Unified Field Theory on Gender which was reprinted in The Aquila Report on May 4 (disclosure: I search for, collect, and send to the editors materials they may want to use which I do regardless of my own views of the content or writing of what I find). 

Wendy joins Aimee Byrd in not liking what Kevin DeYoung wrote regarding "complementarianism":

There's been a number of posts this last week defending complementarian thought. Most notably, Kevin DeYoung wrote 9 Marks of Healthy Biblical Complementarianism. I've had this post in the works for a long time, but Kevin's post and Aimee Byrd's response to it reminded me anew of a long unsettled feeling I've had with complementarian language. 

She is a "maybe, sorta, kinda" complementarian, who, while appreciative of some complementarians, is not really comfortable with the organization the Bayly Boys don't like because it's too liberal:

Many reformed conservatives feel dissonance with the Counsel of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Though we generally identify as complementarian, this is more a function of the fact that we DON'T identify with egalitarian thought than a hook, line, and sinker support of conservative presentations and applications of complementarian thought. Furthermore, we generally identify as complementarians because we've been greatly influenced in other ways by the old leaders of the movement. I was deeply influenced by John Piper's Desiring God. I find D. A. Carson's exegeses of various passages incredibly helpful, including passages on women. Tim Keller's writings on social justice transformed how I think about the gospel applied.

I really don't want to be at odds with any of these guys whom I respect and from whom I have learned life changing truths. But some of their language around the Bible and gender and the applications of the groups they support leave me uncomfortable. I go back again and again to the word dissonance. Something is not quite right. Something doesn't fit the rest of Scripture. I think often of a science conundrum that well illustrates the problem (in my humble opinion) with the last 30 years or so of discussion on gender among evangelicals.

Her illustration is that the old Newtonian physics explained the universe in terms of gravity. However, Einstein came along and saw that gravity does not work as an explanation of everything. Gravity worked at the macro level, but not at the micro. So Einstein set out in search of a Unified Field Theory that could explain the universe at both the macro and micro levels. (He didn't find it.)

Ms. Alsup asks, "Can you see where I am going here with gender?" and answers her own question. At at earlier time complementarians offered a seemingly plausible explanation of the universe of male-female relations and roles:

In the 70s and 80s, a new conservative model on gender in the Church was codified. Statements were written, councils were established, and books were

published. And these statements, councils, and books spoke into a number of problems around gender in the Church. They highlighted the fact that God created two distinct but overlapping genders (though the overlapping part has been sorely under-emphasized), two genders that complemented each other. Complementarian thought was born, and it caught on with many because it explained a lot of our experience to us. For those who value a straightforward reading of the Bible, especially when it comes to submission in Ephesians 5 and male-only eldership in I Timothy 3, it gave us a systematic way to look at gender. It also fit what many Christians were seeing in their homes. Among my generation, it gave many a counterexample to their upbringing shaped by parents of the 60's who were putting off the conservative social constructs of the previous generation. Ozzie and Harriett accidentally raised the Woodstock generation. Who raised my peers. And many of my peers wanted more stability in the home for their children than they had experienced with their Woodstock parents. Complementarian constructs resonated with children of Woodstock parents.

However, now we see that old complementarianism does not work as well to explain the male-female universe as previously thought. For one thing it has an Achilles' heel that undermines the whole - its exegesis of Genesis 3:16:

The problem is that while the complementarian movement explained a lot and defended important Scripture, it still has underlying root weaknesses. The primary one in my opinion is its foundational misinterpretation of Genesis 3:16 that believes a woman's root problem after the fall is that she wants to take control from the man and dominate him in return. That view put termites in a corner foundation of complementarian thought. You can't build a solid structure on gender with that kind of foundational misinterpretation of the root problem from the fall for women.

I have three questions: (1) Is the exegesis of Genesis 3:16 as universal among complementarians as Ms. Alsup says? (2) If it is, and it is wrong, how critical is it to the complementarian view of male-female role relationships? (3) What is wrong with the position? {Personal: I used to take the view that Genesis 3:16 taught that women would have pain in childbirth and would experience over-dependence (strong desire for) on her husband with the result that he will rule over (dominate) her. However I have become convinced of the exegesis she rejects because of the parallel between 3:16 and 4:7.} What does she find wrong with this exegesis and what is her exegesis of "desire for" in the verse? (Her somewhat scholarly view - "somewhat scholarly" her term - is "that it means an idolatrous longing for something from the man that she was created to receive from God alone.")

But, if the exegesis of Genesis 3:16 is the Achilles' heel, there is an yet bigger problem with complementarianism:

Most of all, this movement hasn't allowed for women to serve in the modern complementarian church the way they served with Jesus, Paul, and Peter in the New Testament church. (Emphasis hers)

This statement, of course, begs the question: Exactly how did women serve with Jesus, Paul, and Peter? What did they do? What did they do that the "complementarian movement" does not allow? What would a reformation with regard to male-female relations in the church look like?

So what does Wendy propose to do in light of her conviction that complementarians are so wrong? Two things:

1) Re-examining headship through Scripture. I think headship is an incredibly important teaching because it starts in Genesis and extends all the way through the Epistles. Understanding how the Bible uses the concept unlocks a lot around gender. I've been looking at headship particularly in reference to I Corinthians 11's instructions on women and head-coverings. I feel like the light has come on in my head, solidified after reading an article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. THAT STORY IS I CORINTHIANS 11 PERSONIFIED – it is everything Paul was trying to warn the church in Corinth about. The competing definitions of headship as source on the egalitarian side and authority on the complementarian are equally weak choices. Headship in Scripture is deep and beautiful, and I'm looking forward to publishing that article on Monday -- Headship, I Corinthians 11, and Thomas Jefferson.

If you want to know what she came up with on the meaning of headship in the Bible, how it relates to male headship and the head covering in 1 Corinthians 11, and what it all has to do with Thomas Jefferson, you can find it here . She begins with what she considers the first rule of exegesis, that Scripture interprets Scripture. Using that rule, she concludes that the key to understanding headship is found in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Egalitarians are wrong (headship means "source"). Complementarians are wrong (headship means "authority"). Headship really is about protection of a vulnerable person, specifically a husband's protection of his wife in a covenanted relationship. 

Several observations may be relevant. First, the rule that Scripture interprets Scripture is not really the first rule of interpretation. The first thing to look at is the vocabulary and grammar. Wendy's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 founders on the matter of vocabulary. Second, the fact that there is not the slightest indication in 1 Corinthians 11 that the Apostle had in mind what Wendy reads into his mind, is no deterrent to Wendy's belief that she has discovered the true meaning of headship, and (wouldn't you know it?) it undermines the work complementarian scholars and their exegesis of the meaning of the word "head" as used by St. Paul.

She also proposes to do a second thing: 

2) Looking at all the women in the Bible. Conservatives have come up with an idealized womanhood that fits about 50% of the women affirmed in Scripture. Every woman used by God in Scripture gives us a data point for understanding what God did and did not mean by certain words He used. Deborah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Abigail. Euodia, Synteche, Lydia, and Junia. These ladies aren't outliers. They are part of the normative plan for women made in the image of God. We must couple them with Sarah and Ruth, Mary and Rachel for a holistic understanding of what God created women to be and how He uses them in His story.

"Conservatives have some up with an idealized womanhood that fits about 50% of the women affirmed by Scripture." "Idealized womanhood" makes me think of June Cleaver in her shirtwaist dress, pearls, and heels and of the Jack Jones song - which is not altogether bad, at least better than the woman who recommended wives meet their husbands at the door wearing cellophane - but I digress. But I think that what Wendy is saying is that complementarians (among whom she continues count herself - which makes me think that, if Carl and Aimee are thin complementarians, then Wendy is anorexic), show in their writing and practice that they do not take into account all the things all the women in the Bible did. There are a lot of female particles out there behaving in ways that complementarian theory cannot account for.

But I have a question and a comment. When complementarians exegete 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Peter 3 and say, "The Apostles teach these things concerning the male-female roles in home and church, and their teaching reserves certain functions and offices to men," are they obligated to look at every thing every woman in the Bible did and show how these do not contradict their exegetical conclusions? And, does Wendy accept or reject the rule of interpretation that the preceptive teaching controls the interpretation of the exemplary? 

Regarding the women she mentions: Deborah: I have no objection to women political leaders. Phoebe: I have no objection to Phoebe's being a servant and, if you wish to use her to construct and argument for female deacons, please have at it. Priscilla: I have no objection to Priscilla joining her husband in the private instruction of Apollos to give him a more complete understanding of the faith which he eloquently proclaimed in public. Abigail: I have no objection to Abigail's or any other woman's loading up donkeys and bringing food. Euodia and Synteche: I have no objection to their laboring side by side with Paul and Clement in the work of the Gospel in Philippi, nor to their resolving their relational difficulties. Lydia: I have no objection to her being a businesswoman or to her showing hospitality to and support of those who carry on the ministry of the Gospel. Junia: I have no problem with women such as Junia, or for that matter, Andronicus, being fellow prisoners for the Gospel, nor to their being apostles (sent ones), though I don't for a moment think they may be Apostles in the sense that Paul the other Apostles appointed by Christ to lay the foundation of the church were Apostles. 

Now, over to Wendy. What do you think these examples teach us? And how do you think these examples relate to the preceptive teaching?

I want to know two things. How could the Hardest Workin' Man in Show Business have been so wrong? And what am I supposed to do with my Barry White albums?

When our twins weren't gaining weight, the doctor told us to "take those boys home and feed 'em some grits and redeye gravy." That might be good advice for some of these skinny complementarians.
















































Certainly everyone needs theology—I just think women are underrepresented as target audiences of theological texts and the theological community in general. There are very few women’s books that emphasize theology. Most of the classes I’ve taught had a mainly female audience. Therefore that is where my particular burden is.

Wendy is the former Deacon in charge of Women's Theology and Training  at Mark Driscoll's church. She quietly left that church (there must be a story in there but I digress) and runs a blog called Practical Theology for Women link.

A Unified Field Theory on Gender

There's been a number of posts this last week defending complementarian thought. Most notably, Kevin DeYoung wrote 9 Marks of Healthy Biblical Complementarianism. I've had this post in the works for a long time, but Kevin's post and Aimee Byrd's response to it reminded me anew of a long unsettled feeling I've had with complementarian language.

Many reformed conservatives feel dissonance with the Counsel of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Though we generally identify aa complementarian, this is more a function of the fact that we DON'T identify with egalitarian thought than a hook, line, and sinker support of conservative presentations and applications of complementarian thought. Furthermore, we generally identify as complementarians because we've been greatly influenced in other ways by the old leaders of the movement. I was deeply influenced by John Piper's Desiring God. I find D. A. Carson's exegeses of various passages incredibly helpful, including passages on women. Tim Keller's writings on social justice transformed how I think about the gospel applied.

I really don't want to be at odds with any of these guys whom I respect and from whom I have learned life changing truths. But some of their language around the Bible and gender and the applications of the groups they support leave me uncomfortable. I go back again and again to the word dissonance. Something is not quite right. Something doesn't fit the rest of Scripture. I think often of a science conundrum that well illustrates the problem (in my humble opinion) with the last 30 years or so of discussion on gender among evangelicals.

 Note: if you are of the personality type that curls into the fetal position at the mention of a science conundrum, I'll try to explain this in a way that is empowering, not frustrating, to you. If I fail, let me know in the comments, and I'll try harder next time. 

Consider for a moment Newtonian physics. Most of us are familiar with it -- even you artists and poets who don't think you are. At least we all live according to it everyday. It centers around the concept of gravity. An apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head in the late 1600's, causing him to figure out gravity. Large objects (like our earth) pull smaller objects toward them (like an apple being pulled back to the earth or the moon being held in orbit by the gravitational pull of the earth), and the foundation of Newtonian physics was laid. Much in our world fits Newtonian physics, and it has become a great tool for understanding the universe. We all stick to the earth because of Newtonian physics. The moon orbits the earth; the earth orbits the sun. From satellites transmitting data to the earth to ants crawling along the ground, it seems that our universe is fundamentally held together by gravity. I was even taught in high school that electrons orbited around neutrons in atoms similar to the planets around the sun. The idea was that the neutron held the electrons in orbit through the gravitational pull of the neutron.

The problem is that scientists later discovered that electrons and neutrons don't actually work like that. In fact, you can't even measure how an electron travels in an atom. All of our world does not in fact obey Newtonian physics, particularly at the micro level. So we have a universe that follows one principle while the tiny parts that make up that universe defy it. Atoms don't fit Newton's model. Albert Einstein and others after him sought for a Unified Field Theory, something that explained how the universe worked on a macro and micro level. How could the big parts of the Universe work together in a way that the small parts making them up defied? There has to be a bigger principle at work, one that explains both.

Can you see where I am going here with gender?

In the 70s and 80s, a new conservative model on gender in the Church was codified. Statements were written, councils were established, and books were published. And these statements, councils, and books spoke into a number of problems around gender in the Church. They highlighted the fact that God created two distinct but overlapping genders (though the overlapping part has been sorely under-emphasized), two genders that complemented each other. Complementarian thought was born, and it caught on with many because it explained a lot of our experience to us. For those who value a straightforward reading of the Bible, especially when it comes to submission in Ephesians 5 and male-only eldership in I Timothy 3, it gave us a systematic way to look at gender. It also fit what many Christians were seeing in their homes. Among my generation, it gave many a counterexample to their upbringing shaped by parents of the 60's who were putting off the conservative social constructs of the previous generation. Ozzie and Harriett accidentally raised the Woodstock generation. Who raised my peers. And many of my peers wanted more stability in the home for their children than they had experienced with their Woodstock parents. Complementarian constructs resonated with children of Woodstock parents.

The problem is that while the complementarian movement explained a lot and defended important Scripture, it still has underlying root weaknesses. The primary one in my opinion is its foundational misinterpretation of Genesis 3:16 that believes a woman's root problem after the fall is that she wants to take control from the man and dominate him in return. That view put termites in a corner foundation of complementarian thought. You can't build a solid structure on gender with that kind of foundational misinterpretation of the root problem from the fall for women.

Another root problem in complementarian thought is that the movement was fundamentally a reaction to 2nd wave feminism. It's obviously a problem to build a system of teaching from Scripture as a reaction against any cultural movement. But it is even more of a problem when you realize that 2nd wave feminism itself was in many ways a white privileged movement. First wave feminism was not, in my opinion. But 2nd wave feminism hasn't impacted other cultures the same way it has middle and upper class whites because other cultures and other income brackets struggle with a different set of gender issues than those traditionally associated with 2nd wave feminists (like equal executive pay). Gloria Steinhem and other feminist leaders have long been criticized for their overemphasis on equal pay in the upper echelons of the privileged while only paying lipservice to the types of gendered abuse that occurs throughout the world among the poor.

This movement has also allowed for other wrong interpretations in Scripture, for instance that women were created to image the church (Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Mary Kassian) and that all women should submit to all men (John Piper).

Most of all, this movement hasn't allowed for women to serve in the modern complementarian church the way they served with Jesus, Paul, and Peter in the New Testament church. 

So what to do? Well, we need to re-examine some key teachings from Scripture. Personally, I've been looking at this from two angles.

1) Re-examining headship through Scripture. I think headship is an incredibly important teaching because it starts in Genesis and extends all the way through the Epistles. Understanding how the Bible uses the concept unlocks a lot around gender. I've been looking at headship particularly in reference to I Corinthians 11's instructions on women and head-coverings. I feel like the light has come on in my head, solidified after reading an article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. THAT STORY IS I CORINTHIANS 11 PERSONIFIED – it is everything Paul was trying to warn the church in Corinth about. The competing definitions of headship as source on the egalitarian side and authority on the complementarian are equally weak choices. Headship in Scripture is deep and beautiful, and I'm looking forward to publishing that article on Monday -- Headship, I Corinthians 11, and Thomas Jefferson.

2) Looking at all the women in the Bible. Conservatives have come up with an idealized womanhood that fits about 50% of the women affirmed in Scripture. Every woman used by God in Scripture gives us a data point for understanding what God did and did not mean by certain words He used. Deborah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Abigail. Euodia, Synteche, Lydia, and Junia. These ladies aren't outliers. They are part of the normative plan for women made in the image of God. We must couple them with Sarah and Ruth, Mary and Rachel for a holistic understanding of what God created women to be and how He uses them in His story.

Of course, Einstein never figured out a Unified Field Theory, and maybe we won't around gender either. But I do believe that God is sanctifying His Church, and I think the next step may be moving us to a better understanding of male and female in the image of God, one that contributes to the flourishing of both man and woman in the Body of Christ as God intended in Eden. 

What Do Thin Complementarians Want?

Carl and Aimee

According to Aimee Byrd Denny Burk called her and Carl Trueman "thin complementarians." I suppose for sake of comparison John MacArthur is a "fat complementarian." The Bayly Boys (Tim and David) have seen so many Terminator movies, drunk so much Muscle Milk, and had so many testosterone/steroid cocktails that they find "complementarian" a girly word. They are real men - patriarchs of their families and churches who know where women belong.

I have decided to classify myself a libertarian complementarian. For two reasons: First, I don't want to anyone, including me, to be compelled to follow someone else's convictions about male-female roles. I am indifferent about who mows the grass, or loads the dishwasher, or changes the flat tire, or cooks supper at your house. I am also indifferent about who may read Scripture in worship at your church, and I have said before that I would prefer to hear the Gospel from a female preacher than heresy from a male one. Work these things out among yourselves. Second, as a libertarian, I mainly want to be left alone. Don't hand me a set rules about how to be a man. I'll work that out with the little lady at my house. And, if she suggests I watch a Lifetime movie, I want the freedom to say, "No," and if asked, "Why?" to reply, "I don't want to." 

But I digress.

Lately Amy and Carl are not happy with Kevin DeYoung's 9 Marks of Healthy Biblical Complementarianism. I know I'm dense, but when, because of Carl and Aimee's heartburn about it, I got around to reading it, I had to ask, "What's the fuss?" However Aimee wrote, A Response to Kevin DeYoung's 9 Marks which asks, "Why, if, as Kevin says, iron sharpening discussion is welcome on the subject of complementarianism and, if women are encouraged pursue theological interests, has nobody ever answered concerns I have expressed? Could it be because I am an XX person?" She followed up with Listening to Women in which she reposts a blog by Rachel Starke in which Ms. Starke seems to argue that the Holy Spirit meant by St. Luke's telling of the story of the witness of the women on Easter and St. Matthew's telling of the story Pilate's wife's warning on Good Friday to tell us to listen to women. (Again I am sure I am dense, but, just as I find a lot of the discussion of race by Reformed Blacks to sound like it comes out of an African American Studies Department, so I find some of discussion of sex/gender - you choose - by evangelical women to sound like it comes out of a Women's Studies Department.) Today Carl has posted Truly Biblical Complementarianism where he links to Scott McKnight's 9Marks of the Truly Complementarian.

You're all big boys and girls so you can read these things for yourselves if you wish. 

But Darryl Hart has put me in a Bible thumping frame of mind, so I want to ask (sincerely) the thin complementarians to tell me what these verses mean:

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... However... let the wife see that she respects her husband (Ephesians 5:22-24,33).

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 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. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening (1 Peter 3:1-6).

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35).

...women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 3:10b-15).

Please take into account all textual and contextual material you find relevant and necessary to the right understanding of what St. Paul and St. Peter are saying. Just tell me me what these texts of Scripture say. To choose a hard case, tell me what "submit in everything" means for a wife if she is married to a jerk, who makes stupid decisions, and gives unreasonable directions. Tell me why Sarah should have called Abraham, who did some really dumb stuff, "lord." And, if you will,  explain to me what Kevin DeYoung said that was wrong - by commission and omission. I am listening. 

Now, I have Cornish hens to fix for supper. (Did you know that Cornish hens may be boys or girls?)