« Secularization, a Paternalistic Theory | Main | The Return of the Tribes »
August 29, 2006
Hutchens' Maid
Steve Hutchens article in the September issue, "A Maid to Order Bible," reviewing John Stackhouse's Finally Feminist is worth reading, right now. Don't wait for the issue to arrive in the mail. It will spark some thought, especially for evangelicals embarrassed by the patriarchy of the Bible.
But there's more to it than the gender issue. In this review, Steve reminds us of the perils of a soft tyranny of the evangelical academy. I would broaden that to include the whole parachurch constellation of agencies and interest groups, most of which are tossed about by every wind of egalitarianism. Regular readers of "Mere Comments" know that Steve Hutchens and I do not agree on all things evangelical, but we're together on the shame that comes when evangelical Protestants, of all people, forget what it means to have consciences captive to the Word of God.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 06:47 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834e5cc5b69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hutchens' Maid:
Comments
Isn't the attitude expressed in this book toward the Bible and Tradition expressed concisely in the word ''sophistry''?
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Aug 29, 2006 9:47:52 PM
Right you are, Russell--thanks.
Posted by: smh | Aug 29, 2006 9:52:21 PM
I am convinced that the fight against patriarchy represents a modern plumline that separates the faithful from the faithless churches. What other issue is there today that can cause evangelicals to so quickly turn against the Bible?
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Aug 29, 2006 10:31:11 PM
I see the consequences of this attitude in lit classes all the time: students who think that they "can't read" poetry because it's "too hard" and only the enlightened teacher has the "key," which he will never reveal though he might graciously tell you what *he* has discovered by its use. Far too dangerous for the student to have the key, though, because he might misuse it without the brilliance and revelation that's been visited only on the English Lit PhD.
This is disgusting in an English class. It is *dangerous* in regard to Scripture. At least Stackhouse is finally saying openly what the egalitarians have meant all along -- that we ignorant folk who rely on the plain words of Scripture need a new elite to come along and tell us what it *really* means. Next comes removing it from our hands so we can't hurt ourselves and others by our inability to understand the "deep inner meaning" that only that elite can find. Finally, our acquiesence in all this and, for most, tossing it aside as pretty much irrelevant because it's so far beyond us -- though we will live in and accept the culture that the elite thereby fashion for us.
God save us.
Posted by: Beth | Aug 30, 2006 10:00:07 AM
Dictionary.com says:
pa-tri-arch-y - noun, plural -ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
The whole egalitarian heresy begins by seeing what is defined above as morally repugnant. And that is the part of the heresy I don't get. What makes it so repugnant? It's a lot harder to believe that God told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites (including women and children) than that he intends for a father to be "the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe". Yet it is the latter that is the "scandal" to the would-be hip 'gelical. Or is the former so "obviously not god's will" that we don't even bring it up? You don't even need the Bible to believe patriarchy to be a good thing. Evolutionary psychology explains it all well enough. So the egalitarians propose a creed that is not only not consistent with any historically identifiable church, much less its scriptures, but neither with modern science (even if that be pseudo-science of a sort). It's nonsensical all around, and therefore utterly laughable from the perspective of both would-be true believer and would-be true skeptic.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Aug 30, 2006 6:09:59 PM
>>>It is *dangerous* in regard to Scripture. At least Stackhouse is finally saying openly what the egalitarians have meant all along -- that we ignorant folk who rely on the plain words of Scripture need a new elite to come along and tell us what it *really* means.<<<
A new elite, no. But I do think you need an OLD elite to tell you what it means. The Fathers wrote myriad commentaries on Scripture, every chapter and verse from beginning to end. The read Scripture in its original language, they lived in the same social milieu as the writers of Scripture (there is less difference between hellenistic culture in 100 and 500 AD than there is in American culture between 1956 and 2006), and thus were far better positioned to understand what it meant than someone living 1900-2100 years removed from the time and culture in which Scripture was written, who can only read Scripture in translation, or worse, a translation of a translation. It's rather appalling, really, how little familiarity that so-called "biblical" Christians have with the Fathers who are the bedrock foundation of the Church as it has come to us. They rely on the teachings of the Fathers in so many areas, including theology and Christology, yet the insist that they draw their doctrine solely from a personal reading and interpretation of Scripture. Even Martin Luther knew where that would lead, and greatly regretted the forces he had unleashed by making personal interpretation the ultimate authority for Christians. Scripture does not interpret itself; the Book does not explan itself to us. We do that, and when we do, we bring a passle of personal, cultural, historical, social and linguistic baggage to the exercise. This has caused all sorts of mischief over the years, and one wishes that those "who rely on the plain words of Scripture" would at least recognize the limitations of their own knowledge and abilities.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 30, 2006 6:22:55 PM
>It's rather appalling, really, how little familiarity that so-called "biblical" Christians have with the Fathers who are the bedrock foundation of the Church as it has come to us. They rely on the teachings of the Fathers in so many areas, including theology and Christology, yet the insist that they draw their doctrine solely from a personal reading and interpretation of Scripture.
Of course traditional Protestants do no such thing. We need more traditional Protestants. Actually an appreciation by evangelicals of something no more ancient than Calvin or Luther would also result in an appreciation of the Fathers.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 30, 2006 7:07:55 PM
Stuart, just to be clear: I *teach* literature. That should tell you what I think about the need for teachers of Scripture, since I see the two activities as analogous (with of course the caveat that the Author of Scripture is perfect and we are required to respond in obedience to His Word).
I do, however, think that some, perhaps much, of Scripture is pretty plain. (I don't need anyone to interpret "Thou shalt not commit adultery" for me, for example.) And I don't think I sit back and just take what the "old" "elite" tells me, either: Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to be sure that what they were being taught was true. So there is an integration of teaching, tradition, and personal searching, I think.
I would love to explain my understanding of the task of reading, but I have to go teach a Hemingway story in an hour and must get some of the background material that the students need prepared. :)
Posted by: Beth | Aug 31, 2006 7:46:50 AM
"It's rather appalling, really, how little familiarity that so-called "biblical" Christians have with the Fathers who are the bedrock foundation of the Church as it has come to us. They rely on the teachings of the Fathers in so many areas, including theology and Christology, yet the insist that they draw their doctrine solely from a personal reading and interpretation of Scripture."
I don't deny that this describes some, perhaps many, evangelicals today, but this is unfair as a description of evangelical Christianity. I try to judge each Christian group by its best, not its poorest, representatives, and the evangelicals I respect (many of whom write for Touchstone and Mere Comments) clearly do read and respect the Fathers. But, if you'll excuse the pun, Scripture is the "touchstone" by which the Fathers judged their own work, as argued by Roman Catholic scholar, Robert Louis Wilken, in his recent work on the early church.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 31, 2006 5:45:24 PM
>>>I do, however, think that some, perhaps much, of Scripture is pretty plain. (I don't need anyone to interpret "Thou shalt not commit adultery" for me, for example.) <<<
But what did adultery MEAN for the ancient Hebrews, who practiced polygamy and tolerated concubinage? Interesting question. Also, how was the passage interpreted by the Fathers? John the Baptist considered that it was adultery for Herod Antipas to marry Herodia. Is it adultery in your mind? In the mind of another evantelical Protestant who looks at the Bible in a different way (Hey, they were divorced before they remarried, so it's not adultery").
There are other examples one could pick. For instance, just what did Paul mean by "justification"? How does it differ from the view held by Augustine, or Luther, or Calvin? What does it mean to you? How would you answer N.T. Wright's critique of the way in which the term has been used, at least since the Reformation?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2006 5:56:47 PM
>>>I don't deny that this describes some, perhaps many, evangelicals today, but this is unfair as a description of evangelical Christianity. <<<
The first question I would have to ask is, "What is Evangelical Christianity?", and the second one would be, "How would you rebut Marc Noll's critique of the current state of the Evangelical mind?"
That said, I find that much of the most challenging and refreshing work in biblical scholarship is being done by Evangelical scholars. In particular, I am thinking of Ben Witherington III, Wayne Meeks, Paul Barnett, WHC Frend, and especially Tom Wright, all of whom have opened important vistas for me. I'm not particularly concerned about where truth originates, only that it be true.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2006 6:01:07 PM
"The first question I would have to ask is, 'What is Evangelical Christianity?'" Oh, come on, Stuart--you'll have to wait for my book! ;-)
"How would you rebut Marc Noll's critique of the current state of the Evangelical mind?" Mark Noll is sharp, and I'm not sure I'd try to rebut him, although I'd have some differences. Still, I'm troubled more when the issue is intellectual complacency in evangelicalism, not intellectual ferment.
"That said, I find that much of the most challenging and refreshing work in biblical scholarship is being done by Evangelical scholars." True, and don't forget Tom Odem's work on the Early Christian Commentary--that's an effort very likely to outlive this generation.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 31, 2006 6:21:42 PM
Russell Moore tells you to hurry up and read Dr. Hutchens's review of my book, Finally Feminist, and implies that I do not have a conscience captive to the Word of God. The former advice is doubtless well-meant, but badly informed. Dr. Hutchens's review is a vicious misreading of what I do in my book: "vicious" in that it is uncharitable, smug, incorrect, and lazy.
As for Brother Moore's own slander of me as uninterested in the Word of God, I have to rebuke him. Any reader of my book, or anything else I have written, knows that I am trying hard to be faithful to Scripture. I might be wrong, of course, but I am deeply and obviously concerned to get the Bible right. Or is Brother Moore simply equating agreement with his interpretation of Scripture with agreement with Scripture itself? I hope not.
Read my book for yourself, friends: Neither Hutchens nor Moore can be trusted on this score.
Posted by: John Stackhouse | Nov 11, 2006 12:44:21 AM
>Read my book for yourself, friends: Neither Hutchens nor Moore can be trusted on this score.
Care to hand out free copies?
Posted by: David Gray | Nov 11, 2006 5:14:37 AM
John Stackhouse is not to be trusted on ANY score.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 11, 2006 6:07:55 AM
Perhaps James Altena, whom I do not recall ever meeting, would care to specify what he means by what seems a pretty categorical piece of slander. (What an extraordinary thing to write on a Christian blog page.)
Posted by: John Stackhouse | Nov 14, 2006 7:32:12 PM
I also, once again, urge people to read Dr. Stackhouse's book and judge for themselves just what deity it is whose word his conscience is captive to--and whether I have misrepresented him to the slightest degree in my review of his book, to which I had not the slightest intention, once I had read it, of being charitable. If there is anything I regret about that review, it is that I was not more forthright in my condemnation.
Posted by: smh | Nov 14, 2006 9:06:24 PM
Amazon.com has some cheap used copies available, for those who are interested in following through. I also would prefer if Mr. Altena would be somewhat more specific as to what specific beliefs or teachings he believes render John Stackhouse completely untrustworthy.
Posted by: YaknYeti | Nov 14, 2006 9:51:54 PM
I've just ordered the book through Amazon. I'll settle this soon (for myself, anyway)!
Also, Dr. Stackhouse, I'm not sure of the wisdom of lashing out at a critic on a blog thread on his own magazine's site. Although I'm sure there are many here who would be willing to listen to a detailed rebuttal against his critique of your book, far fewer are going to be receptive to the sort of emotional outburst you've posted.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 14, 2006 10:51:51 PM
For the record, I did e-mail a detailed rebuttal of Dr. Hutchens's screed to Touchstone's editor. Whether he published it or not, I have not been able to determine. Mine was not an emotional outburst here: It was a carefully considered rebuke of Brother Hutchens, which, with my detailed letter, has done, alas, the predictable amount of good: none.
But I've visited around the Touchstone site some more since my last post, and I'm now better informed about Dr. Hutchens and Mr. (Dr. yet?) Altena. I've dealt with people like them before, and I'm not going any further now. I came across this blog by accident--I'm not a regular--and it has been informative, if also dismaying. How can the rest of you put up with people like this?
Commending you all to God, before whom we each stand or fall,
John Stackhouse
Posted by: John Stackhouse | Nov 15, 2006 10:45:57 AM
"Dr. Hutchens's review is a vicious misreading of what I do in my book: "vicious" in that it is uncharitable, smug, incorrect, and lazy."
"How can the rest of you put up with people like this?"
Dr. Stackhouse, these are not arguments but simply personal attacks. If you've perused this web site, you know that many of the comments posted here are as long as Dr. Hutchens' original review of your book. If you want to defend what you wrote, instead of just attacking Drs. Hutchens and Moore and Mr. Altena, why don't you post your defense as a comment?
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 15, 2006 1:24:53 PM
I second Bill's request to Dr. Stackhouse. I'd like to read the rebuttal as well. You probably can paste it directly into the window, though you may have to re-format if you use italics or bold.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Nov 15, 2006 3:17:11 PM
I would also like to know what he finds dismaying about our conversations. Knowing that mihgt go a long ways in helping me judge the merits of James' warning.
Posted by: GL | Nov 15, 2006 3:21:46 PM
Dr. Stackhouse, I second Bill's invitation. If you post your rebuttal here, I guarantee that it will get read.
I do tend to think that James and Dr. Hutchens can get a bit...fiery at times, but I've found that in general they have the argumentation to back up their rhetoric. I very much hope that you don't intend to abandon us to only hearing their side of the debate in this thread. You won't change many minds by treating us all as your enemies.
And for the record, I'm just a 22-year-old Wheaton graduate with no expertise in anything.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 15, 2006 3:59:04 PM
"For the record, I did e-mail a detailed rebuttal of Dr. Hutchens's screed to Touchstone's editor. Whether he published it or not, I have not been able to determine. Mine was not an emotional outburst here: It was a carefully considered rebuke of Brother Hutchens, which, with my detailed letter, has done, alas, the predictable amount of good: none."
Dr. Stackhouse: I wouldn't assume this quite yet. Perhaps your rebuttal is scheduled for a future edition of Touchstone and that's why it hasn't appeared yet. I doubt that it's out of any kind of prejudice. I've been a reader of the journal for many years and have always found it "tough but fair" as they say.
Posted by: Rob Grano | Nov 15, 2006 4:49:36 PM
Christian friends,
I stopped by tonight, partly because I heartily dislike the bitterness evident in some of the posts around my book--including my own. I apologize for not offering a more edifying communication. I have found the e-mail I sent to the editor of Touchstone, and will post it here as per the request of several of you. Before I do so, however, a few preliminaries.
I quite concur that I have heretofore not provided you with anything other than an indication of my dismay at Brothers Hutchens, Altena, and Moore.
Whether I posted anything or not, however, consider Brother Hutchens's own declaration that he had no intention of being charitable toward my book (despite the Apostle's injunction to speak the truth in love) and that he implies that I do not even worship God, let alone practice Biblically-grounded theology. What can possibly justify such remarks?
Consider also Brother Altena's assertion that I am "not to be trusted on ANY score." This is not just "fiery," is it, friends? This is something rather more extreme--indeed, it is as extreme as he could put it. Beyond its obvious absurdity (e.g., not even to give directions to the nearest gas station?), what in the world is going on in such a declaration about someone he has never met?
Consider finally Brother Moore's post at the head of this column that implies that my conscience is not captive to the Word of God. Really? How would he know a thing like that? Because he disagrees with me on a matter like gender? My goodness: Aren't we failing to make some basic distinctions here? I disagree with Brother Moore's interpretation of gender, but I don't question his evident intention to understand and obey the Bible. Why would he question mine?
(For what it's worth, Dr. Peter Toon, who seems to be held in high regard by some on this list, has used quite a different tone about my book since he actually read it. And Jim Packer, I daresay, is not nearly as troubled by my theology--having read and observed and worked with me for eight years--as some on this list who apparently presume to know me much, much better.)
I trust my dismay is more intelligible to you now. We're not talking about a little unvarnished candour or a little rough treatment. We're talking about categorical dismissal of a brother in Christ as not trying to honour the Word, being completely untrustworthy, and not entitled to even a modicum of interpretative charity--indeed, not even a believer. Am I the only one who thinks there is something seriously amiss here?
So, friends, here is what I sent the editor of Touchstone:
I write in regard to the review of my book, Finally Feminist, by S. M. Hutchens. A friend referred me to it on the Web, although I was already familiar somewhat with your magazine.
I genuinely appreciate notice of my book in your journal, as I believe you are earnest about your faith and your vocation. Many of your heroes are mine as well, and primarily and ultimately, of course, we serve the same Lord.
So in what I trust is a fraternal spirit I write to express my pain at Dr. Hutchens's review. I certainly expect a Touchstone reviewer to disagree with my book--it is, after all, frankly feminist and Touchstone is not. I also expect a Touchstone reviewer to pick out aspects of my method, argument, and phrasing to which he objects. And I also expect a Touchstone reviewer to write in an interesting way, making use of whatever rhetorical gifts he has in order to persuade his readers of the truthfulness of his position. All of this is evident in Dr. Hutchens's review.
What is also evident, however, is a bias, lazyness, smugness, and sarcasm that does not dignify your magazine.
The bias compromises the review in that he clearly expects to read a certain kind of book--say, a book written by a self-appointed member of the evangelical intelligentsia who presumes both moral and intellectual superiority to the patriarchal majority of the church past and present--and so he reads my book as this sort. But it is not this kind of book--expressly so (p. 27). I do not claim to be better than my forebears, but instead to be located in a society such that patriarchy doesn't make the sense it used to make--and this location prompts me, I believe, to see some things in God's revelation pertinent to gender questions that make his will known in our situation. Dr. Hutchens's acknowledges nothing of this attitude.
The laziness is evident in that the review fails to mention, let alone respond adequately to, the central contention of the book, namely, that the Bible's patriarchy and egalitarianism is best explained the way I explain it, and that patriarchy has a terrible inconsistency today, namely, maintaining that God ordains patriarchy but for no obvious reason (e.g., some deficiency in women, some reflection of the Trinity, some imaging of Christ--all of which, and more, I deal with).
Moreover, Dr. Hutchens does not trouble himself over the fundamental methodological matters at stake. I contend that my approach is more Biblical than his, and more respectful of Christians--all Christians--throughout the ages than his, in that I try to take the whole Bible and all of church history seriously as revelatory. He does not even mention the considerations I detail that might give rise to an egalitarianism thus attempting to be faithful to the Word of God and respectful of the church, as I manifestly try to be.
The smugness suffuses the book as he adopts a tone of both spiritual and intellectual superiority from first to last, failing to acknowledge that I might have made even a single point worth the consideration of your readers. One might wonder how a librarian in Kenosha, Ph.D. from LSTC included, can so blithely dispense with a book recommended by the likes of Prof. John Webster, Prof. Nancey Murphy, and others whose positive opinion might give him at least a little pause.
Finally, however, is the bitter sarcasm that sours the whole piece. Dr. Hutchens's review appears under your on-line masthead that features a picture of C. S. Lewis. Lewis was a master of satire, and Dr. Hutchens's is entirely within his rights to use satire. But I have read a lot of Lewis, and I remember him never nastily caricaturing his opponents. Dr. Hutchens, however, frequently resorts to caustic misrepresentation, finally associating my book with Eve herself during and after the Fall. This is just one of several cheap flourishes of scandalous mischief.
Bad enough, then, that this review betrays intellectual dishonesty and sloth. Worse, is that it reeks of self-righteousness. Worst of all, however, is that it fails to offer whatever truth it contains in love. So I ask you, my brother, what touchstones is it touching? None that I recognize in the Bible and Tradition we both revere.
Sincerely in Christ,
John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
Posted by: John Stackhouse | Nov 16, 2006 12:11:11 AM
>the Bible's patriarchy and egalitarianism is best explained the way I explain it, and that patriarchy has a terrible inconsistency today, namely, maintaining that God ordains patriarchy but for no obvious reason
Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission is better than offering the fat of rams.
>Consider finally Brother Moore's post at the head of this column that implies that my conscience is not captive to the Word of God. Really? How would he know a thing like that?
Presumably based on what you write and advocate. You talk as if some sort of mind meld is required in order to be able to make such a statement. In which case presumably nobody could ever make such a statement and be reasonable is so doing.
Posted by: David Gray | Nov 16, 2006 4:49:03 AM
>>>> One might wonder how a librarian in Kenosha, Ph.D. from LSTC included, can so blithely dispense with a book recommended by the likes of Prof. John Webster, Prof. Nancey Murphy, and others whose positive opinion might give him at least a little pause.<<<
A fig for your Murphy, your Webster! Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos Confessor, John of Damascus!
By the way, you may think Murphy and Webster are names with which to conjure, but I assure you, in my neck of the woods, we don't know them from Adam, and really so no reason why we should.
>>>Finally, however, is the bitter sarcasm that sours the whole piece. Dr. Hutchens's review appears under your on-line masthead that features a picture of C. S. Lewis. Lewis was a master of satire, and Dr. Hutchens's is entirely within his rights to use satire. But I have read a lot of Lewis, and I remember him never nastily caricaturing his opponents. Dr. Hutchens, however, frequently resorts to caustic misrepresentation, finally associating my book with Eve herself during and after the Fall. This is just one of several cheap flourishes of scandalous mischief.<<<
Whine, whine, whine! Miserable snark. Take your lumps like a man, not a feminist.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 16, 2006 5:58:33 AM
Nice, Stuart. Nothing like taking a whizz in the punchbowl to get the party off on the right foot.
Dr. Stackhouse, I recommend that you ignore Stuart's rather prickly on-line persona. He has a habit of baiting those with whom he doesn't see eye-to-eye; we've all been the brunt of it at one time or another. He does, however, very often have good things to say, once you get past the acerbic tone, condescension, etc.
Posted by: Rob Grano | Nov 16, 2006 6:40:09 AM
By my post, Dr. Stackhouse, I meant two things:
1) A person who adopts either (or both) the post-modernist deconstructionist "hermeutics of suspicion", or else the "we more enlightened moderns can and should correct the errors and outmoded ways of the apostles and fathers", approach to Scripture, also can not be trusted with regard to anything of lesser import.
2) A person who launches a barrage of ad hominem attacks on Dr. Hutchens and his review with terms such as "bias, lazyness, smugness, and sarcasm", "bitter sarcasm", "caustic misrepresentation", "cheap flourishes of scandalous mischief", "intellectual dishonesty and sloth", "self-righteousness", etc.(to quote your latest post -- you used similar terms earlier), with a sneering aside as to Dr. Hutchens being a librarian in rural Wisconsin (never mind that he has a Ph.D.), and then complains of supposed ad hominem attacks against himself, is either a flaming hypocrite, or else so blind to the log in his own eye as he shrieks about the mote in another's that his judgment is completely untrustworthy.
St. Paul warned us long ago of those who who enter the flock and raven it from within by heresy. Christians have no calling to be reticient about calling heresy and heretics exactly what they are. An openly unrepentant heretic is not a Christian brother. Would that St. Nicholas were here again to smite Arius across the face!
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 16, 2006 7:58:36 AM
>>>Nice, Stuart. Nothing like taking a whizz in the punchbowl to get the party off on the right foot.<<<
Stackhouse was there before me, but at least I had the good sense to sniff the punch before pouring it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 16, 2006 8:23:02 AM
Stuart -- LOL. Touche!
Posted by: Rob Grano | Nov 16, 2006 8:41:32 AM
Dr. Stackhouse,
Thank you for adopting an initially more moderate tone in your comment above. Nevertheless you did not maintain that tone throughout your comment, which is unfortunate. I am a lawyer, a litigator, and I spend my days supervising other litigators throughout the country whom I hire. I therefore have some modest skill in evaluating arguments, even if I am not intimately familiar with the matter that is the subject of the argument. Here I was most immediately struck by your failure to offer any substantial argument against the substance of Dr. Hutchens’ review of your book. The closest you come to any argument is the following statement:
“…the central contention of the book, namely, that the Bible's patriarchy and egalitarianism is best explained the way I explain it, and that patriarchy has a terrible inconsistency today, namely, maintaining that God ordains patriarchy but for no obvious reason… .”
Even this statement is garbled. When you say that “patriarchy” has “a terrible inconsistency today,” do you mean patriarchalists? Or the Bible itself? I realize that you must deal with this issue in depth in your book, but Dr. Hutchens made it clear in his brief review that your issue is with the Bible itself rather than with patriarchalists. Is this correct? Could you not address this issue rather than once again launching into ad hominems against Dr. Hutchens et al.? It does no good to point to others who may agree with you. Tell us what it is that we should agree or disagree with, and we shall decide which it shall be.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 16, 2006 1:13:55 PM
Dr. Stackhouse,
Let me second Bill R.'s comments and his request. I teach in a law school, and I agree with Bill's assessment of your response. I for one am open to hearing your side and agree that often the discussion here can get snarly. If that it what dismays you, then we have some point of agreement; it also dismays me, particularly when, upon reflection, I realize that I am the one being snarly. (I think that there is something about blogging that can bring out the worst in us from time to time.)
If you want to make your case with me (and I suspect Bill and others), make your case. Present your arguments as to why Dr. Hutchen's assessment of the merits of your work are wrong. I'm waiting to give you a fair hearing.
Posted by: GL | Nov 16, 2006 1:26:12 PM
Dr. Stackhouse,
Thanks a lot for posting your reply here. I respect and appreciate your forthrightness. I also understand and sympathize with your objection that Dr. Hutchens' review sometimes takes your book as an opportunity to score rhetorical points. How often I've found myself on this site taking the role of style cop, admonishing others for comments phrased in a needlessly inflammatory way. As GL said above, blogging can bring out the worst in people.
However, I must confess that reading back over Dr. Hutchens' review left me wishing that your response had treated the substance of his argument rather than merely the style. It is true, as you say, that his rhetoric excoriates you, that he makes you out to be a dangerous heretic unworthy of a respectful hearing. However, it is his arguments concerning the contents of your book that lead him to this conclusion. He holds that you are deaf to tradition, resistant to Biblical authority, dismissive of the Church Fathers, and enthralled by historical chauvinism. These are fierce charges, to be sure, but they are not ad hominem attacks, nor are they merely rhetorical flourishes. They follow from his substantial criticisms of your book's arguments.
I plan to read your book as soon as I receive my ordered copy. If I perceive that Dr. Hutchens has mischaracterized its contents, or that his arguments are unfair, then I shall be prepared to agree with you in dismissing his review as a "nasty caricature." If, however, my reading corroborates his assessment, I'm afraid I'll have to conclude that his indictment of your theological approach as a whole is valid as well, and that his rhetorical treatment was indeed not inappropriate to the gravity of the matter at hand.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 16, 2006 3:06:26 PM
>>>“…the central contention of the book, namely, that the Bible's patriarchy and egalitarianism is best explained the way I explain it, and that patriarchy has a terrible inconsistency today, namely, maintaining that God ordains patriarchy but for no obvious reason… .”<<<
But one could only say this who deliberately ignores or dismisses as irrelevant the writings of the Fathers.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 16, 2006 6:19:33 PM
It is perhaps unfair to ask Dr. Stackhouse to defend his views here when he has already made them plain in his book--a book, by the way, written in tones of fatherly kindness and consideration--in light of which he has no doubt found the abuse I have heaped on him as a wolf and the abettor of wolves wildly disproportionate. Mr. Cordray is on the right track, for he is purchasing it and will read it, then make his judgment as to whether my rhetoric was appropriate or not.
As to being a librarian in Kenosha, I will add that I am not only that, but only a part-time librarian who comes and goes as bidden, and doesn't even have his own desk, let alone door. I often wish I was much more important than that, but do note that my situation gives me remarkable freedom to say what needs to be said without fear of losing my job, which is paltry, or my standing, which is insignificant, or my reputation, which is unenviable, or of breaching collegiality--for very few theologians reckon me a colleague.
If Dr. Stackhouse treats me with a certain hint of disdain, he can't be blamed--and we must remember that I started all this by implying in my review that he has used his own high standing as a Chicago Ph.D. and endowed chair-holder at an Evangelical school to betray the gospel. His accusations against me are mild compared to the one I have lodged against him.
Tolle, lege.
Posted by: smh | Nov 16, 2006 9:32:24 PM
SMH,
I have considered the fact that Dr. Stackhouse might answer Bill and me as you did: read the book. I certainly do not want to buy it and line his pockets until I am sure he is not as deeply into error as you assert -- though as a librarian myself, I certainly am aware of other means of obtaining a copy on loan. However, if Dr. Stackhouse has a good argument, he certainly should be able to state its fundamental premises in a concise and cogent manner. If he cannot, then he likely has a weak case. I am not saying that the topic is not worthy of a book-length treatment, but only that he should be able to make a sufficient case in a blog post to merit the time involved to consider his more detailed treatment.
Frankly, he has to overcome a great deal of doubt on my part as to the merits of his conclusions before I am likely devote the time to consider his full arguments. I have limited time and have to be convinced by him or someone else that reading his book would be a good use of that time. I am, however, open to persuasion should he care to try.
Posted by: GL | Nov 16, 2006 9:56:04 PM
Thanks to Brother Hutchens for his last post. Ad hominem is 'way too easy for any of us to indulge in, and I regret anything of my own writing of this sort on this list.
I cannot reproduce my arguments here, but I do actually make some in my longish response to Brother Hutchens's review--about his review. I'm sorry that is not more evident, particularly to our friends at the bar.
As for the central matter of Christian feminism, well, I wrote a small book because that is what I think it takes to articulate what is, at least to me, a position that requires careful balancing, rather than easy extremes of either the typical Christian feminist or the typical Christian patriarchalist sort. I wrote it because I found that the subject, and the Bible, and the Tradition, and the history of the Church, did not yield themselves to short answers, and faithfulness to each meant that I could not say things in a paragraph or two.
So what I will say is this. Brother Hutchens is obviously a highly intelligent and highly motivated Christian man. And I share many of his concerns, as I do Brother Altena's, about heresy, schism, pusillanimity and endless delay among Anglican/Episcopolians, academic snobbery, and more. I think it perhaps is precisely because we agree on so much that to be so strongly characterized by these brothers (to put it mildly) is particularly wounding for me.
As for Brother Koehl's concern not to line my pockets by buying the book, be encouraged, friend: you obviously have no idea how royalties are structured, and if you bought ten of those books, I would have enough to buy a coffee and cinnamon roll at Starbucks. So money really isn't at issue, is it?
Anyhow, I'm on the road now again and it's close to the end of term, so I can't see typing much more on this issue here. Thanks to those who have expressed sincere interest in my arguments. Perhaps you'll read my small book and find it useful--if only to show that evangelical feminists do NOT have to think themselves wiser and smarter than the Tradition and our forebears--which I certainly do not think I am.
Thanks also to Brother Hutchens for what I am glad to take as conciliatory words. I trust his considerable talents will be used for great good and on targets worthy of his passion and skill.
And as for Brothers Altena and Koehl, shall I respond in kind and tell you that I'll happily kick both your asses in the appropriate forum--intellectually or otherwise? No, I shall not. But it would be fun to do so (alas!).
Grace and peace, friends,
John Stackhouse
Posted by: John Stackhouse | Nov 16, 2006 10:54:43 PM
And so Dr. Stackhouse exits without defending his thesis. Perhaps he can’t defend it in an argument less than the length of his book, but he misunderstands the task if he believes that relieves him of the effort. Any lawyer has frequently heard the old saw: “The less a man has to say, the longer his brief.” Most teachers in the field of legal briefing assert that even the most complex legal argument can be reduced to no more than ten pages. Of course any worthwhile thesis may require a book to flesh out its nuances, but if the argument cannot be summarized it is not worth making.
Finally, if Dr. Stackhouse thought that S.M Hutchens’ last comment was intended to be conciliatory, he is merely dense—or astonishingly egotistical.
“And as for Brothers Altena and Koehl, shall I respond in kind and tell you that I'll happily kick both your asses in the appropriate forum--intellectually or otherwise?”
The man is not to be taken seriously. James A., you were right.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 17, 2006 1:03:40 AM
>>>As for Brother Koehl's concern not to line my pockets by buying the book, be encouraged, friend: you obviously have no idea how royalties are structured, and if you bought ten of those books, I would have enough to buy a coffee and cinnamon roll at Starbucks. So money really isn't at issue, is it?<<<
Actually, I've written a number of books, and know royalties very well, thanks.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 17, 2006 5:42:22 AM
Dear Friends Bill R. and GL,
I ma reminded of the old lawyerly adage (which, as lawyers, you know all too well):
"If the facts are against you, pound on the law.
If the law is against you, pound on the facts.
If both the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table."
As for Dr. Stackhouse's threat to kick my ass (I'm sure Stuart can protect his own with his famous attack hamster) -- a weak borrowing of Jimmy Carter's line against Ted Kennedy (though beating Kennedy in the primaries was the greatest public service Carter ever performed), but an interesting one, considering that Carter is on the same theological wavelength as Dr. Stackhouse. Given how much I loathe sports and all the phony beer-swilling machismo associated with it, no other threat could have made a lesser impression. Or was it perhaps a feeble attempt at jovial locker-room banter and camraderie? If so, spare me, please.
But (butt?) then, St. Paul and the Church Fathers already kicked Dr. Stackhouse's posterior centuries ago.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 17, 2006 6:48:02 AM
Honestly, guys, I think his threat to kick your respective behinds was meant to be jocular--along the lines of me popping my male colleagues on the arm. And I think SMH's posting was conciliatory in a way--showing that he wasn't some academic wannabe (or whatever)--or standing to gain by the encounter but just standing up for conscience sake.
I'll shut up now. I'm starting to sound like Rodney King.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Nov 17, 2006 7:50:29 AM
So I guess what I'm saying is--don't scorn the man, just his awful, unbiblical ideas.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Nov 17, 2006 9:16:17 AM
"So I guess what I'm saying is--don't scorn the man, just his awful, unbiblical ideas."
As a general principle, Gene, this is correct. And you'll note that I scrupulously avoided saying anything of a personal nature in my first two comments. But when Dr. Stackhouse failed to rise to the occasion and persisted in his personal assaults, I think it's fair to point out that this adversely affects one's opinion of his character.
As to Dr. Hutchens' comment, it was not conciliatory in the way that Dr. Stackhouse seemed to take it. It was "conciliatory" in that Hutchens took the worst that Stackhouse could say about him and acknowledged it--to Stackhouse's shame, one would hope.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 17, 2006 12:01:09 PM
And so Dr. Stackhouse exits without defending his thesis. Perhaps he can’t defend it in an argument less than the length of his book, but he misunderstands the task if he believes that relieves him of the effort. Any lawyer has frequently heard the old saw: “The less a man has to say, the longer his brief.” Most teachers in the field of legal briefing assert that even the most complex legal argument can be reduced to no more than ten pages. Of course any worthwhile thesis may require a book to flesh out its nuances, but if the argument cannot be summarized it is not worth making.
I heard R.C. Sproul reading his new children's book on the way to the hospital this morning for my one-year-old to have ear tube surgery. (She is doing fine.) Dr. Sproul opined that if a teacher cannot explain the Gospel or any other subject to a child, he probably does not understand it very well himself. Of course, we are not children (only childish at times ;-)), but I believe the same underlying principle applies here.
By the way, I have Dr. Sproul's two previous children's books and highly recommend them. The first two are The King Without a Shadow and The Priest With Dirty Clothes and are available through Amazon.com. If you want to help the Fellowship of St. James, order them, visit Amazon.com through the FSJ store. The new one is The Lightlings and as best I can tell is available only through ligonier.org.
Posted by: GL | Nov 17, 2006 12:12:44 PM
>>>Most teachers in the field of legal briefing assert that even the most complex legal argument can be reduced to no more than ten pages.<<<
Tell me about it. Right now, I'm supporting a law firm preparing a brief on a breach of contract case involving a defense company and a small technology firm (they needed someone who understood both defense and technology). The arbitrator set a 75-page limit on the brief; our lead attorney requested and got permission to use 95 pages. At present, the brief runs to 130 pages, of which I estimate about 100 are superfluous. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some people to tell a simple straight-line factual narrative or to frame an argument in a logical and succint manner.
>>> Dr. Sproul opined that if a teacher cannot explain the Gospel or any other subject to a child, he probably does not understand it very well himself. <<<
Herein the most damning statement yet about the existence of those abominable "Children's Masses".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 17, 2006 1:30:17 PM
Gentlepeople,
If you asked a random sampling of your church brethren what "the Gospel" was, how many answers do you think you would get? How many would be correct?
I tried this little exercise on the Sunday school class that I teach (9-11 year olds) a couple weeks ago.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Nov 17, 2006 2:59:25 PM
>>>If you asked a random sampling of your church brethren what "the Gospel" was, how many answers do you think you would get? How many would be correct?<<<
If it was Pascha, practically everyone. We're in your face about it:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tomb, bestowing life.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 17, 2006 3:06:55 PM
>>Read my book for yourself, friends: Neither Hutchens nor Moore can be trusted on this score.<<
To all whom it may concern:
I have read the book myself, and I am sorry to say that both Hutchens and Moore can be trusted on this score.
First, Dr. Hutchens is correct in judging that Dr. Stackhouse's hermeneutic is based on a prior, extra-biblical presumption of the truth of the egalitarian feminist position. So Dr. Stackhouse freely concedes. What he fails to do in this book is to provide any defense whatsoever of the reasonableness of this position. I would expect any book of this type to at least provide some sort of definition of "patriarchy," rather than simply treating it as some sort of nebulous boogey man comprising everything bad, or perhaps everything done in all of human culture prior to about 1970. I would also expect a thorough laying out of the supposed social-scientific case for the superiority of egalitarianism that does more than rely on the work of two academics (Elaine Storkey and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, together cited a total of fourteen times). What Dr. Stackhouse presents is merely an assumption of the truth of the egalitarian position without evidence, without warrant, without definition, and without the hesitancy that he claims to value so highly.
Along the same lines as Dr. Stackhouse's silent presumption of egalitarianism is his deaf disregard for traditional voices in defense of patriarchy. A thorough hunt turns up just three quotations from figures prior to 1960. One is from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, meant to show that Christians ought to listen to the cultural currents surrounding them (a strange position to extract from a man martyred for his opposition to those currents in Nazi Germany). Another is from Jonathan Edwards, professing confusion as to why women cannot be leaders in ministry (presumably because no one in history had ever presented a good reason). A third is from Calvin, admonishing us to not trespass on each other's consciences in prudential matters (not speaking specifically about gender issues at all). Aside from these three references, there is not a single indication in Dr. Stackhouse's entire book that anyone in 1900 years of church history had anything to say worth hearing concerning gender. It is not that the book is too short for such references, for Dr. Stackhouse makes room on nearly every page to cite the most recent and up-to-date theological works on gender. The book supports Dr. Hutchens' conclusion that Dr. Stackhouse is either callously dismissive of tradition or at very least willfully ignorant of it.
These criticisms, however, pale in comparison to Dr. Hutchens' charge that Dr. Stackhouse discards Pauline authority and thus sets his conscience above the Bible. In this I must say with sadness that Dr. Hutchens is also correct. While not every argument within the book does this—indeed most scrupulously avoid it—those cited in Dr. Hutchens' review are indeed in rebellion against biblical authority. What is even more troubling is that Dr. Stackhouse apparently cannot see the difference between claiming that Paul consciously made cultural accommodations to his readers and claiming that Paul falsely interpreted Genesis due to his own cultural blindness. Though mere ignorance of tradition is not by itself enough to place one outside of orthodoxy, disregard of apostolic authority is.
Worst, and what is not directly treated in Dr. Hutchens' review, is the book's evident disdain for all of revelation, expressed in Dr. Stackhouse's treatment of gendered language for God. All such gendered language is explained away as part of God's grand accommodation to human fallenness. Yet if the names and characterizations of the members of the Trinity do not tell us anything inherently true about God (at least nothing beyond the most ephemeral, depersonalized abstractions), than where might such truth be found? Is Yahweh the true name of God? Is Jesus God? Are there three persons in the godhead? Did God create the universe? Does God really love us? If God is willing to undertake such a grand deception as disguising His genderlessness (and such an effective one, to last thousands of years!), then what other surprises might await us as we peel back the biblical illusion?
What is patriarchy? Why is it bad? What did the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Reformers, or anyone at all for nineteen centuries say about gender? Why can we trust St. Paul on some things and not on others, and how do we tell the difference? How much of God's revelation of Himself is a lie? These are the questions Dr. Stackhouse's book raises, but which he answers with only silence. Such are the fruits of having a conscience captive not the gospel but to the spirit of the age. Happily, it is to just such consciences that Jesus proclaims freedom through obedience to Him. I sincerely hope that rather than reacting with mere indignation or disdain, Dr. Stackhouse honestly considers Dr. Hutchens' charges of heresy and amends his beliefs accordingly. The graciousness and generosity evident in his book encourages me to think that he is capable of doing so.
Humbly in Christ,
Ethan Cordray
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 28, 2006 9:47:16 PM
