Voices from Ramah

Russell Moore, who comes from a region of the country where there are two kinds of Northerner, the Yankee and the Damned Yankee, may agree with me that Evangelicals seem to be similarly divided.  To “get my blood going” the other day, he sent me a link to this posting by Alan Johnson that “summarizes a recent panel discussion at the ETS [Evangelical Theological Society], with final comments by I. Howard Marshall.”

It appears that “much anguish is felt by women whose God-given talents [we are speaking here, of course, primarily of the God-given talent of preaching at men, which it cannot be denied nearly all of them possess] have been denied expression.”  The first point of Marshall’s summary of lamentations pretty much covers the rest.  It is,

The inability of complementarians to provide any coherent and persuasive reasons for denying women these positions in church—women are asked to accept a scriptural command simply because it is God’s will even if they cannot understand why it is so.

I hope it is plain enough that what this really means is "our fingers are in our ears with regard to your opinions, but we insist you keep on listening to ours."  

Whether one accepts "complementarian" arguments or not, no reasonable person, having actually listened to them, can identify them as incoherent.  What strange, little sectarian world do people inhabit who cannot understand the reasoning in, for example, Mulieris Dignitatem?  To be sure, all this traditionalist gabble makes no sense in the context of egalitarian presupposition, but this is quite beside the point on the more fundamental question of whether egalitarianism itself is or can be Christian--if, that is, Christianity is to be defined by its scriptures and its history.  What we have described here is women for whom the Christian faith causes anguish.  They, in the wrenching pain of their souls, join many others.

To assuage that pain egalitarians are attempting to reinvent the faith from the Trinity on down.  Blaming their opponents of prooftexting from scripture (that is to say, interpreting the classical loci in the customary way), they impose bizarre interpretations on it and comb church history for the tiniest crumbs of evidence of their rectitude.  When they find something they think will do for their purposes, they typically remove it from context, distort it beyond recognition, and tell us something has been suppressed or misunderstood for several thousand years until they brought us the light.  The “Evangelical” normally avoids crossing the “The Bible is Just Plain Wrong” line, since in that tradition it would identify him as a liberal and lose him his funding.  Most, however, at the end of the day, admit they just can't work with St. Paul.  That he is, and has always been regarded by the Church, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, whose "opinions" (except where he says they’re not) are constituitive, must be in some way disposed of.  Touchstone has chronicled several of their more creative approaches to the problem.

The egalitarians join heretics of every stripe for whom Christianity has been incoherent, anguishing, unfair, illogical (the Arians had deep problems with that), backwards, bloody, too Jewish, too Gentile, pacifistic, patriarchal, too strong, too weak, or whatnot, and actually, as here, have thought that the umbrage they take gives them, in measure to the intensity of the pain they profess to feel, the right to change it to something they like better and still call themselves Christians. 

I know, I know--how can you say this about these fine orthodox people who are so fond of “Jesus” and so damned Evangelical?  Well, somebody has to.

Comments

[Beth in TN]

"Women are asked to accept a scriptural command simply because it is God’s will even if they cannot understand why it is so."

Wow, what a horror. Women have to do what everyone has to do at some point or other. Not that it's that hard to understand, but if you're having difficulty with it, start with obedience, which will lead to the possibility of understanding -- not with rebellion, which makes understanding impossible.

Parents expect this of our children, teachers of our students, bosses of their employees, admirals of their sailors . . . but women are supposed to be exempt when it comes to a command of God Himself. Wow.

It's not that I haven't known for many years now this attitude exists, but I've never seen it expressed quite so baldly. Kind of nice to see the honesty of it, though: what they really mean is that GOD, not Paul, is in the wrong.

[buckyinky]

Appreciated reading this post, as it answers some questions I've been formulating in my mind about Evangelicalism as of late. Having converted from Evangelicalism to the Catholic faith six years ago, I have been playing the limited role of observer of Evangelicalism for some time now, and have not been certain that what I have been observing is significant or not. What I have been observing, and what seems to be confirmed by Mr. Hutchens' words, is a new wave of evangelicals who would like to embrace the most radical tenets of liberalism (egalitarianism, normalizing homosexuality, legalized abortion, et al.), all while pleading adherence to orthodoxy. Aside from the fact that the Catholic Church has its own similar battles to face among its members, I have wondered how widespread the phenomenon is among evangelicals. I have been particularly concerned about what appears to be an acedia, or at least a loss of will to fight, which Rachel Held Evans (one whom I would place among this new wave of evangelicals) describes as a "truce in the culture wars."

[Robert Espe]

Now I don't mean to rehash an old can of worms, I even agree with your conclusion, but I am curious why you feel this is an issue of Orthdoxy when I would have classified it as a "sectarian polemic". After all, women's ordination issues don't pop up in the creed's anywhere, and it is not part of the moral law (as is say homosexuality). So what is it that makes this an issue that separates Christians from heretics any more than would have the issues raised by people such as Luther and other Protestant reformers who came after him? They were all branded as heretics at the time, but now we accept them as people with different permissible takes on the Christian faith and don't spend time arguing in circles about irreconciliable points.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Women's ordination violates both the ecclesiology and soteriology of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. By extension, our Christology is also violated.

In a liturgical, sacramental transmission the ordination of women leads not only to heresy, but apostasy. Some 'old can of worms'.

It was not articulated in the creeds because it was not even thought of. It did not even reach consciousness until the 20th century.

Again, the official teaching of both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox maintain that many of the doctrines of Protestantism are heretical. Despite the willingness to enter into dialog, common worship is not allowed, at least in the Orthodox Church.

Such realities is why I, for one, don't quite understand the drive to water down the standards of what is heretical to what is 'permissible' variations.

Heresy impacts salvation does it not? Or perhaps you have ceded the ability of the Church to recognize heresy and apply appropriate spiritual discipline out of a desire to avoid confrontation?

[Kamilla]

My goodness, but reading through that comment thread was painful, wasn't it?

I think Dr. Moore owes you dinner, a couple of aspirin, or an apology.

Kamilla

[smh]

Kamilla, I have for several years now stood in debt to Dr. Moore for a wonderful dinner prepared and served to the Touchstone editors by his longsuffering wife, Maria. Can you imagine what Mrs. Moore must have thought when Russell told her she was going to have that bunch in her house, possibly influencing her children? Identifying, for example, the large and dangerous Fr. Reardon as a sort of affable teddy bear?

In any event, Mr. Bauman is correct: Roman Catholics and Orthodox do indeed believe that many of the doctrines typical of Protestantism are heretical. These include the Catholic and Orthodox editors of Touchstone. If they weren't real and serious members of their churches, they wouldn't fit in here.

We understand the truce under which we operate as temporary, but see no reason not to use it to resist together what we understand as another heresy that proceeds from a deranged anthropology into the very heart of Trinitarian doctrine. Anyone who minimizes the gravity of this departure does not understand what it means.

[Kamilla]

I'm not sure what Maria Moore woud have thought but having now broken bread with two of that group -- I would happily have helped her in the kitchen just so long as I could listen at the door a ittle bit. It might be a bit scary, but it sure wouldn't be boring!

The charge of "prooftexting" is one that always amuses me since the response of religious feminists as a pardigmatic case of prooftexting - BUT! Galatians 3:28!!!!

Kamilla

[Kamilla]

It also might be worth noting that the ETS session mentioned was sponsored by "Christians" for Biblical Equality and was based on Johnson's book.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

To smh. I like your description of the work here as a 'truce'. Refreshing. I have found a great deal of support from Protestant brethren in my life and appreciate that greatly, despite our doctrinal differences. I hope that I have given as I have received.

I am heartened when Protestants stand up to such dangerous innovations as women's ordination, precisely for the reason you articulate. If we hold the truth in love, we will find more common ground as the Holy Spirit changes our hearts and transforms our souls.

I have great difficulty with those in any tradition who excuse almost anything simply because it fits with the times. It's like the proverbial frog being boiled.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

I reviewed the summary of the panel discussion again and found it quite interesting to note that the four assertions made against complementarians are simply false. Perhaps they are true within a certain subset but one does not have to go very far to find the answers.

I'm just an ordinary guy with little formal training, but I know the answers.

The refusal to accept the command of Scripture in the first place is the root of their pain, anguish and confusion it seems to me.

[Bob Srigley]

I recall a message from a Dr. Donald Joy, a neurologist, in which he described the difference between men's and women's brains. It seems the right and left hemispheres in a woman's brain are much more integrated, whereas a man's brain is more segragated. This differentiation happens in the womb as a result of certain hormones which most powerfully affect the male brain. Dr. Joy referred to us men as essentially "brain damaged." The result is that a woman's brain operates more like a high speed computer, able to rapidly process data and arrive at a solution, or it may, be a subjective judgement.

By comparison a man's brain more resembles an old fashioned adding machine -- do you remember the old mechanical style with the crank handle on the side?
There is a downside with the computer style brain, however. Just like with computers, "garbage in, garbage out." It's more difficult to discover the source of an error with data that has been processed so rapidly whereas in the case of the old adding machine, the paper tape can be examined to find a wrong entry.

I think this physiological difference goes a long way toward understanding the different giftings men and women have. It also seems helpful in understanding why we are so often frustrated with each other. Women are often impatient with the men in their lives who just don't seem to "get it." Men often just can't understand why it is that a settled opinion in a woman cannot be dislodged by logical argument.

It’s understandable that women in the body of Christ might chafe under the sometimes doltish leadership of men. It’s also understandable why God might ordain it to be this way. Hierarchy, it may be, is comparable to the skeletal structure of a body. Without it all the parts are merely flailing about to no purpose and possibly to their own great harm. It is a great misapprehension for anyone, male or female, if they find themselves in a hierarchical relation to someone higher, to imagine that they are of less value because of that. Is there any more powerful human influence in making a man a better man than the influence of a godly woman? Is there a higher calling for a woman than assisting the Lord in the formation of character in her children and her husband?

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Men without women are barbaric; women without men are barren.

[Chelie]

"Women - you can't live with them, you can't refute their hypotheses." - Howard from "The Big Bang Theory"

[R.C.]

Hey, folks.

I've been replying in the comments thread under Howard Marshall's post.

If anyone is interested, come join me in spitting into the wind (misery loves company), and shore up my (currently one-man) imitation of Butch and Sundance versus the Bolivian army!

Actually it's not that bad. I've only been called a chauvinist once thus far, and it was clearly intended in the nicest possible way.

[Scott Liechty]

RC,
What an excellent post and response to your challengers. Your were very patient and kind. Well done.
I posted something in support. I can't do what you can do so well, but hopefully it will encourage someone to keep an open mind and heart to God's will.

No one seems to be able to respond to the fullness of your theology. They nit pic about some potential motive here or quote some advocate historian there. It's thin gruel.

[smh]

On the difference between men's and women's brains: I have known many men whose minds work in accordance with this theory. They're called "engineers," and no doubt would agree happily with their characterization as arch-males.

On the female brain as a more efficient organ of data integration (this integration being expressed most often in subjective terms like "intuition"): I am willing to acknowledge this may be so, but unable to grant that many women, because of other female characteristics, are able to take full advantage of the situation, or that men who recognize and value the same ability in themselves are not able to use it.

Each sex, when whole, contains elements of the other: indeed, it is dominances, not severances, by which the genetic differences are expressed somatically. In an unfallen world there would be full and perfectly resonant sympathy. As things are, at the end of the day, there are relatively few of either sex who haven't lost their minds.

[Kamilla]

RC and Scott,

Though I am familiar with three of the respondents on that thread and are certain that in those cases your arguments are falling on deaf ears -- I applaud your efforts because you never know who might be listening in.

[R.C.]

Kamilla:

Thanks for the applause...though I suppose my tilting at windmills in this way probably warrants little more than a golf-clap!

But you're right, of course. You never know who might be listening in. May God grant that someone get something useful out of it.

[R.C.]

Scott Liechty:

Thanks for your post in support, and for your kind words here.

One never knows, but perhaps some good will come of all that typing! ...and if not; well, one can take solace in being the watchman on the wall who didn't fail to give a warning. (Assuming, of course, that I'm not being overly-dramatic and self-important in applying Ezekiel 3 to a thing like this!)