The CBE Scroll

Comment by Trevor

February 3, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

There are already some strong responses to this viewpoint of a ‘masculine feel’ christianity out there and they are well worth reading to amplify the issue. I don’t want to discourage you from writing here, but it may well be worth your while to have a look at the way that others are tackling this, what I consider to be, a ‘way out there’ attitude.

See for example:

http://rachelheldevans.com/john-piper-masculine-christianity

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/02/imaging-the-biblical-god/

The writer of the post immediately above is to be one of the plenary speakers at the next CBE conference in Houston, Texas.

Comment by Cheryl

February 3, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

Mr Piper states: ….” the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families that have this masculine feel.”

I don’t know in which church circles he moves but this statement alone reveals a faulty foundation on which he has obviously built his talk.

The evidence is overwhelming that women and girls certainly do not flourish in churches and families that have a ‘masculine’ feel, and in the long run, neither do men.

As for scriptures, Jesus stated clearly that God is Spirit…..not man, not woman, but Spirit. Masculinity is a characteristic of created beings, i.e. humans and animals. In reducing God to whatever he imagines masculinity to be Mr. Piper has tried to lower Him to the level of created humanity. Since when does God need to conform to our image….are we not meant to be aspiring to become like Him?

The arguments he uses that God chose male apostles, male elders etc., etc., have been well and soundly debated and sound surprisingly inadequate from one who is supposed to be an established leader and teacher.

Where was God’s alleged masculinity when Jesus compared Himself to a brooding hen in Matthew 23:37. As God incarnate shouldn’t He have chosen more ‘masculine’ terminology? Paul admonished the Thessalonians as a gentle “nursing mother” (1 Thess.2:7) then went on to compare himself as a loving father (v.11) showing that God is both ‘mother’ and ‘father’. There are numerous instances in scripture where God chose to express Himself in what would normally be considered feminine terminology.

For me there is a vital question that arises from Mr. Piper’s teaching: what is ‘masculinity’ in any case? We have to assume that the masculinity Mr. Piper is talking about is one defined by himself. Too often the word ‘masculinity’ is used to convey a ‘macho’ stereotype. What of those men who do not fit his definition of ‘masculinity’, whatever that definition might be? (I am speaking here only of heterosexual men and not of gay or transexual men). Where do they fit into this ‘masculine’ feeling church that Mr. Piper alludes to? Or are they supposed to grin and bear it, and supposedly ‘flourish’ alongside the females?

Comment by Liz

February 3, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

We are hoping some of you guys out there will comment. Surely it must be distasteful to you as well as women ?

Comment by David

February 4, 2012 @ 7:33 am

Yes, very distasteful! But be encouraged, Liz, guys are posting, just not here. Rachel Held Evans (mentioned above by Trevor) has given a call for guys to post responses to this speech. Around 70 responses have come in so far:

http://rachelheldevans.com/thank-you-brothers-links#disqus_thread

My own humble contribution can be found here:

http://cramercomments.blogspot.com/2012/02/john-pipers-masculine-christianity.html

Comment by Laurie

February 4, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Piper and the Grudem gang make too much of differences. They want to sort and choose, then promote their favorite characteristics which just happen to be male skills. They ignore, demean or use for the benefit the ‘characteristics’ and skills that women tend to bring into the world. This is the way that pride works. A prideful person values primarily his own personality type, his own individuality, his own skills. A prideful person demotes those not like him.

And now they want to make God like them. It’s a sad state of affairs. And it is sadder still that it is so public.

It is important that we tell the world that God loves all people. He did not die primarily for men but He’ll allow the women to come along. Christ died for every person and anyone who is willing to believe in Him will be saved if they will walk toward God in faith. Everyone who walks toward the Lord Jesus Christ in faith can receive the Holy Spirit and become a child of God, a full inheritor of all God’s blessings. God looks at the heart, not as we humans who see only the outward appearance.

Comment by Don

February 4, 2012 @ 10:45 am

Piper reveals where the distortions of Scripture inculcated by CBMW are headed as he sees it. His is a “prophetic” voice asking women to accept their subordination and like it, since that is what he sees God as teaching; it simply must be what God wants. He is nearing the end of his ministry and wants to be seen as “fighting the good fight” to keep men on top in church and home.

How impoverishing to the body of Christ!

Comment by Charis

February 4, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

I’m afraid the scripture that comes to mind when considering this proclamation of a “masculine god” is:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, Romans 1

Comment by Trevor

February 4, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

I’m absolutely gobsmacked that someone can believe that it was ever God’s intention that Christianity should have a ‘masculine feel’, let alone so sincerely teach it! The comment that David has made in his response (linked above, 95602) gives an insight into what drives these men to adopt such a strong male presence in every aspect of church and home life, but that doesn’t make it right.

As Cheryl has ably pointed out God is not male, but Spirit, and in that sense without gender so his supposed ‘maleness’ should have no influence on the church, the bride of Christ, needing to be led solely by strong, masculine men. It’s interesting too that the very term, ‘bride of Christ’, in describing the church, comprises both men and women yet it is a feminine role which in this case includes men! I know that it is metaphorical, but go figure.

The whole concept of a ‘masculine feel’ christianity seems to me to be pushing the issue too far in an attempt to legitimise male dominated leadership in both the church and the home. First we have the suggestion of the necessity for the ‘eternal subordination of the Son’ to justify women being in submission to men, both now and in eternity, now this additional twist. Both issues are extreme.

All of this is suspended on the notion that this is God’s order and intent. But is it? All of Scripture is written, or influenced, by people who were locked into male dominated cultures so it is not surprising that there should be a preponderance of male centred terminology. However, all Scripture is God breathed, or inspired, therefore it is not surprising that despite the over-riding patriarchy there are many instances of individual women being outside of this ethnic and cultural typecasting.

If it were God’s order and intention that leadership should be solely male there is no way that these ‘anomalies’ would have been allowed to creep into Scripture. Women of the biblical era were basically ‘keepers’ at home. The structure of society demanded it because women had no singular means of supporting themselves. Yet you have the Proverbs 31 woman. Moses’ sister Miriam rises to prominence. Abraham’s wife Sarah instructs (at God’s suggestion) her husband. Huldah the prophetess is consulted and her words acted on by Israel’s leaders, even though other prominent male prophets were her peers. Ruth, a Moabitess behaves differently than most other gentile women and is honoured by being in the line of Christ, as is Rahab the inn-keeper from Jericho. Rebekah took matters into her own hands to make sure that prophecy was fulfilled and that her son Jacob should get the promised inheritance. Isaac wasn’t so prophetically astute. Then there is the account of Esther, risking her life by defying the King’s regal protocol to save the nation Israel. We haven’t yet made mention of Deborah, the warrior judge of Israel and what of Abigail who defied her foolish husband by going out to meet with David, bringing him provisions for his fighting men, later to become one of King David’s wives. The list could go on and we are still in the OT. None of these accounts would have found their way into Scripture in the way that they are if it were God’s intention that leadership should only be male.

What of the NT. Immediately we are introduced to Elizabeth and Mary. Both women experienced an angelic visitation and instruction from God aside from their husband and fiance respectively. In fact Zecharia was dumfounded! Then we have the women who were a part of the discipleship group of Jesus. Mary’s desire to sit and learn at the feet of Jesus, an action which He praised highly. The woman who sneaked into the presence of a male dominated dinner and washed Jesus feet with her tears and the other who broke the alabaster box of ointment and anointed his feet, again both women highly praised for their actions. Both women behaved unusually and did things that were culturally unacceptable, but were accepted without question by Jesus. Then there are the emerging women leaders in the infant church. Lydia, the gentile seller of purple. Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, Synteche, the list goes on as we take the time to scour the NT references. Most of these women are stand out leaders in the early church.

Again I submit that none of these women would have been mentioned, in the ways that they were, if it were not for the fact that God’s intention from the beginning is that women should be included despite the male dominated cultures that emerged since sin first entered and brought about the fallenness of humanity. Sin changed everything and gave rise to male domination. In Christ all of that is meant to be reversed as Jesus came to set the captives free, which says to me that women are fully emancipated in Christ from all ethnic, religious or culturally imposed male domination. The church should be at the forefront of heralding this exceptionally good news for women.

Comment by Charis

February 4, 2012 @ 7:25 pm

When I was struggling with the belief that God loves His male children more, the Lord used John 20 where Mary Magdalene is chosen first to encounter the Risen Christ and is sent first to proclaim the Good News.

Mary Magdalene has
an intensely intimate encounter
with the Risen Lord
in the Garden.
HE calls her “woman”.
She thinks he is “the gardener” (KEEPER of the garden)
HE calls her “Mary” and she KNOWS instantly it is HE…

The veil lifted and I suddenly realized that the moment harks back to the first Adam and the first woman in the Garden.
Adam was assigned to be the KEEPER of the garden
He failed :(
Jesus is the KEEPER who fulfills the assignment flawlessly.

I identify with walking in Mary Magdelene’s sandals.

I can…
… walk in the Garden with JESUS, the second Adam, the KEEPER who will not fail.
… partake of intimacy with my risen Lord in the garden.
… feel the intense gratitude for His mercy,
the intense security of His perfect love.
… wash His feet with my tears and wipe them with my hair,
… pour out my inheritance, my alabaster box of precious ointment… upon my Lord.
HE is worthy
HE is good

Comment by JDM

February 4, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

I too am gobsmacked, though I’ve never heard that especially colorful word before.

Among the many good points made so far is Trevor’s regarding the Church being described as the Bride of Christ. A masculine bride? Piper has glaringly and intentionally overlooked that central metaphor.

On another note, mega-church ministers are, among other things, marketers. Piper knows that controversy attracts attention. Attention attracts visitors. Some visitors become members. Thus making controversial statements in public is a way to widen the top of the church growth funnel.

Comment by Cheryl

February 4, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

“The veil lifted and I suddenly realized that the moment harks back to the first Adam and the first woman in the Garden. Adam was assigned to be the KEEPER of the garden He failed :( Jesus is the KEEPER who fulfills the assignment flawlessly.”

Charis, thankyou for sharing that revelation. It is beautiful.

Comment by Laurie

February 4, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

I echo the appreciation of Charis’s comment. Well said.

In addition, we are all given the important responsibility of KEEPING God’s Word. We are also ‘keepers’.

Matt. 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

IN Jesus we can do what Adam failed to do. All of us.

Comment by Michelle

February 4, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

I am grateful to the men who speak up for the character of God, who includes women fully in (his) church. For without the help (the voices!) of the powerful, the chances for the excluded are far less.

Thank you.

Comment by Frank

February 5, 2012 @ 12:26 am

Though I find Piper’s recent proclamation of a “masculine god” and of a “masculine Christianity” abhorent, I believe the critiques by Cheryl and Trevor quite adequately expose and refute this perversion of the doctrine of God and of the Gospel of Christ.

And another Scripture that speaks to the idolatry of Piper and company is Deut. 4:15-18, “You saw no form of any kind at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air,or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.”

From an OT perspective, the worship of a “male god” was known as Baalism, a false and idolatrous religion that threatened the worship and service of Yahweh, the One True God, who transcends all arbitrary categories of the masculine and the feminine. Elijah gave a challenge in ancient Israel that needs a fresh hearing in the Church today: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Ki 18:21, TNIV).

Comment by Laurie

February 5, 2012 @ 10:07 am

Excellent Frank. Also Numbers 23 says
“19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

In the original Hebrew the words used are : God is not a male, and not a son of a human. So in God’s own words God does not want to be compared to males or masculine humans. IMO God is beyond gender, even though human gender encompasses many godly characteristics. God is Creator.

Comment by JoanLP

February 5, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

Charis, I too thank you for sharing your revelation. So beautiful.

There are many verses that say that God shows no favoritism or partiality. Righteousness is having the same standard (weights and measures as said elsewhere recently) for everyone.

Psa 146:3 Put not confidence in nobles, in a son of man [adam], in whom there is no salvation.

1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

Phil 3:3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh–

Jhn 6:63 Jesus: The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

As Christians, men and women, we have been given a new heart and a new spirit. The very same Spirit of the Lord resides in both men and women. To deny or stifle actions or teachings that come from women is to deny or stifle the Holy Spirit. That is not, of course, to say that women are perfect. We all are learning to hear and obey the Spirit.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
2Cr 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
2Cr 4:7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.

I have read many of the posts out there in response to Piper’s comments. My favorite is this one:
http://jonathanstone.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/philemon/

“God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother,” Piper said. I read somewhere recently that God is referred to as a rock far more often than father. Maybe we should make a doctrine of this? [sarcasm :)]

Comment by BT

February 5, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

Laurie, I would suggest that that verse you quoted is meant to communicate something else. Whether the Hebrew uses the word “male” or not, the point is not about gender, but about God not being human.

God is not a man that he should lie (meaning he is without sin)
Nor a son of man that he should repent (meaning he is without sin, therefore he doesn’t neet to repent)…basically God is not human and is fully perfect.

Though I am a Complementarian and I generally agree with Piper, I do think his words need further clarification. He does not mean to say that God is male, as opposed to female. He also does not mean to say God favors men over women. I think it also requires further investigation of the Complementarian position to see that women are in no way seen as less valuable than men.

Galations 3:28 “There is niether Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” God doesn’t think one gender is better than the other, neither does Piper, neither do I.

Comment by Liz

February 5, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

Thanks JLP for the link. It is long, but so worth reading! We would all do well to follow his advice.

Also, on the r/h side of this blog there is another post entitled Dr Mary Ruth Stone and this talks well to the topic of the previous post on the Scroll which is about power.

Comment by Cheryl

February 5, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

BT:

John Piper has explained very clearly what he means:

“When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”

“It’s the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ-exalting initiatives and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.”

When he says ‘overarching godly male leadership” I suggest most would interpret that to mean male covering over “theology, church and mission”.

When he says male leadership in the spirit of Christ has an ethos of ‘tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community” I suggest most would interpret that to mean that all of these are primarily male or ‘masculine’ characteristics rarely present in females.

When he says ‘its the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ exalting initiatives” I suggest most would interpret that to mean only males are inclined to these Christ exalting initiatives.

When he follows that last statement up by stating “and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work” I would suggest that most would interpret that as meaning a supportive, helpful role and a partnership that is not an equal 50/50 but more like 60/40, 70/30 or perhaps even 90/10.

You say: “I think it also requires further investigation of the Complementarian position to see that women are in no way seen as less valuable than men.”

When women are relegated to limited functions that deny them the roles of leadership and initiative taking, and when they are presented as somewhat lacking in the areas of courage, risk-taking decisiveness and readiness to sacrifice, then women are seen as less valuable than men, at least in their own eyes and I believe in the eyes of men who agree with John Piper.

And when a male audience is encouraged and re-inforced in this ‘masculine themed church’ viewpoint, then women are being presented as less capable, less gifted and by default less valuable than men.

He also very clearly presents God to his audience as having a preference for anything ‘masculine’. I would suggest most people would indeed interpret such statements as meaning God is more male than female, when in fact He is neither as scripture clearly states.

I therefore disagree with your assertion that Mr. Piper’s words need further clarification. I think, sadly, John Piper meant what he said, and said what he means.

Comment by BT

February 5, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

The main idea is not about functional equality, its about essential equality. Women and men are essentially equal but functionally different. That doesn’t mean that things like leadership and initiative-taking, as primarily male responsibilities, are necesarily more valuable characteristics.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

BT,

In all respect, this idea that functional equality can be divorced from essential equality is rubbish.

The South in the US tried that with racial inequality AKA the so-called “separate but equal doctrine” and eventually everyone agreed it was rubbish in regards to races, despite some white racist mythology. I do not know what people think it is not rubbish in regards to sexes.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 6:34 pm

The reason it cannot be divorced is that just as people cannot change their races, they cannot change their sex. If someone claimed that all natural red haired people need to submit to natural black haired people who needed to submit to natural blondes, everyone would immediately see that this was unjust, because people cannot change their natural hair color.

Comment by BT

February 5, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

Functional difference with essential equality is an idea we see between God the Father and Christ the Son. We see this in 1 Cor. 11:3, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Jesus is essentially divine in the same way God is essentially divine, however they fulfill different roles and functions (likewise with men and women-essentially equal but functionally different). To deny this dynamic between Christ and God is to embrace the Arian heresy debunked hundreds of years ago.

In regards to the “Separate but equal doctrine,” I agree that it was a bad idea.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

The Father, Word and Spirit are all God. While incarnate as a human, the Word was subordinate to the Father.

Arius taught that the Father was more God than the Word as the Word was (supposedly) created. It is true this was declared a heresy.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

On 1 Cor 11, it is not describing a hierarchy as it is not in the form of a hierarchy. Paul knew how to describe a hierarchy. The basic problem is that in the 21st century to be a “head” of something as a metaphor is to be a “leader” of that thing, but such was not necessarily the case in the 1st century, which is what counts. This is one of the basic flaws of comp thinking, metaphoric “head” MUST imply a leadership relationship but this is simply not the case.

Comment by BT

February 5, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

Check out Grudem’s work on the 1st century understanding of “head”

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

Grudem is not a Greek scholar, not by a long shot.

The lexicon does not even list leader under kephale, altho I agree they should as a possibility, but that just shows how rare the concept was, it was certainly not obvious to the lexicon compilers. But a possibility is far from a certainty. And Cernan and Nyland repudiate much of Grudem’s supposed Greek scholarship.

One needs to read and study both sides in any debate in their own words. I have done so and Grudem is found wanting.

Comment by sdd

February 5, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

“I think it also requires further investigation of the Complementarian position to see that women are in no way seen as less valuable than men.”

BT, I would have to say that most egalitarians are well-acquainted with the complementarian position and understand it fully.

“Women and men are essentially equal but functionally different.”

Under the complementarian (Piper, et al.) teachings, a man and a two-year-old male toddler are also essentially equal but functionally “different” (meaning unequal). The difference is, in 16-18 years, that same toddler will be that man’s essential and functional equal. A female, however, who is older, more educated, and more spiritually mature than that same man mentioned above will never be that man’s “functional” “equal.”

Yes, egalitarians understand the complementarian position fully.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

Nyland’s “More than meets the eye” documents Grudem’s elementary mistakes in Greek.

Suzanne Bookshelf also documents many of Grudem’s mistakes.

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/04/mccarthy-vs-grudem-wayne-grudem.html

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

Here is a short article that lists at the end criticisms of Grudem’s claims on kephale. They are all worth studying just to see how off Grudemm really is.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 8:10 pm

http://searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

http://equalitydepot.com/doeskephaleheadmeansourceorauthorityoveringreekliterature1.aspx

allows purchase of Richard Cervin’s article which rebuts Grudem’s claims on kephale.

Comment by Don

February 5, 2012 @ 8:25 pm

P.S. Cernin, McCarthy and Nyland are all Greek scholars, while Grudem is not. Grudem has made elementary mistakes in Greek in some of his published papers. One can discern which side of the debate on kephale is more credible just from this, but I recommend reading and studying both sides and making your decision.

Comment by Trevor

February 5, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

BT. As I see it this whole complementarian defence of their position, by resorting to such terminology as, ‘essential equality’ and ‘functional difference’ is an obfuscation that only further demeans (read devalues) women in their full identity in Christ. No one disagrees with the fact that women are biologically different in their essential ability to bear and nurse children etc. But to suggest that this biological differentiation limits their spiritual potential is what is at issue here. In Christ men and women are equals (Galatians 3:28, as you have already stated) which means that every former barrier which separated them is done away with just as has happened with racial, ethnic and cultural divides.

Egalitarians essentially believe that most complementarians place limits and interpretations on the Galatians 3:28 text, to suit a complementarian perspective, that are not imposed by a careful reading of the entire context.

When I read and hear what well known and respected teachers like John Piper have to say on this issue I’m reminded of Jesus’ words in Matthew 9:17 (NIV), “Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” As sincere and well meaning as people like John Piper are they are trying to defend and preserve an old order, just as the pharisees of Jesus day were. The old, male priesthood and patriarchal way, is no longer the way of the Kingdom of God. The new has come as Peter announced in Acts 2:16-21 concerning the prophecy of Joel, which reads in part:

“In the last days God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days and they will prophesy.” (TNIV)

What I see here is the Kingdom message being taken out of the hands of the religious elite and given to ordinary, everyday Spirit empowered people of every age, race and gender without distinction. This was supremely evident in the early church, as is recorded throughout the book of Acts. There we see the emergence of gentile believers and prominent women featured strongly alongside the men.

To my mind we are in danger of limiting the gospel of the Kingdom in the same way as the Pharisees and Judaisers of old when we adopt a classist mentality and restrict leadership and ministry opportunity to men alone by adopting a ‘masculinist feel’ church. It is a construct of our own making which neither originates in God nor brings Him pleasure. To say that women can minister to women, thus expressing their spiritual gifts, but not to a mixed congregation, is mere semantics and limits the workers being thrust out into the harvest.

Comment by Cheryl

February 5, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

“Women and men are essentially equal but functionally different.”

I’d like to relate a (true) allegory on this idea of essentially equal but functionally different. Last week my adult son, who has an intellectual disability, visited our town library to apply for a membership card. On hearing his request the library attendant said he would have to go away and bring back a letter from a responsible person before he could be granted a library card. My son replied he was a 27 year old adult (he has a very healthy beard!), on which the attendant checked with another attendent and both affirmed the first attendant’s instruction as library policy.

Now, should I explain to my son that he shouldn’t be concerned over this, that he should resign himself to the fact that God has ordained he is forever to be essentially equal but functionally different, and send him back with his letter so that he can flourish joyfully alongside the other library members? Or should I call injustice injustice and encourage him that God never intended that his differences should limit his experience of life.

I am not an academic, I am not a scholar, but it seems to me academics have become very adept at coming up with long winded phrases to excuse what God would call the sin of prejudice.

I am happy to say the library has since apologised for their ‘mistake’ and my son has his library card, without the need for a covering letter from a ‘responsible person’.

Some may see my allegory as irrelevant to the current discussion. To me it is very relevant, and very clear.

Comment by Cheryl

February 5, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

Trevor: “What I see here is the Kingdom message being taken out of the hands of the religious elite and given to ordinary, everyday Spirit empowered people of every age, race and gender without distinction.”

Your comments encourage and inspire me, and especially this sentence. Thankyou, you have expressed God’s heart with clarity, humility and wisdom!

Comment by MaryAnn

February 5, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

What irks me about this the most is how Piper seems to assume that women cannot lead God’s people “in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.” Why is this a “masculine” trait?

Comment by MaryAnn

February 5, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

I also really appreciated this response to Piper’s remark about the “male” apostles:

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/03/on-jesus-choosing-twelve-males/

written by a Fuller professor.

Comment by Laurie

February 5, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

Hello BT, #95620

”Laurie, I would suggest that that verse you quoted is meant to communicate something else. Whether the Hebrew uses the word “male” or not, the point is not about gender, but about God not being human.”

Well, I’m of the opinion that along with the context words matter. I do not think it accidental that in Numbers 23:19 first God used ish and then God used adahm. When translated exactly, God is saying that He is not a male and He is not the son of humans, that He should be like humans who lie. The end result is that God covered the whole thing. God is neither male nor is he a human male. One has to wonder why He would say that. Perhaps, there was a move in those days as well, to make masculinity more godly than femininity.

Comment by Laurie

February 5, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

Let me add this for a devotional thought:

“John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.””

It does not say that God is a male spirit or a female spirit, or that He is more male than female. God is Spirit and is to be worshiped IN Spirit and Truth. Those who have an ear to hear will understand that in God’s economy, all this talk about God
and His people having a “masculine feel” (as God’s preference) is moot and frivolous. God IS Spirit. God created gender for us. God doesn’t need it. It doesn’t impress God.

Comment by Donald Guffey

February 5, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

This is just another example of the new patriarchy that is spreading its poison across Christendom. Piper along with his alarmingly large young restless and reformed crowd are trying their best to bring back this idolatrous form of Christianity. I find it rather funny that preachers are saying the church needs to have a more masculine feel, last time I checked the scriptures God seemed pretty clear that the Church is to have a “Jesus feel”, a “Holy Spirit led feel”, and also the last time I read the book of Acts it states that Holy Spirit would pour out his Spirit on all flesh and that sons and daughters would both have a hand in spreading the message of the redeemed. So for a preacher to say that the church needs to look more human (or shall we say fleshy, worldly…you fill in the blank) especially considering Piper is a Calvinist and as such would no doubt believe in mankind’s total depravity (or are males not as depraved…hmm). In my opinion if one would simply read the Bible through the lens of Christ himself who by the way is the Living Word and base their theology on what Christ said and did, including his treatment of women, one would easily see that this idea of a masculine church is totally contrary to Scripture. As a man I absolutely abhor the idea of a more masculine church! In case Piper and his lot haven’t noticed men have run the church for thousands of years and history shows what a good job they have done! Let’s see, sex scandals, paedophilia, the crusades…oh yes, give me even more male dominated leadership! I would argue if there is anything wrong with the masculinity of the church it’s that there is too much of it. That’s just my two cents on the matter.

Comment by MaryAnn

February 5, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

Thank you, Donald Guffey! Well said!!

Or as one blogger said, if you look back at church history, all the heresies have been introduced by… men!

Comment by Frank

February 6, 2012 @ 2:31 am

Let me say, as one whose own roots are in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, that John Piper, Bruce Ware, and other Neo-Calvinists do not speak for me. I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation and preservation of his people in Christ; I believe in complete human depravity, i.e. that the human mind, heart and will are so polluted by sin that regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit are absolutely necessary for our salvation and growth in holiness; and I believe Christians can and must persevere in a life of holiness, love and service by using “the means of grace” God has made available, e.g. obedient reading of Scripture, prayer, support and encouragement by other Christians, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

But, unlike Grudem, Piper and Ware, I also believe that Jesus and Paul, in their overall teaching and practice, have shown that in the New Age that has been inaugurated by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and his outpouring of the Spirit on the Church–Believers form a new humanity in which secondary characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender are no longer to be recognized or permitted as barriers to leadership and ministry; that it is the gifting and calling of the Spirit, which is done in full agreement with the common will and choice he shares with the Father and Son, that determines where and how we serve in the Church; and not mere human, culturally based traditions and rules; and that to forbid a woman or man to be a leader or minister in the Church on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender is not only unjust, but is to oppose the will and choice of the Triune God–a very grave error.

In part, I have mentioned the above matters for the sake of BT, whom I perceive as a “young Calvinist” who has a high esteem for Grudem and Piper, who present themselves as champions of Calvinism. The fact is, contrary to what some might think, not all Calvinists are Complementarians. Nor is it a necessary component of Calvinistic theology, in my opinion.

But I have also brought these matters up as a basis to point out that not only is Wayne Grude far from being the best Greek scholar, but also reveals in his promotion of the concept of “essential equality but functional inequality” as regards the relationship of the Persons of the Triune God, that he is far from being the best representative of the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition. As I have pointed out here in previous discussions on the Trinity, Augustine, John Calvin, B.B. Warfield, and others have taught the Three Persons are coeternal and coequal in being and character, fully sharing in all the divine attributes, and their taking particular roles in creation and redemption on the basis of covenantal agreement, not because One Person possessed some trait or attribute the Others did not.

But this is not the view of Wayne Grudem. On the one hand, he asserts that the Three Persons are “essentially equal” because they share the same divine attributes, but then that they are “functionally unequal” because it is the role of the Father alone to “command” while it is the role of the Son and Spirit to “submit” to the Father. And this authority/submission relationship is not based on a covenantal agreement to carry out the works of creation and redemption in time and space, nor on the basis of differing competencies existing between the Three Persons.

No, according to Grudem, its basis is that the fundamental expression of the Son’s “sonship” is eternal submission, while the fundamental expression of the Father’s “fatherhood” is to exercise eternal authority over the Son and the Spirit. The problem here, of course, is how to explain how Each Person is suited for a role of authority or a role of submission, by virtue of what they are as Father and Son, if it is indeed also true that as God they fully and equally share all the divine attributes necessary for Godhood? How can it be that they do not differ in attributes and competencies, if their roles are necessarily related to who they are? If fitness for authority entails supremacy of One Person, then it necessarily entails the inferiority of the Other Persons. How then is this possible, unless there is a real difference in the essence or being of the Three Persons?

Quite frankly, not only is Wayne Grudem’s teaching on the Trinity not rationally inconsistent and incoherent, but it is nothing more than a modern form of Semi-Arianism, a heresy condemned by the Eastern Church in 381 A.D. and by the Western Church in 382 A.D. Beware of this teaching, for it is harmful.

Comment by Trevor

February 6, 2012 @ 7:34 am

Thanks for that link MaryAnn. Another from that same source I found to be so well put together and truly amazing.

http://disorientedtheology.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/the-radical-femininity-of-christ/

There has been a huge male response to this issue on Rachel Held Evans website.

Comment by Lamar Wadsworth

February 6, 2012 @ 8:22 am

Charis (comment 95606)hit the nail on the head. This is precisely the right scripture to challenge this “masculine Christianity” foolishness. It is nothing but forming god in the image of somebody’s idea of what a “manly man” should be. My quarrel with the “masculine Christianity” bunch is first of all at the point of idolatry, fashioning themselves a god in the image of man. My second quarrel with them is in their deficient doctrine of the atonement, because the only way to maintain the eternal subordinate status of women is to make the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ less effective for females than for males.

Comment by Amanda Beattie

February 6, 2012 @ 9:29 am

Agh, it’s always hard for me to see John Piper start off on things like this. I love, love, LOVE some of his work, particularly on Christian Hedonism, and “Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ” remains one of my favorite books of all time. His books along those lines have deeply impacted my life for the better, and it pains me to see him become more and more entrenched in this point.

I don’t have much to add to what’s already been commented, except to join in the wondering how he would reconcile “the Bride of Christ/The Lamb’s wife” with a church that’s supposed to have a masculine feel. Very disappointing.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 11:15 am

Frank, you seem so unwilling to see that the Kingdom of God is paradoxical and upside-down according to this world. How can God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit be essentially equal but functionally different? Because that’s how God works. Just because that paradigm doesn’t fit into your own culturally conditioned world, doesn’t mean that the Bible clearly outlines a dynamic that just doesn’t seem to make sense. Isn’t that how much of the Bible is? Why would God elect to come as a human to save humanity? That doesn’t make sense to the world. Why is there evil in the world? That doesn’t make sense to the world. We as humans can’t even wrap our minds around the thought of an infinite God.

Also, for those who say that men have ruined church leadership for centuries and should therefore relinquish their leadership, I would suggest that instead, men need to step up and become better leaders making their wives and the other women they lead feel valued. Have men done a bad job? Yes, a VERY bad job. Does that mean the Biblical structure of leadership is wrong? No. It means humans are sinful. Guaranteed we will still have problems in the church (and the rest of the world) if the roles are flopped. Yes, I said it. Women are sinful too. The point is not to try and restructure Biblical principles because they don’t meet our expectations. The point is to sit down and truly understand our roles, take responsibility for them and humbly submit (oops, the “S” word) to what Scripture is explicitly saying. Can I get an amen? If you’ve read chapters in Piper and Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, you’ll notice they also identify the problem as men. Yes, men are the problem. The solution is not to remove them from leadership but make them better Christ-like leaders.

Comment by Don

February 6, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

Biblical leadership of a congregation is by gifting of the Holy Spirit and not by gender, just as it is not by race nor by wealth.

I have read Grudem and Piper and found it in many places very wanting. Have you read Discovering Biblical Equality and Phil Payne?

Comment by jann durkin

February 6, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

I can’t even read stuff like this without blood shooting out of my eyes.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

I have read Discovering Biblical Equality. Dr. Ron Pierce was a professor of mine. Check out my blog post about Spiritual Gifts and Gender Roles http://www.briansbibleblog.blogspot.com

Comment by Don

February 6, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

There is certainly no requirement to see 1 Tim as restricting women from leadership, that perhaps is one way to read it, but it is a choice whether or not to read it that way. There are MANY other ways to read it that result is no limitations for women in leadership. Given that today we are not Timothy and lack details about what he was faced with in 1st century Ephesus, why are you choosing to read it in a restrictive way? The only conclusion I can reach is that you WANT to read it in that way and at that point I must wonder why.

That is, there are many clear passages that discuss spiritual gifts and contain no mention of gender restrictions, which is the expected place for such. See the institution of Mosaic priests for an example of how God stated it then.

Comment by Laurie

February 6, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

” How can God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit be essentially equal but functionally different? Because that’s how God works.”

What you are describing is an incorrect picture of something being essentially equal while also being essentially functionally inferior. In this life we cannot be enjoying all the benefits of being essentially equal while at the same moment be denied those same benefits because we are essentially “different” in a life long position of subordination.

Someone said this and I kept it because it is so well stated:
” As I have pointed out here in previous discussions on the Trinity, Augustine, John Calvin, B.B. Warfield, and others have taught the Three Persons are coeternal and coequal in being and character, fully sharing in all the divine attributes, and their taking particular roles in creation and redemption are on the basis of covenantal agreement, not because One Person possessed some trait or attribute the Others did not.”

Much has been written trying to understand the miraculous thing of God clothing divinity in human flesh and walking the earth, suffering in that human flesh for the purpose of saving our souls and elevating us to be with Eloheim and YHWH in eternity. We will likely never fully comprehend what God has done for our sake. But one thing he has not done is take anything, not one smidgen away from His glory. God as a whole does not split His glory up giving lesser parts to the Holy One or to the Holy Spirit. Eloheim is a perfect echad; a perfect communion of united oneness. That is how God works.

And it is THAT that Jesus prayed for the body of Christ, that we might be ONE as they are one. Being one does not mean giving more honor, respect and blessing to one half of the body than the other, and limiting the other half to an eternal loss of blessing, honor, respect, opportunity, or responsibility to be moved and used of the Holy Spirit.

I do not know if I expressed this in a manner which you, BT, might be able to understand. But I hope that you will try to understand what I’m attempting to impart to your heart and mind.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

Laurie, I appreciate your efforts to explain your opinions. I would refer you to my blog I listed earlier and you can see more of my thoughts on the matter. I have a few posts regarding gender roles. I encourage you to read all of them.

Regarding your quote “…and their taking particular roles in creation and redemption are on the basis of covenantal agreement, not because One Person possessed some trait or attribute the Others did not.” I would agree. I do not think it is a trait or attribute that qualifies one person of the Trinity to function in a certain way. I also don’t think these different functions lessen the value or amount of deity in each of the persons of the Trinity. Likewise with men and women, different functions do not mean different values. It is actually the Egalitarian camp that is placing such a great value on the leadership position and making it something to strive after as if it were something being witheld–as if women were being deprived. The Son or the Holy Spirit never get upset that the Father commands, that’s just how they function and that is perfect unity. Someone once said to me “it’s not called the “Tri-quality,” it’s called the “Tri-unity.” The point was that equality was already inherent and therefore not an issue.

It is sad that many women don’t value their God-given role as if to say that God dealt them an unfair hand when they see a man in a leadership position and desire that position. Take this (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/02/how-much-is-a-homemaker-worth/) for example. This role is unfortunately gravely under appreciated.

Comment by Trevor

February 6, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

“It is actually the Egalitarian camp that is placing such a great value on the leadership position and making it something to strive after as if it were something being witheld–as if women were being deprived.”

Yes BT, that’s the key to the issue right there. Your theology only allows you to see women in the role of homemaker and that as the most honourable and fulfilling possibility.

But, what if a woman IS a homemaker, and a very good one at that, but has the Spiritual gifts of ministry, evangelism, preaching, teaching, leadership etc. It’s not that the women are deprived of these gifts from God’s part, He has already bestowed them, it’s that they (the gifted women) are forbidden to use them in this male directed church.

You say, because of your theological bias, that God doesn’t give women these gifts but reality, the testimony of Scripture and the history of the church prove otherwise. We men need to recognise and elevate women into positions of leadership and responsibility in the life of the church where God has so gifted them.

That BT, is all that the egalitarian, or Biblical equality position is.

Comment by Sonnet

February 6, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

Here is a link to an article that discusses the “men and women are essentially equal but unequal in function” assertion:

“EQUAL IN BEING, UNEQUAL IN ROLE”
Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

http://www.ivpress.com/title/exc/2834-18.pdf

Comment by Don

February 6, 2012 @ 5:39 pm

BT,

You never opined why you choose to read 1 Tim in a way that restricts females, when that kind of reading is anything but required?

Comment by Cheryl

February 6, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

BT, you state:
“It is sad that many women don’t value their God-given role as if to say that God dealt them an unfair hand when they see a man in a leadership position and desire that position.”

I think you’ve hit on an essential difference between the complementarian and egalitarian viewpoints. Egalitarian women don’t believe God dealt us an unfair hand, nor do we desire the position of any man we see in leadership. Contrary to how we are sometimes portrayed, we are not salivating in the wings ready to pounce and steal male leadership positions as soon as we see a sign of weakness.

We believe God has called and gifted us also in all aspects of ministry, whether it be expressed in homemaking or church leadership or elsewhere. It is not God who has dealt the unfair hand, it is fallen humans. We desire the invitation to come alongside male leadership in full and equal partnership and we are fully convinced this is God’s desire for His church also.

We don’t desire or need any man’s leadership position. Why would we? Our position is that we have been called to our OWN ministry without restriction, by the same God who called you, and He has made room for all of us.

When complementarians can find it within themselves to lay down their sense of feeling threatened and see that gifted women are not a threat but an asset, God’s Kingdom will be greatly enriched.

Comment by Sonnet

February 6, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

“4. A masculine ministry takes up heavy and painful realities in the Bible, and puts them forward to those who may not want to hear them.” – John Piper

The verse that came to mind when I read this was Matthew 23:4 TNIV:

“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

Contrast that with: “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” – Jesus (Matthew 11:30) The gospel is good news… something I love to hear!

Piper is correct in that I do not want to hear legalistic, patriarchal roles (rules) preached to men and women. But maybe I’m reading too much into his 4th statement.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 6:50 pm

Don, about reading the 1st Tim passage in a restrictive way, I suggest reading my blog. I have addressed that issues there (www.briansbibleblog.blogspot.com). What I’ve been trying to say is that Egalitarians are actually the ones who think that passage is restrictive. For God’s purpose of ministry, I think it is not restrictive. There are an abundance of ministry positions that fully utilize the talents and abilities given to a woman by God that fit within God’s explicit role assignments.

“We desire the invitation to come alongside male leadership in full and equal partnership and we are fully convinced this is God’s desire for His church also…. We don’t desire or need any man’s leadership position. Why would we?”

Cheryl, it seems like you’re contradicting yourself. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I definitely don’t feel threatened as a man that a woman would want to step into a leadership position that I think is Biblically ordained for a man. It is not my pride I’m trying to defend, it is God’s word correctly understood that I’m trying to defend.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

Cheryl, I re-read your post again. I understand what you’re saying now. I imagine you could understand why Complementarians think Egalitarian women are waiting and salivating for that desired position of leadership since it is indeed that very thing Egalitarians are fighting for.

Comment by Cheryl

February 6, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

BT: I think what I said is quite clear. You said of women in general:

… “when they see a man in a leadership position and desire that position.”

You have clearly expressed in this statement a belief that women desire ‘that position’, i.e. the leadership position a man already fills. (Your words).

My response to that was, as a woman called by God, I(and others) neither desire or need any man’s position. Like it or not, many complementarian male leaders are threatened by that prospect,and I speak with around fifty years of denominational experience behind me.

Women do not need to replace men nor do we care to do so. We believe we have our own callings to fulfil so replacing male leadership is not what motivates us. Male leadership can keep their ‘positions’ as you call it. It is not ‘that position’ or ministry (the position a man already fills)that women desire. It is the opportunity to live out our OWN ministry calling in a partnership of functioning equals, not the supportive partnership complementarians offer us.

There is nothing contradictory in this and I think it’s sad when the debate is reduced to talk about ‘positions’ when the real issue is God given giftings and callings, and actual “positions” are secondary. A leader is a leader, regardless of official recognition or otherwise. But when a gift of leadership is continually thwarted because of gender bias, the church and the Kingdom suffer.

As for defending the correct understanding of God’s word there are others here who have ably addressed the relevant scriptures and a multitude of resources available in print and on the internet if one cares to lay down the “defender of the Word’ argument and truly and humbly seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance into all truth. That is a choice each one of must make individually.

Comment by Cheryl

February 6, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

BT:
Egalitarians are fighting for justice and freedom, not positions of power as you seem to believe. If leadership is servanthood, as Christ taught us, leadership in itself would be a strange thing to desire.

If, however, you have a God given call to leadership, it cannot be denied and will find expression somewhere because it is not a choice, it is a calling and a gifting. Sadly, the church suffers because many women with leadership callings necessarily find expression of that calling in the world when they have been continually suppressed in the church. Everyone then suffers. This is the ultimate tragedy of gender bias in Christianity.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

Cheryl, I would again direct you to my blog for more about spiritual gifting. That may help explain why I believe your understanding of “spiritual gifting” may be a bit subjective.

And as I have mentioned above, the reason everyone seems to suffer now is not because women need to step into leadership, it is because men need to do a better job and women need to do a better job supporting those men. It’s like the whole idea of absent fathers being the reason for broken homes.

Comment by John

February 6, 2012 @ 9:22 pm

@BT 95675

While there are certainly many broken homes with absent fathers, there also exist broken homes with absent mothers. If the complementarian position were true, these homes would experience a different set of issues than the fatherless ones, but in reality, they don’t – children generally experience the same disadvantage from a single parent home whatever the gender of the missing parent.

But you’ve provided a springboard into another good point – the complementarian position isn’t just bad for women, it also puts men under pressure to fulfill certain roles _even when they are explicitly not gifted in the particular gifts most suited to carrying out those roles_. While one could try to hedge this in a church setting by the truth that only certain men (not all of them, and no women) are gifted for and thus called out to leadership there (ignoring for the moment the vast number of times a better qualified (gift-wise) woman has been passed over for a man who has turned out not to have the necessary gifts for the position), such a hedge does not work in the case of marriage, in which there are only two candidates to fulfill whatever “roles” are needed. Are you going to exclude the vast majority of men from ever getting married? Or somehow claim that they are only partially gifted, that their gifts are functional enough to give them the leadership within marriage but not strong enough to be used for the good of the larger body?

Comment by John

February 6, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

P.S. in my last post, the “truth” in the second paragraph is that, even among men, not all men are qualified for church leadership – the parenthetical of “and no women” was expressing the complementarian position, not my own.

Comment by BT

February 6, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

Leadership is something men need to step into whether or not they feel gifted. The point is not to exclude men from getting married (unless they just aren’t mature enough for the privilege). The point is to encourage men to become better leaders. It’s not about gifting. None of this is about gifting. In fact God doens’t always call those who are best gifted, He calls those whom He chooses

Comment by Liz

February 7, 2012 @ 2:25 am

Hi Brian
It’s going back a bit now as I’ve just read a whole swag of comments in one go but..
you made a statement about women wanting men to relinquish leadership and take it up themselves. That would never be the intention of godly women. I guess it’s hard for you, who is so steeped in the belief that only men can be leaders, to grasp that women don’t want to replace the men, just work together as co-workers with Christ.

A recent comment of yours suggests that what a person does is not to do with gifting, but whom God chooses (hope I’ve read you correctly ), so how does God choose someone for various responsibilities within the Body of Christ if not by giving them particular gifts ?

I’m concerned that too much of this discussion has been about ‘leadership’ and the implied ‘authority’ when all throughout the NT, there is the example and instruction of working together in humility and seeing that ‘it is God who works within you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure’

I am delighted that God desires me to be a co-worker with him and that he uses jars of clay like me to minister his grace to others. It is all of God and not of human effort when we abide in Christ and allow him to work through us.

Comment by Liz

February 7, 2012 @ 2:36 am

As regards spiritual gifts, I would agree totally with you, Brian, in what you have written in your blog. I don’t see spiritual gifts as natural abilities which God may use but rather ‘spiritual’ gifts…..given by the Holy Spirit on a person’s conversion.

Many times, God uses people with no natural talent for a particular work but enables them to do what they have to do by his power within them. An example would be a church choosing an account to be the treasurer for the church, just because that person is qualified in that way. It doesn’t necessarily follow that God chooses people because of their inherent ability or even training.

History shows that many wonderful servants of God were mightily used, even when churches and mission agencies either ignored them or refused to give them the right to use their spiritual gifts. How people discover their gifts is for another discussion but I would agree totally with what you write in your blog.

Comment by Wes

February 7, 2012 @ 8:16 am

Let’s do ourselves all a favor in order to cut the debate short. If we simply removed all the references in the Bible regarding masculinity and God we could read Scripture without feeling offended. Isn’t that the natural end of what we are coming to, here? After all, most of the texts we read in our common translations were written by men who no doubt were trying to defend the “old order”. Let’s just scrap those thousands of years of work and come up with a more acceptable one. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But, that is the logical extent of the argument.

Let’s face it, the Bible clearly uses the male and female qualities to describe the relationship of Himself to the church. God is constantly described as masculine (for example His Son is Jesus Christ) while the church is referred to as feminine (bride of Christ). Therefore, the relationship between God and church is illustrated by the relationship between man and woman. If the church is going to reflect God’s image, then it must do so within the masculine context He chose to show himself to us. In doing so, we do not have to downplay or diminish the role of women.

Comment by sdd

February 7, 2012 @ 9:35 am

Well, sure, Wes. Men illustrate God and women illustrate fallen humanity.

It’s hard to believe women get offended when men say that, isn’t it?

(By the way, where is it that tells us that we are to look at men as an illustration of God? I’m having a hard time finding that one. . . )

Comment by RED

February 7, 2012 @ 9:58 am

“Let’s face it, the Bible clearly uses the male and female qualities to describe the relationship of Himself to the church. God is constantly described as masculine (for example His Son is Jesus Christ) while the church is referred to as feminine (bride of Christ). Therefore, the relationship between God and church is illustrated by the relationship between man and woman. If the church is going to reflect God’s image, then it must do so within the masculine context He chose to show himself to us. In doing so, we do not have to downplay or diminish the role of women.”

Then by your own definition, the church should be feminine. Otherwise it can’t be a bride. You say that God is consistently portrayed as male and the church consistently portrayed as female, but then you turn around and say that the church should therefore be masculine?

No one is arguing that scripture doesn’t include references to God as masculine. What we are arguing is that it references both male and female, and it’s unhealthy to keep some Biblical imagery (God as having male qualities) and choose to throw out others (God as having feminine qualities). You, like me, are obviously someone who highly values scripture, so I don’t understand why it doesn’t bother you that some people want to emphasize the parts of scripture they like and throw away the parts they don’t. The Bible gives imagery of God being like both sexes, and both are created in the image of God. How anyone can assert anything else is beyond me, unless they’re reading a different Bible.

Comment by Wes

February 7, 2012 @ 10:03 am

Did I say women represented fallen humanity? Didn’t see that in my post. The church is illustrated as the bride (I’m pretty sure that is still a feminine reference). I can’t help what someone does or does not get offended over-take it up with the Author. I personally can’t think of a more respectful thing to say about women-that God Himself chose them to fulfill his illustration of the entity so valuable He would die for it and redeem it-making it perfect in relationship to Him.

I really have no intention of downplaying women here-I simply find it so frustrating that anytime someone wants to intelligently point out other sides of the argument on this issue, he is usually condemned as “old order” and “closed minded”. Or,his masculinity is questioned-thanks for that.

Comment by Don

February 7, 2012 @ 10:08 am

God is spirit and not human and is not gendered. Gender is a part of Creation, not God. Yes, there are metaphors in the Bible about God and some of these are masculine, some feminine, some inanimate, etc. This does not mean God IS a rock or a male or a female, God is beyond all these things and created all these things.

In a polygamous patriarchal culture where the husband has the power, God does use a marriage metaphor mapping in the Prophets where God is called a husband and Israel and Judah are called his wives and later the church is called Christ’s bride. Such metaphors need to be used as intended and not extended as a backwards mapping, as that would be an idolatrous mapping from God to the husband.

Comment by RED

February 7, 2012 @ 10:10 am

So, as to BT’s comment that men should step into leadership whether they want to or not….well, I agree that any man who is called to leadership should step into it, whether he feels up to it or not. Moses would be a good example.

But egalitarians believe that women may be called also, and they too must step into that calling. (For instance, Jesus instructed women to be the first to spread the news of His resurrection, even though he knew they were living in a time when their word would be doubted and not even hold up in a court of law).

The bottom line here is that we don’t believe the Bible has actually laid out a principle of “all men must be leaders.” Those people whom God CHOOSES must be leaders, as you’ve pointed out, but egals don’t believe that God chooses based on gender.

After all, there’s no verse of scripture that directly instructs husbands to “lead” their wives, or directly instructs men in general to “lead” women.

Comment by sdd

February 7, 2012 @ 10:44 am

The bride of Christ is fallen humanity in need of a Savior. Yes, the church is loved so much by the Savior that the church finds redemption. That is a beautiful depiction of Christ’s love for a fallen world.

The problem, Wes, and the reason you are getting a reaction, is not that you depict women as fallen people in need of a Savior who through Christ’s redemption becomes the bride of Christ. The problem is you say men illustrate not the bride of Christ as well, but God. To repeat–yes, women are a part of fallen humanity redeemed by Christ and therefore the bride of Christ. But so are men.

Men are instructed to look at the example of Jesus for an illustration of how to love their wives.

No where is this reversed. No where are people instructed to look at men as an illustration of God. It is that claim that you made that caused people to react.

Comment by TL

February 7, 2012 @ 11:13 am

BT, #95661

You wrote that you agreed with the quote, but it does not appear that you do. You only agreed with part of it and missed essential points. To be taking particular roles in creation, is to take upon oneself (in this case by covenantal agreement and not command) a temporary responsibility for a specific purpose. It is not about value or attributes or essential ‘functions’, for all the Eloheim are equal in power, authority and abilities. The job of being clothed in human flesh and to suffer death (which could not hold the Divine) was for the purpose of bringing up frail humans who believed to live with them in eternity. It was not about exerting an authoritative influence over humans to which humans are required to submit. It was about releasing those in bondage, setting the captive free, healing the sick and wounded, giving gifts and abilities, spiritual powers, and releasing the Holy Spirit into our lives to empower us.

To compare a husband to God and the wife to humanity is pretty much crazy and idolatry to boot. God is not like a husband to which the Son is like a wife. Husbands/men do not have an essential authority or power in their nature that wives/women do not. We are all just human with the same inherent design as humans. Gender is not a different species. All creatures have gender. But we don’t see any inherent division of labor, intelligence, or ‘authority’ that goes across the board in all females or males amongst the rest of creation. I hate to say it, but gender isn’t all that special. Humans are special; all humans.

”different functions do not mean different values.”

When the different functions are forced upon some but not others with the reasoning that certain ones have an essence that must be hindered, that is indeed placing a different value. This is the evil of the system of the world. Some force submission of others by whatever tool is at our disposal.

”It is actually the Egalitarian camp that is placing such a great value on the leadership position and making it something to strive after as if it were something being withheld–as if women were being deprived.”

You have that backwards. It is the comp camp that proclaims divine rights to withhold certain jobs and responsibilities from women and reserve them for the more ‘suited’ males. The truth is that God calls both men and women in a variety of responsibilities. God isn’t concerned about the color, shape or beauty of our flesh but is primarily concerned with the condition of our hearts. Your beliefs put women who are called and equipped by God into tortuous suffering and in need of deeper maturity in order to battle fellow Christians who seek to demean them from their calling. In the end, those women are often necessarily more mature, capable and knowledgeable than the men who claim preference and take something that was not given by God. But the evil system wins by keeping the men and women who are pure and devoted and truly called out of the larger public eye. No more Billy Grahams, Kathryn Kuhlmans, Deborahs or Moses. Instead we have so many worldly minded men preaching about how important men are. A sign of the times.

” It is sad that many women don’t value their God-given role

The word ‘role’ means to play a part. The term was a French word coined around 1606. Gender is not a role; there are no curtains. God isn’t into making pretend. In reality, though gender does influence how a person relates to their world, there is no mold into which all men and all women were “cast”.

Comment by Wes

February 7, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Trust me on this, please: I do not think God is a male. I am confused by the response of SDD who says I claim men are to be looked at as an illustration of God. This I never said. Only that God chose to reveal Himself as a man (or was Jesus a woman?). That isn’t backward mapping. I don’t think men are any more like God than women are-we are all unholy and impure in our natural state. But, Ephesians does talk about Christ loving the church and giving himself for her (and here, unless the original language was completely misinterpreted, the masculine is used for Christ and the feminine for the church).
Can the church be the bride (feminine) and yet represent God as masculine? I think so, but others may not agree.

To answer Red, it bothers me greatly that some people want to throw out parts of Scripture only to justify their own position-but it also bothers me a great deal when people illogically twist Scripture to make it mean what they want. One particular example is how often the phrase, there is neither male or female is used to justify women’s position in the church when the topic being addressed isn’t the church, but salvation. Individuals prone to such interpretations seem to be so intent on justifying their position, they will take Scripture out of context as much as those on the other

Comment by Frank

February 7, 2012 @ 11:49 am

Well, I see the conversation has moved on since I posted my last comment. I tried to post some comments last night, but was having system problems with my computer. Hopefully I won’t have them today.

Laurie, I am glad you found my statement on the Trinity enlightening and helpful. You clearly understood the truth I was seeking to communicate to BT.

BT, I became a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ at 20, and am now in the 41st year of my journey with him. During that time, often to my own consternation, I learned the following principles of God’s “paradoxical and upside-down” kingdom:

That a death must always precede the life God desires us to live; that true self-realization only comes through true self-denial; that only when we are at our lowest point and accept our own bankruptcy do we experience the fullness of Christ’s grace and power; that God delights in using the “nobodies” to confound and shame those who consider themselves so wise and powerful: a woman as prophet and judge who inspires a rebellion against the foreign occupation and oppression of Israel; a young shepherd who, by throwing a little stone with a sling, turns the near defeat of Israel into a resounding victory; a housewife who, with a cup of warm milk and a tent peg, slew a professional soldier who was more than her match; a little poor boy, who by sharing his meager lunch, enables Jesus to feed the hungering multitudes; and a little old rabbi and tent-maker, who would be ignored, except for his preaching that scandalizes the Jewish establishment and rocks the socio-political complacency of Rome.

You have it wrong, BT. It is not that I’m unwilling to acknowledge and accept what Scripture teaches regarding God’s kingdom, for I do. Can I deny those things that both Jesus and Paul taught about God’s kingdom, and still call myself a Christian? What I’m unwilling to acknowledge and accept, BT, is the teaching of men like Wayne Grudem who, in order to maintain male dominance, cleverly and craftily distort what the Scripture teaches so as to relegate women to a perpetual second class citizenship in God’s kingdom; deny their full and equal status as priests and prophets in God’s kingdom; and deny that, like their brothers, Christ has both authorized and empowered them to be his spokepersons and representatives to the world, at all times, in all places and at all levels.

Comment by sdd

February 7, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Wes,
You said,

“Therefore, the relationship between God and church is illustrated by the relationship between man and woman.”

Have you changed your mind about your statement declaring that men are an illustration of God?

Comment by Wes

February 7, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

The word illustrated in my post refers to the relationship, not to the man (or to God for that matter). What I said was that the relationship is illustrated by the relationship of man and woman (or husband and wife). To say that man is the illustration of God in that scenario is correct, but to say, then that man is an illustration of God is not. That would be twisting the words and, sentence structure, and definition of what I wrote in order to produce a different definition than the one I intended.

That tends to happen a lot around here, no?

By the way, if a similar illustration in Scripture is available where the woman represents God in a particular scenario-by all means let us see it.

Further, if you want to be technical, God DID choose a masculine form to reveal Himself in (Mary’s BOYCHILD, Jesus Christ, was born on Christmas Day). This does not say that men are the representation of God, either-as if every time we see a man it is the physical embodiment of God. Of course that is absurd. But, it doesn’t change the fact that God chose to come to earth as a man. Was that only because of the cultural relevance of the age? If Jesus came in 2012 are we saying He would be a She?

Comment by Donald Guffey

February 7, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

I love how quickly a response to an article no longer has anything to do with the article! The original post is about John Piper’s view that the church should be masculine so please keep responses relevant to the topic at hand. Now The fact remains that the Bible when properly interpreted and put in proper context fully affirms totally equality between men and women in ministry and the home. The spirit poured himself out on sons and daughters and both prophesied. Reading the book of Acts, there were 120 men AND women in the upper room on the day of Pentecost both were filled with the holy spirit and went out making disciples. Church history is replete with women leaders even most modern evangelical churches can thank women preachers for their existence. The church is not to be masculine or feminine. It isn’t supposed to look like a human being at all; it is supposed to look like JESUS!. By looking like Jesus I mean it is supposed to act and live like Jesus did which btw didn’t involve arguing over whether women should be in leadership or not (as I recall he simply told Mary Magdalene to tell of his resurrection) Jesus never expected there to be a debate on this issue he simply expected all believers, male and female, to go and tell the good news. And I think it’s high time these patriarchal testosterone over-loaded macho men in the pulpits of America got out of the women’s way and let them do what Jesus commanded them to do.

Comment by BT

February 7, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I have studied this topic thoroughly, but I have never had interactions with believers like this. It is unfortunate that I am being blamed of trying to preserve something evil and sinful. In fact my efforts are to preserve what Scripture is explicitly saying, that is, clear meaning without hermeneutical acrobatics.

God called himself Father for a reason. He manifested himself as a man for a reason. Jesus chose 12 male disciples for a reason. Peter was given the keys for a reason. Man was made first for a reason. A male priesthood was established for a reason. God uses ‘feminine’ imagery to describe himself for a reason too. God uses women to spread the gospel for a reason. God has established marriage to be a metaphor of the Christ-church relationship (including headship and submission) for a reason.

These debates are no longer fruitful. There is no effort to understand the opposing viewpoint. According to the one perspective, the others are heretics and deluded liars distorting God’s Word. Though these interactions deeply sadden me, and I vehemently disagree with the egalitarian understanding of Scripture, I am confident I will see many of you in Heaven. I appreciate the small amount of healthy debate.

Comment by Don

February 7, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

BT,

It might help if you get off your pedestal and admit you are an interpreter of the Bible who can make mistakes just like the rest of us.

Comment by TL

February 7, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

Wes,

“The word illustrated in my post refers to the relationship, not to the man (or to God for that matter). What I said was that the relationship is illustrated by the relationship of man and woman (or husband and wife). “

So to clarify, you are suggesting that the relationship of a father and son is a relationship mirroring a husband and wife?

Comment by TL

February 7, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

BT,

“There is no effort to understand the opposing viewpoint.”

On the contrary, most of the Christian non hierarchalists who post on this site were raised in hierarchalist thinking and lived it. Some of us, like myself did our utmost to conform to the hierarchalist viewpoint. I was raised a Catholic with it’s rigid hierarchies. When I first came to the Lord I did my best to conform and be obedient to men and subserviently please men as was requested and required of me.

It was only through deep studies of Scripture along with long discussions with God, that God showed me otherwise in and through the Scriptures.

Because humans are diverse, some men and women can live comfortably within some kind of male female hierarchies. Others cannot for various reasons. When God calls a woman, she is instantly at odds with the human contrived male dominance interpretations of Scripture. Also, some men just don’t fit that mold as also some women don’t. Thankfully, God’s creativity is hugely diverse. Life would be oh so boring without it.

Comment by Wes

February 7, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

And, of course, this is the problem with most online debates. There are just too many strong minded and passionate people around the world-so we get caught up defending our particular viewpoint. And so, if we want to cut the rhetoric and return to the issue of Piper’s comments-maybe this is all we can say: I doubt Piper is as evil as some make him out to be or as saintly as others want him to be.

As this is my first real interaction with this blog, let me say that we all must be careful not to put words in each other’s mouths and to realize we all come to the table with certain predispositions. We all are human-therefore we may err.

Now, so that we may justify the time we have spent today debating whether or not the church is masculine, how about we all (men and women alike) go out and spend just as much time finding someone whose life we can influence for Christ? Then we could call the day a success.

Comment by TL

February 7, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

“Matt. 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Try living like that example — in everything. It is much more satisfying than rigid caste systems.

Comment by TL

February 7, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

“how about we all (men and women alike) go out and spend just as much time finding someone whose life we can influence for Christ? Then we could call the day a success.”

Sounds like a winner.

Just don’t suggest that the women (as Grudem does in his and Piper’s book) must carefully phrase their words with men so as not to “offend their masculinity”. I believe that Grudem had in mind that since all men are natural leaders (and women are not) that men must be treated with a certain obeisance by women.

Maybe it would work better if women just stuck to talking to women and men to men. :) That was the requirement in the Shepherding Movement I was involved with as a young Christian.

Comment by Trevor

February 7, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

“These debates are no longer fruitful. There is no effort to understand the opposing viewpoint. According to the one perspective, the others are heretics and deluded liars distorting God’s Word. Though these interactions deeply sadden me, and I vehemently disagree with the egalitarian understanding of Scripture, I am confident I will see many of you in Heaven. I appreciate the small amount of healthy debate.”

Thank you BT for spending so much time here attempting to convey your viewpoint but you must understand that this is an Egalitarian site and most of us here have arrived at this position, as TL has stated, from living for a time within the hierarchical position. The fact is we HAVE examined the issues and are not likely to be persuaded backwards. Besides, usually it is egalitarians who are regarded by the others as, “…heretics and deluded liars distorting God’s Word.”

Thank you that you graciously concede that you will see many of us in heaven, very few complementarians who visit this site ever give us that courtesy. It is sad when debate appears fruitless and I am aware that you believe that you are defending God’s character and the testimony of Scripture. What you need to understand is that this is exactly what we believe, that God’s character is being maligned and that Scripture is being misinterpreted. We could equally say that you really haven’t attempted to understand our argumentation throughout these many comments because you are predisposed to disagree. It only goes to prove that this is a “revelation” issue and not a logical argumentation issue.

Comment by Liz

February 7, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

Hi Wes.

Thanks for the comment re our task of telling others about God being the primary thing we should be involved with. That is so true and hopefully we do that alongside defending what we each think is the truth of scripture. Each of us will have to give account to God for all we have done, said and even thought so we need to keep that in mind.

Much as we can be passionate about what we believe and why, God looks at the heart and so we should attempt to understand another person’s heart and treat them with utmost respect.

Comment by Frank

February 7, 2012 @ 6:45 pm

Well, I have reviewed the latest comments by Don, Donald Guffey, SDD, and TL. All were excellent, and were done, I believe, in the true spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25. I don’t think there is any more that I need to add, especially since Trevor and Liz appear to have given a fitting close to the discussion. However, if anything I said in my comments appeared to be too blunt or harsh, I apologize. Sometimes, in a desire to be a champion of truth and justice, one can come across as being more belligerent than one intended to be.

Comment by Charis

February 7, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

Rachel Held Evans has posted a lot of very uplifting links by gentlemen providing biblical encouragement for God’s daughters and defending femininity as vital to the church and to God’s image: http://rachelheldevans.com/brothers-speak-out-john-piper-masculine

Comment by Liz

February 7, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

Charis..thanks for that link. It is so very encouraging and even though it would take a long time to read all the comments, it would be worth keeping for future reference in times of criticism and rejection. Wonderful to read such a diverse range of statements and to know there are so many supportive men out there.

Comment by Liz

February 8, 2012 @ 3:58 am

There’s another factor which might be worth mentioning.
When girls grow up reading and listening to bible stories, should they only be taking notice of what women were recorded doing ?
As I was surrounded by bible accounts growing up I thought that it all applied to me. I could potentially be a David, or a Josiah or Samuel as well as Paul, Timothy or John. I remember telling this to a young guy who was persuaded to see scripture from the hierarchical point of view and he was amazed that I thought that way. He just couldn’t imagine girls or women seeing themselves as warriors, priests or leaders in any sphere.

Comment by Don

February 8, 2012 @ 7:46 am

One of the ways to make the Bible’s stories personal is to read each story and ask yourself how YOU are like this or that person in the story. Since we are human, we contain the ability to do good or evil and the potential to do anything recorded in the Bible and more. And obviously, we want to repent of the sinful parts of our human nature, but if you are not even aware of them, how much more powerful they can be.

Comment by Laurie

February 8, 2012 @ 10:47 am

Liz, I always thought that way too. I identified with the fear of Moses a lot as well as his real desire to please in the face of his own sense of inadequacy. And then I identified a lot with Deborah, wanting to be strong like her. I thought guys did that too. Now I really like Huldah, Paul and John. :)

Comment by Laurie

February 8, 2012 @ 10:51 am

The divisive nature of this male dominance movement is finally showing itself to be problematic to many. If they keep preferring males over females in such obvious and harmful ways, many of them may become like the secessionists of 1 John and move out of mainstream Christianity into a new denomination.

Comment by Trevor

February 8, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

Yes Laurie, I remember reading a first up comment on Paul Anthony’s blog, disorientedtheology, on this John Piper topic, where he stated that though himself a complementarian, that was pushing the issue too far. He would remain a comp but be softer in his approach to the whole issue. It certainly may make people in that camp think the issues through more thoroughly. There’s nothing like looking at things in their extremities to see where they may err and demand a rethink.

Comment by Cheryl

February 8, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

Much has been made by John Piper and others writing here about Jesus coming as a man, as if this in itself were affirmation that God has a preference for ‘masculinity’.

God chose for His Son to come as a male human, no argument there. The reason is found in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. We know that in the beginning the male human was not deceived, and therefore knowingly rebelled against God (1 Tim 2:14) Christ is the last Adam and the second Man. It was imperative He come as a male human to restore what was lost by the first man, the first Adam.

The key is in verse 49. While it is true that both male and female were created in the image of God, it is equally true that by the next generation after the Fall, humans were bearing the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3)

Those who are being redeemed are being recreated in the image of the last Adam, Christ. The first Adam rebelled, but Christ the second Adam came to demonstrate what it is like when a man renders perfect obedience. That is the very reason why Paul, when speaking of Christ’s mediation, emphasises His humanity by calling Him ‘the man Christ Jesus” in 1 Timothy 2:5.

Yes, God’s Son came as a man. Not as an affirmation of God’s preference for masculinity, but because it was the male human who knowingly failed to obey in the Garden, a fact that could only be reversed by God coming as a male human to undo what had been done and restore what had been lost for all of us. This is not a cause for male ‘one upmanship’ over females, but rather should be a cause for deep humility and wonder at God’s immeasurable wisdom and unfathomable grace.

The reason God’s Son was manifested as a male has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with the reason He had to come at all.

Comment by Trevor

February 8, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

Thank you Cheryl for this very clear exposition. You certainly have a teaching gift in being able to explain Biblical things so clearly and concisely. I was also impressed by the argument for why Jesus came as a man by Paul Anthony on his blog which I gave a link to in comment 95649. It’s certainly worth another look.

Comment by Cheryl

February 8, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

Trevor, I have just read Paul Anthony’s blog article, which I had not done before, and I agree it is outstanding. I am disappointed in some of his other articles, but the one your refer to definitely brings some much needed common sense into this whole issue around John Piper’s conference speech.

Comment by Frank

February 9, 2012 @ 7:10 am

Cheryl, thanks for your excellent exposition of the “Two Adams” motif. You always do a good job of explaining and applying a biblical text. And I am one brother who, as a student and teacher of Scripture, greatly appreciates the wisdom and insight into Scripture you so gladly and patiently share with us. Again, thanks.

Trevor, I just got through reading Paul Anthony’s “The Radical Femininity of Christ,” which you recommended we read in regards to Piper’s latest promotion of “masculine Christianity.” My response was, “Wow! This guy gets the teaching and practice of Jesus and Paul right! This article truly expresses what I believe as an egalitarian.” And next time someone pulls this “God is masculine, therefore Christianity should be masculine” poppycock on me, I’ll give ‘em a copy of this article and say, “Look, you read this first, mull it over, and then come and talk with me.”

But you know, as one whose roots are in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, and who for a couple of years served as a Bible teacher and deacon in a small Calvinistic Baptist fellowship, I grieve for Piper and others like him. For on this “masculinity” thing, it is a case of the blind leading the blind and of eventually falling into a ditch where they will be personally hurt and the Gospel of Christ will be hurt as well. But here, I express my own opinion.

Comment by Wes

February 9, 2012 @ 8:25 am

In response to some of the recent posts and to Paul Anthony’s blog post:

I completely agree with Cheryl that the coming of Christ was of necessity masculine because of the fall. By one man sin entered into the world-ergo by one Man atonement is provided. I am not sure I agree with your point that Adam was the one who wilfully sinned and thus somehow bears more culpability than Eve. She was deceived, yes, but all who sin are deceived. Still, Paul does make the point that Adam was the one on whom the guilt was laid, so I suppose it can be interpreted thus.

The area I am most uncertain about regarding your argument is that somehow since we are pretty sure our Bible study leads us to understand that Jesus came as a man due to Adam’s sin that somehow we are to ignore that fact when it comes to how we relate to God. If I understand you right, and I may not, it sounds like you are saying Jesus HAD to come as a man, but that is the only reason God chose a masculine representation. Therefore we should not think of the church or of God, for that matter, as having a masculine feel. Whatever the reason God chose Jesus to come as a man, the fact remains that is what He chose. Now, I agree with Paul Anthony and others who have pointed out that this was not God’s attempt at picking men over women, nor is it an excuse for men to act superior. Still, when it comes to relating to and interacting with God, we can’t go back and rewrite what He did. The representation we see is the masculine one because He chose to do it that way. The church, in my opinion, has to find a way to keep this masculine/authority issue intact while affirming and utilizing women in the spread of the Gospel. I have many thoughts on how to do this, but now may not be the time to go into all of that.

As far as Anthony’s blog goes, the main response I would have is to consider why Paul and Peter, the leaders of the early church, would not have specifically called for women to be in the positions of eldership within the church (which would have given it a decidedly feminine feel from the outset and made this argument some 2000 years later irrelevant). Especially when they were the ones Jesus had called to lead His church and, presumably, would have known His intent to promote women in it. The answer he provides is that culturally, Jesus, Paul, or whoever, could not have done so because it would have gotten nowhere-it would have been a cultural outrage. But, as he also points out, this did not stop Jesus from promoting women in other areas of life. It also did not stop Paul from giving perhaps the most controversial cultural statement in any of his letters-when he told husbands they should love and care for their wives (this certainly was not the normal way of thinking about women/wives in that day). It seems to me that when Paul (or Jesus) thought the issue of women’s rights and promotion needed to be addressed (whether in word or deed) they did it. Yet, for some reason, chose not to do so on the issue of the church. It makes one wonder, but I am not sure I have the entire answer-just a thought.

Comment by Don

February 9, 2012 @ 9:59 am

Paul did have women as elders in the church. It takes some putting together of some implications, but Junia was an apostle and therefore an elder of a congregation and Phoebe was a prostatis and therefore an elder of a congregation. Also, he named female co-workers.

Comment by Don

February 9, 2012 @ 10:05 am

The word used in 1 Cor 15:45 is anthropos/human. Where the term is translated man it is in the inclusive sense, which can be confusing, so I prefer human. It was important for Jesus to be human to redeem humans. In Genesis Adam is the first human.
Also, adam means human in Hebrew. So there is some wordplay going on.

Comment by Wes

February 9, 2012 @ 10:40 am

So, Paul did have elders in the church that were women, and then gave explicit directions regarding the placement of men in these roles? Seems unlikely, but maybe. Of course, as you say-it would take quite a bit of “putting it together”. Wonder why he didn’t just come out and say it was to be that way? Maybe we “put it together” too much. Do you have references I could look up on those examples you gave? I would be interested to follow the trail.

In the interest of keeping this about the masculinity of the church and not only about women in ministry, let me say that I don’t think women being used to serve/minister/proclaim the Gospel has to be a threat to how the church functions. Although I question some of the issues surrounding women in fully ordained eldership, I don’t agree with my brothers who seem to feel that this issue throws the entire balance of the church into chaos.

Comment by Paul A.

February 9, 2012 @ 10:41 am

Thanks very much to all of you for the link and the kind words. I’m glad I could help contribute to this discussion. Responding to Wes above, I think we need to understand Paul in his first-century Jewish context, which was extremely male-dominated and believed heavily in the strict segregation of male and female roles as a way to pursue and achieve self-mastery. This informs Paul’s views on sexuality to a large extent, even as he’s rejecting the law-based approach to self-mastery practiced by the gentiles around him and arguing only Christ can tame the desires of the flesh.

So Jesus and Paul are pushing back to an extent on the sexual and gender norms of their day, but in Jesus’ case, there’s a limit in how much he can do and still get the message out, so to speak, and in Paul’s case, he can’t magically stop understanding things through the framework of second-temple, first-century Hellenism- and Rome-infused Judaism.

I downplayed this point in my post, partly because I’m still learning about it, and partly because I wanted to avoid a blanket appeal to Paul’s culture, which is too easily dismissed by conservatives like Piper as unworthy of engagement, even though Paul and his theology were deeply influenced by his culture.

Comment by Wes

February 9, 2012 @ 10:54 am

Paul,
Is it fair, then, to say we have to make an educated guess about how much of the Bible we can take literally (particular when it comes to New Testament commands for the church) based on what we think God really wants and how much we believe the authors included things in their writings due to the influence of their culture? I understand what you are saying-and I know we have to do this with many areas of Scripture-it just seems as though we are making a big jump when we go from interpreting the cultural influence of things that seem particularly directed at one congregation (eg: women need to keep silent in the church) to when we begin to remove an entire teaching of Scripture (which has no counterpart taught anywhere else in the Bible) simply because we think our culture makes it irrelevant.

Comment by Don

February 9, 2012 @ 11:05 am

There is no requirement to read some potentially female restrictive verses like 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim in ways that make them universally applicable for all times and places. It is a choice to read them that way and I think it is a spectacularly poor choice, given the other evidence in the NT.

Comment by Paul A.

February 9, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

Hi Wes,

Here’s the thing: the Bible itself changes as the cultures of the authors change. The God of Joshua and Judges is not the God of the prophets is not the God of Jesus is not the God of Paul. This is the God who chose to create via evolution; he seems OK with taking his time and tolerating the messes we make of things.

The very phrase “commands to the church” imposes on the text a reading and interpretation Paul likely did not have in mind when he was writing. The notion that Paul wrote universally was imposed on individual texts rather clumsily centuries later by including Hebrews (which as we know he did not write) and thus declaring that because Paul wrote seven letters, the universality of the number meant the contents of the letters were universally applicable.

It doesn’t mean what he wrote isn’t “God-breathed” and “useful.” It just means God has left a whole lot more up in the air than we’re used to.

Comment by Wes

February 9, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

I’m confused then by how anyone can make a claim whether or not the church should have a masculine or feminine (or neither) representation. Doesn’t it all become subjective? If the Bible changes as the culture changes, then you must also argue that the Bible means different things in different cultures, even if those cultures exist simultaneously. It is only logical. If this be the case, you could end up with two different interpretations of the same passage, both of which would be accurate because they are applied in two different cultures. So, for your culture, if women are promoted and affirmed and given leadership, then understanding the New Testament teaching in that context would be accurate. At the same time, if I existed in a tribal setting in the Amazon jungle where men are still dominant in the hierarchy of society (which I do not), then the Gospel to those people would allow them to keep their masculine dominance (much the same as it was in Paul’s day) and their church would have an entirely different representation. Isn’t that the logical conclusion to your argument? Isn’t it better to say that the Bible, understood in its context, must stand above culture or society while guiding us in how we ought to behave in that society?

Comment by Don

February 9, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

I think the Bible is authoritative for faith and practice. However, humans can make mistakes in interpretation and have done so thru the ages. We need to do our best to understand the Bible in context, including cultural context.

One of the basic ideas in Bible interpretation is to use the clear texts to help interpret the less clear texts. 1 Tim is one of the most unclear and debated texts and the starting point for trying to understand it is to admit that we are not Timothy living in the 1st century at Ephesus and be humble.

Comment by Frank

February 9, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

Hi Paul. Again, thanks for your excellent and helpful article on this “Masculine God=Masculine Christianity” issue. However, I do have some questions about your comments in 95737 and 95740.

Regarding 95737: While it may be true that their historical and cultural context limited what Jesus and Paul could do in terms of elevating women to full and equal status, could we not say that the OT prophecies regarding the Messiah and the New Age of the Spirit, inspired and movtivated them to be as shockingly countercultural as they were? And should they not so inspire and motivate us? Furthermore, if Christ is still carrying out his ministry of redemption and reconciliation through the Church and by the Holy Spirit, as Paul makes clear in Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians, should we not continue working for the full emancipation of women in the church and society, carrying this teaching to its God-intended, logical end?

Regarding 95740: You state that the Biblical view of God changes as the cultures of the various authors change, hence the God of Joshua and Judges is different than the God of Jesus. Well, you will forgive me if I gently disagree with you. I would say, and I think most of those reading this blog would agree, that throughout the OT and NT, there is a consistent view of God: He is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, holy, just, good, gracious, loving, compassionate, forbearing, and forgiving; showing kindness to all who trust and obey him, but showing severity towards those who rebel against him and walk in their own wicked ways. In fact, Jesus, more than anyone else, warned rebels and sinners of the danger of eternal punishment.

However, there is a progression of revelation regarding how God will redeem and reconcile fallen humanity to himself, the nature and scope of the demands he makes of those he redeems,and how he will make it possible for them to live new lives. And I think these two Pauline texts best explain what some have called the “redemptive movement” of Scripture: “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” and “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval” (Rom. 10:4 and 14:17-18, NIV 2011). What is your perspective on this?

Comment by Cheryl

February 9, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

Don,(95735),
I appreciate your point about anthropos being used in 1 Corinthians 15:45. I agree there is possibly a play on words here and ‘man’ might be interpreted as human rather than the male human. Paul also used ‘anthropos’ in Romans 5:12 when he speaks of sin entering the world through ‘one man’ and is obviously speaking of one individual, not two. However, I believe we need to look further than the letter of the word here and that the spirit of this passage, when taken in context still witnesses to what I have shared above. (I know there will be those who disagree.)

When we go down to verse 46 Paul is speaking of the man who was made of dust, or earth, and one could argue that the male was made of dust, while the female was made of his flesh and bone (Genesis 2:23). In verses 48-49 Paul is saying fallen humanity has borne the image of the man of dust but since the second Man is of heaven, we (the redeemed) will now bear the image of the Heavenly Man, Christ. Genesis 5:3 is clearly speaking of the one individual male named Adam (not adam in the sense of man and woman) when it says he brought forth a son in his own image, because this individual lived one hundred and thirty years. And while the word ‘adam’ in Hebrew means human, that is so only up until Genesis 2:21, after which Adam is used as the male’s name.

Wes, (95732) thanks for your comments. It may be true that all who sin are deceived in a general sense, but humankind was not created without a free will and the male Adam exercised his free will in choosing to disobey God. There is more that can be explored on this specific subject but I don’t want to get off topic here. And to clarify, I don’t believe the woman was less culpable than the male, because she turned to the male rather than to God which is idolatry. My point was specifically about the man’s disobedience, which is not the sin the woman was guilty of, but which the male was. I stated: “The first Adam rebelled, but Christ the second Adam came to demonstrate what it is like when a man renders perfect obedience.”

“…it sounds like you are saying Jesus HAD to come as a man, but that is the only reason God chose a masculine representation.” Yes, that is what I am saying. John Piper and others continue to put forth “Jesus came as a man for a reason” without actually stating the reason, and then go on to infer the church should have a masculine feel because among other things Jesus came as a Man, which sounds like a circular argument to me.

I believe the scriptures show us the reason as I’ve stated above. I also agree with the cultural and practical reasons given by Paul in his excellent article.

I am not sure what you are saying about how we relate to God. We relate to God the Father through the Son who reveals the Father, and we relate to God the Son through the Holy Spirit, who reveals the Son. If you are saying we should relate to God as having a masculine nature the fact that God is Spirit and scripture reveals Him as having what we would call both male and female traits has already been fully discussed and I can’t add any more to what has already been said.

“The church, in my opinion, has to find a way to keep this masculine/authority issue in tact while affirming and utilizing women in the spread of the Gospel. ”

I guess I’d respond that the church, in my opinion, cannot keep a masculine/authority issue intact and still affirm women in the spread of the Gospel. The church has tried to do that for over 1500 years now. It isn’t working.

Comment by Don

February 10, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Hi Cheryl,

There is a lot of mythology about what the early chapters of Gen say, partly because they are told to us as kid’s stories (with some editing) and so we can think we know the story when we actually only know the edited version and partly because there are what one might term gaps, at least things are left unstated that we might wish were stated and people then tend to fill in the gaps in various ways, some perhaps more plausible than others, but then there is the temptation to think that the gap filling that we did with the best of intentions is actually there in the text when it is not. There are other points to make, but this is not the place for them.

But one point that is relevant is that Gen 2 has a 2 stage process for the forming of humans. In the first stage it is just one human that is formed from the dirt/dust of the ground. In the second stage and only then in the second stage is the human differentiated into male and female. This is perhaps somewhat unexpected due to kid’s stories about Adam and Eve, but that is what the text says and does not say. Hence it is actually saying more than the text says to claim that the single human was male, again, since humans now are gendered we might think the single human was gendered, but that is not actually stated, it is a gap.

So when Paul says a anthropos/human was formed, we again do not need to go further than what the text actually says and can agree with Paul that Adam was the first human and that Jesus was human also and that this mapping from human to human is what is important. This in no way denies that Jesus the human was a male, he was circumsized according to Torah, so there is no question about that.

Comment by Wes

February 10, 2012 @ 10:09 am

Cheryl,
Thanks for your comments. Very intriguing. I see what you mean about the church having failed at maintaining a masculine identity in the representation of God AND trying to affirm the role of women. It hasn’t got particularly well, has it? I am not sure that means it COULDN’T go well. I think I agree with your understanding of why Jesus had to come as a man-my point however, was not (like Piper) to say that since He did that gives freedom for a sort of masculine dominance over women (although I still wonder if we are misinterpreting some of his intentions with those statements-maybe not). My point was that the fact remains he did come as a man (as pointed out by Don) and whatever the reasoning or backstory or precipitating events that led to that-if the Church is the physical and metaphysical gathering of those who are the body of this Christ then we are still talking about something/Someone that was (at least initially) masculine.

Don,
Are you suggesting that the first human was not gendered? I agree with you that we tend to fill in gaps in the story with things that may not be there, but it sounds like you are saying God created one human (Adam) and then he created male and female in Genesis two. Did he change Adam into a male, then when He brought Eve from Adam? What about how this seems to differentiate from the rest of the creation account where it says God created things right off the bat to reproduce (assuming then that there were male and female for this purpose). This may seem off topic, but I think it could have serious implications for how we interpret the coming of Christ (and thus the role of His church) because it makes it sound like the whole man/woman thing was almost an afterthought. That would certainly change how we look at ourselves today.

Comment by Don

February 10, 2012 @ 10:50 am

Wes,

What I am saying is that we need to try our best to understand these ancient texts as best we can in their ancient cultural context (which is not ours and so can take work) and do our best to not go beyond the text or at the very least recognize when we are going beyond the text and then hesitate to be dogmatic about our version of going beyond the text.

In this case, since the Gen 2 text we have does not state that the formed human was gendered, it is going beyond the text to say more and later Jewish interpreters pointed this out, it is not a new idea of mine. From Gen 1 we can discern that the act of separating was seen by the original hearers as how God did bara/create. So I read the separation of the human in Gen 2 similarly.

Another way to see things is that while there are things that seem important to us for us to know, the text we have may not give us answers to some questions that we have and we need to accept that and not try to force answers to questions that the text was not trying to answer. It is a way to misread the text to simply assume that the things that might be important to us to know were important to the original readers and vice versa.

I do not think the “whole man/woman thing was an afterthought” but I do see the forming of the male human and the female human being described as a 2 stage process in Gen 2. That is, just as the separations by God in Gen 1 play out in different stages (and none might be thought an afterthought), so does the separation by God in Gen 2, so all is a part of God’s good plan and design. And in fact the text does say it is very good, but only after the separation of the human.

Comment by Paul A.

February 10, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

Sounds like you all should read Peter Enns’ “The Evolution of Adam,” which deals quite a lot with the historicity of Adam and Paul’s use of him. It’s an excellent book.

My argument with respect to cultures is that we have to understand the culture and the context of the biblical authors to properly understand what they were actually saying, as well as what their audiences would have understood them to say. You can call it “progressive revelation” if you like, and there are some consistencies within the portrayal of God as he is revealed in greater and greater detail, but along the way the authors include portrayals of him that are probably not all that accurate – unless you can picture Jesus ordering the slaughter of entire cities or rejoicing in the beating in of infants’ brains against rocks.

So when we see that Paul wrote from an extremely hierarchal culture in which gender roles were strictly enforced and transgressing those roles was seen as the direct cause for the defeat of nations and armies in battle, his comments on gender hierarchy in church make a lot more sense. Not any more correct, but certainly more understandable, given the dominant understanding of the world in his day. He has plenty of things to say that transcend culture, but he cannot escape it entirely; understanding it is the best way to understand what he was actually trying to say – and the best way to understand how we should apply his thoughts to our lives today.

Just my opinion, anyway. :-)

Comment by Don

February 10, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

I have Enns’ book and am on my second reading of it, I recommend it, however, I would warn people that it might shake up some of their assumptions, it is NOT light reading despite being only 172 pages. His part 1 section on the Tanakh is worth the price of the book by itself.

I see Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. as egals working to undermine the dominant paradigms of the day, but doing it in very wise and unexpected ways. It is true that a surface reading of some verses may seem to support patriarchy, but believers are supposed to dig deeper and meditate on these things.

Comment by Frank

February 10, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

Thanks for your response Paul. I don’t have Enns’ book; sounds like interesting reading; maybe I’ll borrow it from the library when I get a chance. And I pretty much agree with Don that Jesus, Paul, and Peter, in their understanding of the Messiah and his inauguration of God’s “already and not yet” kingdom, set out to eliminate the dominant patriarchal paradigm, and establish a new covenant community in which all divisions of race, class, ethnicity and gender are eliminated as barriers to fellowship with God and in the service of God, for “Christ is all, and is in all”(Col. 3:11, NIV 2011).

As to the incongruity of “Jesus’ ordering the slaughter of entire cities,” I guess my initial response would be that during his First Advent, since he came to save sinners and reconcile them to God, not to judge and condemn them, then, yes, this would not be something we would expect Jesus to do or condone.

However, when the NT speaks of Christ’s Second Advent, when he comes to overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist and set up God’s kingdom, he is described as a warrior king, who by the word of his mouth slays the Antichrist and all the armies of the nations allied with him in his rebellion against God and his Messiah (Cf. Rev. 19:11-21).

And such is John’s presentation of this eschatological event that, in terms of the ultimate conflict between good and evil, and its resolution as promised throughout the Scriptures, this would be expected of the Son when exercising his royal prerogative and authority as Lord and Judge of all.

So perhaps other matters, besides cultural perspective, are at play here–such as how God deals with people, depending on the point at which they are interacting with the LORD in the flow of salvation history, and whether or not they have entered into a right relationship with him through Jesus Christ. At least that is how I see it. But since this departs somewhat from the main topic of this posting, I think we can carry on this discussion at a later time.

Which reminds me: Rachel Stone has posted an excellent critique of John Piper and this resurgence of so-called “masculine Christianity” at the CT blog, “Her.meneutics”. Here’s the link: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2012/02/john_piper_and_the_rise_of_bib.html

Comment by Cheryl

February 10, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

Hi Don,
I really appreciate what you are saying about the importance of sticking to text and text only, and not filling in the gaps for ourselves. I have a great love and respect for the written word of God and I am not in any way relying on ‘kid’s stories’in forumulating my views. I would just say I have learned also that it is the Holy Spirit who leads us, not just into truth, but into ALL truth. So it is He who often fills in the gaps. And yes, I hasten to add that the Spirit and the Word agree, always. When any of us lean more on the intellectual understanding of the text at the expense of hearing the Spirit in the Word, or conversely the other way around, we leave ourselves open to pride or deception. But I do believe the Holy Spirit can and often does “fill in the gaps” as you put it when we reach our limitations in the understanding of the text. The church needs to hear from both those who are versed in the study of language and culture, and those who are experienced in hearing the Spirit in the Word. Both are essential. I have therefore put forward what I believe the Spirit is saying and will leave it to you and others to assess my comments academically and prophetically. What is imperative is that we all bring whatever we have to the table in the spirit of humility and servanthood to one another.

Though we may be approaching this from different ends of the stick, in the end it is the same stick we are holding. So while I may not agree entirely with your approach, I appreciate and value what you have brought. I feel further debate on this may distract from the original topic of this post so will now go silent on this as much has been said that we all need to ponder further.

Comment by Cheryl

February 10, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

Hi Wes, “My point was that the fact remains he did come as a man (as pointed out by Don) and whatever the reasoning or backstory or precipitating events that led to that-if the Church is the physical and metaphysical gathering of those who are the body of this Christ then we are still talking about something/Someone that was (at least initially) masculine.”

Christ came physically as a male, which is what Don pointed out, but masculinity is a cultural idea that varies culture to culture, historical period to historical period. So being physically male and being ‘masculine’ are not the same thing.

Your definition of masculinity would no doubt be different from mine, especially as I have been brought up in an Australian culture and you may have been brought up in a different culture (Sorry Wes, I don’t know where you are writing from or your cultural background!)

The debate is not around Christ’s physical maleness, it is around His alleged ‘masculinity” and the assumption they are the same thing. I don’t believe they are the same thing.

Comment by JoanLP

February 11, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

Hi Wes,

I am also glad that you are here and engaging in dialogue with us. I appreciate your graciousness and willingness to wrestle with this topic. It is a complex one.

“if the Church is the physical and metaphysical gathering of those who are the body of this Christ then we are still talking about something/Someone that was (at least initially) masculine.”

We are in agreement that (1) Jesus came physically as a male, (2) one of the metaphors used to describe the relationship between Jesus and the church is that of Jesus as head and the church as body, and (3) another metaphor is of Jesus as husband and the church as bride. There are also other metaphors used of our relationship like temple, building, field, garden/tree/vine, friends, siblings, slaves, and children. So some of the questions that come from these include: Do we mix metaphors and say that Jesus marries himself or that Jesus marries a male (if the church is indeed to have a “masculine feel”)? How do we determine which metaphor to apply to which situation? How literally and to what extent do we carry these metaphors out?

One metaphor (head:body) puts the church as masculine. Since Jesus came as male it follows that his body would be masculine. Another metaphor (husband:bride) puts the church as feminine. However, the result of both metaphors is a joining together to create unity. I do not believe that the point of the metaphors is to emphasize either masculinity or femininity but to emphasize our need for, dependence upon, and oneness with Christ. The focus on masculinity and femininity and roles for each (roles, in my opinion, is a euphemism for legalism) creates only division and takes our eyes away from Christ. One overarching theme in the Bible and in the prayers of Jesus is that of unity (John 16-17). We could go on to talk about the nuances of the various metaphors, but I do not want to digress too far from the topic. I think the important points are the questions above that we need to ask ourselves and the need to achieve unity.

Comment by Don

February 11, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

I do not think that the head/body metaphor of Christ and the church means the body is masculine, I think that is going beyond the metaphor. We know the components of the church are both genders. We have a bunch of metaphors for God that include inanimate and gendered metaphors, but I think each should only be taken in limited ways. It is precisely due to the neglect of some metaphors and overemphasis of others that some claim that God or Christianity is masculine.

Comment by Wes

February 11, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

My point in using the terminology “body of Christ” was not to suggest that this metaphor (or any other metaphor) be our basis for determining the masculinity (or lack thereof) of the church. I more meant it in this way:

Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity, came to earth as a man. Whatever the reason, this is what God chose. Further, God repeatedly refers in Scripture to the persons of the Godhead all in masculine references. Metaphors and qualities may swing back and forth between masculine and feminine, but the personal pronouns remain masculine.

Since this is true, and since the Church is called to represent this God to the world and to represent the redemptive work He did by sending the second member of the Trinity to be the atoning sacrifice, it seems to follow the church would have to have somewhat of a masculine overtone in its representation of this man, Jesus Christ.

Again, this is not to say that woman cannot or should not be a part of that. But we cannot represent a feminine second person of the Trinity because the Church has experienced no such thing. While I agree we have to translate Scripture in context (I think that has been fairly well stated above), we cannot necessarily have free reign to add to that context things so that it makes us more comfortable with our own cultural application of those truths.

Therefore, I am lead to believe the Church does owe a lost world the duty of representing Christ as He was made known to us-in that masculine form. This MAY (in some instances) cause the church to have a more masculine feel than a feminine one.

Comment by Don

February 11, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

This is why it is important to know that anthropos means human, Jesus came as a HUMAN to save us, and since humans are gendered, a choice was made. There are very few verses that discuss Jesus as male, but lots of verses that discuss Jesus as human. So confusion can result when anthropos is translated as man as people may not be sure whether the inclusive or exclusive sense is meant.

Comment by Wes

February 11, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

I understand the Greek implication of the word. Jesus did not come to put on masculine flesh so much as to put on human flesh. I agree. But, I also agree with what Cheryl said earlier about Jesus HAVING to come as a man. I don’t think it was just a “choice to be made”. You cannot divorce Jesus from the fact that He was a man. Consider the implications of trying to represent that as the church:

In speaking with a non-Christian who has never heard of Jesus Christ-would we start by saying Jesus was a God-person sent to earth by a God thing who wanted to be able to have a part of itself whom everyone could relate to and so this God-person lived on the earth and died for our sins, etc.? Of course we wouldn’t. We would portray it in the personal pronouns given to us in Scripture because (regardless of how many times anthropos is used) Jesus was a man-He was sent from the Father-He lives on earth as a man (who revolutionized what it meant to be a man in that day)-He was a man.

In our liturgy, would we begin to refer to God as that something being whose offspring (which we won’t define as masculine or feminine) we turn to for our redemption? Again, we would not because we have a real God-man to speak about. A man who walked this earth as perfect God-and yet human man.

Because this was not a random choice, nor in my opinion a cultural one, by God-we get dangerously close to twisting the implications of Scripture if we try to separate Jesus from His masculinity (and thus the way the Church represents Him to the world).

Comment by Wes

February 11, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

Another question Don-it seems you know a bit more about Biblical languages than I, so I would be interested to know your thoughts here:

Though anthropos is often used and means mankind-what about all the references to Jesus as God’s Son? That is definitely masculine-and many times it is used (outside of the Gospels as well as inside) it seems like it wouldn’t be necessary to stipulate Jesus as the Son of God. Why not just say that He was God?

Comment by Frank

February 12, 2012 @ 12:14 am

Wes,

You make the following statement: “God repeatedly refers in Scripture to the persons all in masculine references. Metaphors and qualities may swing back and forth between masculine and feminine, but the personal pronouns remain masculine.” (95790)

If I understand your argument here correctly, since in Scripture (at least in the English translations) the “masculine” pronoun “he” or “him” is regularly used to refer to the persons of the Trinity, then the Triune God is “maculine,” and therefore only a “masculine” church with a “masculine” ministry can truly represent him to world.

This argument is a non sequitor; the mere use of masculine pronouns does not prove that the Triune God is male or masculine in his essential being as whole, nor in the personhood of each Person. To begin with, few languages have personal pronouns that are neuter. Certainly Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English do not. So it is not possible to refer to God in these languages without using either a singular “he” or “she”. The neuter pronoun “it” has an impersonal flavor in most languages and is tied to the grammatical nature of nouns, which tell us nothing about the sex of the subject.

In the Greek New Testament, the word for Spirit (pneuma) is neuter, whereas in the Hebrew Old Testament the word for Spirit (ruah) is feminine. Thus the question of God’s “gender” must be settled on grounds other than the gender of the pronouns used. The Bible’s references to each Person of the Triune God has to do with their personhood, not to some inherit gender. The God of the Bible has knowable attributes that distinguish him from all other gods. God is further distinguished from pagan gods in that sexuality is not among his attributes.

However, the gods of the Gentiles were always depicted as male or female, and that for two reasons. Not only were the pagan deities little more than “human foibles writ large,” but they often symbolized the “eternal masculine” and the “eternal feminine” principles, the cosmic sex drives that provide the great life-dynamic of the pagan cosmos. Sexual activity between these cosmic principles was supposed to animate the annual seasonal cycle. That’s why so many sacred ceremonies in the pagan temples were variants of sexual activity and their devotees were often sacred prostitutes.

But in Scripture, there is no hint of Yahweh’s sexuality, nor are the Jews ever encouraged in the Scriptures to speculate about the “masculinity” of God, nor is God ever described as zakar, “male.” So how did this idea of “God is masculine and only males truly can represent him” find its way into Christianity? It came in by certain early church fathers–e.g. Origen, Pseudo-Diogenes, and Augustine–who did not purge themselves fully of the Neo-Platonist leaven, which still contaminates the thinking of Catholic and Protestant theologians, and which needs to be purged out today.

Comment by Don

February 12, 2012 @ 10:26 am

On son of God, one thing to see that the term “son of man” has a primary meaning of “human being” and not “male human being”. This is just the way some languages work. B’nai B’rith is a Jewish organization it is might literally be translated as “Sons of the covenant” but it has male and female members. That is, the masculine plural form of a noun is used in both Hebrew and Greek when a group includes only males all the way down to a group including just 1 male and all the rest females, the feminine plural form is only used when the group is all females. This is just the way the languages work, it has no necessary theological implication one way or the other.

Another aspect is the idea that a person that emulates another person can be called a “son of” that person. A disciple is to emulate their rabbi/master and so become a “son of” that rabbi/master. To be called a “son of God” can mean that one shows forth the attributes of God, it is not necessarily about the gender of the person. So perhaps a better translation in some cases would be “child of God” and that is what we find in some translations in some places.

So what can happen is that people who do not know the details of another language can think something is being said about gender when it is not that clear that gender is even in view. It is true that Jesus put on flesh as a male, but what is clearly much more critical is that Jesus put on flesh as a human.

In other words, both male and female believers are called to “put on” Jesus, but this is Jesus as human, not Jesus as male.

Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Comment by JoanLP

February 12, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

Wes,

I think there are two things going on in your post 95790. One is the use and nature of language, which Frank has ably addressed. The other is what it means to represent God/Jesus.

I agree that Jesus came as a male human and should be talked about as a “he.” This is the language part. I also agree with you that the church is to represent God to the world. Put another way, we are to imitate God and Christ. Where we disagree is what characteristics of Jesus we are imitating. I do not think it is his masculinity/maleness. If it is true that believers are to imitate Jesus’ masculinity, what hope do women have of ever achieving this? How can I, as a woman, imitate Jesus? If in my efforts to imitate Jesus I exhibit the qualities of masculinity as defined by Piper, et al, I am condemn as a disobedient and unsubmissive usurper and for not being a Godly feminine woman as also defined by Piper. There is then no “part” for women in this “masculine feeling church.” It is a catch 22 for women.

What we are to imitate are Jesus’ attitudes and actions. God says to be holy because he is holy. Both Phil 2 and 1 Peter talk about following Jesus’ example of humility and submission, of living and giving sacrificially of oneself. Jesus is repeatedly described as meek, humble, and gentle. Similarly, we are to have the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control). All of these characteristics are ones that both men and women can aspire to (but only through the transforming work of the Spirit), but they are also traditionally and culturally feminine traits. I believe some confusion comes in because these traits are also seen as weakness, but in reality, they are strength. This is a difficult concept to explain and understand, but it is the same paradox as the cross. Jesus’ death on the cross was seen as weakness, foolishness, and failure, but it was actually the power, strength, and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1-4). Mankind has a desire for strength but we misunderstand what strength looks like. Mankind has a desire for leadership but we misunderstand what leadership looks like. It is not ruling over but serving. Both men and women are called to serve.

So what language do we use to describe how God/Jesus is represented? To quote Dr. Kenneth Bailey in describing the father in the parable of the prodigal son, “God is a father who acts like a mother.” http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son-About-Us/The-Prodigal-Son-Videos.html. I HIGHLY recommend this video!!!