Disappointing Lack of Accountability in Christian Apologetics

I’m amazed at the technology that we now have available and how difficult it is to erase history from the internet.

A Google web alert notified me of a comment by John Morehead, an apologist with a special interest in new religious movements. In a past blog post, he alludes to the writings of Douglas Cowan and his criticisms of what Morehead describes as “form of reality maintenance” in counter-cult apologetics movements.

Tweet

What is Right Wing Populism? (Quiverfull , Patriarchy Fringe and the Catholic Church?)

Recently, I’ve become acquainted with some Catholic Believers in the Lord Jesus who note nearly identical patriocentric trends in the Catholic Church as we’ve described with Evangelical Christianity, particularly within homeschooling circles. 

There are, reportedly, even European connections to neo-Nazi groups within the Catholic homeschooling groups, just as there is some overlap between patriarchy and those who espouse racialist/kinist/agrarian ideals. The many parallels amaze me, as the same message within a growing faction also now grows within a margin of the Catholic Church as well. Here follows an example of one of the many questions that these Catholic Believers posed to me:

“The main question my wife and I never could answer is whether this was a philosophical problem or a political one. (Which came first the chicken or the egg?) In all actuality it is probably both. As with all things human, ideas are eventually played out in action and politics. I think this movement needs to be exposed and fought. Movements like James Town and Nazism are never fought until there is carnage or sexual abuse, but then it is too late. I believe that Perennialist ideals are forming a "Super-Religion" which can unite people of various backgrounds to common belief and action. It offers a salvation similar to the Marxist ideal of a paradise in this world. A paradise with no need for Our Lord.”

[Note: I understand “perennialism” to describe a society’s cycle through paradigms and prosperity as foundational, enduring, “perennial” truths emerge repeatedly within each cycle.] Considering that the church and religion defines its own type of government and that the term “politics” defines that which involves law-making and governance, the question is one that is somewhat difficult to answer. 

 I am reminded of Christian Reconstruction and the overlap of religious and political ends within the Christian Right. I certainly don’t agree with Berlet and Lyons, bu I found their description of “Right Wing Populism” to be quite interesting, particularly pertaining to this topic. As I pulled this material from the book, I noted the many similarities between this approach and the tactics employed by the new, brave breed of “complementarians” that promote the concepts of “Christian feminism” and the “evils” of the egalitarian perspective as they attempt to “win the gender debate.” 

I was also asked what I believed the “patriocentrist world” would look like. Given the authoritarian and elitist tactics employed thus far; personally, I believe that it would have some totalitarian, bureaucratic, Orwellian flavor of some type. Indeed, I hope that none of us find out. More ideas to ponder…    

Excerpts from. Chip Berlet and Matthew N Lyons in “Right Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort.” New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2000. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF RIGHT WING POPULISM (pg 6-13)

1. Producerism

One of the staples of repressive and right-wing populist ideology has been producerism, a doctrine that champions the so-called producers in society against both “unproductive” elites and subordinate groups defined as lazy or immoral… [. . .]White farmers, laborers, artisans, slave-owning planters, and “productive” entrepreneurs; it excluded bankers, speculators, monopolists – and people of color. In this way, producerism bolstered White supremacy, blurred actual class divisions, and embraced some elite groups while scapegoating others.[. . .]In the 1920s industrial philosophy of Henry Ford, and Father Coughlin’s fascist doctrine in the 1930s, producerism fused with anti-Semitic attacks against “parasitic” Jews.

Producerism, with its baggage of prejudice, remains today the most common populist narrative on the right, and it facilitates the use of demonization and scapegoating as political tools [Saxon, A “Rise and Fall of the White Republic, p 313].

2. Demonization and Scapegoating 

Jean Hardesty argues that the contemporary Right has frequently relied on “mobilizing resentment” as an organizing process (Hardesty, JV. “Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers”. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1999).  

Demonization of an enemy often begins with marginalization, the ideological process in which targeted individuals or groups are placed outside the circle of wholesome mainstream society through political propaganda and age-old prejudice. This creates an us-them or good-bad dynamic of dualism, which acknowledges no complexity or nuance and forecloses meaningful civil debate or practical political compromise.  

The next step is objectification or dehumanization, the process of negatively labeling a person or group of people so they become perceived more as objects than as real people. Dehumanization often is associated with the belief that a particular group of people is inferior or threatening. 

The final step is demonization, the person or group is framed as totally malevolent, sinful and evil. It is easier to rationalize stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, scapegoating and even violence against those who are dehumanized or demonized (Aho,JA. “Phenomenology of the Enemy.” Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 107 -121. Young-Breuhl, E. “Anatomy of Prejudices.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univerisity Press, 1996.).  

The word scapegoat has evolved to mean a person or group wrongfully blamed for some problem, especially for other people’s misdeeds. We use the term scapegoating to describe the social process whereby the hostility and grievances of an angry, frustrated group are directed away from the real causes of a social problem onto a target group demonized as malevolent wrongdoers.  

The scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity. The social problem may be real or imaginary, the grievances legitimate or illegitimate, and members of the targeted group may be wholly innocent or partly culpable. What matters is that the scapegoats are wrongfully stereotyped as all sharing the same negative trait, or are singled out for blame while other major culprits are left off the hook (Alport, GW. “Nature of Prejudice,” Cambridge MA: Addison-Westley, 1954, pp 243-260. Girard,R. “The Scapegoat.” Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1986.).  

Scapegoating often targets socially disempowered or marginalized groups. At the same time, the scapegoat is often portrayed as powerful or privileged. In this way, scapegoating feeds on people’s anger about their own disempowerment but diverts this anger way from the real systems of power and oppression.  

A certain level of scapegoating is endemic in most societies, but it more readily becomes an important political force in times of social competition or upheaval. At such times, especially, scapgoating can be an effective way to mobilize mass support and activism during a struggle for power. 

 3. Conspiracism 

Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames the enemy as part of a vast, insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm. Like other forms of scapegoating, conspiracism often, though not always, targets oppressed or stigmatized groups. In many cases, conspiracism uses coded language to mask ethnic or racial bigotry, for example, attacking the Federal Reserve in was that evoke common stereotypes about “Jewish bankers.” 

 Far right groups have often used such conspiracy theories as an opening wedge for more explicit hate ideology. Conspiracism differs in several ways from legitimate efforts to expose secret plots. First, the conspiracist worldview assigns tiny cabals of evildoers with superhuman power to control events; it regards such plots as the major motor of history.

Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for political, economic, and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems, institutions, and structures of power. Second, conspiracism tends to frame social conflict in terms of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil that reflects the influence of the apocalyptic paradigm.

In its efforts to trace all wrongdoing to one vast plot, conspiracism plays fast and loose with the facts. While conspiracy theorists often start with a grain of truth and “document” their claims exhaustively, they make leaps of logic in analyzing evidence, such as seeing guilt by association or treating allegations as proven fact (Hofstadter, R. “Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays.” New York, NY: Knopf, 1965, pp 37-38.).  

Conspiracist attacks can be directed either “upward” or “downward.” Antielite conspiracism (or antielite scapegoating) targets groups seen as sinister elites abusing their power from above. Countersubversive scapegoating targets groups portrayed as subversives trying to overturn the established order the established order from below or from within[. . .]What these versions share, and what especially defines antielite conspiracism, is that the scapegoat is seen as a subjective, alien force that distorts the normal workings of society. Thus, despite its “radical” veneer, antielite conspiracism shares the mainstream assumptions that the United States is fundamentally democratic, and that any injustice results from selfish special interest groups, not from underlying systems of power and oppression.  

 As Donner argued, “In a period of social and economic change during which traditional institutions are under the greatest strain, the need for the myth is especially strong as a means of transferring blame, and outlet for the despair [people] face when normal channels of protest and change are closed (Donner, FJ. “Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence System.” New York, NY: Knopf, 1980, pg 11.)  

In these ways, countersubversive scapegoating has played an important role in this country’s system of social control, bolstering elite privilege and power. 

4.  Apocalyptic Catastrophizing

Apocalypticism – the anticipation of a righteous struggle against evil conspiracies – has nfluenced social and political movements throughout US History. In its generic sense, the word apocalypse has come to mean the belief in an approaching confrontation, cataclysmic event, or transformation of epochal proportion, about which a select few have forewarning so they can make appropriate preparations.  

Those who believe in a coming apocalypse might be optimistic about the outcome of the apocalyptic moment, anticipating a chance for positive transformational change; or they might be pessimistic, anticipating a doomsday; or they might anticipate a period of violence or chaos with an uncertain outcome (Bromley, DG. “Constructing Apocalysm.” pp 31-45. Wessinger, C “Millennialism With and Without Mayhem.” pp 47-59. Both in Robbins, T & Palmer, SJ (ed.). “Millennium, Messiahs and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements.” New York, NY: Routledge, 1997.). 

5.  Millenial Visons

Millennialism is a specific form of apocalyptic expectation. Most contemporary Christian fundamentalists believe that when Christ returns, He will reign for a period of 1,000 years – a millennium. Yet not all contemporary Christians promote apocalyptic demonization. Within Christianity, there are two competing views of how to interpret the apocalyptic and millennial themes in the Bible, especially the book of Revelation.  

One view identifies evil with specific persons or groups, seeking to identify those in league with the Devil. A more optimistic form of interpreting apolcalyptic prophecy is promoted by Christians who see evil in the will to dominate and oppress. Apocalyptic thinking, in this case, seeks justice for the poor and weak.  

The two interpretations represent a deep division within Christianity. The dangerous form of millennialism comes not from Christianity per se, but from Christians who combine biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization and oppressive prejudices… These social movements sought to influence public policy, social conduct, and cultural attitudes, sometimes coming into conflict with the established order and state power.

Tweet

Blogging the Matrix

Wake up, Neo!
Right-brained creatures like me like to find analogies to explain and convey information, understanding, connotation and emotion to others.

When communicating what the realization of my spiritual abuse experience was like, I identify best with the “Matrix” films. Like “Neo” was before “Trinity” and “Morpheus” make contact with him, both my husband and I knew something was desperately wrong with our church, but we just didn’t have all the adequate language to articulate it in its fullness.

It was, as Morpheus describes, the “splinter in the mind” that drove us mad. As time progressed and as we sought out help and wisdom, our first visit to our Exit Counselor together was very much the “taking of the red pill” and awakening in a world that seemed bleak and colorless for quite some time.

Tweet

Militant Fecundity in the Southern Baptist Convention?

An acquaintance of mine recently contacted the unnamed apologetics organization that issued a recent disclaimer about my presentation, asking why their comment was so vague. Apparently, I was expected to speak only about the individuals within the formal so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement, and that my citation of a few Southern Baptist seminary professors who hold to these same views as an influence on the patriarchy movement was "misinformed, unwarranted and faulty." Actually, they called my statements "accusations." (I was quoting the professors and other authors who critique them, so I fail to see how such amounts to an accusation.)

Tweet

Drawing Lines in the Sand Regarding Trinity and Gender

I’ve received all kinds of email today from a variety of people alerting me to two Dallas newspapers that have written about my patriarchy workshop and the unnamed apologetics organization’s disclaimer.

I find it ironic because I solicited none of this attention. I’m not sure if this article appeared in print or not, but the Dallas Observer published a web article by Julie Lyons entitled “Baptist Seminary President Says Women Shouldn’t Teach Men.” (Please visit and note a clarification that I make in the comments section. I am attributed with stating that contraception is never prohibited, but I have only ever stated that it is the official and formal position of Vision Forum Ministries that birth control is “strongly discouraged.” Please refer to the video presentation for clarification as well.)

Just this morning, Jeffrey Weiss of The Dallas Morning News posted a religion blog article entitled “Is Jesus subordinate to God and if so, how, and if so, does that mean that women are subordinate to men?”

Approximately thirty minutes later, Denny Burk of the CBMW posted this response:

I am the editor for the Journal of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, so I follow these discussions pretty closely. The issue of women's roles is inextricably bound up with how we view the Trinity because the Apostle Paul likens male headship to God's headship over Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3). Thus when you read evangelical literature on the "women's issue," debates about the nature of the Trinity abound. 

There are two views that prevail among evangelicals: Complementarianism and Egalitarianism. Both of these group believe in biblical inspiration (and in some cases inerrancy), but they differ dramatically over what the Bible teaches on this question.
For an overview of the two viewpoints, you can get oriented here: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions. 

Thanks,
Denny Burk

I wonder why Denny Burk didn’t mention the more specific points of his belief system in this comment? As was once available on the CBMW website, Denny Burk gave an address to the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003 where he argues that though found in the form of God, Jesus was not equal with God: From Denny Burk’s address

to the Evangelical Theological Society, 2003:

Clip One "I would like to propose an interpretation that allows for equality with God to be a reality that is distinct from the form of God. What I mean is that although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not want to grasp after being equal with God. That is, although He was in His essence, God, he did not want to become equal with God in every respect…" 

Clip Two “The form of God is something that Jesus possesses by virtue of His deity while the equality with God is not.” 

Clip Three “In His pre-existent, Trinitarian fellowship with the Father, Jesus decided not to go after equality, but to go after incarnation.”

Denny Burk and other speakers and contributors to CBMW do not just maintain that gender roles are inextricably bound to the Trinity, but many of their contributors believe that Jesus is of lesser authority than the Father. Denny Burk takes this further actually state that Jesus is not equal to the Father, and that Jesus was essentially “growing” into His Deity through time. Equality with God and the incarnation are mutually exclusive attributes that required a permanent choice on the part of Jesus.

Thanks to Cheryl Schatz for providing these audio clips of the pertinent statements from an ETS lecture that CBMW removed from their downloadable resources.

Tweet

"Eve the Destroyer"

I was recently contacted by Ethics Daily who asked me to comment on my response regarding the request of the unnamed apologetics organization to take my presentation about patriarchy offline. I commented about my thoughts and reaction to the whole matter. Feel free to read more about it at Ethics Daily.com.


Apparently more than a few people have read about this issue before I was asked by the unnamed apologetics organization to remove their name and the name of the unnamed seminary that hosted the conference. I agreed to take down these names from my writings, but unfortunately for those who would "like to pretend as though the workshop never occurred," I did not agree to remain silent about the greater issue and what one has called the "jackbooted thuggery" to which I've been subjected. (The disclaimer offered by the unnamed apologetics organization deemed me "misinformed," a statement that others and I myself believe lacked Christian charity and integrity given the context of the situation.)

But Why Not Concern over John MacArthur?There has been much concern over my citing of Bruce Ware's beliefs about the Trinity and how the ETERNAL Subordination of Jesus relates to women (versus the functional/economic subordination as was necessary for the unfolding of the kenosis of Christ). But.


Here are some examples of John MacArthur's statements about women and sin entering the world through Eve:


High Calling of Women, pt 4

“The weakness of a woman is that she needs a head.”
“No daughter of Eve should follow the path of Eve and lead to tragedy by entering into the forbidden territory of rulership that was intended for man.”

“And the intent of what the Word is saying here is that a woman needs protection, that she has a certain vulnerability. She was designed with the need for a head. She was designed for the need for a leader. She was designed with the need for a protector and a savior.”


The Creation of Woman

“So that the male was given the dominion and authority over God’s created world, and by that fact is the reflected glory of God. In other words, he bears the role of ruler in this world. The fall didn’t change any of that. The man still bears the authority after the fall.”


The Subordination and Equality of Women

“The woman is the submissive one by creation and by virtue of her weakness in the fall that she confirms her submissive role.”

“It’s because of creation. It is the way God intended it from the beginning.”


The Role of the Godly Woman

“The origin of woman and her need for being is God’s clear statement that man is in authority and she is in submission.”


The Curse on Man: Part 1

MacArthur says that God blamed Adam for sin entering the world because he was the head, although the source of sin came from Eve. (this contradicts ! Tim 2:14)


Confrontation in Eden

“Eve was created to be led by Adam”

“She was created by God for a wonderful purpose, to be his true helper.
She became his destroyer. She was created to be lead by Adam.
She became Adam’s leader with disastrous results,”

God’s Pattern for Wives, Part 2

“A woman is saved from the stigma of having lead the race into sin as Eve did.”

Who exactly is it that I am misrepresenting? Exactly how have I misrepresented them? For citing a book author and another seminary professor's estimation of these teachings? For saying that "I have a problem" with these teachings? It appears that I am not the only one who finds some inconsistencies in the manner in which this matter has been addressed.

Tweet

Contemplating the Trinity

[Revised February 2019]

Please visit the new Under Much Grace companion site which presents an apologetic for the Trinity, demonstrating that I am not misinformed and have not made unwarranted statements against Bruce Ware and other notable subordinationists.  Such was the opinion of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions when the Southern Baptists decided that they didn't like what I had to say when I delivered the peer reviewed presentation in March of 2008.

I would think that with a simple reading of Bruce Ware and others who are affiliated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would build my case for me, but I am apparently mistaken. I expect Biblically literate Christians to quickly identify the problems with these teachings that claim that Jesus has less power and authority by stating that God the Father has supreme authority which supersedes that of the Son.

I have listed some recent Blog Articles and have begun to work on refuting problematic passages from Bruce Ware's work, but this will take some time for me to get through due to time constraints and due to the frustrating nature of the topic. It is very emotionally disturbing and makes for much grief as I go through these things. Currently, in the section pertaining to Bruce Ware's book, I only display the passages that are problematic for me in terms of sound Bible doctrine. I hope to revisit this and add my observations and refutations. It seems that Augustine has done all my work for me, but it is just a matter of typing these things out and evaluating them. But it is quite frustrating and will take some time.

There is a new web directory at the very bottom of the archive site called "Against Subordinationism" which contains several single pages in that subdirectory addressing different aspects of this debate. Most are still in development but have some information.

Please review the index here and follow embedded links to the archive site:

Introduction

When I last spoke to the President of the ENMR apologetics organization in April of 2008, I was told that I should consider posting information online that corroborates my information concerning my citing of Bruce Ware's teachings on the Trinty within a Workshop I presented at MBTS in March of 2008 concerning the Patriarchy Movement.

At the time of this writing (Mar 09), Dr. Ware serves as a theology professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and is an avid advocate for the Theory of the Trinity NOW known as the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS). Ware argues that the Father has a supreme position within the Trinity, the logical conclusion or understanding of which suggests that Christ the Son would by necessity have a non-supreme position within the Trinity. Ware also teaches that the Father has supreme authority within the Trinity, and as a consequence, the Son is constrained by virtue of the Father's greater will, therefore because of the hierarchical structure perceived within the Trinity, Christ must always do the will of the Father.

Ware maintains that this relationship was not a function of the kenosis and Christ's incarnation, but was the Son's ETERNAL state from before time and for all eternity: the Father commands and the Son obeys, and thus there is a template for human relationships found within the very Trinity itself. Notably, Dr. Ware mantains that only the Father hears and has the authority to answer prayer, so it is a point ambiguity and of some error if we pray directly to the Son who only has authority to deliver prayers to the Father. Subsequently, the Holy Spirit follows hierarchically and is subordinate to the will and authority of the Father and the Son.

An author, Kevin Giles, an Anglican Vicar and Bible Professor in Australia has written two books critiquing Bruce Ware's teachings, arguing that by requiring a lesser authority than God the Father with the related constraints as specified in the theory, Ware has inadvertently fallen into a type of Arian heresy. Giles argues that the subordinate role that Ware assigns to Christ defines the Son as ontologically subordinate, of lesser essence, than the Father. Christ then becomes something of a lesser God which is inconsistent with Biblical orthodoxy.

The issue became an interest of my own related to the patriocentricity and the patriarchy movement because the advocates of this movement appeal to the this hierarchical view of the Trinity in order to support their hierarchical view of gender. As God the Father rules and reigns over the Son within the Trinity, so human fathers and husbands should likewise reign over and care for their familes, particularly over their wives. Women are to likewise look to Christ as an example, submitting unto their husbands in a manner like unto the Son's submission to the Father. Women are also defined as ontologically subordinate to men, because the advocates of this belief system maintain that woman is only the "indirect" or "derivative" image of God, because the substance from which she was created came from man and not from the earth. From this foundational belief, many aberrant beliefs spring including "militant fecundity" (a type of "spiritual eugenics" by which Christianity advances through demographics), physical discipline of wives, and other rigid limitations on vocations, occupations and roles for women.

During the 2008 counter-cult apologetics workshop I presented, I cited the ESS theory and Bruce Ware as the individual I identified as the most vocal advocate of the theory, very briefly mentioning Giles general argument as a matter of record. I also spoke critically about the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as the other most active vehicle for advancing the concept of the ontological subordination of women and an hierarchical view of genders as opposed to mutual submission within marriage. Dr. Ware is also quite active within the CBMW organization. The Southern Baptist Seminary community reacted quite intensely and negatively to my citing of these teachings as contributing factors to the abuses within the patriarchy movement, intensely offended that I found their teachings to be remotely related to the patriarchy movement, something a member of the press related that Ware and Dr. Russell Moore (Dean of Theology and SBTS) described as a "fringe" group.

The board of the apologetics organization, despite much ongoing requests for guidance from the president and the Board's approval which included the material addressing both CBMW, Ware, and what is now commonly referenced as ESS (it was not an accepted term at that time), they would no longer stand behind those aspects of my presentation or work. The Board declined to review any of Ware's abundant materials regarding the teaching, and I was advised to post a defense of my beliefs online.

So I am in the ongoing process of doing just that, though I originally planned only to present the sources, but I fear that people will just read them and have no change of heart. I also plan to add additional information concerning the implications of ESS, as I was cited for criticizing Ware later in 2008 for a June presentation he made in Denton, TX wherein he argued that men resort to domestic violence because of lack of submission on behalf of wives so that men have little other recourse.

I will continue to post additional information here pertaining to both the ontological subordination of women as well as ESS. I’m not doing so because I believe that I must “prove” myself in the wake of being unjustly maligned regarding the apologetics workshop, but because I wish to expose these teachings for what they are. I would have done so prior to the lecture that I delivered in March of 2008, but I never anticipated that the powers that be would have taken any issue with what I presented as it is factual, true and abundantly clear from the material!

 

~  CMK
updated 28Mar09

SECTION B:

Eternal Procession Does Not Equate To Eternal Priority

(A critique of Bruce Ware’s CBMW audio mp3 entitled “Tampering with the Trinity: How the Trinity Relates to Gender Roles,” a good overview of the problems with the view)

SECTION C:

Bruce Ware's "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" Book

(Long review of 2 chapters in Ware’s book on the topic with my own responses and quotes from several sources that conflict or contrast with Ware including James White, Calvin, Cary of CBE, Giles of CBE, and Augustine)

SECTION D:

Thoughts on the Theories of the Trinity

(Very thorough review of the theories of the Trinity from sources like Moreland and Craig’s “Philosophical Basis for a Christian Worldview,” an examination of the differences between Social and Antisocial Trinitarianism, A review of Leftow’s Trinity Taxonomy, and some correspondence with Robert K McGreggor Wright)

SECTION E:

Critique of the Concept of Divided Power and Authority Within the Trinity

(An article by Kevin Giles, hosted on the CBE website)

Tweet

Feedback About This "Jackbooted Thuggery"

Concerning the Patriarchy Workshop

and the (Very Few but Powerful)

Voices of Dissent:

I am overwhelmed at how kind everyone has been to me through this whole "disclaimer" process. I am very much at rest in the truth and at peace with what I have presented, though I am sorely disappointed in the lack of academic and just plain Christian integrity that I have seen as a result. I have been told by the spokesman for the unnamed apologetics organization that he himself cannot act as my advocate (neither for nor against the claims of the unnamed apologetics organization's politically motivated Board) because he has no personal knowledge of the teachings of Bruce Ware, the individual upon whom this controversy focuses. As he is overwhelmed with the investigation of the emergent church issue, he does not have any available time to review the teachings regarding gender and the Trinity. There are also political battles that certain individuals decline, and in the process, I have been declared to be in error without any evidence for that assertion.

Tweet

"Biblical Patriarchy" Controversy in the SBC?

COMMENTARY ON DISCLAIMERS Republished here from the Grace and Truth to You, blog of Wade Burleson Friday, April 18, 2008

And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?

For the last couple of years I have observed what I perceived to be professional mistreatment of women within the Southern Baptist Convention, all in the name of biblical patriarchy. Though I have no personal disagreement with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement that declares the office of pastor to be reserved for men, I have been puzzled by the removal of female chaplains and other women supervisors on the mission field, the lack of promotion of women to administrative positions in our SBC agencies, and the termination of SBC trained female Hebrew and history professors at our Southern Baptist seminaries. 

I have truly wondered about the root cause for such actions. What is the philosophical or theological premise that would lead some to exclude women from Southern Baptist positions for which they are either gifted, trained, or eminently qualified to hold? Cindy Kunsman offered a possible rationale when she spoke at the 2008 xxxx Conference, hosted by the xxxxxxxx Seminary. The leaders called this year's conference “xxxxxxxxxx” and gave to Cindy Kunsman the opportunity to examine the rise of extreme patriarchal behaviors within groups claiming to be both evangelical and Christian. Her lecture, entitled The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?, included a pre-approved handout, a power point presentation, and a question answer time which followed. Cindy is a complementarian herself. She states her personal beliefs on her blog where she writes:

Personally, I hold to a traditional, complementarian view wherein women . . . do not meet Biblical qualifications to be senior pastors or elders . . . but they certainly can minister as a members of pastoral staff(s).

The above statement is consistent with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. However, it is what Cindy said about the views of Southern Seminary's Dean of Theology Russell Moore, highly esteemed theologian and Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, The Council on Manhood and Womanhood and Paige Patterson that caused any reference to her presentation to be removed from the unnamed apologetics organization’s website, a change in the Executive Director leadership at unnamed apologetics organization, and a demand for disclaimers and retractions from Cindy.The press release distributed by the unnamed apologetics organization reveals the specific complaint against Cindy Kunsman:

Several people have contacted us regarding a presentation on "Christian Patriarchy" by Cynthia Kunsman at the unnamed apologetics organization’s national conference, held at xxxxxxx Seminary in March 2008. After reviewing her presentation, the board of unnamed apologetics organization and the administration of xxxxxxx Seminary concur that Mrs. Kunsman made unwarranted and misinformed accusations against Christian teachers and ministries, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention. While several aspects of the "Christian Patriarchy" movement (exemplified by Vision Forum) merit study and correction, in this instance the speakerʼs criticism of alleged "influences" on this movement was faulty.

Cindy said in her presentation that the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically Russ Moore, Bruce Ware, Paige Patterson, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have influenced the statement of faith, church practices, and strategies of Vision Forum Ministries and her controversial patriarchal pastor and leader Doug Phillips and the emphasis on Family Integrated Churches.

FOLLOW THIS LINK

TO THE REST OF PASTOR BURLESON'S

BLOG POST....

Tweet

Eternal Procession Does Not Equate to Eternal Priority

From Bruce A. Ware’s

Tampering with the Trinity:

How the Trinity Relates to Gender Roles

An Mp3 audio download from CBMW

(Quotes from the audio are 

displayed below in blue text)

Speaker Bruce Ware:

"But is it not obvious that Jesus said over and again throughout His ministry that He was sent to do the will of the Father -- over thirty times in John’s Gospel, this is the case… " "Clearly a central part of the notion of Father is that of Fatherly authority. Certainly, this is not all there is to being the Father, but while there is more, there certainly is not less or other. 

[Blog Host says “????”] The masculine terminology used of God throughout Scripture portrayed in masculine ways had authority over His people. 

"While the early church clearly embraced the full, essential equality of the three Trinitarian Persons, nonetheless, the church has always affirmed likewise the priority of the Father over the Son and the Spirit.

[Blog Host says “????” This is a logical leap of presupposition and an all inclusive statement that the speaker’s own definition is not even true of the “egalitarian feminist church.”] 

"Since this priority cannot be rightly understood in terms of essence or nature, -- Why? – Why does the Father not have priority in terms of essence or nature to the Son or the Spirit? Whose nature does the Son possess? The identically same nature as the Father. Whose nature does the Spirit possess? The identically same nature as the Father and Son. So this priority cannot be in terms of essence, because they are equal in essence more than my wife and I are equal in essence."

[Blog Host says: Certainly if, by the speaker’s own profession elsewhere, women are the indirect image of God!]. 

My wife and I are both image of God – we are both equal in essence but we’re equal as “same kind of things.” We’re both human beings, image of God. The Father, Son and Spirit are equal in essence because of identity. They have an identically same essence. Not just same kind – Same. Same essence. Okay?" 
"So. The early church fathers could not speak of priority in terms of essence, so it must be in terms of relationship. Not essence, but relationship. As Augustine affirmed that the distinction of persons is constituted precisely by differing relations among them, in part manifest by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son. This is most clearly seen in the eternal Father-Son relationship in which the Father is eternally the Father of the Son and the Son is eternally the Son of the Father."

[Blog Host says: But this is not assumptive or inextricably bound to hierarchy or an eternal command/submission paradigm but is a description of relationship that might not be characteristic of a father and son at all ages. Is Christ eternally a young, innocent who lacks wisdom and the shrewdness of experience? This statement neither supports nor denies an eternal, vertical hierarchy of authority. This is a logical leap of presupposition.]. 

But some might wonder, does this convey and eternal authority of Father and the eternal submission of the Son?" "Hear how Augustine discusses both essential equality of the Father and Son and the “eternal-functional” subordination of the Son. This is Augustine’s words now, quote:"  

"'If the reason why the Son is said to have been sent by the Father, is simply that the one who is the Father and the other is the Son, then there is nothing at all to stop us from believing that the Son is equal to the Father and con-substantial and co-eternal.' So they are both equal in essence and yet that the Son is sent by the Father not because one is greater and the other less but because one is Father and the other is Son. So it’s the relational difference between them not their essential difference.” 

[Blog Host says: But their essential difference is not limited to nor need it be defined by an eternal hierarchy. This is a logical leap of presupposition.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETERNAL PROCESSION DOES NOT EQUATE

TO ETERNAL PRIORITY

This was my thesis before I found the writing of Giles and the cry of my heart. I offer it here for those who call me misinformed. Bruce Ware is making three Gods of the One by shoving God into his own finite ability to understand and comprehend the infinite wonder of God – He who is so beyond the capacity of the creature who can only see in terms of human relationship. We know in part and see through the glass darkly, yet we rest in faith – that faith which God imparts through the miracle of spiritual discernment. 

We understand the relationship of Father to Son and Son to Father, and through the limitations of the analogy of being. We can only comprehend that which we know, for that which is greater than us is beyond our comprehension. James Sire discusses this at length in “Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling.” 

We can only describe what we know and have already comprehended, like A Square in Flatland. In finite terms, like a small child describing the wisdom of his parent concerning the most complex tasks of the human understanding of the adult, we come to the Persons of the Godhead with the limitations of our being, like Job when God asked him “Were you there?” I place my hand over my mouth before Him. (I am not willing to do so before those who subordinate my Savior, however.) 

It seems that Dr. Ware cannot comprehend God beyond a relationship of hierarchy and a vertical order of succession, but love, compassion, empathy and sacrifice can easily replace these hierarchy and roles. He offers the example of roles and relationships as the distinctions, and the distinctions are in such human terms that they demean the Lord Jesus, making Him much like a human child of a “supreme” Father. Yet he claims also that the Divine Persons are equal in all respects while in terms of authority and primacy he describes them as not equal at all. 

I assert that these anthropomorphic limitations confine the infinite, bound by the limits hierarchy. They are the Three in One, they cannot be Three apart from the one --neither in authority nor in essence. Our Brother Ware offers arguments and paragraphs of many sentences and builds an argument, but always, there is a sentence that leaps back into the presupposition of a hierarchy, that which is unrelated to the arguments. In my reading, these topics all begin with the a priori assumption of hierarchy and they end with it. There are some lovely prose and rhetoric in between. 

The Divine Three are not in fellowship and harmony of fluid dance in his view but are only in a performance-oriented perception in very human terms. He quotes absolutely sound statements of Augustine that acknowledge the con-substantial and co-eternal relationship of the Father and the Son and repeats their relationship to one another, but this neither supports nor disproves an hierarchy authority of performance-focused and role-focused value. 

It as if, to me, he says “The sun is warm and the day is clear therefore this proves that the sun is golden and the sky is blue.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

Each separate morsel of evidence offered is lovely and true unto itself, but they neither proceed to nor support his thesis in my reading or hearing. Ware offers Augustine to validate his thesis of human hierarchy, and I would use this very same statement of Augustine’s to support the relationships of the Father and Son in their fluid, mutual submission dance out of love and honor and respect within the very heart of God (Themselves) as the very nature of the Divine Three. 

It is, oh, so subtle, but this is man’s sophistry to me. Dr. Ware’s arguments contain many Scriptural principles and many true statements, but he cannot escape the presupposition of hierarchy that weaves these things together to support his initial presumption. He has not proven anything with Biblical evidence but has built an argument that, for me, is full of holes of eisegesis. He might well say the same of my view, but I am not risking the Deity of Christ Jesus in the process. Augustine wrote at the end of his preface as he endeavored to understand the Trinity:

“Let us hold fast to this rule, that what has not yet become clear to our intellect may still be preserved by the firmness of our faith.”

I do not have all the answers and only finite boxes into which to put them. But I have sufficient grace through the Word that God has written in my heart and mind by the Spirit and through the study of my Love, the Word. As Augustine’s own motto declares, I have “faith that seeks understanding.” I do not have understanding that then seeks to find faith which is the dilemma of the Christian existentialist, so prevalent in the church today. 

This human analogy is certainly lesser than the full realization of the mind and perspective of God, and I am like a small child on the lap of my Abba, the Mind of the Ages. I will not, as I believe Van Til once described, dare to presume to crawl up on His lap and proceed to slap Him in the face. 

I offer here another quote of Augustine that transcends the anthropomorphic concept that Jesus is one with no authority to hear prayer, who by role and relationship is like a mere “special purpose God,” powerless to do anything other than that which He is hierarchy-bound to do. I fall prostrate and undone before the Holy, Holy, Holy Throne, in awe of Him, of That which is joyfully beyond my finiteness but yet still my substance and evidence through faith.

From Augustine's preface to Book 8 , De Trinitate

Thus the Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God;
The Father is good, The Son is good, The Holy Spirit is good,
And the Father is omnipotent, The son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; But yet there are not three Gods,
nor are there three goods,
nor are there three omnipotents,

But one God, one good and one omnipotent,

the Trinity itself.

Tweet

I'll See Your Quote and Raise You One

A friend of mine sent me this good quote from Chesterton this weekend:

"The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air." 

~G.K. Chesterton~

I forwarded the email off to my husband who sent me this email in response:

Good Quote – Thank You Now here is a good one from Harry Blamires: "If Christians cannot communicate as thinking beings, they are reduced to encountering one another only at the shallow level of gossip and small talk. Hence the perhaps peculiarly modern problem – the loneliness of the thinking Christian."

These quotes serve as good descriptors of my thoughts and concerns over the past few days, and they are both too good to go unnoticed. I offer them here as encouragement for those others who resist tyranny before it exists -- all those lonely, thinking Christians out there who dare to dig below the shallow levels of our peculiarly modern problems.

Tweet

Thought Provoking

Saw another version of this on
Wade Burleson's blog.

Need I say more?


From net_efekt's photostream on Flickr
(Thank you!)






Another good quote from a wise guy with silver hair:

Grace That Runs Well

"For the grace of God... [teaches] us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Like a car battery, grace has a negative and positive side. It will not run on just one effectively.

The old-school grace preachers majored, for the most part, on the negative. But the new-school emphasizes, almost entirely, the positive. The former ends up with a grace-less grace; and the latter sadly ends with a grace that's disgraceful. Grace is limitless when it comes to what a person has done, but it has its limits as to what a person can do.

Grace never condemns, neither does it condone, it simply caresses.

From Richard Sandlin of "Sandlin Says"

Tweet

The Apologetics of Gender Hierarchy

Among the many odd things that I have heard recently regarding the patriarchy lecture, I am confused by the comment that I’ve portrayed all complementarians as being in favor of slavery. ???

Tweet

An Update on New Posts at "Not Under Bondage"

The Not Under Bondage website has new links and resources which you might find useful. I have been blessed with a marriage that has had it's share of problems, but I have not had experience with abuse, adultery or overt desertion. I defer to Danni Moss and her site and now to Barbara Roberts for their help and wisdom related to these matters. I'd also like to note Breakpoint's recent honest though disturbing report on domestic abuse in Christian marriage as well.


From an email update from
Not Under Bondage:
"Not Under Bondage:
Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion,"
a book by Barbara Roberts

On the resources page there are three new Stories by Survivors, all dealing with marriages where the abuser reformed:

- Bruce and Karen McAndless-Davis

- Joel and Kathy Davisson

- Paul Hegstrom

On the resources page there are three new articles:

- Bob Kerry "What forgiveness is, and what it isn't"

- Jeff Olsen "The difference between normal marital conflict and marital abuse"

- Jeff Olsen "Can the abusive spouse be the wife?"

There are also new items on the website's Links page.

- Mending the Soul Ministries

- When Love Hurts video series by RBC

- Abuse in the Parsonage

- The Macho Paradox:Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men can Help (book review)

- Life Skills International / Paul Hegstrom

Tweet

Patriarchy Lecture Part I of VII

“The Development and Practice for Patriarchy:

Cure for Cultural Decline or
New Gnostic Disease”

presented by Cynthia Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin, ND

Part I of VII

Video by Raphael Martinez of Spiritwatch Ministries

Note: Bibliography now posted at UnderMuchGrace.com

Please note clarifications below.

Stan Gundry taught at Moody Bible Institute for 11 years where he was Professor of Theology. For more than 20 years, he has been with Zondervan Publishing House where he now serves as Senior Vice President and Editor-in Chief.

Patricia Gundry is the host of EgaliTalk (http://www.egalitalk.com/), a blog that promotes egalitarian understanding, egalitarian principles, egalitarian practicalities, information useful to egalitarians, and serves as a sounding board for egalitarians.
.
.

Tweet