Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

The second question I asked Moscow’s most well-known pastor is whether or not he believes and teaches that Jesus Christ, the Second Person in the Trinity, is eternally subordinate to the Father — not just subordinate to God the Father in the Incarnation (his time on earth as fully God and fully man), but eternally. I don’t have an answer yet, and I can’t guess how he feels about the issue, in the same way most of you can’t guess why in the world it is that I would ask such an arcane question.

But the doctrine of eternal subordination (Christ to God the Father) is, in fact, the primary theological defense employed by those complementarians who believe that women are to be eternally subordinate to men in church and at home. I’ll write more on the subject in subsequent posts, but evangelicalism is split these days between subordinationist complementarians and non-subordinationist egalitarians. The former believe that while Jesus and God are equal, of the same substance, both God, etc., Jesus is forever subordinate to God the Father in what they call “role” and “function,” as an earthly son is to his father. This is the essence of the Arian heresy, newly packaged in the last few decades to defend the subordination of women. It allows them to argue that “just as” Jesus is equal-but-subordinate, women are equal to men, and emulate Christ in being forever subordinate to them. I and a good number of evangelical scholars reject this out of hand — both the theology and the application.

Egalitarians, though, in denying the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father, argue that “Father” and “Son” are metaphorical terms, not literal counterparts to the father-son hierarchy that naturally occurs within families. Further, I contend from Scripture and from the creeds, particularly the Athanasian, that God exists eternally and equally, of equal substance and honor and with one will, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (By the way, “Father” here is less gendered than positional; God the Father has no body and we are created male and female in the image of our creator). There is no vertical hierarchy, no obedience, no ordering; the relationship in the Trinity is entirely mutual, with no Person ontologically or functionally subordinate to the other two Persons. Lamentably, this is another case where bad theology leads to bad practice. The initial argument is wrong, and the application — that women should “follow the pattern of Jesus” in willingly submitting in role and function to their ontological equals — is especially pernicious. Pastors of centuries past could simply defend female subordination by describing women as ontologically “less than” and functionally inferior; no pastor could hope to prosper with that message today, so a re-tooling of Trinitarian doctrine, an old heresy resurrected with a new purpose, is thought to be a better backdrop to the teaching of female subordination.

But what was heresy then is heresy now, and the application of bad theology will always result in bad practice. I hardly need to point out that women have suffered from un-Biblical subordination to men, and telling them that they are imitators of Jesus in accepting subordinate status always defames Him and too often destroys them. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are ontologically, in their very being and substance, entirely equal of worship and entirely possessing of Lordship. There is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Likewise, men and women are ontologically, in being and substance, completely equal and capable of gifted service to the Lord. There should be no automatic, gender-based hierarchy, which is an effect of the Fall and doesn’t reflect God’s original intent.

Women who serve humbly and bravely alongside men, using all of their Spirit-given gifts, imitate Jesus much better than those who’ve been told that while they’re “equal,” they’re just going to always be a bit lower than their men. In the Kingdom of God, biology isn’t destiny, and relationship isn’t vertical. Implementing those ideas in our homes and churches would be an excellent start in developing the Reign of God on earth as it is in heaven.

“. . . we ought not to be weary of doing little things for the love of God, who regards not the greatness of the work, but the love with which it is performed. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often failed in our endeavors, but that at last we should gain a habit, which will naturally produce its acts in us, without our care, and to our exceeding great delight.”
Brother Lawrence, The Practice and the Presence of God

A reader, commenting on yesterday’s “Quote of the Day” from D.L. Moody, quotes John Calvin in taking me to task for my previous questions to his pastor:

“. . . And this is the craftiness of Satan, to draw away the hearts of men from ministers, that instruction may gradually fall into contempt. Thus not only is wrong done to innocent persons, in having their reputation unjustly wounded, (which is exceedingly base in regard to those who hold so honourable a rank,) but the authority of the sacred doctrine of God is diminished…Not only so, but as soon as any charge against ministers of the word has gone abroad, it is believed as fully as if they were already convicted.”

Clearly I’ve struck a nerve here. A couple of points, though, need to be made.

First, Doug Wilson has a reputation already, and to people appalled by his words, it’s not an honorable one. It’s formed in the minds of those who are exposed to his works, and it’s one he not only feeds, but feeds publicly. I asked my question of a pastor with deplorable and reckless views on slavery, an admiration for one of the most racist theologians in Christian history, an affinity for the racist, slaveholding Confederacy, and a cheerful embrace of intolerance. His self-made reputation doesn’t allow for the presumption of racial egalitarianism. I’m glad he’s not in sin on this particular subject, and I’m glad I was pleasantly surprised — or, more bluntly, wrong in my assumption. But it’s a valid question, and he himself made the answer uncertain — so I asked. If his reputation is “wounded,” it’s not MY words that are at fault.

Second, the “sacred doctrine of God” has been diminished by his work, not my questions. I believe that much of what he teaches is not only a detriment to the Gospel, but a perversion of it.

Third, only the Holy Spirit can “draw men away” from their ministers, and I hope that He does draw Wilson’s followers not just away from Wilson, but toward a more Biblically faithful, Christ-conformed expression of Christian teaching and character. That is, unless Wilson repents and a fresh, powerful move of the Spirit dismantles all that he’s built and replaces it with temples of truth, justice, and love. No one would rejoice more passionately than I would if that were to happen, and if the Lord uses some of my words help accomplish this, then all glory to Him. But leaving behind Christ Church means nothing unless a different, better way is embraced, and while I have to, on occasion, refer to Wilson’s teachings, my intent is to use them, and him, as a springboard for a more faithful approach to Christ and faith in Him. Wilson isn’t the point of this blog; Christ is.

I’ve said before that I’m not a two-, three-, four-point or any kind of Calvinist, but I don’t disregard all of Calvin’s teachings. But I feel confident that this is a pastor Calvin would deeply desire his followers to depart from, and my intent in this blog is to lay the “straight stick” next to practices, doctrines, and conduct that I find crooked. Wilson is responsible for his reputation; I’m responsible for mine, and if I give reason for people to think badly of me, then questions regarding my character are fair game.

“The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not to argue about it, or to spend time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it.”
-Evangelist D.L. Moody

There is a common thread running through of all of these, dear reader — theology and politics, with two out of my three adventures in fiction, “The Shack” and “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” reflecting theological and historical themes. Only John Grisham’s “The Appeal” qualifies as mind candy, and I think this explains why I don’t get invited to all of the cool kids’ parties . . . my repertoire of cocktail chatter is a bit, ummmmm, lacking. But if you have any comments about these, or any books to recommend, please let me know.

My midway-through-August literary conquests:

Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
Black and Tan (the revision of “Southern Slavery As It Was”)
The War on Terror: How Should Christians Respond
When Women Were Priests
Every Knee Shall Bow: The Religious Right in America
Women in Southern Religions
I Suffer Not A Woman . . . 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and First-Century Gnosticism
A Pack of Lies
Women and Authority
Backward, Christian Soldiers?
Federal Vision: The Auburn Avenue Theology
The Shack
The Appeal
The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power
Stolen Innocence: How I Left the FLDS . . .
Christian Culture in a Multi-Cultural Age
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators
The Trinity and Subordinationism

Now that I’ve established the breathtaking diversity in my choice of reading materials, I’d like to ask what some of your most significant reads of 2008 have been. “The Shack” is the new hot thing in Christian fiction — a genre I’m grateful to know little about — and for all its faults as a work of literature, the theological view of the Trinity was refreshing and thought-provoking. “Christian Culture” was written by Steve Schlissel, a colleague of Doug Wilson’s. I found it full of tired calls for strong male headship, “family values,” and confrontation with culture; on the other hand, I also found “Every Knee Shall Bow,” a scathing indictment of the Religious Right, heavy-handed and unfair in its portrayal of much of evangelicalism. “Productive Christians” is a response from the Reconstructionist David Chilton to Ron Sider’s seminal book on social justice, “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.” Sider is a hero to me; I met him in Ontario last month at the Biblical feminism conference I attended, and he’s a warm, wise, and truly wonderful man. Chilton, on the other hand, was one of the first “Christians” to diagnose the problem of poverty as the ungodly envy poor people have for the wealthy, and his lack of compassion weaves through the book like a cobra in the brush. It’s a sterling example of how not to do Biblical hermeneutics, and I’ll likely not read anything that ugly for a very long time.

On the other hand, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” changed my life, and “The Appeal” seemed depressingly like Grisham’s previous 4,527 books.

Anyway, I’d appreciate any recommendations for some lively, provocative fiction. My family and friends are ready to do an intervention to break me away from yet another take on religion and politics . . .

“Peace if possible, but truth at any rate.”
Martin Luther

All of us swim in waters fouled by racism. Some are horrified at the filth, others gleefully stir it up before jumping in, and others tend not to notice, as long as it refreshes them. We know what racism is, we don’t generally see it in ourselves, we prefer not to see it in others, and unless it smacks us in the face, we think it’s no longer much of an issue — an indifference we can claim if we are of the Anglo majority culture, forgetting that that very indifference has allowed racism to flourish from the moment of this country’s birth.

And flourish it has, primarily through the failure of the Christian Church to condemn as sin anything that violates the spirit of the Gospel described in Galatians 3:28, the most revolutionary passage in the New Testament that announces that race, class, and gender were no longer barriers to full partnership and equality within the Body of Christ. Throughout history, the Church has acted as both a seething factory of prejudice and a soothing incubator for the prejudiced. Whether in 1860 among “Christian” slaveholders or 1960 among “Christian” pastors, the most hateful, virulent racist behavior was safely enabled, blandly accepted, and genuinely accommodated by an impotent, irrelevant Church bent on conforming not to the character of Christ but to the comfort of its own sinful culture. Where racism flourished, faithful, Spirit-led women and men often acted to confront and correct it, and all too often were derided as “Godless liberals” and agitators. (There is no revision of history that allows Quakers, abolitionists and social reformers to be cast off as “Godless,” when the majority saw fidelity to Jesus Christ as the single motivating factor for their efforts). God help a church unwilling to agitate for justice; God have mercy on one, then and now, that would condemn its brothers and sisters in Christ for fighting against the very evil they insist on holding on to.

Thus the Christian Church’s efforts to eradicate racism were defeated by others who took the name of Christ, preached it from the pulpit, and then fattened themselves off the blood and sweat of men and women purchased as livestock, refreshed themselves at segregated lunch counters and fountains, and applauded the formation of a society that, in violation of the ethic of Galatians 3:28, insisted on a “God-given” social order that knelt to white patriarchy while bringing the poor to their knees. The horror of racism outside of the church is surpassed only by the horror of racism within, and while there are skinheads, neo-Nazis, and kinists in “Christian” churches all over the country, most of society now sees them as evil, and most pastors shy away from anything that even appears to flirt with racist thought or behavior.

But we’ve gotten comfortable, and we’ve gotten sloppy. We believe ourselves to be free from racial prejudice, we act outraged when we see instances of racist behavior, and we assume that this is one problem society, and the Church, can cross off its list. And so we accept revisionist history, bad theology, simplistic political theory, and a definition of racism either so bland or so irrelevant as to guarantee safe passage when it does arrive. We condemn only the most egregious actions and lack the willingness to examine less-obvious examples, the discernment to understand the lofty speech that often uses code words — “states’ rights,” “traditional,” “social order” — to allow racism to seep into every crack of American society. We want racism to announce itself, big, bright, and ugly, if it’s going to appear at all. But like all evil, racism is crafty. And I fear that we are not far from the time that, lulled into a sense of complacency after a job neither well done nor finished, we’ll find that “the new normal” in the Church may well be the vicious toxins of old, repackaged for a modern audience that won’t notice and won’t care.

Well, because I haven’t taken a good picture since my driver’s license photo of 1983, and yeah, I’m a bit vain. So why bother at all? It’s because I think it makes it more personal, less anonymous, and is one way to hold myself more accountable for what I write. Anyway, I’ll get a better one up soon, although the ’83 driver’s license shot does set the bar wayyyy high . . .

Doug Wilson has answered my question about interracial marriage, and I’m pleased to say that he says he’d have no problem with officiating at the marriage of a Black Christian and a White Christian. My guess was wrong, and I’m very pleased that it was. I thank him for answering, and I thank God that he answered as he did. While we disagree greatly on slavery and on many other things, both theological and societal, I’m thrilled that race is not an issue when it comes to marriage in the Kirk.

Oh, no. Not the slavery thing again.

Who is she to jump on bad theology? Why does she think she can publicly rebuke anyone?

Isn’t this just quibbling over non-essentials?

Doesn’t this cause disunity in the Body of Christ, all this criticism and attention to error?

What good does any of it do, anyway?

Yes, I’ve read the thought bubbles over many of your heads; no worries, though, because I’ve heard it all before. I’ve lived in Moscow for about six and a half years, and for most of that time I’ve been discussing the effect of Christ Church on our community. I don’t think it’s a good one, and mine has been a pretty lonely voice, given the silence of Moscow’s pastors and other Trinitarian Christians. No one elected me to represent them, and I don’t — I speak for myself and only myself, and no one else is responsible for my words. But why would I bother tilting at this particular windmill, with its towering presence and serrated blades? And what gives me the right, anyway?

“Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints . . .” (Jude 3). The theology and practice, conduct and community, of Christ Church doesn’t represent the faith “once for all entrusted to the saints,” and this Scripture and others tell me to contend — to plead earnestly for — the truth of the Gospel. Terrifying a thought as it might be to some, I and other Christians are, Jesus said, those saints to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. I’m called, and it matters.

There is no other question more important in a person’s life than what to do with Jesus Christ. By his grace, I’ve chosen to live for him. When I see, then, a church that doesn’t represent well the character of Christ or his teachings, tha’s a threat to the Gospel I’m supposed to contend for. Simply put, I don’t want people to reject Jesus because of what they see coming from Anselm House. But it’s not enough to criticize the wrong and confront the wrongdoers, and that’s why my next posts will suggest a “Third Way of the Cross” in thinking about race and poverty.