Posted on 12/31/2005 5:12:35 AM PST by Popman
VALLEY FORGE, Pa. (BP)–Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, Russell D. Moore said in a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Nov. 17 in Valley Forge, Pa.
Complementarianism is the view that men and women have been created equally in God’s image but have different, yet complementary, roles. Egalitarianism is the view that men and women have been gifted equally so that no role is limited to one sex.
Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, Moore said.
“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism – and our foremothers, too.”
Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, Moore said, because complementarians have not dealt sufficiently with the forces that drive the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.
This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to look inside themselves to find ultimate truth, Moore said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches hold complementarian views but practice egalitarianism, he said.
“Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so,” Moore said.
If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion of egalitarianism, Moore said, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely ordained station as head of the home and church.
Moore pointed out that the word “patriarchy” has developed negative connotations, even among evangelicals, in direct proportion to the rise of so-called “evangelical feminism,” a movement that began in the 1970s. But the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.
“Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – the God and Father of Jesus Christ,” Moore said.
“We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of Playboy or Ms. Magazine, to define the grammar of our faith.”
The model of biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, Moore said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.
The fatherhood of God is central to the Gospel and male headship, and, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, Moore said.
“Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, [but] they actually prove the opposite,” he said. “Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy – a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.
“This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded, then, in the overarching theme of all of Scripture – the summing up of all things in Christ [in Ephesians 1:10]. It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.
“To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship – a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ [in Hebrews 12:5-11].”
An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable “most moved mover” of open theism, he said.
A rejection of male headship leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, Moore said. He pointed to open theism (a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited) as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.
“Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different,” Moore said. “It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.”
Moore pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which “soft” complementarians seek to indict other complementarians for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, Moore said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.
This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a false egalitarian charge that says male headship leads to abuse, he said. Instead, Moore said, a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.
“Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied, big-tent complementarianism never can,” Moore said.
“And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children–calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families.”
visit any theological SEMANARY.....
/Narnia pagan nonsense
I think he was saying in a nice gibberish sort of way, that "many conservative and evangelical households" are just like the heathens down the street.
Is your cat using your computer this morning?
These men have twisted Scripture into something alien; something that in their own minds gives them license to lord over women their superior physical strength and in the process, terrorize their families into cowering, fearful, unhappy victims. These are men who generally have very low self-esteem, have issues with women that have not been resolved through therapy, and derive enormous satisfaction from behaving like power nazis in their own homes- the only place where the behavior is tolerated.
These are men who are living in sin- they are not living according to the Scriptural mandates for the roles of men and women in marriage, but according to their own fantasies of the "lowly" status of women, and their own perceived superiority.
Nowhere in Scripture can any validation of this behavior be found. I hope that your friend's situation can be made better at some point. She may have to leave the jerk.
OH! I get it!
Could be. I think he makes some reasonable points, and that, often, "mutual submission, negotiation and consensus" is code for "the man doesn't want to be bothered with the minutiae of life, like the credit card bill and the children's education."
Right, but it seems to contradict Moore.
Where exactly in the article does Moore contradict the principles of Ephesians?
Bear in mind, Moore is using these terms in the context of the way feminist use them.
These terms has semantic meaning to the radical feminist that are far different than the avg person.............which he should have pointed out.
It is being made better. She served him with divorce papers. He skipped the meeting with the judge and left the state with one of the kids.
And the judge threw the book at him.
That's a good point. Too much negotiation and consensus is just a waste of time, in my opinion. Many issues aren't worth the effort. If everything is being negotiated and compromised, that could indicate a power struggle in the marriage, which is certainly not the Biblical model.
I tend to disagree with using "feminism" as an explanation, though, because that suggests that men have no opportunity to take responsibility for their families, when they do. While it's true that some men are abusive and use religion as their excuse, and some are (in my opinion) overcontrolling out of genuinely loving motives, there are many who have made the choice not to make an effort outside their jobs and hobbies.
"These men have twisted Scripture into something alien; something that in their own minds gives them license to lord over women their superior physical strength and in the process, terrorize their families into cowering, fearful, unhappy victims. These are men who generally have very low self-esteem, have issues with women that have not been resolved through therapy, and derive enormous satisfaction from behaving like power nazis in their own homes- the only place where the behavior is tolerated.
These are men who are living in sin- they are not living according to the Scriptural mandates for the roles of men and women in marriage, but according to their own fantasies of the "lowly" status of women, and their own perceived superiority."
Perversely just like Muslims.
Something that needs to be kept front-and-center, IMO. The same passage which calls on wives to submit to their husbands also calls on husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. My wife is called upon to submit to my headship. I'm called upon to be crucified for her.
"Could we please re-negotiate this package, honey? I'm not sure this trade is as fair as I thought it'd be ..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.