Interesting article in CT about an Episcopal Baptist denomination in Georgia. No, not Georgia the American State, but Georgia the European nation.

According to William Yoder:

“There is a solemn procession to the altar. The choir is chanting. A bishop in a long, black robe and a full, gray beard swings an incense burner back and forth. We bow. We cross ourselves. It’s a typical Sunday service at the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia.

“Yes. Baptist.”

That is how Alexander Cuttino, an American pastor, recently described worship at the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia (EBCG), a denomination famous for its unusual method of contextualizing the gospel. The man behind those efforts: Malkhaz Songulashvili, archbishop of the EBCG.

It an interesting article about a group with an odd mix of Baptist theology, Eastern spirituality, and egalitarian views of ministry. Very intriguing story about its leader Malkhaz Songulashvili too. Steve Harmon also has a right up about the group too.

Sad news, last night we heard reports of the passing of Dallas Willard (known for his work on Christian spirituality) and Geza Vermes (known for his work on Jewish Roman history, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the historical Jesus).

On the CBE blog is an interesting piece, Is Egalitarianism a Slippery Slope? I used to think this, until I learned about a few egalitarian institutions that actually became more conservative over time (like McMaster Divinity College).

Excellent piece over at BAR on Herod the Great: Friend of the Romans and the Parthians. When I ask the students about the “Parthians” most stare at me with blank faces. And yet they successfully invaded Palestine in 40 BCE and were a constant throat to the Roman east.

Peter Leithart offers a Primer on Baptism.

The response, feedback, and debate stemming from Zondervan’s ebook series Fresh Perspectives on Women in Ministry has formally begun. Its causing a bit of a stir in Evangelical Anglican circles in Sydney and round about (wonder if Kath Keller is getting as much air time as Dicko and I are?).

Some reviews include:

Tamie Davis at Meet Jesus at Uni

Craig Schwarz at his blog These Infinite Spaces here, here, and here.

Dan Patterson at Otherness

But the biggest opening salvoes come from Moore Theological College faculty with Principal Elect Mark Thompson and head of the NT Department Peter Bolt heading up the rejoinders. These two criticisms do not engage the content of Dickson’s and my arguments, they are more like prima facie remarks in a court case, which set forth ad hominem arguments against the defendents (now remember, in rhetoric, there are two species of ad hominem arguments, the aggressive and the circumstantial; the duo are not making aggressive ad hominem arguments [e.g., Bird and Dickson are liberal whackos so just ignore them], but Thompson and Bolt both appeal to a set of particular circumstances that will negatively dispose their implied reader against the authors, yet without having to engage the substance of the author’s arguments – that’s what I mean by ad hominem).

Thompson (who I have engaged with in private correspondence and has graciously responded)  raises concerns about general egalitarian arguments that import historical reconstruction and theological categories over the plain reading of the text; the general danger of capitulating to cultural trends; and urges readers to be wary of anyone claiming a “fresh” interpretation of anything.  I actually agree with these points and thus fail to see how it impugns anything that I say in the ebook. In fact, I am all the more perplexed because I explicitly say much the same in the book! Coming to Bolt (Peter Bolt was my gracious doctoral examiner) wants to situate the ebooks in the genre of “Shift Story” analagous to William Dever and Bart Ehrman’s stories of their deconversion from faith (Mike Bird and Bart Ehrman is quite a juxtaposition). He equates changing one’s mind with Eph 4:14 and being tossed and blown around by waves and winds.  But I protest on the grounds as to whether people who changed their minds from egalitarian to complementarian like Al Mohler or Kath Keller could be construed as being similarly tossable and immature. Also, I think Eph 4:14 refers to people who are erratic and lacking maturity, you know, Calvinist one day, Arminian the next, then Greek Orthodox, then join a Richard Simmons weight loss clinic, then Independent Baptist, we know these people, they are fickle and easily fooled; but I hardly equate changing one’s mind a little bit on one issue with theological capriciousness (some still call me a complementarian for goodness sake!)  Again, I’m not sure how much mileage that criticism actually scores about what I actually say in the ebook. Bolt claims that change is good, as long as the change takes one towards  “truth, peace, God’s good order, life as we were created to be and for which Christ redeems us.” But that is precisely what Dickson and I would claim we have moved towards in changing our views. In any case, the charge, “He changed his mind,” does not strike me as a convincing rebutal about anything. But more will no doubt follow. Would be wonderful if we could have a day at the Priscilla and Aquilla Centre to set out these views with respondents and get into the ducks guts of the issues.

On Christmas Day and Boxing Day, Zondervan will release three ebooks about women and ministry from their series Fresh Perspectives on Women in Ministry. All for just $2.99.

If all your family brought you for Christmas was a pair of dish washing gloves, a left behind novel, and some cigarette flavored ice-cream, then make up for it by buying yourself one of these books:

Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Hair Cuts: A Case for Gender Equality in Ministry
Michael F. Bird (Christmas Day)

Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts, an original digital short by author Michael Bird, offers an engaging, incisive perspective on biblical gender equality and the egalitarian view—a preference for allowing women to hold teaching and leadership positions in ministry.

Hearing Her Voice: A Case for Women Giving Sermons
John Dickson (Boxing Day)

This original digital short by scholar and cultural commentator John Dickson presents an entirely new and convincing biblical argument for allowing women to preach freely in churches.

Then finally, to round up the series, Katherine Keller (wife of Tim Keller) has her own book on a similar topic:

Jesus, Justice and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry
Katherine Keller (Boxing Day)

This original digital short by author Kathy Keller, co-founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, offers a personal and challenging perspective on biblical gender roles and the complementarian view—a preference for reserving certain leadership positions in ministry for men.

I say well done to Jared Wilson for having the humility to take down the controversial post about marital sexuality and male dominance. He gives some explanation and apologies here.

I don’t think this retraction is a matter of caving into feminist zeal, but it is a mark of recognizing that talking about male-female relationships requires biblical precision, cultural nuance, and pastoral sensitivity. The offending post did not have these. While no malicious intent was made in the original post, the language used to describe a man penetrating and colonizing his wife etc., was grossly unhelpful and needlessly offensive to many.

No doubt some would like to have seen Jared dig in his heels to defy the feminist and egalitarian reaction (i.e., don’t show signs of being soft on gender issues even if you have to sound somewhat abusive towards women, cause sounding abusive is better than looking like you’ve capitulated to the feminists), but the fact that his post even made many complementarians feel very uncomfortable is testament enough to the incendiary nature of the post.

So I appreciate that sanity, sensitivity, and humility has shone through at the end. Jared has done the right thing.

Reminds me of a story of a young pastor talking to an older pastor:

Young Pastor: “How do I be a good pastor?”
Older Pastor: “Make good decisions!”
Young Pastor: “How do I make good decisions?”
Older Pastor: “Experience!”
Young Pastor: “How do I get experience?”
Older Pastor: “By making bad decisions!”

What is gaining notoriety around the blogosphere is a TGC post by Jared Wilson which gives an extensive quote from Doug Wilson about rape and sexual pathology. The huge grievance many folks have, and I’m one of them, is that the sexual act between men and women is described in terms of domination and power. Read this:

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

Okay, this is gonna be one of those posts.

Let’s remember what is being advocated here, neither of the Wilsons here supporting sexual violence against women, they are decrying it. There is no malicious intent towards wives or women here. The issue is more about patriarchy in sexuality than anything else. They do make a genuine effort to explain themselves here, esp. with their ethos that a husband should “serve and protect” his wife. Let’s recognize their explanations! However, the problem is that what is being advocated is still really, really, really bad: bad theology, bad marriage advice, and a bad view of marital sexuality. So let’s get to the criticism.

(1) What is being advocated is not remotely biblical! 1 Cor 7 talks very, very, very clearly about mutual submission in matters of sex in marriage, not male domination,  not male conquest, not female subjection, but submission to one another in matters of sex. And for the record, Song of Songs does look a wonderful egalitarian party in the bedroom with man and wife enjoying each other mutually. In addition, our Lord himself spoke about the two becoming one flesh, not one penetrating or colonizing another. We should use Jesus’ language for sexual intercourse, not patriarchal power language.

(2) The biggest problem I have is that some guys just do not understand the link between sex, language, and power. They do not comprehend that there is a cross-section between the way you use language about sex and the way you think about the opposite gender and the way that you treat your sexual partner. The language of penetrate, conquer, and colonize imply aggression, control, and disempowerment. What is more, the men who talk this way do not think about, consider, or perhaps even care about how this description of sex sounds to women.

(3) I thought the whole deal with complementarianism was that men and women were different but complementary. What is being advocated by the Wilsons is not complementarianism, but it is an extreme patriarchy that defines gender roles by power and subjection, not by their God-given distinctions. Could the real complementarians please have the testicular fortitude to stand up and rally against this perspective. Otherwise you chaps are gonna drift to the right and end up looking like a cross between Dr. Phil and the Taliban.

(4) Someone at TGC really needs to give an serious explanation as to why this post remains up, because this is harming the witness of the gospel, the offending language advocates grossly unbiblical views on sex, and it is demeaning towards the sexual relationship that men have with women. There is no shame in saying, we made a mistake.

(5) Sex is not what I do to my wife, it is something we do together.

See some more posts about this from Rachel Evans, Scot McKnight, and Daniel Kirk.

Nuff said, let the comments begin!

David Congdon has a series on “Trinity, Gender, and Subordination” over at The Fire and the Rose. I loved his first post, especially these remarks:

In responding to the evangelical position on trinity and gender, I will first articulate what I think is the most persuasive version of the eternal subordination of the Son, viz. the position advanced by Barth. I will demonstrate that Barth’s account, despite its apparent similarities to the complementarian argument, absolutely precludes drawing any conclusions about male-female relations. In fact, Barth’s account of trinitarian subordination actually undermines the evangelical position, even though, paradoxically, it is an instance of ontological, and not merely functional, subordination. I will then address the two presuppositions upon which the evangelical position is based: (a) a “social” doctrine of the Trinity, and (b) a divine-human analogy of being (analogia entis). I will further demonstrate that these same presuppositions have been and continue to be used in support of egalitarianism, but I will conclude by arguing that neither presupposition is theologically valid. In short, my thesis is this: the doctrine of the Trinity tells us absolutely nothing regarding the question of gender roles and women in ministry. The Trinity has no relation to the debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism. Any use of the doctrine for these purposes is indicative of a mistaken understanding of the triune being of God.

Hallelujah!

Sadly I won’t be at ETS/IBR/SBL this year due to medical advice to take a year off international travel.

But over at Cheese-Wearing Theology, Amanda MacInnis is encouraging women to attend ETS much as I did last year. She relates her own experiences of ETS attendance. She writes:

It was awesome!

So many scholars!

So many ideas!

So many books!

Joining in on the fray as well is Leslie Keeney at the Ruthless Monk, and she says that she is committed to ETS because:

The FIRST reason I am still committed to ETS is that I want to be in an organization that holds me accountable for what I believe. I also know myself well-enough to know that I need an organization that keeps me grounded in the Bible. Yes, I’m an egalitarian, but I’m a follower of Jesus first. The complementarian sitting across the table may not agree with me, but he shares my respect for Scripture and love for Jesus. And he keeps me on my toes.

The SECOND reason I think it’s critical for women to remain committed to ETS is the oft-repeated accusation that egalitarians don’t take the Bible seriously, allow society’s values to inform their interpretation, and just plain pick and choose what they want to believe. I’ve heard this same accusation about issues like predestination as well. And frankly, it’s insulting. Most egalitarians have spent long hours in study and prayer working througheverything the Bible has to say about the issue. (As, I’m sure, have most complementarians)

If and when the topic comes up in an environment like ETS (and believe me, I don’t go around the conference looking to engage in these types of conversations), the goal is not to change a person’s mind about the issue, but to demonstrate that egalitarianism is a viable, orthodox interpretation of Scripture. If egalitarians walk away from ETS, no one will be left to defend it as a respectable theological option.

The FINAL reason why it’s essential that women remain engaged with the ETS is that what happens within the ETS influences not only evangelical academics, but churches as well. The consequence of not maintaining a female presence in one of the most influential Christian organizations in the country may be having to watch as complementarianism becomes the default position for evangelicals everywhere. And while this is happening to some extent already, getting up and leaving the table altogether will make it inevitable.

I know things are tight for colleges and folks financially, but hey, that is why God gave us credit cards right. What is more, the Milwaukee economy is pretty depressed due to decreased beer sales, so all you female biblical studies professors and postgrad students have an economic and moral obligation to go to ETS this year in Milwaukee, to buy at least three beers (if you won’t drink them Dr. Preston Sprinkle will drink them for you), and save the Milwaukee economy, oh, and present a few good papers while you’re at it.

Note: Several years ago, in a cab in Philadelphia, the cab driver heard my accent, looked at me and asked if I was from Milwaukee. I asked, “What makes you think I’m from Milwaukee?” She said, “Well, you sound kinda funny and you look square and goofy!”

Square and goofy indeed!