Radical by David Platt, an Alabama pastor, did get a lot of things right — but did not address several issues that would have made it more balanced. That’s what I wrote in my review last week. But a few related topics remained, some leftovers I wasn’t able to get into that review.

For instance, there’s the main theme of chapter 6, “How Much is Enough?” The question, and much of the chapter, reference Mark 10 and its description of Jesus’ encounter with a rich man.

Platt summarizes the account, ending with the rich man’s dejected departure from Jesus, clearly not wanting to follow Jesus’ commandment to sell all he has and follow Him. God bless Platt, he focuses on the truth that the rich man didn’t just have a moral failing. “Fundamentally, the rich man needed a new heart, one that was radically transformed by the gospel,” Platt writes.

Radical’s author also focuses on two errors people derive from the passage: acting as if the New Testament commands all Christians to sell all they have, or assuming that “Jesus never calls his followers to abandon all their possessions to follow him.

“This means he might call you or me to do this,” Platt notes.

But how would we know that? The author stops short of offering thoughts. What solution will fill the empty space? My concern: all those assumptions about listening for some “inner leading” from God, a nudge or a pull this direction or that, are still around. And many Christians will lurch toward them automatically.

Yes, a longer discussion of discerning God’s will would take more time. But Platt was good at including other disclaimers. A short aside like this would have helped: We can’t know for sure if God wants you to sell all you have. That’s another topic (try so-and-so book about it). But we do know Scripture doesn’t support some ideas of listening for God’s “inner nudge.” Our only sure source of knowing God’s will in advance is the written Word.

Without such disclaimers, Radical could permit wrong ideas to enter readers’ minds. To be sure, that’s often not an author’s fault. But Platt’s other asides, such as the hmm-hmm-maybe-that’s-naughty line about French fries, contribute (likely unintentionally) to a guilt-inducing edge. ¹

As Kevin DeYoung notes in his critical, though friendly review:

To his credit, Platt says we don’t need to feel guilty for everything that is not an absolute necessity (127). But earlier we are made to feel bad for the money we spend on french fries (108). It is easy to stir people to action by relating how little everyone else has and how much we have in America, but we are not meant to have constant low-level guilt because we could be doing more.

Even more than Platt’s French fries part, this aside from page 77 provoked my raised eyebrow:

In all this missions talk, you may begin to think, Well, surely you’re not suggesting that we’re all supposed to move overseas. That is certainly not what I’m suggesting (thought I’m not completely ruling it out!).

And why not completely rule that out? No — let’s completely rule it out! If the entire body were in overseas missionary work, where would the sense of domestic missionary work be? If the entire body were on the missionary dole, where would the sense of financial support be?

It doesn’t take much to show why Christians should avoid even hinting that one ministry calling would be better than another. That is true even if they’re passionate about certain ministries, such as overseas missionary work. And I argue it’s true even if a Christian book’s audience may be the sorts of people who truly need to consider that their callings may be greater than preserving their American Dreams and leaving the harder missionary work to Those People.

Platt’s lyrics may say all the right things. I just wonder if he let slip some assumptions about the best Christian living, however unintentionally, in the music of his asides and anecdotes.

(Loosely continued from yesterday’s column, Law and love — did Jesus contradict God?)

How many steps is it from confused Christianity to non-Christianity? When it comes to the question of how Jesus Christ and His love relate to God’s Law, it’s only a few:

1. Biblical truth: Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
2. Step down, still true, but less clear: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to fulfill it.
3. Step down, questionable: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to love.
4. Step down, more questionable: God now doesn’t uphold the Law, but only loves.
5. Step down, un-Biblical belief: God doesn’t punish breakers of the Law, but only loves.

In just one simple, four-step process, with slight modifications — perhaps over generations, perhaps over only a few years in one church — a Biblical position becomes un-Biblical. Thus a slight confusion about how Jesus relates to the Law turns into universalism.

And some Christians may act or think like Universalists even if they do not believe everyone in the world will somehow, someday, eventually be saved.

For example, nowadays there’s a derivative view out there that greatly resembles universalism. Proponents refer to this by other names, such as the wider mercy view. From what I’ve read, that refers to God’s mercy supposedly being wider than we often think, and in fact, the most extreme versions of this view claim that people can be saved without consciously repenting of their sins and professing faith in Jesus Christ.

Teaching vacuums

I can understand a few factors contributing to this view.

1. “God is love.” Evangelicals have long overcorrected for notions — which apparently arose from somewhere in the past — that God was a mean tyrant. But for years many of our best and brightest have been saying “God is love” without defining love, or the “rest of” God — including His character traits of holiness, justice and sovereignty.
2. “Make a decision.” Many have overdone the call for a response to the Gospel, as if God Himself is not powerful enough to save someone unless he/she “opens the door” to let Him do it. In response, some others may ask, even if only subconsciously, “why do we think God so powerless”? And to compensate for one extreme, some may lapse into yet another extreme idea: surely God is big enough to save people without their response.
3. “What about those who have never heard?” Though answers to this question can be tricky, Christian leaders and teachers should not shy away from it. A vacuum of teaching about God’s sovereignty and man’s sinfulness (which says: those who have never heard are still guilty for what they do know) leads to the wrong answers filling the space.

From some professing Christian universalists, or “wider mercy” proponents, I’ve heard the reasoning: oh no, this doesn’t mean we believe God is unjust, or fails to punish evil. One person once told me he believes God will punish evil, just not in the ways we assume, etc.

But our intent should not be to maintain a Theology System, whether or not it has all the reasonable facsimiles we’d like of all the moving parts. Rather: does a System follow Scripture?

Apparently enough evangelicals have expressed doubts about whether conscious repentance and belief in Jesus really is the only way to God, that author/pastor John Piper has written a book on the topic. Last week The Gospel Coalition posted a review, which I’ll excerpt here. Based on Scripture alone — not hopes, emotional appeals, or definitions of Biblical terms and themes based not on Scripture but outside sources — it’s wrong to claim anyone is saved without a conscious repentance and faith in Christ.

Is conscious faith in Christ necessary for salvation? According to Piper, it is. His argument comes in four parts. First (chapter four), Christ’s first coming triggered a shift in the history of salvation. The “mystery of Christ” has been revealed,  (Rom 16:25-27; Eph 3:4-10). The “times of ignorance” are past, and God now calls all peoples to turn to him (Acts 17:30-31). Jesus “is now openly installed and declared as Judge, and he alone can receive the appeals for acquittal” (76).

Second (chapter five), the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) shows that true God-seekers still need the gospel. Cornelius was not saved apart from the gospel. He was saved through it.

Third (chapter six), the apostolic message was that men are saved by Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12; Rom 9:30-10:21). Nowhere do we see men saved unaware. All are saved by an explicit confession of Christ. And this comes only through the preaching of Christ.

Fourth (chapter seven), the missionary vision of Paul and John called for repentance and faith of all. Their message was “Repent and believe, and you will be saved.” It was never, “Great news, you’ve already been saved!” They preached the necessity of explicit repentance and faith to both Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18) and Jews (Acts 13:38-52).

As if that Biblically based reasoning wasn’t enough to overthrow “wider mercy,” I’m also still trying to figure out why “wider mercy” proponents seem to deny man’s free will. Do they really believe in a God who won’t respect a person’s meaningful choice to go on hating Him?

No one is saved apart from conscious faith in Christ and the Gospel. Jesus died not to show us that God had moved on from all that Law stuff, but to fulfill the Law’s requirements and to make possible a person’s repentance and faith. To imply that all are saved, or will be saved, is a blatant lie, trying to be more “spiritual” than God — and it does not love others.

In their haste to assure people that God is love, many evangelicals go a little too far — and may not even mean to do that. In worst cases, they imply that Jesus came to show a “new way” that contradicts what God said before. Despite our intentions, this doesn’t help the Gospel.

Part of this is because people don’t teach, or learn, well about the changes between Covenants. That involves more than saying, as an acquaintance of mine wrote the other day:

“You have heard that it was said…”
Where was it said? In the Old Testament
“…You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”

My online acquaintance then referenced Psalm 139:20-22 as supposedly one example of the wrong kind of hate-your-enemy thinking that went on before Jesus Christ arrived on Earth to change our thinking.

But in the New Testament Jesus changes that and says what we need to do now, for the New has come.

I think I understand what my friend was trying to say. But this could bring even more confusion than clarity. Any hearer, whether Christian or non-Christian, would be forced to conclude that Jesus came along and contradicted a real portion of God’s Law!¹

Though I’m sure you didn’t mean to be this way, this is incorrect. If you think harder about it I’m sure you’ll see what I mean. Was the Psalmist wrong to think such thoughts? Was Jesus saying the Law had previously said that “you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy”? If so, where is that passage of the Law? And if God did give that commandment, is Jesus saying God was wrong?

Many people wrongly conclude that Jesus’ “new way” just overrules the Law. Not so. Christians who downplay the Law, and its real and current role in the world, are at risk of trying to be more “spiritual” than Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn’t just release people from the Law’s burden. He increases it, by reminding us that true violations are in our hearts, not in our deeds! Only He Himself can remove its burden.

2. Jesus does not oppose the Law. He opposes false views of it. He decries the often-willing ignorance of some people, in particular religious hypocrites. Such people refuse to see that the Law pointed to Him as the One Who relieves its burden for those who repent and believe Him.

3. And Jesus did not come to overthrow the unfair, too-hard Law. He came to fulfill it.

1. Jesus fulfills, not abolishes, the Law.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” [Matthew 5:17]

Lest anyone think Jesus came to offer anything different from the Law, He directly denied it. “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” He said. I wonder: if I had been Jesus (scary thought), and I had wanted to tell people for sure that the true Law was not dead and gone or unnecessary for anyone in the present day, how would I have communicated this more clearly?

If Jesus actually did abolish the effects of the Law, here He was lying or obscuring the truth.

3. We should not downplay the Law.

“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”

These seem like very strong words: those who try to downplay the Law and its truths aren’t just misguided, naïve or doctrinally wrong, but they “will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

That just makes me want to wipe my brow and pray I won’t be too cavalier about the Law!

God’s standards are just as holy today as they were back then. Jesus hasn’t lowered the standard; here, He has just made it higher and more strict than ever. If He hadn’t made it clear here and elsewhere that He Himself was the fulfillment of that standard, and died and rose again to prove it, people might still be calling Him a “legalist” today.

That comes from a series I wrote for YeHaveHeard.com called God’s Law and Jesus’ love. Would you consider reading that, so you can help Christians not imply that God’s Law is the bad stuff, and now we have “a new way” that makes the Law no longer important?

When Jesus said “you have heard that it was said,” he is not quoting Scripture. Whenever He does quote Scripture, He is much clearer about it. Instead, He is quoting a popular phrase of the day — a “law” that people may have made up, based on the real Law. And He says that His way is higher than that of the made-up Law.

Read Mark 7, and you’ll see that He does the same thing with the Pharisees. He does not offer “a new way” that is less harsh than the Law. He makes it clear that God’s standard is still the actual Law and the hearts of people. Otherwise, why in the world would people need His mercy and His death on the cross? People may believe (horribly!) that “God’s love” means they don’t need to repent of their sins and believe Jesus alone is the way they can be saved.

Meanwhile, I’ve collected the four-part God’s Law and Jesus’ love miniseries into a complete article, available here. Again I’m seeing how a seemingly small error (“Jesus came to change what God said”) can give rise to even worse mistakes — the worst of which is universalism.

(Continued from yesterday’s excerpts from pastor/author Kevin DeYoung’s recent post …)

Earlier this year, DeYoung also went through seven common Scripture passages that are often used to support notions of “social justice” in secular society. He shows how such texts can’t be taken out of the context of God’s redemptive history and used for mere social improvement, and addresses many truths about what Scripture actually does say.

My contention is that these passages say more and less than we think, more about God’s heart for justice than some realize, and less about contemporary “social justice” than many imagine.

And my wish is that DeYoung will sometime adapt this series into a book.

Seven Passages on Social Justice (1)

Isaiah 1: Can we take God’s condemnation of Judah then and apply it to our society now?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (2)

Isaiah 58: Does Scripture support stopping perceive wealth inequities as “social justice”?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (3)

Jeremiah 22: Whom did God critique — Judah’s rulers, or all Judah’s people? If so, what for?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (4)

Matthew 25:31-46: When Jesus describes caring for “the least of these,” who does He mean?

(If you read any of these columns, read this one. It’s the first place I heard it clarified, with Biblical balance yet careful exegesis, that “the least of these” has a more-specific meaning.)

Seven Passages on Social Justice (5)

Amos 5: Back in the Old Testament — who defines real “justice,” God or modern-day activists?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (6)

Micah 6:8: Does Scripture here vaguely endorse improving society, or outline specific injustices?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (7)

Luke 4:16-21: Did Jesus claim He came to Earth to focus on “the materially destitute and the downtrodden […] to bring the year of jubilee to the oppressed […] to transform social structures and bring God’s creation back to shalom” (as opposed to that whole dying-on-the-Cross business)? Or did He mean something else here: not helping the downtrodden achieve justice in this world, but sinners to awake from their spiritual death and delight in Himself?

“God, I thank you that I am not an Evangelical Arminian. They drive me insane, filling churches with false converts and talking only about Man’s Free Will, ignoring Your sovereignty over all. They swallow up any teaching without discernment and don’t care about systematic theology.

“But I have my shelves full of textbooks about doctrine, and I study them hard, as often as I can, and make it a point to talk about my favorite parts with everyone I meet. I avoid pastors who talk too much about human choice and don’t make sure to clarify every single time that really it is God’s choice anyway. I read only nonfiction and don’t need to expose myself to impractical things. And I listen only to expositional sermons about favorite Scripture passages.”

“God, I thank you that I am not like those Megachurch Christians, so huge and impersonal, with all their lights and sound and programs. They compromise truth with the world and don’t care if they look no different to unbelievers. They ignore the Bible and prefer their own ideas.

“But I avoid such showmanship and focus on doing church simply and traditionally, the way you want it. Instead my church has hymns and organs. I learn all about truth and the need to obey. We all know each other and are aware of each other’s problems. And we have only one service on Sunday mornings instead of worldly concerts at hip-sounding times on Saturday nights.”

Patriarchy. To some readers this could sound, well, patriarchal — chauvinistic, anti-woman, rolling back the rights won by suffragists, resulting in manipulative behaviors, unloving lifestyles, and even domestic violence and abusive fathers.

But to others the term connotes a more-Biblical lifestyle; a rejection of feminism, anti-life attitudes and abortion; the natural conclusion of homeschooling, and/or a return to a safer and more secure mode of life that respects men, returns women to their place in the home and ensures sons and daughters won’t fall prey to worldly influences.

Until last week, YeHaveHeard only included one column touching on the topic, An open letter to newbie homeschoolers (Dec. 2, 2009). Before that, I’d written more about the subject on my old site, FaithFusion.¹ Yet throughout this week, patriarchy, families, fathers’ roles and children’s obedience will be in direct focus, starting with this, the first of a five-column series.

Last week’s open-letter-styled Sure you want to support Vision Forum? named one of patriarchy’s chief proponents, a homeschooling-oriented organization based in Texas.

But my intent isn’t to be just another “watchblog” and go after names and offices. Not that I’m disregarding those either, but I hope to focus not on personalities, but on vital doctrinal issues.

There is a risk to doing this: it’s not like all problems are solved by picking on patriarchalism. After all, they’re often the ones who teach as if all our problems will be solved simply by seeing the dangers of feminism — and that can too easily result in chauvinism. But it’s a start: seeing more clearly what the Bible doesn’t say.

That’s a lot of isms. Before proceeding into what patriarchy proponents believe, let’s lay out how this series will define the three “main” views of male/female roles.

I’m sure people hold to many overlapping subsets of these — for example, some who practice egalitarianism may not even know the term, or do not believe women should be pastors over congregations. But most Christians’ beliefs about men and women can be categorized like this:

1. Patriarchy or patriocentrism

In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.²

This view, advocated by organizations such as Vision Forum or others who like the word “vision” (such as “Visionary Daughters”), emphasizes that a husband/father is the head of his household — patriarchy, similar to how families behaved in the Old Testament.

Some patriarchy preachers even teach about a father being equivalent to the “priest” of his family, representing his wife and children to God. And many other lifestyle choices are based in Old Testament descriptions of, say, King Saul giving his daughter in marriage to David.³

With a man as the head of his household, a wife submits to him, and she, along with their sons and daughters, join in to fulfill his vision for the family. Closely affiliated with these tenets is the belief that one should seek “a full quiver” (Psalm 127: 4-5) — i.e., have as many children as possible.⁴

Daughters, especially, must train as “helpmeets” for their own husbands, if they marry, by serving their father until such time as he finds them husbands.

Many of these beliefs are not inherently anti-Scripture: for example, though many Christians may argue against keeping daughters at home until marriage, or arranged marriage, nothing in the Bible expressly forbids these practices. However, they are also not commanded in Scripture. And to say these beliefs are as Biblical as Scripture’s most important messages, especially the Gospel, leads to problems. If nothing else, some “patriarchy” practitioners, or patriarchalists, teach and act as if their auxiliary beliefs are as vital as the Gospel — at best a risky message.

2. Egalitarianism or feminism

There may be other verses used to support the idea that in Christianity, men and women have not only equal value, but nearly equal roles. Yet Galatians 3:28 is the main one I’ve heard to support this belief in egalitarianism.

Many egalitarians use this is a “filter verse” to interpret many other sex-roles-related Scripture passages, such as Paul’s interesting instructions about head coverings.⁶ In this view, because we already know “there is no male or female … in Christ Jesus,” it makes sense to conclude men’s and women’s roles need not be diverse or unique.⁷

In effect egalitarians’ definition of equal means there is little or no difference how husbands’ and wives’ roles function at home. So while a husband may be his family’s main provider, it’s fine for a wife to work outside the home as well (perhaps with their children in public school).

From what I’ve seen, this leads to lessened emphasis of unique traits of men and women, or boys and girls. Some Christian egalitarians believe women may even serve as pastors in a church; after all, we are all one in Christ, and we don’t want to be chauvinistic.

As one woman once kindly argued to me, to say otherwise would be to limit God’s gifts to members (such as a woman with a teaching gift). That in effect would say to certain parts of the body, “I have no need of you,” she said, a violation of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 12 that the body of Christ has members with diverse gifts.⁸

Most patriarchalists seem to base their views upon reactions against egalitarianism/feminism. From what I have read and seen, patriarchalists are either ignorant of the third belief, which I believe to be more Biblical — or else view it with suspicion as if it’s an un-Biblical compromise.

3. Complementarianism

Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church. It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture.⁹

This seems to be the most solid and Biblically based view — I will not hide my “bias”!

Complementarianism is (or should be) founded not just in a this-is-the-way-it-must-work basis, or a reaction against either feminism or patriarchy, but passages such as Genesis 2, Ephesians 5 and many other texts that echo this glorious truth: God has always planned to pattern human marriage, and husbands’ and wives’ roles, upon Christ’s love for His Church.

That love, grounded in the Gospel of the living Word Who is both grace and truth (John 1) is the basis of our roles. And how Christians teach and act those roles must come from the heart — not simply by following a particular education or courtship model.

This allows for some varying perspectives on many more-difficult Scripture passages about, say, women keeping silent in church.¹⁰ It also helps prevent legalistic attitudes about a wife working outside the home, or daughters going to college. This avoids practicing The Gospel Plus Patriarchy, but the Gospel alone — born out in these areas of life.

Regardless of how Christians apply those beliefs exactly, Christians should agree on this: no view claiming husbands and wives have different roles (i.e., servant-leader or servant-follower) means that anyone is inferior. Many theologians show from Scripture that this is reflected in the Trinity: God the Son, Jesus Christ, obeys God the Father and is even “subordinate.” This in no way means either “Person” of the Trinity is more important; in fact, they are all fully God.

Perhaps the best source for learning more about complementarianism is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and their main book, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (I still haven’t read it all; I tend to focus on the chapters relate most to what I need to learn. Perhaps that’s how it should be read.)

Conclusion

The rest of my series this week will focus more on what complementarianism is not.

While I don’t want to commit the same error of only reacting against the wrong idea, it can be helpful to learn by contrast. And too many patriarchalists teach and act in ways not only not commanded in Scripture, but often commanded against. At stake is not only families’ health, or whether parents encourage a son or daughter to use all of his or her gifts for God’s glory, but whether Christians are upholding the Gospel, and not The Gospel-And-My-Shiny-Family-Belief.

To the [popular and solid Christian organization] ¹ staff,

It’s been a privilege to know [ministry contributor] for five years, since meeting him at the [university name]. In April 2005 he and I […] both attended an on-campus lecture by [atheist spokesperson, well-known as enemy of Christian organization]. We soon found each other to be Christian brothers and have stayed in touch ever since.

[…]

Recently […] we have been discussing the organization Vision Forum (VF) and its beliefs about “patriarchy.” My wife and I have been married for a year and we are strong and joyful “complementarians,” believing the Biblical truth (in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere) that God has patterned husband/wife roles and marriage after the loving union between Christ and His Church. However, we have concerns about VF, and [your organization’s] affiliation with this organization — which has included offering VF materials and columns on VF’s website.

[My friend] has asked my wife and I to relay to [your] staff some sourced quotes from VF’s online materials.

No doubt you have heard of some online sites whose writers — some of whom push un-Biblical feminism — play “watchdog” against Vision Forum and its affiliates. But because of the difficulty in sorting through these (and sorting truth from opposite error, including many true-life raving “Christian feminists,”) we have not included their critiques. Instead we ourselves have collected the following quotes, and I (Stephen) have written some thoughts on VF’s views, and especially its misuse of Scripture to support them.

Our concern is not based on any cultural “fundamentalist” belief in “strict separation” or “second-degree separation.” Nor do we claim to have all the “issues” against VF or its affiliates presented here. Rather, we ask: does [your ministry] know about VF’s beliefs in at least three areas? We also hope your staff will undertake their own careful research into VF’s teachings, found online and in their tapes, DVDs and books.

Here our emphasis will be VF’s “patriarchy” beliefs that they’ve publicly articulated, and not any “under the table” teachings. We also include quotes from Vision Forum-approved leaders (many of whom are women), such as Jennie Chancey of the Ladies Against Feminism website, and the Botkins.

1. Vision Forum insists a Christian woman must not obtain an education or hold a job outside the home; rather, if she is unmarried, she must stay under her human father’s authority.

Though many Christians (including me) would argue against this view, it is not itself anti-Biblical. However, VF does not seem to recognize this as an issue about which Christians can hold different views. VF’s leaders and resources encourage all Christian young women to remain under their human fathers’ spiritual authority and vision for his family, until the father releases his daughter to be married.

Thus, the Gospel and true Biblical authority on actual unquestionable matters are both sadly cheapened.

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection.

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

Readers can decide whether Vision Forum’s cited verses for the specific beliefs about father/daughter relationships (Genesis 28:1-2; Numbers 30:3ff.; Deuteronomy 22:21; Galatians 4:1,2; Ephesians 6:2-3) are faithful and natural readings of Scripture, taking into account the differences between Old and New Covenants; and, for the epistle references, the simple contexts of the Apostle Paul’s arguments. Yet in my view, VF here has contradicted sound hermeneutical principles (which the organization says it endorses).

How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” . . . A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine) and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her to work).

Jennie Chancey Responds to Titus 2 Cynics, Jennie Chaney, Dec. 10, 2003, Vision Forum website (accessed June 7, 2010).

By contrast, a recent post to the “Ladies Against Feminism” site, by Jasmine Baucham (daughter of Dr. Voddie Bauchum) offers a kinder and more grace-based approach that simply encourages women to rethink any wrong ideas they hold about Biblical roles and their education choices.

However, VF’s resources, articles and culture overwhelmingly see only secular feminism as Christian families’ main enemy. They do not talk about the risks of overcorrecting into chauvinism, much less the possibility of minimizing Christ’s role as believers’ only High Priest in their haste to uphold fathers’ roles as their families’ heads. Worse, statements about fathers’ “authority” over adult unmarried daughters are not accompanied by Gospel-centered context or support for this teaching from Scripture.

By serving her mother, creating a peaceful home atmosphere, and furthering her father’s goals, this young woman is a blessing to her family and to others. Her secret is placing herself under her father’s authority and at his disposal, content in her God-given role. This daily training has another reward—she will be well-fitted for marriage as a help-meet suitable for her husband. Fellow daughters, do you truly work at pleasing your father and helping him to accomplish his goals? Do you enjoy spending time with him?

Being Your Father’s Daughter, Elisha Ann Wahlquist, June 27, 2005, Ladies Against Feminism website (accessed June 7, 2010)

To raise a daughter without thought to marriage, to instill in them a spirit of independence from the family, or to focus their training on a career outside the home, is actually to disqualify them for graduation and the next step in life. In contrast, a woman who meets the biblical requirements for graduation is one who is comfortable being under the jurisdiction of her father and seeks to make him successful in every way.

Christian Graduations and Young Ladies, Doug Phillips, June 16, 2003, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

Let me tell you, there is liberty in submission. There is liberty in submitting to your father. Don’t let your heart be taken captive by the independent spirit of feminism. We as daughters are not sufficient to guard our hearts — God has placed us under the authority of our fathers to protect our hearts.

So I encourage you — give your heart fully to the Lord Jesus Christ and to your father (or if you are married, to your husband) and be under his authority. Find your mission in being his helpmeet. Your job is to honor and serve him as your leader, your protector, your head. The Word of God tells us as women to delight in being keepers at home and to love children. We are to make our father’s (or husband’s) home and work as productive as possible.

The Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters, Sarah Zes, Jan. 14, 2004, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

VF and affiliated advocates seems not to recognize the lack of any Biblical support for the false dichotomy that either a daughter is influenced by worldly feminism or she must serve as her father’s “help-meet,” being under his authority and serving his vision until such time as the father allows her to be married.

In this seemingly polarized view of either compromising feminist Christian or Biblical “patriarchy” believer, VF ignores Biblical balance and emphasis on Christ, His holiness and love (and sacrifice under God’s wrath for sin). And secondarily the Gospel brings Biblical complementarianism, which upholds husband and wife roles of loving leadership and submission, yet also recognizes cultural variables and Scripture’s silence about whether fathers ought to have authority over their daughters until giving daughters to husbands, etc.

2. Vision Forum promotes father-supervised “courtship,” not just as optional or beneficial for Christians, but required especially for a man’s daughter.

This concept recurs in many VF articles and resources, and is often promoted by VF-affiliated homeschool moms (such as Jennie Chancey) as part of the antidote to feminism. These principles are purported to be based on several Scripture verses — whose application upon closer inspection utterly falls apart.

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

The above-listed Scriptures do not at all support VF’s this-is-how-it-should-be assertions about courtship.

1 Corinthians 7:38 could be addressing a father and daughter, or a man and his betrothed, or other scenarios. According to my reading, Biblical scholars disagree on exactly what is happening here. But VF’s citation of this Scripture as only applying to fathers and daughters, not even allowing for differing views by orthodox and even Biblical-complementarian scholars and readers, is at best disingenuous.

Scripture also describes Old-Testament men (such as Abraham, Jethro and Saul) giving their daughters in marriage, but never endorses this as the Biblical method for a man to find his daughter’s spouse.

VF is guilty of eisegesis and bad hermeneutics, applying descriptive Scriptures as if they are prescriptive.

This text fails to provide context and read Scripture naturally, rather, forcing from narrative a lifestyle that Scripture does not promote. Such “literal” readings, in the wrong sense, disrespect God’s Word and give credence to atheists’ and skeptics’ false charges that too many Christians “read all of the Bible literally.”

3. Vision Forum has obscured many views of its leaders by removing videos, resources and articles due to their controversial statements — yet has not publicly amended its beliefs.

This is less substantive than other criticisms, but still worth mentioning. Perhaps the clearest example is this: without explanation or retraction, VF has removed articles that directly claim it is a sin, and a violation of the role of Christian husbands as heads of household, for a woman to go to college or vote in elections.

And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?

[. . .]

God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11 ff).

Originally seen in Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation as of Sept. 20, 2007, since removed. Cited in Answering Vision Forum, Don Veinot (a rebuttal to Vision Forum’s Aug. 29 letter), on Midwest Christian Outreach’s The Crux blog.²

Conclusion

In our view, [your organization’s] relationship with Vision Forum is a matter of concern for Christians who believe the authority of Scripture, yet believe differently about Biblical requirements of family relationships.

Wise Christians (we hope we are among them!) know that it is not technically heresy to claim that women must never attend college and must serve their fathers as “helpmeets” until marriage; or that the best method of “courtship” is for a father to choose his daughter’s husband and supervise their relationship; or even that women should not vote (though we are among those who would argue heartily that such ideas are wrong!).

However, it is at least approaching disregard of Biblical authority, and perhaps even heresy, to add any of these ideas to Scripture as if they are required or “normative” of Christians.

One reason we appreciate [your organization] is its emphasis only on matters upon which Scripture is so clear. [The ministry] has glorified God and earned Christians’ respect for avoiding secondary issues, or taking a stand on issues about which Christians can sincerely disagree and still be counted within the true Church (such as end-times beliefs, Calvinism and Arminianism, politics, the nature of baptism and so on).

We wonder if Biblical authority is as much undermined by adding to the Bible as by taking away from the Bible. Perhaps such error can be even more dangerous — it’s easier to discern something is not in the Bible Biblical as it is to discern that someone’s belief has been added to it, “proved” by twisting Scripture.

Thank you for your time, and even if we disagree on this, we wish God’s speed, blessing, growth and wisdom to the ministry, its leaders and employees, efforts and front-line work for Christ’s Kingdom.

To an atheist cyber-acquaintance whom I hope will take this to mind and heart,

I’m still wondering why it seems so vital for you to “prove,” either to me or to yourself, that the Bible is not God’s Word. Are you sure it’s not because it messes with your own moral ideas? Are you sure it’s not because of the offensive ideas that God rightly judges people for their deeds?

Though you started out with a list of commonly cited errors in the Bible (each one of which an online search could easily answer), I doubt that is your main reason for faulting Christianity for evils and nastiness. Instead it is the concept of God’s Law that you find most offensive — making value judgments based on your own subjective imposition of morality, by the way. Also offensive to you is the idea that God has the right to allow evil for His greater good.

For 2,000 years Christians have addressed these same questions — they are not new, and neither are atheists’ accusations on both fronts. Also consider: Christians are people who often also struggle with these issues. Yet they continue their faith in a good and holy God Who loves His people and will redeem His creation. I do the same; I have also asked God your questions.

Try to wrap that around your mind, please, and also consider what C.S. Lewis said about all those supposedly dumb desert wanderers who wrote the Bible: they suffered a lot more.

“Reflect for five minutes on the fact that all of the great religions were first preached, and long practiced, in a world without chloroform,” Lewis gently advised.¹

So it’s approaching the worst kind of elitism to claim only we have discovered that life stinks.

Metaphors in context

It would also be approaching elitism for me to act as though I can answer all your questions to your satisfaction. Make no mistake — I can answer that long string of questions you started out with. But first, ask yourself: will you be satisfied by the answers? Are seeming contradictions in the Bible really troubling to you, or do they just give you ammunition to shoot at Christians?

First to start with one of your last points in the litany of perceived Bible errors:

If your answer to any of the above is “It’s a metaphor” explain how you tell the difference between a metaphor and a literal text.

The same way I do with anything you would write: context, plain meaning, maybe hashing it out between scholars familiar with the language and time period. Respect for the author to tell the difference (regardless of his age) helps as well — the same respect I hope I’m giving you.

Christians call this hermeneutics, and it is not nearly so vague as some assume. Unfortunately it’s becoming quite trendy to go on about how the Bible is supposedly so hard to understand.

Where are the four pillars holding up the earth? […] Are the pillars a metaphor?

Some years ago I had a fiction character answer this common objection. It’s based on — well, most often simple hearsay — but in the actual Bible, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6 and Psalm 75:3.

But even with just an English-language Bible I can tell from the indented margins that these are figurative expressions used in poetic praise to God. For Hebrew scholars, they can tell from the passage’s context. Some Biblical passages are difficult to discern; these aren’t among them.

Resurrection ‘contradictions’

Who was the first to the tomb, and what did they see when they got there?

Again: you’re reading this next with a sincerely kind and open mind, I hope. I don’t mean to patronize you, but your entire tone was far beyond simple challenging, and nowhere near hinting at honest inquiry. Maybe you did mean it that way, and it got lost in the style.

Let’s have my character, named is Josh, answer this. Here he’s debating an atheist on campus.

Loren read from his paper. “We have four Gospels which detail the life of Jesus Christ. He was killed on a cross by the Roman Empire.”

“Historically true,” Josh interjected. “But we all killed Him in a way—”

“That’s not relevant to my question!” Loren said back. “Wait. Now, according to the gospel of Saint Matthew, on Sunday, Mary Magda-line and someone else named Mary went to the tomb. It says the tomb was empty and there’s an angel sitting on top of a stone. In Luke it says the women found two angels, behind them. In John you don’t read about these people at all, you read only about Mary Magda-line going there first, and finding the tomb empty, and no angels. How are we supposed to figure out what happened first? How were the people back then supposed to know? It’s contradictory.”

[. . .]

Josh had to pause. For real. Answer him. Do it now! “First . . . these are four different books of the Bible. They tell about mostly different events. I’ve read each of them all the way through, at least once. Everybody has a different perspective on the life of Jesus. Matthew stresses Jewish things, and talks a lot about the kingdom of Heaven. Mark writes for people who don’t want to hear many details . . .”

“You haven’t answered the question.”

Loren had just cut him off, and he sounded annoyed. That’s good . . .

And even better, because now Josh was coming up with the answer. “There’s no mistake here, Loren. What happens when a big news event breaks?”

Loren paused before realizing the question was for him. “What?”

“Big news breaks, and reporters run all over the place. They try to get the story. They hear stuff. They put their own perspectives on things. They’ll tell you one thing happened, and maybe not mention that something else happened first. Sometimes there will be conflicting reports . . . I mean, reports that seem contradictory, but then all make sense later . . . and they’re all true. It’s the same thing with Jesus’ resurrection. The Gospel writers wrote about it differently. The details do make sense when you put them together. He died, and he rose again.”

Consider more from ApologeticsPress.org.²

Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs.

By now your defenses may be up, yet I hope you’ll be enough of a good sport to keep reading.

You’ll find the “what about Jesus’ imposition of the Law to enter the Kingdom” answer at the end of this column. (I can already tell I need to continue in a second part.)

(Seemingly) endless genealogies

How many generations are there from David to Jesus, and why does Joseph have different fathers?

Another objection commonly raised by atheists, and refuted in return.

It helps us both to know — or read respectfully those who’ve studied more than either of us — something about Jewish genealogies, the Gospel writers’ intents and other factors. Otherwise we’d be guilty of imposing our own cultural expectations on people of the past. It’s also commonly held that Matthew and Luke are tracing different genealogies: Mary’s and Joseph’s.

[Jesus has] a clear blood relationship through Mary. This genealogy is listed in Luke 3. It is clearly Mary’s genealogy, rather than Joseph’s (though some scholars disagree). Joseph’s father was called Jacob in Matthew 1. Yet Luke lists the generation before Joseph as Heli. Tradition has it that this was Mary’s father.

There is more than tradition at stake, however. It is notable that Matthew, writing to Jews, deliberately breaks some typical rules of Jewish genealogies—by not giving every generation and by including women. Both these factors emphasize the fact that Jesus does not hold His kingship through Joseph.

In the same way, Luke, writing principally for Gentiles, actually does stick to the Jewish rules of genealogies, in that he includes every generation and excludes women’s names. Therefore, Joseph’s name is included instead of Mary’s. Also, it should be noted that the phrase “the son of” really means “descendent of,” and its subject, in every case, is Jesus. Therefore, the genealogy could be expanded as follows: Jesus was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph; Jesus was the descendent of Heli; Jesus was the descendent of Matthat, etc. The purpose of this genealogy is to emphasize the blood descent of Jesus from David through Mary.³

Sorry, you’ve got the wrong Christian?

Is the resurrection a metaphor? What about the four riders of the apocalypse? Is the whole thing about [representing] a metaphor? How do you tell the difference.

No. Probably. No. Hermeneutics.

And I can do my best to explain each of those further if you’re truly interested.

Are you sure you haven’t been told “it’s a metaphor” by other confused or perhaps intentionally liberal professing Christians? Have ye not read that even with older documents such as the Bible, one can most often easily discern a text’s meaning based on its culture and context? We see this in the present, discerning between the focuses of essays vs. poems, newspaper articles vs. legal codes, fiction novels versus advice columns. Why would those rules stop at Scripture?

Let’s close for now with perhaps the most important point: the myth, which I might admit Christians have often themselves confused, that Jesus ignored or downplayed God’s holy Law.

What are the requirements to enter the kingdom of heaven, and how can anyone meet them all? [… A]re the 613 laws metaphorical? If not, why do the commandments apply, but not them to a Christian [sic], despite what Jesus allegedly says about knowing and keeping the laws better than a Pharisee?

If you are talking about Jesus’ “sermon on the mount” and His other requirements for what people must do — then that is exactly the point: no one can meet all these standards.

Undoubtedly you’ve heard some well-meaning Christians imply (or even say) that God’s Law was first the standard, but now Jesus has come and God has mellowed out a bit. This is not the Biblical message, easily shown by Jesus’s statement that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).

Consider busting this dumb myth further, starting with God’s Law and Jesus’ Love, part 2.

And this is the part where a Christian would start talking about the Gospel, and any atheist would be offended at the notion that he/she isn’t a “good person” — yet I hope you’d listen.

I also hope you’ll read part 2, coming soon.

All my life I heard Matthew 25:40 interpreted to be about Christians helping the poor.

Just last week the “Bible fog” lifted, and I really heard the context of the whole passage.

Maybe you read this next and think, Duh, I always knew that. But for me I am sure I always subconsciously “bought” the whole this-is-about-Christians-helping-poor-people assumption. When “social justice”-styled professing Christians quoted the verse that way, I accepted their argument and moved on to other reasons why helping the poor isn’t the be-all-end-all of the Bible (something like, Yes, that’s important, but what’s also important is …).

But actually, though taking care of the poor is a Scriptural concept, it’s not exactly here.

The other day I heard activist Jim Wallis, in a debate with Marvin Olasky, quote verse 40. His point was that Christians need to do righteous to “the least of these.” If I remember correctly, he didn’t quote the whole verse — just the part about caring for the poor. (Ironically, the entire chapter is about the coming Kingdom and God’s judgment, a topic Wallis didn’t mention.)

But here’s the full context — from Mark 25: 31-40:

The least of who? All poor people? Victims of oppression? The hungry? Maybe Scripture talks about these elsewhere, but it’s not here. The least of who? The least of these my brothers. Who are they? It’s not the whole human race — rather, His disciples who do His will.

I didn’t find this on my own. But on the human side, I can credit Kevin DeYoung. Last month he myth-busted several Bible texts often misused to support “social justice” causes.¹

Matthew 25 has become a favorite passage for many progressives and younger evangelicals. Even in the mainstream media it seems like hardly a day goes by without someone referencing Jesus’ command to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. And few biblical phrases have gotten as much traction as “the least of these.” Whole movements have emerged whose central tenet is to care for “the least of these” ala Matthew 25. The implications–whether it be increased government spending, increased concern for “social justice,” or a general shame over not doing enough–are usually thought to be obvious from the text.

But in popular usage of the phrase, there’s almost no careful examination of what Jesus actually means by “the least of these.”

[. . .]

“The least of these” refers to other Christians in need, in particular itinerant Christian teachers dependent on hospitality from their family of faith.

[. . .]

Matthew 25 is about social justice in the sense that it is about caring for the needy. But the needy in view are fellow Christians, especially those dependent on our hospitality and generosity for their ministry. “The least of these” is not a blanket statement about the church’s responsibility to meet the needs of all the poor (though we do not want to be indifferent to hurting people). Nor should the phrase be used as a general cover for anything and everything we want to promote under the banner of social justice. Jesus says if we are too embarrassed, too lazy, or too cowardly to support our fellow Christians who depend on our assistance and are suffering for the sake of the gospel, we will go to hell. We should not make this passage say anything more or less than this.

And just today I caught more of the same truth from D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.² Summarizing Biblical texts some professing Christians often mangle to support their favorite social/political causes, Carson notes:

In the hands of some writers, what distinguishes the sheep from the goats is social concern: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting people in prison—along with the dramatic addition of Jesus’ words, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (25:40, 45).[NIV] But that misses the point here. Certainly the Bible lays considerable stress elsewhere on compassion, justice, acts of mercy, kindness, and much else—as shown by Isaiah and Amos and the parable of the good Samaritan. But it has often been shown that in Matthew’s gospel the expression “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” can only refer to the least of his followers. In other words, the sheep and the goats are exposed for what they are by the way they treat the downtrodden of Jesus’ followers.

One more phrase I’ll be using more carefully. Such a difference a few words can make.