VALLEY FORGE, Pa.—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) on Nov. 17.

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 The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Since many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, 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 sufficiently dealt with the forces that animate 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 gaze inside themselves to find ultimate truth, Moore said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches—while holding complementarian views—have rejected male headship as an outmoded principle and mostly 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 wrought by egalitarianism, 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, he said.

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. However, 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 authentic biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied irreducibly 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, 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, 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 (Eph. 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 (Heb. 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—a biblical understanding of patriarchy—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 a more robust biblical complementarianism 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 fallacious egalitarian charge that postulates male headship as leading 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."

Moore's entire paper is available here: http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf.

VALLEY FORGE, Pa.—Does Christ submit to His church?

Luther Seminary professor Alan Padgett, argued in a paper at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that Christ submits to the church. In the question and answer session that followed his presentation, Padgett—who serves as professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minn.—asserted an even more radical idea: in the New Jerusalem the church will no longer submit itself to Christ.

Padgett used passages such as Ephesians 5:21-33 and Philippians 2:5-10 to make his case for mutual submission between Christ and the church. While he argued that it is clear that Christ serves the church, he essentially equated the notions of submission and servant leadership.

Randy Stinson, executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), said Padgett’s argument is fundamentally flawed. Stinson pointed out that the Greek word in Eph. 5 used for "submit" (hypotasso) means one-way submission to authority and not two-way.

Scripture also makes clear the doctrine of Christ’s sovereign headship over the church that explodes the argument of mutual submission which egalitarians commonly make, Stinson said.

To prop up his case for mutual submission between Christ and the church, Padgett drew an even stranger conclusion in response to a question following his paper. When asked when the church will cease to submit to Christ, Padgett answered "in the eschaton" at a time when "the church will be 'knocked up a bit.'" In Christ’s eschatalogical kingdom, the church will no longer submit to Christ, he said.

Theologian Russell D. Moore, dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said Padgett’s bizarre take on mutual submission and its concomitant teaching that submission ceases in the eschaton is sub-Christian.

"Alan Padgett’s proposal is not even Christian," Moore said. "The idea that Christians will, in the eschaton, no longer submit to Christ is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan. In the new creation, as Paul tells us, and as John sees revealed in the Apocalypse, believers continue to serve Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father.

"Moreover, the concept that Jesus submits to his church is ridiculous. Jesus serves the church, but he serves her by leading and leads her by serving. The church does not initiate the plan of salvation or send Jesus on his mission.

"Instead, Jesus sets his face like flint toward the cross even when the foundation stones of the church, the apostles, tell him they will never allow him to be crucified. If this is where Christian egalitarianism is going with "mutual submission," then it is clearer than ever that evangelical feminism is more feminist than evangelical."

Stinson echoed Moore’s analysis, adding that Padgett’s view is further evidence that the slippery slopes of feminism and egalitarianism lead quickly toward a downward spiral away from orthodox Christianity.

"This is just one more example of what lengths egalitarians will go to in order to bolster their otherwise untenable position," Stinson said. "Unfortunately, there will no doubt be many more theological aberrations such as this coming from the egalitarian camp. But as for me and my house, we are planning to submit to Christ for all eternity."

Eleazar S. Fernandez is clearly not satisfied with Scripture’s take on man with its story of Adam, the Fall, and a cosmos enslaved by the curse of sin.

So Fernandez, associate professor of constructive theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, puts his professional title on full display—with the emphasis on ‘constructive’— in a recent book entitled Reimagining the Human: Theological Anthropology in Response to Systematic Evil, radically redefining both God and man.

Evangelicals will no doubt find Fernandez’s "reimagining" of man not only creative, but also worlds beyond the pale of orthodox biblical anthropology. Evangelicals will not be surprised by another attempt from the radical theological left to reconfigure both God and man according to postmodern sensibilities, a pursuit that dates to the first man and Eden.

However, what might surprise evangelicals who support the egalitarian organization Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)—a group that explicitly targets evangelicals with its ministry—is that the book is available for purchase at CBE’s "Equality Depot" online bookstore.

How does Fernandez "revolutionize" anthropology? Consider just a few of Fernandez’s theological constructions in which he argues that:

• Sin is not a violation of God’s law, but is the mistreatment of God’s creation—men, plants, and animals, with sympathies lying more tenderly with the latter two.
• There is no model—biblical or otherwise—that demonstrates what it means to be truly humn.
• Christian theology and the Bible have supported sexism, which, according to his paradigm, includes heterosexuality as well as racism and classism.
• Maleness, as seen in human terms or in Christ, is mere idolatry of genitalia. Women are imprisoned in their homes, and God’s "omni-traits" are simply the projection of maleness onto God’s essence.
• Divine moral codes become oppressive upon a given society. God as a sovereign king is nothing but a slavemaster.
• The Western economic structure is a capitalist patriarchy in which men control money and enslave women.

While the work does not deal often with God, he does not totally escape the author’s "reimagining." Fernandez proposes that God’s essence is his relationship to the cosmos. Theology is merely contextual and is not normative or universal for any society or culture. In fact, Fernandez intimates that the study of theology and biblical revelation leads, not to redemption, but to further agony.

Many of Fernandez’s assertions border on pantheism and a full embrace of nature worship—an ironic fulfillment of the latter verses of Romans 1. He equates the rape of the earth with the rape of women. Over against the assertion of Romans 8, Fernandez asserts that the creation’s "groaning" is not in expectancy of redemption, but because it has been misused and destroyed by human beings.

Stay-at-home mothers and faithful wives come in for a full broadside as Fernandez argues that a wife or mother can find no value in the home, but instead find enslavement. Even the wife of a wealthy husband who chooses to stay at home is a mere victim of abusive patriarchy, he asserts.

"Despite the high level of prestige and wealth, in cases where a wife does not have an outside job, she becomes a perennial dependent and has no identity except as someone’s wife or mother," he writes.

Further, Fernandez argues that the 21st century woman must seek a career outside the home. However, Fernandez worries over a conundrum that his view creates: The needs of a career woman to have her children watched and her house cleaned. This problem "shifts the weight of domestic chores from one group of exploited women—mothers—to another group [that includes] the babysitter, housekeeper, cleaning woman, day-care staff, teacher."

Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Orlando will play host to "Synergy 2005" this weekend (Nov. 11-12), an event designed to encourage evangelical women in the ministry, but one of its keynote speakers may raise the eyebrows of some in the evangelical community.

RTS, a soundly complementarian Presbyterian institution built upon the venerable Westminster Standards, has invited Sarah Sumner, who claims to be neither an egalitarian nor a complementarian, as one of its keynote speakers.

Judy Douglass and Carolyn Custis James are also slated to speak at the conference. The event is aimed at the edification, equipping, and encouraging of women in ministry.

While leaders on both sides of the gender debate admit that there is no real middle ground, Sumner claims to have forged a via media in the gender debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism. She presently serves as chair of the department of ministry, and associate professor of ministry and theology at Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, Calif.

In her 2003 book Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (IVP), Sumner presents a case for a middle ground that interprets "the debate within evangelicalism and explains why the two sides collide." However, as Wayne Grudem has expertly pointed out in his 2004 work Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (www.efbt100.com), Sumner’s views are decidedly egalitarian (see p. 806 of the index of the book for a listing of pages in which Grudem interacts with Sumner's interpretations).

For example, Sumner interprets 2 Tim. 4:1-2 as charging both men and women to "preach the word." In her book Sumner uses personal anecdote, not sound exegesis, and fails to point out that the commands in 2 Tim 4:1-2 are all singular imperatives addressed specifically to Timothy, Grudem points out. Asserting that a "straightforward reading of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 is absurd," Sumner argues both for female pastors and preachers.

Regarding gender roles in the home, Sumner argues that "nowhere in Scripture is a husband told to lead his wife." Further, in her book, Sumner says the notion of a husband leading his wife is an idea invented by complementarians. She also makes this argument in the November issue of Christianity Today (CT), in an article entitled "Bridging the Ephesians 5 Divide." In the article, Sumner calls the complementarian view of gender roles in the home a model that is akin to a "boss-assistant" workplace arrangement.

"[I]t is often assumed that the word head (in Eph. 5) means ‘leader’—though the Bible never says the husband is the ‘leader’ of his wife," Sumner writes in CT. "The mystery of one flesh is exchanged for a business model in which the husband is the boss and the wife his assistant."

While she does assert a wife’s biblical duty to submit to her husband from Eph. 5, Sumner postulates a view the amounts to "mtual submission," a view typically espoused by egalitarians.

For a critique of Sumner's Men and Women in the Church, see the review by Dorothy Patterson in the Spring 2003 issue of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (http://www.cbmw.org/journal/editions/8-1.pdf). For a complementarian response to the egalitarian view of "mutual submission," see Wayen Grudem, "The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ehpesians 5:21," in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, available in its entirety online at http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books/BiblicalFoundations.pdf.

At first glance, the popular new book co-authored by husband and wife team John and Stasi Eldredge appears to have much to commend it.

The book—Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul (Thomas Nelson, 2005), a female counterpart to John Eldredge’s bestseller Wild at Heart—is currently sitting firmly in the No. 1 position atop the list of best-selling books compiled by the Christian Booksellers Association.

It rightly emphasizes the fact that God is not only transcendent and wholly other, but is accessible and knowable. It also presents a biblical view of the unique creation that is woman—no hint of blurring the gender lines here. In fact, Captivating upholds the biblical necessity of distinguishing between gender, acknowledging the goodness in the truth that "God made them male and female."

However, according to a review written for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) by Donna Thoennes, Ph.D., the book presents pictures of God and woman that are out of step with Scripture.

Thoennes serves as assistant professor in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. She also ministers to women at Grace Evangelical Free Church in La Mirada, Calif., where her husband Erik, a CBMW council member, serves as pastor.

Thoennes points out that one of the book’s central tenets resides in its statement on page 28 that postulates, "This may be the most important thing we ever learn about God—that he yearns for relationship with us. . . . He yearns for us. He cares. He has a tender heart."

The authors aim to remedy what they view as an incorrect doctrine of God by asserting the incorrectness of a view of God that sees him "as strong and powerful, but not as needing us, vulnerable to us, yearning to be desired," Thoennes points out.

"It appears that rather than turning to Scripture or the synthetic work of theologians," Thoennes writes, "the Eldredges want to begin with woman to understand the complexities of God’s nature." This is particularly in view in the authors’ statement, "After years of hearing the heart-cry of women, I am convinced beyond a doubt of this: God wants to be loved." 

But the authors have reversed the truth about God, Thoennes says. As Calvin began his venerable work the Institutes of the Christian Religion by asserting that to truly know man one must know God, so Thoennes argues that Captivating has turned biblical ontology on its head.

"The authors have flipped the process of understanding who God is and who we are," Thoennes writes. "Because women are made in God’s image, they are like him and represent him. Therefore, they can look to God to infer things about themselves, but they should not assume that conclusions can be drawn in the opposite direction.

"Just because we have certain tendencies or desires does not necessitate that God shares those. God is high and lifted up, he is transcendent as well as immanent. In Ps 50:21 God corrects man with a strong accusation ‘you thought that I was one like yourself, but now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.’ We must look to God to learn who we are, not the other way around."

The authors of Captivating also argue that a woman’s need to be romanced points to God’s desire to be romanced. Speaking of God’s heart, they write, "What would it be like to experience for yourself that the truest thing about his heart toward yours is not disappointment or disapproval but deep, fiery passionate love?"

In addition to a faulty view of God, Captivating offers an inflated view of women, Thoennes points out. The book offers women as the pinnacle of God’s creation, "the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God."

"It may be tempting to empathize with this attempt to build a woman’s self-esteem, but the sins of pride an self-centeredness are only encouraged with this declaration (of woman as the zenith of God’s creation)," Thoennes writes.

Thoennes’s full review of Captivating is available on the CBMW wesbite at http://www.cbmw.org/article.php?id=204.