[At the end of the year it is profitable to step back and review the state of the gender debate.  Below are key excerpts from a paper read at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society by Russell D. Moore, Dean of the School of Theology of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  A downloadable audio recording of this address is available at the CBMW website.]

If evangelical theology is to regain a voice of counter-cultural relevance in the contemporary milieu, the gender debate must transcend who can have "Reverend" in front of his or her name on the business card. The gender debate must frame the discussion within a larger picture of biblical, confessional theology. And in order to do that, complementarians will have to admit that the egalitarians are winning the debate. The answer to this is not a new strategy. It is, first of all, to discover why evangelicals resonate with evangelical feminism in the first place-and then to provide a biblically and theologically compelling alternative...

As gender traditionalists seek to address the encroachments of practical egalitarianism, we must understand that the debates before us are about far more than the meaning of kephale or the hermeneutics of head coverings. For too long, the evangelical gender debate has assumed that this was merely one more intramural debate-on our best days along the lines of Arminian/Calvinist or dispensationalist/covenant skirmishes and on our worst days as an theological equivalent of a political debate show with a right- and left-wing representative. And yet, C.S. Lewis included male headship among the doctrines he considered to be part of "mere Christianity," precisely because male headship has been asserted and assumed by the Christian church with virtual unanimity from the first century until the rise of contemporary feminism...

It is noteworthy that the vitality in evangelical complementarianism right now is among those who are willing to speak directly to the implications and meaning of male headship-and who aren't embarrassed to use terms such as "male headship." This vitality is found in specific ecclesial communities-among sectors within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, the charismatic Calvinists of C.J. Mahaney's "sovereign grace" network, and the clusters of dispensationalist Bible churches, as well as within coalition projects that practice an "ecumenism with teeth," such as Touchstone magazine. These groups are talking about male leadership in strikingly counter-cultural and very specific ways, addressing issues such as childrearing, courtship, contraception and family planning-not always with uniformity but always with directness...

Right now, Western culture celebrates casual sexuality, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, "alternative families," and abortion rights. All of these things empower men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male in search of nothing but power, prestige, and the next orgasm. Does anyone really believe these things "empower" women or children? Instead, the sexual liberationist vision props up a pagan patriarchy complete with a picture of a selfish, impersonal, cruel deity. And ironically, the kind of patriarchy feminists rightly oppose-the capricious use of power by men to objectify and use women-is itself the product of changes the mainstream feminists championed. It does not bear the imprimatur of divine revelation but of the Darwinist/Freudian myth that sex is the measure of all things. This turns out to be a patriarchy too, but there is nothing "soft" about it...

Egalitarians are winning the evangelical gender debate, not because their arguments are stronger, but because, in some sense, we're all egalitarians now. The complementarian response must be more than reaction. It must instead present an alternative vision-a vision that sums up the burden of male headship under the cosmic rubric of the gospel of Christ and the restoration of all things in him. It must produce churches that are not embarrassed to tell us that when we say the "Our Father," we are patriarchs of the oldest kind...

One of the most tragic events in America in 2007 produced a clear and enduring illustration of biblical manhood in action.

Matt Miller, a senior at Bethel College, was working for the PCI construction crew that was resurfacing the I-35 West bridge in Minneapolis on Aug. 1 when the structure collapsed during rush hour without warning into the Mississippi River killing 13 and injuring more than 100. Miller bravely rescued at least a dozen people that day without thinking twice for his own safety.

Bethel News interviewed Matt in the days following the catastrophe and recounted his heroics. The paragraphs that follow are an abridgment of Bethel's story.

"I dropped my stuff and ran toward the bridge, which was still dusty and smoky, and I literally could have fallen off the bridge because I ran to the edge," Miller said. "In the southbound lane on the north side, there was a joint that broke and I thought that was the only part...but then when the smoke cleared and I focused, the whole bridge has disappeared."

Immediately, Miller charged into action, helping four coworkers with injuries ranging from a dislocated shoulder to a wrenched knee or elbow climb over the median and chasm that separated the lanes, helping them move to a grassy spot for easier ambulance access.

Next, Miller heard screams and anguished cries of help from the north bank, beneath the rubble of the collapsed bridge. There, cars had tumbled from the bridge onto the dry ground near the river's edge.

Giving feet to the wisdom his father had taught him during his formative years, Miller immediately launched a personal rescue mission. First, he ran around the bridge, over train tracks, along a frontage road before rappelling a steep seven-foot embankment to reach those in eminent danger, rescuing eight people.

"Growing up, my father taught me not to sit back and watch," he said. "If I'm there and healthy, I should be able to help. So I just acted and God gave me the strength."

"I looked up and there were eight lanes of concrete hanging on this joint and it's probably 15 feet above my head," he said. "So I said a quick prayer, asked God to help me do what I had to do as fast as I could, and to keep that part of the bridge from collapsing...It did collapse later that night, but after the rescues."

Next, Matt crawled into the overturned car of a woman with a back injury and tore out two head rests to help her escape out the window. Nearby, a father and twin daughters stood frozen in fear and had to be physically carried to safety.

"The size I am and the people I lifted, I couldn't do it right now standing," he said, recalling the adrenaline rush.

Using sheets of plywood as makeshift stretchers, Matt and another man carried others out, including the critically injured mother of the twin daughters. Finally, he helped injured PCI employees and civilians off Coast Guard boats, and drove additional PCI trucks to the scene for paramedics to use as ambulances.

When Miller's parents did not hear from their son due to jammed phone lines, they dispatched his brothers to find him. Soon, the Miller brothers found Matt at the scene. Miller rejected the label of "hero" the news media inevitably gave him, deflecting the glory to God.

"I want to give the glory to God because He gave me the strength to go down there and just help these people," he said.

This is biblical manhood in action. Both Matt Miller and his father, Greg, who taught him not to sit back in a time of crisis, are to be commended for living out God's call to men to serve and protect those around them.

Matt's bravery reminds me of an unforgettable scene from my favorite book/movie trilogy, Lord of the Rings. At the Battle of Helms Deep in The Two Towers, the women and children of Rohan were helplessly trapped inside the bowels of the keep after it had been overrun by Saruman's evil army of orcs.

With the slaughter of all his people seemingly certain, Theoden, king of Rohan, was tempted to despair, compelling Aragorn to demand that the king arise and run to the battle:

Theoden: So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?

Aragorn: Ride out with me. Ride out to meet them.

Theoden: For death and glory.

Aragorn: For Rohan. For your people.

Theoden: Yes. Yes. The horn of Helm Hammerhand shall sound in the Deep. One last time.

Theoden to Aragorn: Let this be the hour when we draw swords together.

And they rode out to confront an endless sea of murder and mayhem, intent on dying only after mounting a robust defense. Moments later Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan arrive to help Aragorn, Theoden and the good guys to vanquish Saruman's forces. In the face of great evil and incalculable odds, they charged directly into the teeth of the battle and they did so without vacillation, putting themselves between the enemy and their loved ones.

This is what biblical manhood, compelled by the love of Christ, does; it unflinchingly fulfills God's call to protect its own and, if necessary, lay down its life for those whom it loves.

Scripture is filled with such examples; it is evident in young David's bravery in the face of the great Philistine, Goliath; it rings clear in the first line of David's deathbed words to his son, Solomon: "Be strong and show yourself a man." (1 Kings 2:2)

In the New Testament the apostle Paul fought the good fight of faith until the very end, demonstrating manly faithfulness for the sake of the Gospel despite a ministry fraught with physical danger and suffering.

Above all is the example par excellence of our Lord Jesus Christ who, with the sword of His Word, vanquished Satan in the wilderness and then set his face like flint toward Calvary where he defeated the final enemy, death, and rescued His loved ones from sin and certain wrath. Thankfully, in the One who "was made man" there is neither passivity nor abdication.

Like Miller, like Theoden and Aragorn, like David and Paul, our Lord rode out and showed Himself a man. Christian men, in 2008, let each of us humbly, selflessly and firmly do the same for our wives, for our sons, for our daughters and for our churches. And above all, let us do it for the glory of God.

[This is Part Two of my interview with Mary Kassian (Part One here). I'm grateful to Mrs. Kassian for taking the time to do the interview.]

I have a few Christian friends who consider themselves Feminists. Is it possible to be a Christian and a Feminist? 

This depends on your definition of feminism. Personally, I regard feminism as a worldview that is antithetical to Christianity. I do not believe that an individual can be a Christian and a feminist (in the true sense of the word) at the same time.

When I walk into a typical Evangelical church today, what is one of the most glaring impacts of Feminism I will see? What damage is it doing?

The most glaring impact is in people's "default setting" with regards to male and female roles. In the past, people believed that the husband assuming spiritual leadership in the home and the wife submitting to/supporting that leadership was both proper and good. It was believed to be the natural order of things. Nowadays, the "default setting" is that a gender-specific inequality in role/function is improper, bad, and goes against the natural order of things. The majority of youth in our churches today do not have a clue about what the Bible teaches about male and female. The relational damage is incredible. Statistics demonstrate that church-goers are no more successful than the world-at-large in sustaining healthy marriages. Instead of being salt & light and offering God's healing to a fractured world, men and women in our evangelical churches are copying the pattern of the world. The way the genders interact within the church is not any different than how they interact outside of it. 

Awhile back I read about a father who teaches his children to refer to God as "God the Mommy/Daddy." I've noticed a trend over the years of more and more people who want to refer to God in both genders. What's the problem with this?

The biggest problem is that God does not refer to himself that way. When we change the words, we change the meaning. Inclusive language sexualizes God, depersonalizes God, attacks God's character, denies the Trinitarian relationship, obscures the person and work of Christ, obscures humanity's relationship to God, and confuses personal identity. When we worship God as "mother" or "he/she" we are not worshipping the God of the Bible.

On February 26th of this year Jada Pinkett Smith made a comment that caused quite an uproar. She said, "Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career ... You can do whatever it is you want." In my mind, this is a Feminist statement, but she was in fact criticized for being "heteronormative;" meaning that she was trying to enforce traditional heterosexual gender roles on the audience. In light of your research on Feminism, why was she so angrily denounced?

The reason she was denounced was because she held up the ideal of a heterosexual marriage and children as the epitome of "having it all."  According to feminists, "having it all" means having whatever you want to have: a lesbian relationship, co-habitation, having children without a husband, having no children, having no man. All options are equally valid and good.  Feminism is all about giving a woman the power to name and define her own utopia - and to determine whether or not this utopia even includes a man.

It can be easy for someone to be discouraged by the impact Feminism's had and the grip it holds on our churches and the larger culture. Is there any hope? Or, will it continually get worse?

I believe the youth today are searching for answers. Today's young women are disillusioned with their mother's inability to sustain marriages. As I said in my book, "it is in the deepest darkness that the light shines the most brightly." I believe the time is ripe for a new movement - a seismic holy quake of countercultural men and women who dare to take God at his word, those who have the courage to stand against the popular tide, and believe and delight in God's plan for male and female.

[This is Part One of my interview with Mary Kassian, author of The Feminist Mistake. The Introduction and first chapter can be read at Crossway's site. You can find out more information about Mrs. Kassian's ministry at http://www.marykassian.com/. Read my review here. Part Two will be posted tomorrow.]

In your book you start off with what you see as the first step for Feminism: "Naming Self." Our culture thrives on the idea that we ought to be free to do whatever we please. In seeking this freedom to name ourselves how are we stepping outside the bounds of Scripture?

In the very first chapter of the Bible we are told, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27 ESV). Being created in the image of God indicates that we are not free to define ourselves as we choose. Our responsibility, rather, is to reflect the glory of God - to honor his image in the manner in which he specifies it ought to be honored. Many people believe that that are free to do whatever they please. But God disagrees. He confronts those with this attitude with the accusation: "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me" or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?" (Isa. 29:16 ESV) The clear message here is that claiming the right to name oneself is an affront to God. He is the Creator. He is the One with understanding. He is the Potter - the one who dictates what "shape" our lives ought to take.

What's the difference between what you describe as "Naming" and what Adam did with the authority God granted him in Genesis 2:19-20?

God granted Adam authority to name. In other words, Adam did not claim the right to name for himself. His "naming" simply fulfilled the directive of his Creator. It is also important to note that responsibility was part and parcel of the delegated authority. "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." (Gen. 2:15 ESV). Thus, even though man had the right to name creation, he did not have the right to do whatever he pleased. Adam was responsible to his Creator to "work" and "keep" creation. He was God's delegate, and thus accountable to God for his actions. Adam's "right" to name was only within the parameters that God established. This is very different than the "naming" feminism advocates. Feminism claims that women can claim the right to name themselves, their world, and God - free of any external parameters. According to feminism, a woman has the right to make the rules.The next phase of Feminism you describe is "Naming the World."

During my undergraduate studies I noticed that a number of "Women's Studies" classes were listed as G.E. options. In a nutshell, what is it that students are learning in these classes and why is it harmful?

Women's Studies classes are a very effective tool for brainwashing students in feminist philosophy. The reason these classes are harmful is that they go way beyond a mere dissemination of information. The goal, rather, is to convince the students that women's experience (as viewed through a feminist lens) is the only legitimate source of truth and value. The classes are structured to encourage students to challenge, deconstruct and reject any semblance of a Judeo-Christian world-view. In other words, the goal is not education, but rather a systematic process of "conversion" to a feminist worldview. To this end, the classes employ a number of unconventional teaching devices and techniques, including "consciousness raising" (CR). As the National Women's Studies Association noted, women's studies is an "educational strategy: a breakthrough in consciousness and knowledge" whose purpose is to "transform individuals, institutions, relationships, and, ultimately, the whole of society."

In talking about the third phase, "Naming God," you describe a number of occult practices that have been embraced by Feminists. Are these practices normative for Feminists or does what you describe only apply to a few Feminists who are extreme?

This is a difficult question to answer, because I believe that feminism has been so thoroughly mainstreamed into our culture that we are all (to one extent or another) feminists. I believe that the occult has also been popularized and mainstreamed. Auras, karmas, horoscopes, meditation, yoga - many popular expressions of spirituality are laced with vestiges of the occult. Just think of the book, "The Da Vinci Code." New Age and occult spirituality are all around us. Certainly there are some hard-core feminists who are also hard-core occultists, involved in overt witchcraft practices. But there are also many women, (who may or may not call themselves feminists), who, in embracing a metaphysical pop spirituality, have also unwittingly embraced the occult.

One page 277 you claim that Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) "appears to be drifting away from orthodoxy." What, fundamentally, is the problem with CBE?

Members of Christians for Biblical Equality have, in the past several years, begun proposing ideas that are quite unorthodox, theologically. For example, Mimi Haddad, the president of CBE, maintains that it is entirely appropriate for us to call God: "Mother," "Mother/Father," or "Heavenly Parent." Gilbert Bileziekien, another CBE supporter, has argued against the orthodox belief that Jesus the Son of God is equal yet subordinate to the Father. He maintains that Jesus only submitted himself during the incarnation, and was not eternally submissive. CBE theologians argue against this foundational doctrine of the Trinity because it supports the possibility of a complimentarian framework. If equality and role difference are present in the Trinity, and male and female are created in God's image, then it follows that male and female can be equal and yet have different roles. Thus, some CBE theologians argue that the Father and Son only temporarily assumed roles for the sake of redemption (their roles are not eternal) the Son does not eternally submit to the Father. Other CBE theologians have argued that it was not necessary for Jesus to be incarnated as a male - were it not for culture, he could have just as easily been born a woman. Theologically, this does not mesh with the need for Christ to be the "last Adam," (a male) in order to secure salvation: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor. 15:22,45). CBE is also heavily supportive of gender-neutral Bible translations, which blur important theological distinctions. For example, neutering the term "sons of God" to read, "children of God," obscures a believer's personal identification with Jesus Christ - THE Son of God.

A number of widely respected people are on the CBE Board of Reference - including Gordon Fee, Richard Foster, Craig Keener, and Ruth Tucker. Should we be more critical of their other work because of their relationship with CBE?

I believe we should be "critical" of everyone's work - mine included. No one is exempt from having "blind spots" when it comes to understanding and applying God's Word. Fee, Foster, Keener, and Tucker have made important contributions to theology. I believe these believers are not correct with regards to their stance on what the Bible teaches on male and female, but that does not automatically negate the value of the rest of their work. I encourage all believers to search the Scriptures in order to determine which parts of an author's work are in line with God's Word, and which aren't. God's Word is infallible - but contemporary authors and theologians are not.

May your Christmas be a celebration of the Savior
From the CBMW Team