Do you think the battle for the Bible is ever won, once and for all, within a denomination or a local church?

Recent activities within the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination that waged a war for the inerrancy of Scripture in the 1980s and emerged as one of the America's most theologically conservative denominations, demonstrates that the answer to this crucial question is "no."  

Wade Burleson, a Southern Baptist pastor in Oklahoma and trustee with the denomination's International Mission Board, recently received the Priscilla and Aquila Award from the egalitarian advocacy group, Christians for Biblical Equality. CBE presented Burleson with the award for using his blog to oppose the firing of a female professor in a Southern Baptist seminary.

CBE gives the award to "recognize those who, in spite of risk to position or reputation, have stood for full freedom of women to use their God-given gifts in the service of Christ."

Burleson said he was pleased to be so honored by CBE.

"I am honored to receive this CBE Priscilla and Aquila Award ‘for risking my neck' for the sake of biblical equality," Burleson told CBE's magazine, Mutuality. "Even though I have been a conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist all my life, I had not been aware until recently that some people in my convention believe that women are not equal to men."

Burleson's egalitarian leanings came to light earlier this year on his blog as he expressed disagreement on theological grounds for the dismissal of Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

While Burleson is on record as saying he does not favor women's ordination, he told the Chronicle of Higher Education in its April 13 edition that the decision of whether or not to call a female pastor should be left up to individual churches.

In an interview with Denny Burk, editor of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Burleson said 1 Timothy 2:15, a text forbidding a woman to teach, is a prohibition that was limited to the culture of Paul's day: "Paul prohibits Timothy from allowing a woman, recently converted from the pagan cults from teaching in the assembly," Burleson said. "To prohibit a woman, at all times and in all places from teaching men would violate other passages of Scripture where those very things were done by women." He also told Burk that he would sit under a female preacher "without hesitation."

Elsewhere, Burleson compared the article in the SBC's confession of faith espousing the classical Christian view of gender roles in the home and church as tantamount to slavery.

"In one hundred years, conservative Christian historians will look at (Southern Baptist) views on the prohibition of women to teach and have what you call ‘authority' as we now look at our SBC forefathers and their view on slavery in the 1840's."

On Nov. 6, Burleson was censured and suspended by the board of trustees of the International Mission Board for multiple violations of the trustees' code of conduct, though the charges were not related to Burleson's views on gender roles, which is decidedly out of step with the leadership as well as the rank and file of the denomination.

The battle for the Bible is never over; it will continue until Christ finally and fully puts all things under his feet. Until then, all churches and denominations, even those like the SBC that are staunchly committed to the precious Reformation principle of sola scriptura, must be vigilant in their assertion of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.

There will always be voices within every church and denomination to express dissent when the so-called "difficult doctrines," those not palatable to the proclivities of fallen men, are boldly asserted.  Such doctrines are only difficult to the minds of the sons of Adam.

Wayne Grudem has demonstrated with significant clarity and force that a downgrade ensues along a gradual, but slippery slope, when biblical authority is set aside and Christians begin to waltz gladly with culture. Such a decline begins often imperceptibly when the ground of biblical fidelity, once retaken and held, is slowly given back.

"Which will we choose?" Grudem asks in the conclusion of Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? "Will we follow faithfully in the path of lifelong obedience to all the teachings of the Word of God, believing that that is the only path to true blessing?" Grudem writes. "Or will we turn aside to evangelical feminism and be led step by step down the path to liberalism and to an ever-increasing denial of the authority of the Word of God."

Let us choose the Word of God, which will stand long after the siren song of contemporary culture has died out.

At the 59th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Wayne Grudem addressed a gathering of evangelical scholars, publishers, pastors, seminary administrators, and web bloggers.  He traced the history of the gender debate over the past 20 years intermingled with his personal reflections of how God has been working through the activities of CBMW.  His view of the future and exhortation to complementarians has been included below.

Grudem asserted that manhood and womanhood is now becoming one of the main focal points of a much larger controversy over whether the Bible will reign supreme over cultural pressures in the church, the home and the academy.  He expects that this controversy will increasingly will be the focal point in a larger realignment of the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not. 

"I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long.  In the late 80's and early 90's  I expected that this would probably be over in 10 years by the force of argument, by the use of the facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear Word of God, by the truth.  I expected the entire church would be persuaded and that the battle for the purity of the church would be won.  I still believe that will happen because Jesus Christ is building his church and purifying it so that he might present it to himself without spot or wrinkle. But, it is taking much longer than I expected."

What has God primarily allowed CBMW to accomplish?  One significant contribution is the definition of a standard - The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -- that is faithful to the Bible.  With this statement, there is one responsible view that has guided the church and been widely used around the world.  Over the years, the Danvers statement has been successfully defended with hundreds of articles, books, and Internet publications at the highest academic levels as well as the popular level.

What still needs to be done?  Grudem encouraged scholars "to answer the arguments of William Webb, Kevin Giles, Sarah Sumner and others.  Publish on this -- there is no lack of evangelical feminist material in need of a response.  Continue to engage this issue and win these arguments at the highest academic levels."

He also warned complementarians to beware the opposite error of male supremacy and dominance.  "Whenever you fight against one error, those who hold the opposite error will cheer you on and seek to become your allies.  But beware of them," he said.

Grudem's final exhortation and encouragement were straightforward, "Be courageous in teaching the truth and trust God to give victory."

"My testimony after 20 years is that faithfulness to the Lord always carries a price but it is always worth the price.  Whatever you spend God will richly repay with his presence, his favor, his blessing on you, your life, your family -- however he chooses -- and at the end say, ‘Well done good and faithful servant.'"

Last month, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the California Student Civil Rights Act, which adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the class of groups to be protected from “educational discrimination.”

Teachers and school districts have been prohibited from “giving instruction…[and] sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry.” Educators are also prohibited from “sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their gender identity.

The law leaves undefined precisely what sort of events or curricula might qualify as “educational discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” or “sexual orientation.”

Such fuzzy-headed thinking on human sexuality and gender has been introduced into school districts in California by groups such as the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GPAC), an organization that was profiled in a four-part series recently on Gender Blog.

While the California legislation is troubling even on its surface, Jennifer Roback Morse of the conservative monthly The National Review and author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, gets right to the heart of the sad fallout for students in California and in other states where similar laws will surely be attempted in the future.

“Most disturbing,” she writes, “is that such legislation will cause struggles in the development of a healthy sense of gender in the vast majority of young people. Due to the flexible language employed, anything that looks remotely like gender stereotyping will run afoul of this law.” Further, she points out the reality that growing up as boys and girls is difficult enough without such “thinly-disguised thought-control laws” adding another layer of confusion from feminism and gay/transgender rights advocates.

“Most young people have questions about how to express their gender. What does it mean to be a man? What should a good woman do? These are questions with which all young people must grapple, and they are entitled to have some substantial guidance from adults. For far too long, we’ve been avoiding these questions out of fear of offending sensibilities. With this new law, California school teachers and school boards will have to fear the gay lobby, as well as the feminist establishment.”

Indeed, all young people do grapple with the appropriate ways to express and understand their gender and stand in need of substantial guidance. However, they are not going to find it in a culture entranced by postmodernity’s siren song of gender and sexual obfuscation.

Young people, indeed all people, will find such knowledge—what Francis Schaeffer famously called “true truth”— only in the Word of God, the storehouse of wisdom, wisdom that brings clarity such as “God created them male and female,” wisdom that demands that the only legitimate union between a man and a woman is a covenant union sealed by a holy God for a lifetime.

Scripture knows no such ambiguous language with regard to issues of gender and sexuality and again, God’s Word proves that its wisdom brings to nothing the so-called “knowledge” of the philosopher of this age.

One man who has consistently written over the years about the differences between men and women is columnist Dave Barry.  First, let me say that I do not agree with Mr. Barry or his humor on every point, especially his comparison of a former CBMW board of reference member to a large spider.  Nevertheless, the situation he describes in the column below is funny because it is an accurate reflection of the reality in many homes.  Sinful men, especially those who hold to the complementarian position, should enjoy the column -- then immediately seek forgiveness for the times that you have acted this way toward a woman in your life.  Sinful women, who can see themselves characterized in the last sentence of the column, should remember the Lord's prayer (Matthew 6:12) and be forgiving before they seek forgiveness.  May God help us to be biblical in our masculinity and femininity, and to celebrate together the complementary differences. 

Mr. Fixit strikes again

By DAVE BARRY

(This classic Dave Barry column was originally published June 22, 1997.)

I was walking through my bedroom on a recent Sunday morning when I suddenly had a feeling that something was wrong. I'm not sure how I knew; perhaps it was a "sixth sense" I've developed after years of home ownership. Or perhaps it was the fact that there was water coming out of the ceiling.

But whatever tipped me off, I knew that I had a potentially serious problem, so I did not waste time. Moving swiftly but without panic, I went into the living room and read the entire sports section of the newspaper, thus giving the problem a chance to go away by itself. This is one of the four recommended methods for dealing with a household problem, the other three being (1) wrapping the problem with duct tape; (2) spraying the problem with a product called "WD-40"; and (3) selling the home, and then telling the new owners, "Hey, it never did that when WE owned it."

Unfortunately, when I went back to the bedroom, the ceiling was still dripping. My wife, Michelle, suggested that maybe there was water sitting on the roof and leaking into the house, but I knew, as an experienced guy of the male gender, that she was wrong. I knew that the problem was the plumbing. It's time that we homeowners accepted the fact that plumbing is a bad idea. Many historians believe that the primary reason why the Roman empire collapsed is that the Romans attempted to install plumbing in it. Suddenly, instead of being ruthless, all-conquering warriors, they became a bunch of guys scurrying around trying to repair leaking viaducts. (Tragically, the Romans did not have "WD-40.")

So I knew that our plumbing had broken, and I also knew why it had chosen that particular morning: We had a houseguest. Plumbing can sense the arrival of a houseguest, and it often responds by leaking or causing toilets to erupt like porcelain volcanoes. And of course our plumbing had waited until Sunday, which meant that the plumber would not come for at least a day, which meant that it was up to me, as a male, to climb up into the attic and do the manly thing that men have had to do as long as men have been men: shine a flashlight around.

"Maybe you should check the roof first, " said Michelle. "Maybe there's water sitting up there."

She was fixated on this roof theory. Women can be like that. I had to explain to her, being as patient as possible considering that I had urgent guy tasks to perform, that she was being an idiot, because THE PROBLEM WAS THE PLUMBING.

So I got my flashlight and climbed up a ladder into the attic, where I was able, thanks to my experience as a homeowner and my natural mechanical sense, to get pieces of insulation deep into my nose. I was not, however, able to locate the source of the leak, because my attic turned out to be a cramped, dark, dirty, mysterious place with pipes and wires running all over the place, and off in the distance -- just out of flashlight reach, but I could definitely sense its presence -- a tarantula the size of the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

So I came briskly back down the ladder and told Michelle that, to stop the plumbing from leaking, I was going to turn off all the water to the house until the plumber came. Speaking in clipped, efficient, manly sentences, I instructed Michelle to fill containers with water and write a note for the houseguest telling him how to flush his toilet with a bucket.

"Before we do all that, " she said, "Maybe you should check the . . ."

"DON'T TELL ME TO CHECK THE ROOF!" I explained. "STOP TALKING ABOUT THE ROOF! THE PROBLEM IS THE PLUMBING!"

Sometimes a man has to put his manly foot down.

So while Michelle wrote toilet-flushing instructions for our houseguest and prepared a small apologetic basket of fruit and cookies, I tried to locate the valve that would shut off all the water. This was very difficult, because our plumbing system turns out to have approximately one valve for every water molecule. We could start a roadside tourist attraction ("TURN HERE FOR THE AMAZING VALVE FOREST").

The fascinating thing is, not one of these valves controls the flow of water to our particular house. I shut a number of them off, and nothing happened. So if, on a recent Sunday, the water stopped flowing in your home or store or nuclear power plant, that was probably my fault.

Since I could not turn off our water, our ceiling continued to leak all Sunday night, so that by morning our bedroom carpet was a federally protected wetland habitat teeming with frogs, turtles, Mafia-hit victims, etc. So we were very happy when the plumber arrived. And if you are a student of literary foreshadowing, you know exactly what he did: He looked at the ceiling, went outside, got a ladder, climbed up on the roof, and found some water sitting up there. It couldn't drain because there was a little place clogged by leaves. The plumber fixed it in maybe 10 seconds. I could have easily fixed it myself at any time in the previous 24 hours if I had not been so busy repairing our plumbing. I wrote the check in a manly manner.

So far Michelle, showing great self-restraint, has said "I told you so" only about 450,000 times. Fine. She's entitled. But don't YOU start on me, OK? Not if you want me to turn your water back on.

Julie Clawson, a wife, mother, egalitarian and emerging church pastor, asked this question on her blog a few weeks ago. She says:

"I do understand that there are various streams/waves of feminism and while I have serious issues with some of them (the ones that hate men or think that sexual openness means equality), I am not willing to give up the entire history of the movement because of some fringe views (kinda like I feel about Christianity). I am a feminist because I am a Christian. I believe all people are created in the image of God and are therefore worthy as imagebearers. We are all called to serve God in the ways we are called (in ministry, work, the home, school...) and to say otherwise is to stifle the will of God. Since it has been women who have generally been seen as inferior, I think feminism is necessary to overcome that lie."

At the end of her post she takes her stand for Christian feminists:

"So I am a feminist. I think women are people too. I think we are worthy of respect and human rights. I think God is big enough to use whoever he wants to serve him. And I will stand up with feminists against those who out of fear or hatred try to tell God otherwise."

I am a complementarian, and I readily agree with Julie that women are people too.  She is absolutely correct that women are worthy of respect and human rights.  I think God is bigger than we all can imagine, and that He is a speaking God who's Word we should obey.  But feminism will not achieve her goals.

Feminism is not necessary to overcome the lie of oppression. The gospel is.  We can never forget the centrality and sufficiency of the gospel in talking about gender. Jesus Christ, the perfect God-man, is our hope, and it is to him that we look.  History has shown us that feminism leads to oppression even as it cries out against oppression.  It leads to women exercising "free choice" to murder baby girls in the womb because they are seen as an intolerable burden.  And it is the "liberated woman" of pornography who pretends to represent to men how women truly are. 

I do not deny that there are men in churches who are not biblically-driven complementarians, but oafs and tyrant wannabes.  I am saddened by them. Nor do I deny that there are women in our churches who see biblical womanhood as being a doormat, and that is grievious.  But personal experiences and the examples of sinful men and women do not serve as the foundation of our faith or complementarian position.

The whole point of the gender discussion is Jesus Christ. I want people to see Jesus, despite how flawed my presentation of him may be. God has spoken to us, and we must listen. If our theology of God is not rooted in biblical truth, we run the risk of being disillusioned at the first harsh word from our husbands or fathers.

A Christian feminist must be categorized as an oxymoron. A recovery of true equality and dignity for women will first begin at the Cross, and in men and women living in the way that God designed them to be. If we abandon that, we will eventually abandon the gospel itself.

Mary Kassian says in her book The Feminist Mistake:

"Many Christians view feminism as an ideology that merely promotes the genuine dignity and worth of women. If this were true, feminism would definitely be compatible with Christianity, for the Bible does teach that women and men are of equal value in God's sight, co-created as bearers of God's image. But the philosophy of feminism adds a subtle, almost indiscernible twist to the basic truth of woman's worth. Feminism asserts that woman's worth is of such a nature that it gives her the right to discern, judge, and govern that truth herself. It infuses women with the idea that God's teaching about the role of women must line up with their own perception and definition of equality and/or liberation. Feminism does not present itself as an outright affront to the Bible, but it nevertheless contains an insidious distortion that erodes the authority of Scripture. Acceptance of the feminist thesis may not drastically alter one's initial beliefs, but if followed, will naturally and logically lead to an end miles away from the Christianity of the Bible."

Instead of running from God's design in the quest for freedom, the quest for equality should drive us to our God-ordained distinctions, because only there will we find true freedom and true worth.