Editorial: A Collision of Worldviews and the Complementarian Response

Gender Confusion at SBL

The Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender/Queer Hermeneutics Section is a regular part of the program at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).¹ The average lay person would probably be nonplussed by the existence of such a group, given that a plain reading of the Old and New Testaments seems to militate against a homosexual lifestyle. But for those who have been following recent developments in the academic study of the scripture, this group is no surprise at all. It merely follows a trend that has become standard fare for a whole sector of biblical and religious studies. Among other things, the LGBT/Queer Hermeneutics Section aims to explore "the intersections between queer readers and biblical interpretations." ² In general, participants in this section support the normalization of homosexual orientation and practice in spite of what the Bible teaches. They seek to read the Bible as those who would "interrogate" traditions (biblical and otherwise) that they deem to be oppressive to that end.³

I sat in for a portion of the LGBT/Queer Hermeneutics Section at the annual SBL meeting this past November in Boston. What I heard there was both startling and sobering. The presentation that I attended featured a female theologian from a small seminary in Atlanta, Georgia. She delivered a paper on Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians-a presentation which included a variety of vulgar double-entendres involving the text of scripture and which would hardly be useful to repeat here.

What was noteworthy, however, was her stance toward the apostle Paul, which was decidedly antagonistic. Going against the current trend of counterimperial readings of Paul, she said that Paul was not "anti-imperial" but "alternate imperial." She complained that Paul's letters reveal an attempt not to undermine empire but to substitute one empire for another (the Christian empire in place of the Roman empire). Thus Paul's politics were as flawed as Rome's. The apostle's flawed political views were no doubt informed by his flawed views of gender and his embrace of patriarchy.

One contemporary application that she drew from the scripture was this. The current American political system is also flawed because it is organized on the basis of a patriarchal definition of the family. The traditional definition of the family (with one man and one woman in covenanted union at the center) is a structure that oppressively limits who can have sex with whom. Thus this definition of the family has become an obstacle to liberty, and the American political system is flawed because it is organized around a notion of "family" that restricts individual liberty. In effect, she was arguing that a just society would not recognize any definition of the family that limits who can have sex with whom.

An Unbiblical Worldview

This professor's presentation at SBL is but one example of a worldview that is increasingly coming into conflict with a biblical view both of the family and of manhood and womanhood. This worldview is unified in its antagonism of the nuclear family, even though the worldview has both secular and religious expressions. What both the secular and the religious versions hold in common include at least three items.

1. Gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. In other words, the idea of male and female comprises a set of stereotypes that we absorb from our culture. Male and female does not designate a universal, innate distinction among humans. Thus gender is merely a social construct. Except for obvious biological differences, all other social distinctions between male and female are purely conventional. If there are any psychological distinctions between males and females, they are learned, and they can and need to be unlearned so that there can be a total equality between the sexes. This worldview is so entrenched in today's culture that one can hardly suggest that there might be innate differences between male and female without being dismissed as a sexist and a bigot.⁴

2. Sex is for pleasure, not for God. We might call this the Sheryl-Crow-philosophy-on-sexuality. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. This perspective affirms any and all attempts to get sexual pleasure so long as such attempts do not harm others. If it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, then how could it possibly be wrong? The encroachment of this worldview explains to some extent why only about 74 percent of evangelical "Christian" teenagers say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage⁵ and why about 36 percent of white evangelical Protestants make their "sexual début" shortly after turning sixteen.⁶ This libertine attitude has had its impact on Christian mores with devastating effect.

This worldview also accounts for the normalization of homosexuality in the wider culture. If the goal of sex is pleasure and if gender is just something we learn not something we are, then same-sex attraction is okay (so long as it's between consenting adults and you don't hurt anybody). This mindset is not merely a feature of the secular culture, but now some "evangelical" Christians are revisiting the issue. In fact, at least one "evangelical" has called on Christians to give up their prophetic voice on the homosexual question so as not to offend a culture that is already put-off by evangelical theology.⁷ And that leads us to the third feature of this worldview.

3. Marriage is cultural, not universal. In other words, marriage is something that came from human culture, not from God. It has a human origin, not a divine one. With God out of the picture, humans are free to make marriage into whatever they want. This final piece accounts for much of the confusion and the conflict surrounding the socalled "culture war" on the issue of marriage in our society. Not only is this worldview evident in skyrocketing divorce rates and in legal outrages such as "no fault" divorce; it also undergirds the current push in our society for states to recognize samesex "marriage." If gender is something you learn and not something you are and if sex is for pleasure and not for God, then same-sex relationships should not be treated any differently that heterosexual relationships. Once a society divorces maleness and femaleness and their respective sexualities from their Creator's design, there is no moral basis for privileging heterosexual unions over any other kind of union (homosexual or otherwise). The heterosexual norm of the scripture is regarded merely as a social convention forced on the masses to limit who can have sex with whom-a convention that must be cast-off in a just society. Already in some sectors of our society, to privilege the heterosexual ideal of scripture over homosexual sin is to engage in bigotry and hatred.

Worldviews Collide

This worldview forms the social context in which complementarians and egalitarians engage the evangelical gender debate. And it is in this context that complementarians are called to bear faithful witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Complementarians who desire this witness will have to constructively engage some of the more radical elements that are informing the larger debate over gender in our culture. I am by no means suggesting that complementarians should leave off their engagement with evangelical feminists. I am saying, however, that the points at issue in the intraevangelical debate are fairly narrow and do not always address or adequately engage the kind of gender confusion that plagues the families and the communities in which we live. So how are we to do this?

Complementarians must both proclaim and embody the gospel of Jesus Christ in such a way that God's design for gender, sex, and marriage is clear and compelling. That will require both a countercultural message from churches and countercultural living among individuals and families in those churches. Let me briefly outline three counterpoints to the aforementioned worldview that must be at the core of evangelical witness on these matters.

1. Gender is something you are before you learn anything. In other words, the distinctions between male and female find their origin in God's good creation, not in what we learn from culture. That is not to say that people do not absorb ideas about gender from the culture, some of which are quite unhelpful. But that fact should not be used to suppress the truth that in the beginning God differentiated humankind as male and female as a part of His original creation-work. Nor should it obscure the fact that God unambiguously called this differentiation "good" (Gen 1:27, 31). The union of the first man and the first woman was the most healthy, wholesome, and satisfying union that has ever existed and it involved a man leading his wife and a wife following the leadership of her husband (Genesis 2). And though no other marriage will reach this perfection this side of glory, complementarians need to strive with integrity toward this ideal.

2. Sex is for God before there is any lasting pleasure. When people treat pleasure as the goal of sex, not only do they inevitably end up in immorality but they also end up with less pleasure. God is not a cosmic killjoy when it comes to sex. He intends for His creatures to enjoy this great gift for His sake, and that can only happen when God's people realize that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor 6:13). Thus, we are called to glorify God with our bodies (1 Cor 6:21). This means that the covenanted union of marriage is the most pleasurable and the most God-glorifying context in which to enjoy this gift. The Christian sexual ethic does not call people away from joy, but toward it.

3. Marriage is universal, not cultural. The apostle Paul says that the great "mystery" of the Genesis 2 norm of marriage (one man and one woman in covenanted union) is that God intended it all along to be a shadow of a greater reality. From the Garden of Eden forward, God intended marriage to be an enacted parable of another marriage: Christ's marriage to His church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, marriage is not defined by the culture, but by the gospel itself. Jesus loves His bride, the church, exclusively and self-sacrificially; and Jesus' bride is to respect and to submit to her husband. Marriage is meant to be a portrayal of a gospel archetype that is rooted in the eternal purposes of God. The gospel that shapes this archetype is also the hope for humanity and the context in which human happiness reaches is fullest potential. Herein is the innermost meaning of marriage, and faithful churches will engage the culture with proclamation and living that bears out this truth.

Conclusion

The presentation that I heard at SBL reveals just how much the ambient culture stands in opposition to a Christian worldview. But the response from Christians to that opposition should not simply be to curse the darkness and to retreat from culture. Rather, what the culture needs more than anything is for the Christian church to engage the culture with proclamation and a wholesome living-out of God's design for human sexuality and marriage. The Christian church should be a counter-culture that images forth an alternative set of priorities. In other words, the church should be a place where marriage is held in high esteem both in living and in teaching and discipline, and it should be that way because of its commitment to the gospel.

In the end, papers delivered at SBL are not the main problem. They are but a symptom of a larger system that is set against Christ and His purposes in the world (1 John 2:15-17). And what our friends and neighbors need more than anything is for Christians to set forth a faithful counter-witness on these issues. The messages coming from culture are clear. The church's should be even more so.