Modern Stumbling Blocks to Gender Roles

Good morning.  This morning we want to look at the issue of modern stumbling blocks to gender roles.  Let's pray before we do this together.   

Heavenly Father, we thank you for the privilege of time to reflect upon the truth of your Word, and the truth of your Word especially that is offensive to our world, and a truth which is under assault from the thought forces which are so readily apparent in our world.  Help us to have a Christian mind that is a mind informed by Your Word.  Give us wisdom and discernment as we see the obstacles to the acceptance of the truth, not simply by those who are in the world now who come to faith in Christ through the witness of the Gospel but those who are in the church and who are influenced by the thinking of the world.  We ask, O Lord, that You would glorify Yourself in this.  Help us to be discerning followers of the Lord Jesus Christ because we ask this in His name.  Amen. 

Modern stumbling blocks to Gender Roles.  I want to draw your attention to three major areas that are stumbling blocks for many in the whole discussion of male/female role relationships and gender issues.  One of these stumbling blocks is fundamental and philosophical and theological and worldviewish.  One of these stumbling blocks is the most common agenda in our post-modern Western culture expressive of that larger and foundational world-view conflict to which I've previously referred.  One covers a plethora of practical prejudices which manifest themselves in the unreflective, pre-reflective, and reflective masses.  So let me walk through each of these three with you for a few moments this morning.   

I. The theological, philosophical, worldview clash.

The first one, as I said, is a fundamental, philosophical, theological and world-viewish stumbling block to gender roles.  The fundamental worldview clash between Christian theism and pagan monism comes into bold relief precisely in the area of gender issues.  And it is one of the major stumbling blocks to the appropriation of a biblical view of gender issues--male/female role relations--even in the church because we've been influenced by this pagan monism which pervades our culture. 

The fundamental world-view clash between Christian theism and pagan monism comes into bold relief in the area of gender issues.  Let me explain how.  Because Christianity is divinely and revelationally committed to the very position that monists view as the true and only problem in our world and because that fundamental worldview conflict manifests itself unmistakably in the matter of male/female role relationships, the Christian position becomes an obstacle and an offense and a stumbling block to those who have imbibed those monistic principles.  The major area of dispute between Christianity, between Christian theism, and pagans, or panenthiestic monism, is in the arena of the Christian doctrine to the transcendental Creator.  The biblical view that there is a personal, omnipotent and transcendent Creator-God who brought all else into being and is sovereign over it and distinct from it.  That's where the fundamental disagreement comes between Christianity and monism. 

Monism wants to deny that there is a transcendent Creator.  Instead, all is one; all is god.  You say, "Well that's fairly high-falutin'.  I haven't read anything that said that recently."  Well you may have taken your grandkids to see Pocahontas.  Welcome to panentheistic monism.  You know, the trees are my brother.  Now listen to what's-her-name singing, and she's just singing monism in that famous song from Pocahontas, "Colors of the Wind."  This is not the real story of Pocahontas, I want to quickly say, which is a much more profoundly Christian story. 

But the place...though the battle between Christianity and monism is primarily a battle regarding the transcendent Creator...the place in which this worldview clash shows most clearly in our culture is in a cluster of issues surrounding the definition of marriage, family, sexuality and male/female role relationships.  Let me illustrate this for you.

Our culture has, for time immemoriam, viewed marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.  It is in the news almost every week, especially in the last five years: the efforts to redefine marriage.  Gay marriage is, of course, the major issue that you hear in our media.  Whether it's the State of Vermont recognizing the marriage of one man and one man and for however long, or one woman and another woman for however long. But did you know that very recently in Denmark a woman married herself?  I'm totally serious.  And I don't know whether she was being serious or whether she was taking a jab at the ridiculous, European marriage laws which are going the same direction that ours are.  But, it does make a point, doesn't it?  If marriage isn't one man and one woman, why not marry yourself?  There's a story that comes out of California, I think in Orange County, where a witch said publicly that she "raises her daughter with two, live-in husbands.  Why should the government tell me how to raise my family?"  So there's a battle in our culture as to what marriage is.  That is part of a battle between Christianity and pagan monism.  I'll explain how in just a few moments.

There's a battle over the traditional view of the family:  a husband, a wife, and children if God blesses.  And, of course, again every day in our culture, every week, we're reading something about, for instance, new adoption laws.  "Why shouldn't gay couples be able to adopt?" our culture asks.  The family's being redefined.  There's our traditional view of sexuality: that heterosexuality within the context of marriage is the only legitimate expression of human sexuality.  And again in our culture, more and more, anything goes. 

And then, of course, there's the battle over the traditional view of male/female role relationships: the husband as spiritual leader, the man in the role of protector, all male elders and ministers.  And over against this we find the women's movement, the feminist movement.  We see things like issues regarding women in combat and women's ordination in the churches challenging these traditional views of male/female role relationships.  But behind this set of issues...and these issues I want to suggest to you are bellwether issues.  Pick up Geoffrey Satinover's book, The Politics of Truth, his book on homosexuality, a Baker publication.  He does a good job of showing how this cluster of issues around defining sexuality and marriage and family is the bellwether issue of our culture.  The way this issue goes will let you know how the totality of the culture is going to go over the next 25 to 50 years. 

Behind this set of issues --and this set of issues is a bellwether for our culture--is a titanic worldview clash between Christianity and monism.   Classical Christian theism set over against pagan monism.  And that philosophical battle impacts the area that you're studying at this conference.  Let me explain how.

Let me first look with you at monism, and then let me do an extended comparison between monism and Christianity.  First, let's look at monism together.  Monism believes the following five things:  Monism, m-o-n-i-s-m, which really just means "oneism"; it believes that all is one.  Monism believes, first, that all is one.  That's the first point of monism.  Monism believes that all is one.  Have you heard Elton John sing, "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King?  Welcome to monism.  All is one.  What's the key point in the story of The Lion King?    It's when the young lion prince looks up and realizes the stars are his father.  See, it's all connected.  It's all part of the circle of life.  He's part of this great river of being.  There are no distinctions.  We're all part of this tremendous circle of life.  You get a taste of monism in Star Wars too, though.  Do you remember when Obi-Won Kenobi, and this is way, way long ago, folks, long before "Attack of the Clones," this is all the way back in the first Star Wars movie in 1976.   Obi-Won Kenobi explains to young Luke Skywalker that there's a force that pervades the universe, and we're all a part of it.  Monism.

In contrast, Christianity believes in a Creator/creature distinction.  God created this reality: He is not part of this reality.  This reality did not emanate out of Him.  He is distinct from it.  He spoke it into being.  He is Lord over it--over against monism that sees the divine suffused through created reality in you, in me, in the pews that you're sitting on, in the rocks, in the stones, in the trees, in the wind, in the ocean, in the air.

Secondly, monism believes that humanity is one.  All humanity is one.  Do you remember John Lennon singing in "Imagine" that he looked forward to the day when we would all be as one?  This is the dream of monism.  Humanity is one, and it needs to realize that it is one.  We're all part of the circle of life.  And this has bred the joke amongst post-moderns that there are two types of people in the world:  people who believe that there are two types of people in the world and people who don't.  You see, the point of the joke is that monists believe that people like us who believe that there are two types of people in the world, saved and lost, are the problem because we haven't understood that there are not two types of people in the world

Christianity, in contrast, believes that we are only one in Christ, that you are either in Christ or that you are out of Christ.  And humanity is not one apart from Christ.

Thirdly, monism believes that all religions are one.  Once you realize that its all part of the circle of life, once you realize that we're all part of the circle of life, you can join in and be united to god, lost in the mystical union with god.  This is why pluralism and toleration is absolutely at the top of the monistic agenda.

Christianity, in contrast, believes that there is one truth and one way in Jesus Christ.  And because of that all religions are not an expression of the same truth.  In fact, all religions other than God's truth as revealed in the Scriptures are idolatry.  They don't help you on the way to God: they hinder you from the way to God.  And so Christianity boldly asserts one truth and one way.  Eugene D. Genovese, in his very excellent book, The Southern Tradition, which were the Massey Lectures at Harvard in 1992, and if you love to monitor culture I'd encourage you to read that book, makes this point of contrast between religious pluralists and religious absolutists.  He says, "The religious pluralist says, ‘You worship god in your way, and I'll worship him in mine because, after all, it doesn't matter.'  But the religious absolutist, the traditional Christian, says, ‘You worship god in your way, and I'll worship Him in His.'"  The point being not that the religious absolutist is ready to put to the sword everyone who disagrees, but that the religious absolutist, while he grants religious freedom to others who differ from him, is not ready to grant the same status of truth to every other religion.  That is to denigrate not only his religion but also theirs.

James Denney, in talking about this sort of mystical view of what it meant to be united to the god found in monism, said, "I'd rather be found in Christ than lost in god."  I think it's an excellent description of the problem of mysticism. 

Fourthly, monism believes that our great problem is that we have forgotten that we are one.  We suffer from spiritual amnesia; and if we could only be reminded that we are all one, everything would be solved.  Christianity, in contrast, believes that our great problem is sin, alienation from God.

Monism, fifthly, believes that the solution to this great problem that we have forgotten that we are one is to look within.  Christianity believes that the only solution of this great problem of sin is to look away from self and to Christ. 

Let me further contrast monism and Christianity, and I hope explain how it is that monism is connected to this issue that we're talking about at this conference and how it serves as a stumbling block to modern gender roles.  Monism, as we've seen, denies the Creator/creation distinction.  It views the world as divine.  Monism denies the God/man distinction.  It views man as god.  It views that we're all part of the divine.  Remember when Shirley McLaine made a big splash a few years ago by talking about that: "finding the god within"? 

Monism denies the animal/human/plant distinction.  You see, we're all part of the circle of life, and what better way to prevent human abuse of animal and plant life than to realize that animals and plants are divine?  And, hence,  the modern Animal Rights Movement and tree huggers and this sort of thing. 

Monism denies the right/wrong distinction.  For Monism, good and evil is an illusion.  The only evil in this world is the distinction between good and evil.  And because good and evil is ultimately an illusion,  because you remember "all is one" therefore sin and guilt is also an illusion.

Life and death is also an illusion according to Monism.  And it denies the distinction between life and death.  "Dying is just a part of living," Forrest Gump's mother told him.  Dying is the penalty of sin in Christianity.  It's the most unnatural thing in the world.  There will be one day when it never happens again.  It's not just part of living.  It's the penalty for sin. 

Monism denies heaven and hell.  Again, back to John Lennon's "Imagine."  "Imagine there's no heaven, no hell below."  The only hell, Monism says, is judgmentalism. 

Monism denies the distinction between Christ and Satan.  They are like yin and yang, simply different sides of the same reality.  Interesting, isn't it, that Mormonism says that Satan is Christ's brother.  We see a hint of Monism even in Mormonism.  Monism denies the distinction between sin and holiness.  Remember when Carl Menninger asked, "What ever happened to sin?"  Well, in large measure, Monism happened to sin.  One very popular preacher who preaches in a glass church in California has done a great deal himself to make sure that we lose a sense of sin.  "Sin is not having self-esteem," he says.

You see, Monism is more into wholeness than  holiness.  Monism denies the distinction between the Bible and other scriptures.  More and more you're going to go into the bookshelves and the religion sections of popular bookstores in the mall and elsewhere and see compilations of biblical texts with other scriptures from world religions.  One of my favorites is a collection of sayings by Jesus and Buddha that Marcus Board of the Jesus Seminar just published about five years ago.  You're going to see more and more things like that. 

Furthermore, Monists believe that the goddess within directly reveals herself to us.  So why do you need Scripture anyway?

Monism denies the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy.  And so the members of the Jesus Seminar, radical, left-wing academic liberals like Robert Funk and Marcus Board and John Dominic Crossan, have argued for the incorporation of the Gospel of Thomas, a late second-century Gnostic gospel into the canon of Scripture.  And they have bound it with the other four gospels to make The Jesus Gospel, the Jesus Bible.  Interestingly, they find the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas more accurate to the original Jesus than they find the Gospel of Mark.  In all of the Gospel of Mark, the only original saying that is left, according to Jesus Seminar, is "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."  It's interesting, isn't it, that all they have left from the Gospel of Mark is taxes?  Leave it to the socialists.

Monism denies the distinction between Christianity and paganism.  The truth is:  we are all on a journey to the one, and the way to the one is a communion of spirituality.  And so the inter-faith movement is essential to monism and, therefore, distinguishing Christianity from paganism is very offensive.

Now we're finally getting home to the point that I want to make.  Monism denies the distinction between male and female.  You see, monism looks out and sees males oppressing and abusing females, and it says, "The only solution to that problem of oppression and domination and abuse is to eliminate all distinctions between male and female, husband and wife, and to tolerate all decisions in human relationships."  Monism looks out and sees homosexuals being mistreated and abused by heterosexuals.  So how do you eliminate that?  You eliminate all distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual, and you tolerate all decisions.

Monism denies the distinction between the traditional and the alternative family.  The traditional family is an obstacle to spiritual unity because it tempts people to view the traditional family as the norm, as normal, when, in fact, what we need is a diversity of choices in order to manifest that we are all spiritually one despite that diversity of choices.  So the witch who has two, live-in husbands and a daughter: that's a normal family as well.

Monism denies the distinction between parent and child.  Many of you have been following with interest the story of the constitutional amendment to the Swedish Constitution which denies anyone the right to criticize homosexuality.  Christians have been worried about this because of what this would mean, for say, Romans chapter one.  And so far they have decided that Romans chapter one can stay in the Bible in Sweden, but it cannot be preached from in the churches with regard to the issue of homosexuality.

But you may not have known that in Sweden the effort is underfoot to deny that parents have a right to discipline children; not to deny them to have a right to spank children or to corporally punish children, but to discipline children in any way.  "That is not their business," the state says in Sweden.  Again, if your goal is to eliminate all power structures in society, you have to reduce parental authority.  That's the agenda of monism. 

And monism wants to eliminate and denies the distinction between authority and submission.  Seen the bumper sticker?  "Question Authority."  Monism.  Monism wants to eliminate all authority constructs:  teacher/student.  So the teacher doesn't get behind the podium and teach; he gets in a circle and he shares.  Recently at a high school in Jackson, Mississippi, the students were getting ready to study the American Civil War. And they sat around in a circle, and the teacher had them for the first two days share what they thought were the causes of the Civil War, apart from the facts.  It doesn't matter what the facts are.  They just wanted to share what they felt were the causes of the Civil War.  Well, my friends, it doesn't matter what a group of thirty-two students in Jackson, Mississippi think or feel are the causes of the Civil War.  There are causes to be studied.  The goal is to eliminate the distinction between employer and employee, parent and child, husband and wife, elders and church members.  Radical egalitarianism says that "the key to social justice is the eradication of all hierarchical authority structures." 

Now do you see how monism presents a challenge and a stumbling block to accepting biblical views of role relations? Because those role relations are all about manifesting authority and submission, and in the very center of redemptive history you have this glorious picture of the Son, coming to do what?  Not His own will but the will of Him who sent Him.  And monism is all about eradicating that fundamental story of redemption.  Isn't it interesting that Satan invents a lie designed to strike at the very heart of redemption?  "Not my will but Thy will be done."  And isn't it interesting that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, precisely when he's addressing men and women relating to one another, says to both men and women, "Christ is your example.  Christ is the head of man, but God is the head of Christ."  And so Christ models both the administration of authority over the Church to man but also submission to God for woman.  And so in His person and in His work, He manifests to us both authority and submission.  And Monism is out to eradicate that, and, therefore, it's one of the great stumbling blocks to our embrace of biblical gender roles.  

II.  The politically correct/feminist agenda.

Secondly. The second great stumbling block I mentioned is the most common agenda in our postmodern, western culture expressive of this larger and foundational worldview conflict between Christianity and paganism, between Christian theism and monism.  And that is the feminist/politically-correct agenda with regard to male/female role relationships, the egalitarian position on the role of women in the home and in Christian ministry.  The feminist/politically-correct agenda is an expression of this larger agenda, whether they realize it or not.  This is the second and most obvious ideological stumbling block for people in our culture when it comes to male/female role relationships in our church and culture. 

Broadly the egalitarian view says "that a man and woman, male and female are created as equal in all respects."  It argues that Genesis 1:26 and 27 makes no distinction between male and female; that they are both ontologically and functionally equal.  It goes on to say "that it was the Fall that brought distinctions and hierarchy into human relationships."  And they argue that in Christ, in Galatians 3:28, "that equality is restored through redemption in Christ."  They argue that Galatians 3:28 expresses the grand truth that in Christ the faults and sinful male/female hierarchy has been abolished so that there is no legitimate distinction in God's kingdom between female and male.  Full male and female equality is restored.  Dignity is given back to women. 

Now what's the primary rational to support this position?  Well egalitarians go to Genesis 1:26 and 27 and argue that men and women share the same human nature; both are made in God's image; both are given a commission to rule the earth.  There's an equality of being, and there's an equality of function and task.  "No distinction is made to give the man a superior position in rulership," they argue.  They point to Genesis 2:18 and that strong word that we talked about, woman as "helper," and they argue that far from being subordinate to man this shows that man should be indebted to woman.  They point to Genesis 2:22 and 24.  And they point out the one flesh principle, and they say that that means the full equality of persons.  They go to Galatians 3:28 and say that "if it's God's purpose through redemption to abolish faults and sinful distinction between separate men and women into classes or into hierarchy, then this must be understood as a return to what was intended in creation, an intent that was distorted by the Fall and sin but now made real again in Christ." 

Notice, by the way, how egalitarianism buys into the monistic view:  that the problem was distinctions and distinctions didn't exist in God's original but were brought into the world through sin.  And so sin becomes distinction, and holiness is non-distinction.  The only crime left, it is said today, is discrimination.  And you see this in egalitarianism.  They point to 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and argue here that this distribution of God's gifts to women is yet another proof that God's spiritual design is for total ontological and functional equality between man and woman.  They give biblical examples of female equality with males:  female leadership in Israel, female participation in Jesus' ministry, female involvement in the early church.  

III. The Christian response.

Now what do you say to these things?  Well, very briefly, we point out a few things.  First of all, when you go to Genesis 1:26 and 27, we see an equality of essence and a distinction of role.  Male and female both created equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature,  but distinct in role.  The man is given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female is to offer willing and glad-hearted, submissive assistance to the man. 

Genesis 1:26 and 27 indicate male and female created in God's image, but as Genesis 2 makes clear, their humanity finds expression differently in a relationship of complementarity with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.  The Fall does indeed disrupt this plan, but it doesn't disrupt the plan by introducing hierarchy.  It introduces a sinful expression of that hierarchy in which there is, on the woman's part, a desire to usurp God-given authority and, on the man's part, a temptation to use his authority in an abusive way.  This role differentiation continues even in redemption in Christ, as you have seen in Ephesians 5:22-33 as the role of husband and wife is discussed.  As we saw in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 yesterday when we studied, wives are to submit to their husbands.  Women are not to exercise authoritative roles of teaching in the church.

How do we respond to specific arguments from the egalitarian position?  Well first of all, look at Israel's political and religious structures:  they are almost exclusively male in their leadership and this by God's calling and command. 

Second, notice if we view Jesus as breaking with cultural expectations and norms, why didn't he choose women amongst His twelve disciples?  His choice of all male disciples suggests that He endorses this tradition of male leadership that we see in the Old Testament.  Notice again that Paul tells women to submit to their husbands.  How can he rightly do this if hierarchy is the result of sin and is now abolished in Christ?  When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:3 "that the man, or husband, is the head of the woman," doesn't he mean that the man has a position of authority and responsibility over the woman?  And when Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 that "women are to learn in submission and not to teach and exercise authority over men" and that this is because of the order of creation and Eve's fall into sin, doesn't it indicate that this particular pattern is rooted in both creation and in redemption?  In all these ways we respond to the assertion of egalitarianism, but egalitarianism is indeed one of the major obstacles to the embrace of biblical approaches to gender issues.

Third and finally, there are a range of common, practical, instinctive, self-focused objections to complementarianism, to a biblical approach to gender issues.  And we don't have time to go through all of them.  Let me just walk through four of them today.  There are many people who have had, indeed, bad experiences:  bad experiences with bad fathers, bad experiences with bad husbands, bad experiences with bad men in authority.  And those existential situations lend them to be inclined to agree with the monist who says, "All hierarchal distinctions are bad.  Power relationships are used for abuse."  Well a person who has experienced abuse in a relationship is tempted to agree with that philosophically.  Or if they don't want to go the whole way into monism, they can at least go into evangelical feminism and say, "Yes!  Power relationships in the church: I've seen those abused."  Well, friends, we complementarians have seen those abused too.  We have a solution to that: it's called "church discipline."  One of my favorite passages from the Apostolic Constitutions, The Manual on Church Discipline, from the second century, explains this:  "That if there is a man who is beating his wife in the church, the pastor is to take two stout elders and visit the home."  Now I've always wondered what the intention of that is!  But it's beautiful, isn't it?  We've had ways of dealing with this stuff for a long time.  Just take him out back.  He'll think twice before he raises a hand to his wife again.  But, you see, it does provide you a stumbling block.  I mean, that person is already suspicious of power relationships.  So what do you have to do?   Not deny authority, hierarchy, power relationships, but emphasize that in Christianity power is exercised for the other.  Jesus is the example of that.  Jesus doesn't abdicate authority in his church.  He is the head of His church.  He is the czar, the king, the lord of His church.  But how does he exercise that authority?  For the welfare of his people.

Secondly, there are people who have experienced misuse of paternal authority in domination and oppression.  And so they question the whole idea of the fatherhood of God.  Again, what do you do?  You don't throw out the Fatherhood of God.   You explain what God the Father is really like. Thank God for many, many people in the church to whom you can say, "You know, I knew your dad, and he really manifested what God the Father was like in this way and in that way."  But you know what?  All of us are sinners; and so even in the best of dads you have to say, "Yes, he was like God the Father in this way, but he wasn't in that."  And so for those who have experienced misuse of paternal authority you can say, "Well your father has shown you what God is like negatively.  He's not like that, and he's not like that, and he's not like that, and he's not like that.

Thirdly, there, frankly, is that problem of people who come and say,  as a woman recently did, "But God has called me to preach."  There's a sense of constraint in that subjective calling.  How do you respond to that?  Well look: the call is not just internal; it's external.  The church confirms that call.  There have been many people who have come before Derek Thomas, as the chairman of the committee that studies the calls of men before they go into the gospel ministry in our particular region, and many men come before that committee and say, "I'm called to the ministry."  And after the committee examines their heart and their doctrine, the committee says, "Brother, you're not called to the ministry."  Because, you see, we don't get to decide whether we're called to the ministry on our own.  The church has a say in that.  The church has to recognize that call.  There is a fundamental, New Testament principle that no officer is imposed on a congregation if that congregation has not seen the gifts and calling in that man.  And so none of us--females or males-have the right to say, "God's subjective calling to me trumps the church's discretion over whether I'm called or not."  And the church opens its Bible up, and it says, "Dear sister, we see this proscription in God's Word: that women are not to hold authority over men.  And, therefore, we do not see your calling to the gospel ministry.  Perhaps there is another calling for you in which you will exercise your spiritual gifts to the edification of women:  in the area of Christian education, in church administration, and in a thousand other ways, but it won't be in being a gospel minister."

Of course, finally, there's a sense of unfairness on the part of some.  "But this isn't fair!  It's not fair for half of the world's population to be excluded from the ability to be a gospel minister."  Well, think about it, friends.  It's better in the new covenant than it was in the old.  Did you know that?  In Israel you had a 1/24 opportunity to be a priest.  One-twenty-fourth of the population: males from the tribe of Levi.  Twelve tribes: one tribe could be a priest.  Males from that tribe. 1/24 of the population or less could enter into the priesthood.  In the new covenant, half of the population is potentially eligible for the gospel ministry.  But only those who are gifted from within that population can serve in that ministry.  Maleness is not the only qualification for that ministry, and there are plenty of males who are not called and qualified for that gospel ministry.  It all gets down to submitting to Scripture.  Scripture is unpopular and offensive to many, but that's part of what the Holy Spirit does in converting us, isn't it?  He makes us to accept a yoke that seems hard at first, but when we take it upon ourselves, we find, instead, that it is light. 

Amen.