How to do theology?

A while ago I was encouraged that Newfrontiers had started to do some theology in public. This is what they say about it:

the·ol·o·gy - noun, the study of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into the existence and nature of the divine.

The Theology Forum was originally set up simply as an informal group of Bible teachers who were also friends - meeting to discuss and debate theological and biblical issues of interest. It didn’t take long to realise that this group’s activity had potential to help others in the wider christian community.

  

Mick Taylor leads the Theology Forum on behalf of the Newfrontiers Team. Adrian Birks, Matthew Hosier and Andrew Wilson are the other members of the core team meeting together regularly to help shape theological thought. The current arrangement involves selecting a couple of topics each year that we feel are of particular relevance at that time. These papers are then written and subjected to serious reflection and debate before they are presented to teams across the UK and published on the web for others to access.

  

In addition to the more substantial papers we’ve also wanted to be able to publish regular pithy comment on a range of theological areas; responding more quickly to topical issues. Therefore we’ve set up what you think matters as a home for both our papers and blog content.

However, yesterday there was a sad reminder that the intention to "to help others in the wider christian community" is a long way from being achieved.

A new article appeared yesterday: Mutual Submission? | Newfrontiers UK. I have been trying to think of an appropriate way to describe this and am still struggling to find ways to express my dismay that Newfrontiers are putting put stuff like this on their official theology website.

The most destructive part of the article is in the second paragraph and reads:

Within evangelicalism, four main lines of interpretation can be discerned. (Outside of evangelicalism, the response is fairly simple – Paul was a sexist simpleton who didn’t know any better; we’ve been enlightened now, so we should ignore him – although one wonders if the catastrophic track record of post-1960s white people when it comes to marriage will cause this approach to lose its lustre). 

So Newfrontiers claim "Outside of evangelicalism, the response is fairly simple – Paul was a sexist simpleton".

This claim is quite simply barking mad.

I am sure it is possible to find a few people who believe Paul to be a sexist simpleton. But I have not met many. Yet Newfrontiers are claiming that everyone they do not believe to be an evangelical thinks this. What absolute insulting tosh!

Sadly the rest of the article is no better in quality. The Newfrontiers views on gender continue to rely on a combination of poor translation, poor exegesis, no academic research and ignorant/simplistic thinking. It makes it very hard to engage wityh in any detail as there is so much wrong with it.

So this is the way Newfrontiers do theology "to help others in the wider christian community."

It turns out that their idea of helping is to insult & dismiss other Christians while failing to actually do any quality theology themselves.

The article ends with the statement "Maybe complementarians and egalitarians agree about more than we think!" I suppose that at least both complementarians and egalitarians can agree on the quality of this article!

Comments

[dave]

If you can rise to some extreme forebearance.... if you take that bracketed line out of the article (which probably didn't need to be in there) do you have any comments on the main content of it? I'd have thought it was a "softer" complementarian paper than might have been expected.

[Dave]

Dave,

have you any idea how many times I re-wrote this blog post to tone my response down to this level?

The main content is very shallow and one sided and includes a number of failed attempts to be humorous.

Instead of asking me to rise above this appalling comment why not suggest they remove the article until it can be rewritten from the ground up.

[Andrew Wilson]

Dave,

My sincere apologies: you're quite right, I have generalised unfairly about those who would not self-identify as evangelicals, and I am sorry. I have asked for the wording to be changed on Monday morning from "is simple" to "can be all too simple", to avoid making it sound like this is true more broadly than it is. Sadly, however, I have encountered many for whom this is an all-too-accurate parody (though parody it is, which I hope is clear!) of their position. They shout at me from time to time!

I genuinely apologise for the overgeneralisation, and hope this does not taint everyone in Newfrontiers in your eyes.

Andrew Wilson

[Dave]

Andrew,

Thanks for asking for at least this minor change.

I suggest you consider writing a post on the meaning of Ephesians chapter 4 and how that impacts your way of viewing & describing others.

Your experiences are still so far from my own that I would appreciate it if you can put me in touch with some of these "many" people for whom this is an accurate parody of their position.

I have studied & worked with many people who would not self identify as evangelical and many others who would like to self-identify as evangelical but do not wish to be associated with the style of Newfrontiers. I repeat that your "parody" does not fit "many" people I know.

I'll probably be writing separately on the rest of your post and challenging the way that you use these few verses from Ephesians.

[How the mighty have fallen]

Dave,

How come you don't comment on any of the other newfrontiers papers. Are you only obsessed with their views on women? You make me nervous. It's quite sad that after rewriting this post many times, this is what you come up with. Is your focus on communicating what biblical egalitarians should look like or to publicly ridicule your fellow Christians?

Andrew, you shouldn't worry about tainting newfrontiers in Dave's eyes. It would be easier to do a root canal without an anesthetic. I bet there are more references to newfrontiers in this blog than to Jesus!

[Dave]

Hi "How the mighty have fallen",

Always lovely to have people anonymously criticising me for criticising others.

If you read what I wrote then you would notice that the main point was not about the views of Newfrontiers on women but their opinion of all non-evangelicals (and I find the text after small update is still far too all encompassing).

Plus of course it is always nice to have anonymous people telling me what I should or should not write about. If only you had given a real email address I could use you as a personal censor of my private blog.

[PamBG]

I do not believe that Paul was sexist. I also do not believe that Paul was anything like a complimentarian nor that his intention in his contextual instructions to various churches was to exclude half of the population from equality.

As to why one would comment on New Frontiers' views about complimentarianism, that would be because a person believes that the principle of inclusion is at the heart of the gospel.

New Frontiers does not appear to use that principle. It appears to use the principle that the bible is a set of instructions of which it holds the correct interpretation.

For my money, these two approaches to Christianity might as well be two separate religions.

My personal view.

[How the mighty have fallen]

'For my money, these two approaches to Christianity might as well be two separate religions.'

On the contrary, I think people in the anti-complementarianism camp make that their religion. A typical example would be this blog.

[Dave]

Pam,

As always thanks for your helpful comment.

"How the mighty have fallen",

If you glance at the recent posts column as it stands today (after a fairly dry spell of blogging) you will see that 50% of the posts are on gender issues and the rest on a variety of faith related issues.

Yes gender is the largest single issue that I write about but even so only 50% of the last 10 posts. Clearly not my religion.

[PamBG]

Equality does not make sense in worldly terms, only in God's kingdom.

[Priest]

I don't think the complementarians are against equality! I'm sure even the expert on this issue, Mr. Warnock, would agree with that. If anything, complementarians are constantly over emphasizing that the difference is in role and not value.

Are you saying that outside God's kingdom there is no equality?! Isn't that a bit pretentious?

[Dave]

Priest,

I don't think the complementarians are against equality! I'm sure even the expert on this issue, Mr. Warnock, would agree with that.

Sorry to disappoint.

I do not agree with this.

While Complementarians frequently claim to be for equality such claims do not hold water.

For example see Separate but Equal which made similar claims that you can have equality with differences (in this case according to skin colour).

Without equality of role there cannot be equality of value. This is especially obvious when the differences in roles include leadership vs submission.

Catchphrases about equality in value but different roles are marketing speak to try to make male headship more acceptable.

[TC]

"It turns out that their idea of helping is to insult & dismiss other Christians" isn't this what most Christians do? The splits and differences are so small, yet we make such a big deal of it all! Give me a table cover to hide underneath, and I'll come out when Christians come together again!

[editor] Congratulations TC on more subtle spam than most manage. Still I have removed your links, so sorry no sales from here.

[Priest]

Dave

It is not 'especially obvious' to me how different roles imply lesser degrees of value. The way I relate to my father is very different from the way I relate to my mother. My father loves and honours my mother but he is clearly the head of our family. And I like that I can look to him guiding me spiritually. Do I value one over the other - most definitely not.

How does your family work? Who takes ultimate responsibility - you or your wife? What happens when you disagree about something significant?

Why would you turn to wikipedia to prove your point rather than scripture? The church has always had male headship. The 'cultural' catchphrases that you throw out are marketing speak to try and turn this. You are doing more damage towards women by trying and overturning the God given order of things.

[Dave]

Priest,

You need to talk to people who have been told that while they are equal certain roles are not available to them because of their gender (or the colour os their skin or whatever) - they will tell you in no uncertain terms that this is not equality.

Our family works as a marriage ie Jane and I consider ourselves one flesh. We take ultimate responsibility together, we both completely trust the other. So there are no decisions that only one of us can take, there is no fear at all about what the other might do. Sometimes circumstances or gifts means one or other of us makes a decision for us both but we are both happy with completely putting our lives in the hands of the other, that is mutual submission.

I am not sure what you mean when we disagree about something significant, it has never been an issue in 23 years of marriage, we just decide together which is easy because we both know we both want the very best for the other.

Huh? I used wikipedia because I was making a historical/political point. I have referred to arguments for equality in Scripture many times before (start with Genesis 1 which complementarians always ignore).

Actually the Church has not always had male headship, in the early days it was remarkably equal. Paul clearly didn't expect Male Headship in the way you suggest (go and remind yourself of 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 16). Remind yourself of the God given order of things in Genesis 1.

Until a few years ago you could have equally argued that the Church has always had slavery, in fact many did argue that and could support it from Scripture. Do you claim they were right?

[priest]

Comparing forced slavery to complementarianism is far fetched. I hope you're not so foolish to think that you're the next Wilberforce (!) That woud just show that you have absolutely no idea of the kind of abuse that slaves experience. If men are inflicting such abuse on women in churches or, even worse, their marriages, then we've got bigger problems on our hands.

On the flip side, when I spent a few months in a 3rd world country, I had a servant lady who would come and cook for me and clean my house. She was also a part of the church I attended. Her wages were low but that was the going rate for her services. You think the verses about slaves and masters was not helpful to me or to her?! Surely you do not think that the Bible was written for middle class Europe and America!

You're using sexual relations to say that there is no male headship?! Or are you reading another 1 Cor 7?

[Dave]

Priest,

You may be pleased to know that your style of argument is very typical of a man supporting male headship. You simply ignore every challenge & question and keep changing tack. Please don't think that we don't notice.

To help you I will repeat the simple question at the end of my last comment that you ignored.

"Until a few years ago you could have equally argued that the Church has always had slavery, in fact many did argue that and could support it from Scripture. Do you claim they were right?"

Still waiting for an answer.

Now as for your latest twists and turns I'll answer them all.

"Comparing forced slavery to complementarianism is far fetched."

Clearly you have not looked at some of the extremes of Complementarianism, especially in the US. There are sadly plenty of examples of appalling treatment of women under male headship and yes some of them are very like slavery.

Male headship is a slippery slope. There is no reliable stopping point. It leads to all kinds of dangerous thinking and teaching. That slippery slope catches out even big name complementarians like John Piper who said that wives should endure abuse for a season.

I hope you're not so foolish to think that you're the next Wilberforce (!)

ha, ha very funny. In what way does me not being like Wilberforce mean that Male Headship is OK?

If men are inflicting such abuse on women in churches or, even worse, their marriages

You need to look out beyond your blinkered existence. Sadly there are plenty of cases of men abusing their wives. Power and inequality are key factors in this. So I agree with you that we have a big problem.

However, even if there was not a single case of abuse related to Male Headship that would not make it right. It would not change Genesis 1:26,27. It would not change Romans 16 so that suddenly there were not women in leadership in the early Church. It would not mean that Deborah was no longer a Judge over all Israel etc etc.

Surely you do not think that the Bible was written for middle class Europe and America!

Huh! How on earth could you possibly imply that I think that?

You're using sexual relations to say that there is no male headship?! Or are you reading another 1 Cor 7?

The passage is significant because every "right" given to husbands is also given to wives. Every "duty" given to wives is also given to husbands. There is an exact mirroring (only distinction comes from the law of the time which allowed only men to divorce wives) with no hint of any submission. It is also not just about sex eg v14

It is fairly typical of a complementarian to try to interpret everything that speaks of equality as being about sex but that is an abuse of Paul's writing here.

[Priest]

People ignore your silly and (at worse offensive) attempts to sensationalise your views on complementarianism by comparing it to slavery. People were kidnapped, maimed and murdered, my friend. Please don't tell me that churches that hold strongly to male headship are filled with such barbaric acts. Women not allowed to be elders in churches is nothing compared to what enslaved women went through.

I don't see any point in responding to your slavery question.

You keep saying you have plenty of examples of women in churches being treated like slaves. In this day and age, if you're keeping such information to yourself or only using it to make snide remarks on blogs, then that is pathetic. Have you freed any of these slaves recently? If you blogged about that, i'd consider what you say more seriously.

I agree with you that there are plenty of cases of men abusing their wives. But on what grounds are you saying that complementarianism has played a key role in that? No cases of abuse under your egalitarian ministry? Couldn't one argue that teaching such as your's which undermines the leader, protector, provider role of a man/husband/elder could lead to abuse?

I don't know what twisted teaching on power and inequality you're listening to. I don't seem to get that impression from the likes of Driscoll, Piper, Virgo, Grudem, Stroud.. Besides that controversial Piper teaching, can you point me to any teaching from these men that would suggest the abuse of women?

And finally, with regards to your 1 Cor 7.. yes, I know you and your friends don't like anything to do with sex in the bible! I'm no Bible scholar so I submit to your superior knowledge! To me it reads as Paul talking about sex!

P.S. We know how typical we are - we read the same Bible!

[Dave]

Priest,

A discussion with you is not easy. You twist and turn as you attempt to ignore challenges, avoid questions and mis-represent others.

Male Headship is not limited to not allowing women to be leaders. I have had comments and emails from women who have had much worse. When women are not free to choose who to marry, not free to choose their education, their work but in all things are told to submit to their father and then later their husband this is very much like slavery. Read around and you will discover it happening today. This is not about me keeping anything secret but being willing to read and hear what women tell of their lives. As one example of some of the extremes see my post The Dangers of Feminism!

But that is not the key thrust of what I was saying about slavery. Slavery was justified from the Bible, it was justified as what the Church had always done You use exactly these same arguments for Male Headship and just as slavery was rejected so will male headship.

I have never claimed that all people who are egalitarians are perfect and that we do not sin. Of course we do. But it is Male Headship that tries to cover up, hide and ignore abuse by men. You can sadly find plenty of stories of women whose churches have refused to believe in their abuse and have blamed them for not submitting enough to their husbands. Look back on old comments here and you will find examples, others have contacted me by email. Others I have met.

Why not find me an example of someone describing how being treated as an equal is abuse?

As for teaching abuse, Mark Driscoll is notorious for appalling teaching including telling a woman that the bible commanded her to offer her husband oral sex - something she did not want to do.

If your reading of my blog is anything to go by it is not surprising that you believe 1 Cor 7 to be all about sex.

Where do you get this idea that I don't like anything to do with sex in the bible? I have said nothing to support that. The implication that standing against abuse means I am a prude and don't enjoy sex is ridiculous.

[Dave]

How about that, just catching up on twitter and here is a classic example of the type of extreme complementarianism that I am talking about. See

The abusive teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl hurt both women and children

But it’s not just children who suffer from “No Greater Joys” ministries. When I was conducting research for “A Year of Biblical Womanhood,” I read Debi Pearl’s popular book, Created to Be His Helpmeet…which I threw across the room a total of seven times.

The writing is awful, the biblical exegesis deplorable, but what troubles me the most is that the book reads like a manual for developing abused wife syndrome. Citing New Testament passages that instruct wives to submit to their husbands, Pearl advocates a system in which godly wives live as complete subordinates to their husbands, with no “equal rights.”

Hat tip: Hannah

[Priest]

Wow you really are desperate to prove your point! Hats off to you mate!

Never heard of Michael and Debi Pearl before. I'm sure if I dug deep, I would find some twisted egalitarian teachings! But I trust you're wise enough to separate the good from the bad.

Going back to the slavery discussion. So if the Bible justified slavery as you pointed out, then why are you so eager to point out that it was rejected. Isn't it dangerous to reject the Word of God?

One more thing, would you be so kind as to tell me the demographic of the members in your church. I would like to know who your teaching appeals to. Give me numbers!

[Dave]

I chose Michael & Deb Pearl because it was easy, they popped up in my twitter feed at exactly the right time.

Sadly there are many others.

I have no idea what "Good male headship" means. As soon as you start saying that men have a leadership role and women need to submit you are deep in dangerous ground. As soon as you start on that journey there are going to be men who hear leadership vs submission and take it beyond what you meant.

Egalitarianism is different. The nature of equality does not lend itself so easily to abuse.

On slavery again you have to twist what I have said.

I did not say the Bible justified slavery. It was people's interpretation that allowed them to say the Bible justified slavery. The campaigners against slavery offered a new interpretation of the Bible, in no way did they reject the Bible.

If you think I reject the Word of God then you know little about me! What I reject is abuse of the Word of God.

Rather than rely on my presentation on the Churches I serve come and see for yourself. I am not hiding anonymously. Come and see the Methodist Churches in Syston, Rothley & Queniborough that I serve at the moment. Listen to me preach, talk to the congregations. Find out about the exciting things that the Leicester North Circuit where I am stationed is doing.

[Priest]

"If you think I reject the Word of God then you know little about me! What I reject is abuse of the Word of God."

I really respect that Dave. I think we have something in common.

Generally, I would argue something from scripture but I think we hold different interpretations of some verses and hold them in good conscience. I don't think you're one of those liberals who discards the authority of scripture. You desire to be obedient to scripture and so do I. So let's respect that about each other and lay that aside.

I'm keen to know who you work 'mutual submission' out.

When I got married, my wife felt God had given her a desire to take the nations to the ends of the earth, more specifically to unreached people groups. I, on the other hand, felt God had placed the local church we were part of, on my heart. What would you advise me to do in such a way that my wife feels honoured and respected?

[priest]

sorry that shld read:

I'm keen to know how you work 'mutual submission' out.

When I got married, my wife felt God had given her a desire to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, more specifically to unreached people groups.

[Dave]

Priest,

"I'm keen to know who you work 'mutual submission' out."

This is worth a whole blog post.

[Dave]

Ok I have written a new blog post to respond properly to "Priests" decision making dilemma see Decision making, mutual submission and God's call

[PamBG]

I don't think the complementarians are against equality! I'm sure even the expert on this issue, Mr. Warnock, would agree with that. If anything, complementarians are constantly over emphasizing that the difference is in role and not value.

I believe that complimentarians don't believe in equality.

I believe that the whole "ontologically equal and functionally subordinate" idea is the kind of emotional rationalization that people put up when, for whatever reason, they don't want to face the truth.

I also think this reasoning is only convincing to those who want to believe it. It is obvious to everyone else that the emperor has no clothes and that this is simply another version of "All animals are equal and some are more equal than others."

I accept the fact that there are many men in complimentarianism who are genuinely good willed toward women and I hope that some day they see the light.

Sorry, but I'm not colluding in the song and dance that complimentarianism isn't about anything other than plain old trying to get on top.

[Dave]

Pam,

"Sorry, but I'm not colluding in the song and dance that complimentarianism isn't about anything other than plain old trying to get on top."

I agree although I wouldn't underestimate the power of fear (of losing control & power) within complemantarians

[PamBG]

I wouldn't underestimate the power of fear (of losing control & power)

Sure, absolutely.

How to wield the power of Rome whilst claiming to not be Roman.

That's really at the heart of the theological problem here.

"Oh, we're Rome Lite. We wield power and will not give it up, but it is a softer, gentler kind of dictatorship."

[Dave]

Thanks Pam, agreed.

[priest]

'That's really at the heart of the theological problem here.'

Really?!?! Trying to obey scripture is not? It's amazing how you and Dave seem to understand what goes on in the mind and heart of complementarians

[Dave]

"Priest",

Really?!?! Trying to obey scripture is not

Sadly you have missed the point being made. It is about reading Scripture from a position of power and using Scripture to justify that power while claiming to be simply "trying to obey scripture".

In other words you continue to display blindness to the power issues in your position and the way that Scripture challenges them.

It's amazing how you and Dave seem to understand what goes on in the mind and heart of complementarians

Try listening to some of the voices of women who have experienced complementarianism / male headship and you will discover how we understand.

Sadly as a minister I have seen the rough side of male headship and it is not pretty.

You can only continue to pretend all is bright and sunny if you close your eyes and ears to the victims of male headship. When you have listened to their voices and walked alongside them then tell me that this is what God wants for them.