a Church.

The conversation I have been having with Steve Coxhead and his understanding of justification by faith has been rolling along! Please note that although I intiated the discussion with my critique of his 32 Theses Steve has been discussing the issues at his blog. I have been transferring his comments over to here, and transferring my comments over to his blog. It helps make it more interesting for me!!

Below is the most recent post at Steve’s blog which came from a question asked by a blogger going by the name Sujomo. The question was, 

“Lots of thoughts for us all to meditate on. Would you like to post a comment on Romans 15:26 and the juxtapostion of ‘obedience’ and ‘faith’? You have also sought to explain how you see Paul using ‘law’ in his epistles. Would you care to comment on the wider NT corpus, especially Hebrews 7:12ff?
cheers, sujomo”

Steve responded with the post below…

“The Obedience of Faith in Romans 16:26

Sujomo has asked me about how I understand the expression the obedience of faith in Rom 16:26.

In Rom 16:26 I prefer the interpretation the obedience which is faith, i.e., faith is an epexegetic or appositional genitive.

I prefer this interpretation on the basis that Paul in Rom 16:25-26 is reflecting on God’s plan of salvation as revealed through the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets saw the new covenant as being a time of the circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6), when the law would be written on the heart in a comprehensive way (Jer 31:33), a time when the Spirit would move Israel and the nations to keep torah (Isa 2:1-4; Ezek 36:26-27). In sum, the Old Testament prophets look forward to the new covenant as being a betrothal of Israel (and the nations) in faith to God (Hos 3:20), i.e., a time when God would work through Christ and the Spirit to bring about the renewal of covenant faithfulness (as per Hab 2:4), not only on the part of Israel, but also the nations.

So the epexegetic genitive makes most sense as being consistent with this Old Testament vision. I also think that that is how the same phrase in Rom 1:5 should be interpreted. This interpretation is also consistent with Paul’s language in Rom 15:18 where he talks about his mission as bringing the Gentiles to obedience.

The obedience of faith contrasts with the obedience of the works of the law (i.e., Jewish obedience to the law of Moses), which Gentiles could not participate in (at least not without giving up their Gentile citizenship). So the phrase the obedience of faith has a polemic edge to it in the historical context of Paul’s day. It is new covenant obedience: the obedience of submission to the lordship of Christ. ”

Below is Steve’s response to the first three of my ten points critiquing his 32 Theses. I will respond in the comments section. Perhaps, when Steve has dealt with all 10 of my points I will look as posting a response, but we will see where the comments section and discussion takes us first!

“A Response to Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification: Part Two

This post intends to respond to points 1-3 in Dave Woolcott’s critique of my view of justification. Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification, or on his blog in his post entitled A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”.

In point no. 1, Dave states that I believe that “there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam.” Yes, that is what I believe. God’s law as revealed to Adam (before he was kicked out of the garden) effectively contained two laws that we know of: (1) the law permitting him to eat food from all plants and trees with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 1:29; 2:16-17); and (2) the creation mandate (Gen 1:28). There was also no provision built into these laws for the forgiveness of sin. The law of Moses on the other hand contained many laws (most of Exod 20–Deut 30), and a large number of these laws had to do with the sacrificial system that offered the forgiveness of sins to the people (e.g., Lev 1-7).

Dave states that I am seeking to reconcile God’s covenant with Adam and the law of Moses, but that is not correct. The point of the 32 theses is to reconcile the Old Testament teaching concerning absolute righteousness and covenant righteousness, not the Adamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant. The focus is on the Mosaic covenant, and the two strands of righteousness that emerge there. The question that I am addressing in the 32 theses is: How does the need for the absolute righteousness provided through sacrifice fit in with the divine requirement for covenant commitment on the part of Israel?

The reason I distinguish between God’s law in the garden and God’s law to Israel is because many people fail to see the way in which grace was inbuilt into the Mosaic law as seen in the laws regarding sacrifice and atonement. Or to put things in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, our (i.e., Presbyterian Church of Australia) confessional standard: the Mosaic covenant belongs to the administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. The Confession teaches that “perfect and personal obedience” was required of Adam in the covenant of works (WCF 7.2), which contrasts with the requirement of faith under the covenant of grace. In other words, the Confession teaches that absolute obedience was required by Adam, which implies that there was no inherent provision for the forgiveness of sins under the covenant of works, otherwise the requirement would have been something other than absolute obedience.

Dave has understood me correctly in his point no. 2. The covenant with Adam did not contain provisions to deal with sin. That is why it is called a covenant of works (WCF 7.2). But the Mosaic covenant did contain provisions for the forgiveness of sin. That is why the Confession groups the Mosaic administration as part of the covenant of grace (see WCF 7.5). The Confession includes the laws that make provision for sin within the category of ceremonial laws: “God was pleased to give to the people of Israel … ceremonial laws … prefiguring Christ” (WCF 19.3). Notice that the Confession states that such laws were given to (old covenant) Israel. The Confession also acknowledges that grace was offered to Israel through the sacrificial system (and through other things, such as promises and prophecies), and that all of these were “sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit” for the “full remission of sins, and eternal salvation,” because they foresignified Christ (WCF 7.5). In speaking of Mosaic law as including atoning grace to the extent that the sacrificial system prefigures Christ, and in distinguishing this from Adamic law, I believe I am being completely consistent with our confessional standard.

I also have to disagree with Dave’s interpretation of Ps 40:6 and Hos 6:6. The Old Testament doctrine of obedience rather than sacrifice was used by the Old Testament prophets not to devalue the need for sacrifice, but to point out that offering ritual sacrifice without covenant obedience is hypocrisy. Concerning Heb 10:1-10, my response is: Yes and no to Dave’s suggestion that the Mosaic sacrificial system couldn’t deal with sin. In and of itself the blood of bulls and goats cannot bring about the forgiveness of sins, but (as the Confession teaches) to the extent that the sacrifices were a proleptic presentation or prefiguring of Christ to the people of Israel, the sacrifices were “sufficient and efficacious” for atonement. The only sacrifice that counts is the perfect sacrifice of Christ, but the benefits of that were genuinely offered to old covenant Israel through the Mosaic sacrificial system.

Regarding the issue of immediate death for Adam, what I am referring to there is what God says in Gen 2:17: that in the day when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he would die. The death referred to there by God was primarily the spiritual death of separation from God. This death took place when Adam was kicked out of the garden, which happened almost immediately upon his being convicted of sin (Gen 3:21-24).

Regarding Dave’s argument in his point no. 3, I think Dave is referring to thesis 16 when he says that “Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law … but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied.” I think further thinking is required on Dave’s part here. He is using his either-or (more Lutheran-type) thinking to critique my (more Reformed) both-and type system. From the beginning of the Reformation, the Reformed side of Protestantism (as against the Lutheran side) has always acknowledged that there is a kind of righteousness that comes from obeying God’s law in a genuine but imperfect way in the context of covenant grace. Calvin, for example, holds that after being justified by faith, when God considers our works he does so through the prism of Christ and God’s work of sanctification in us through the Holy Spirit such that “the good works which are done by believers are deemed righteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness” (see Institutes 3.17.8). Calvin could actually speak of the imputation of good works as righteousness! I invite people to look it up for themselves if they don’t believe it.

For anyone further interested in what is called Calvin’s doctrine of double justification, you can read my two articles on the righteousness of works in Calvin’s system: “John Calvin’s Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 303–16; and “John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine of Justification by Works,” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 1–19; or else read Mark Garcia’s book Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. I am also working on a third article on Calvin’s doctrine of double justification, and I’ll let you know when and where that may be published.

Regarding Dave’s comments on Paul’s use of Abraham in Rom 4, I think that the salvation-historical or covenantal interpretation of Paul makes a lot of sense here. If Paul’s argument here is salvation-historical, his point is that Abraham is an example of a person who was right with God before anything like the works of the law (i.e., a faith response to the Mosaic revelation) was on the scene. In other words, in Gen 15 Abraham was right with God when he was a Gentile! If Gentiles could be right with God before the Mosaic covenant existed (or anything approximating it, circumcision being the key identifier), then what is to stop Gentiles being right with God now that the Messiah has come? Covenant righteousness (i.e., the right response to God) in the new covenant age effectively reverts back to the kind of righteousness that Gentile Abraham showed as he responded positively to God’s (non-Mosaic) revelation. The righteousness of a positive response to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law) is, therefore, seen to be a temporary kind of righteousness, a possibility that applied only as long as the Mosaic covenant was operative. What once was gain—notice that Paul claims in Phil 3:6 that he possessed a blameless righteousness according to the Mosaic law, and he describes such righteousness as gain in Phil 3:7, i.e., it was a true form of righteousness as long as the Mosaic covenant was in operation—what once was gain is, after the coming of the new covenant in Christ, then seen to be loss in comparison with the righteousness that we can possess through faith in Christ. Paul came to understand that the new covenant righteousness of faith in Christ far surpasses the righteousness that Moses was on about in Deut 6:25.

But even if you don’t go for a covenantal interpretation of Rom 4, it is wrong to take verses such as Rom 3:10, 20 and make them contradict Rom 10:5, Deut 6:25, and Ezek 18:5-9. Please look at how Calvin interpreted Ezek 18. Calvin doesn’t go for the covenantal interpretation of Paul, but he doesn’t go for a Lutheran interpretation either. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that after justification by faith has been established, a legitimate form of justification or righteousness on the level of works also exists.

All in all, we who claim to be Reformed really need to understand that the Reformed side of the Reformation has a more nuanced or balanced view on righteousness than exists on the Lutheran side of the Reformation. Luther, for example, acknowledged the righteousness of faith, whereas Calvin acknowledges the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works in a subordinate sense. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that righteousness language is used in the Bible of the covenant obedience of believers. Think about the righteousness of Noah (Gen 6:9), the righteousness of David (Ps 18:20-24), the righteousness of the author of Ps 119 (Ps 119:30, 56), the righteousness of Zecharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). In Calvin’s system, this is the righteousness of obedience, the righteousness of people who responded genuinely and positively, albeit imperfectly, to God’s word in the context of grace, where the righteousness of faith is already presupposed. If we claim to be Reformed, we seriously need to make sure that we understand Calvin’s doctrine of double justification before suggesting that someone’s view of justification is deficient simply because it links righteousness with the good works of believers.

Calvin could speak of justification by faith alone and of the imputation of the good works of believers as righteousness. When Dave suggests, therefore, that I have forgotten that Jesus is the only one to whom the righteousness of works applies (because I admit that there a legitimate form of law righteousness under the Mosaic covenant to those who had torah written in their heart by the Holy Spirit), to be fair he should also accuse Calvin of having a deficient view of justification as well. In fact, Calvin doesn’t just limit law righteousness as applying solely under the Mosaic covenant (which I think is Paul’s preferred way of thinking), but he sees law righteousness as applying across salvation history!

Now if Dave is really means to say in his point no. 3 that the righteousness of absolute obedience only applies to Christ, I thoroughly agree with him. But this does not rule out the fact that in the Bible covenant obedience, which is a genuine, albeit imperfect, positive response to the word of God that is worked in believers by the Spirit of God, is also called righteousness. Jesus came not only to be our righteousness, but also to make us righteous; and both of these types of righteousness are mentioned in the Scriptures.”

Below is Steven Coxhead’s response to my critic of his 32 Theses, part one. I will be responding to this in the comments section. Enjoy!

“A Response to Dave Woolcott’s Critique of Steven Coxhead’s View of Justification: Part One

Dave Woolcott has recently posted on his blog a response to the 32 theses listed in my website article Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled. Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification, or on his blog in his post entitled A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”.

Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstand my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.

Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.

It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.

Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?

The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.

But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.

Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.

I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.”

Now for something completely different! This is a bit heavy, I guess, but I believe important to discuss.

Steven Coxhead has posted on his website these 32 Theses regarding what is essentially his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Steven is a lecturer at our theological college, the PTC, and a link to Steven’s website can be found at the PTC Blog. For a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching, and I appreciate his attempt to publicise what he believes so that is can be weighed against scripture. You might like to read Steven’s Theses before reading my response, otherwise it will not make much sense!

My Response!

In his introduction Steven claims that he is not denying that justification is by faith alone. This is because he is using the terms “faith” and “works” covenantly, rather than anthropologically. The question needs to be asked though, “Is there a difference?” In my view, what Steven writes does undermine justification by faith alone, no matter how he claims to be using the terms “faith” and “works”, especially because he has not clarified the difference that this ‘covenant’ view has to the ‘anthropological’  when Paul does not appear to make such distinctions.

I believe there are a number of errors in Steven’s thinking. The major flaws are outlined below.

1 – Steven claims that there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam (pt 3). In many ways, this difference is at the heart of what Steven is trying to reconcile, but is there anything to reconcile? As we continue hopefully we will see that what Steven tries to reconcile is the same thing.

2 – The main difference that Steven is referring to is that the covenant with Adam did not deal with sin, but that the sacrificial system under the law of Moses did. The problem with this thinking is that the sacrificial system never dealt with sin (c.f. Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6, Hebrews 10:1-5). It should be noted that death was the result of sin for Adam, and Paul reminds us in Romans that the wages of sin are still death. At the same time, the Covenant with Adam did not refer to “immediate” death as claimed by Steven (pt 3).

3 – Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law (pt 6), but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied (pt 2). Paul himself uses Abram as an example against this very thinking. Abram, before the law of Moses (and after Adam), was considered righteous by God because he believed God (Genesis 15:6).

4 – Steven believes that there is more than one type of justification and more than one type of righteousness that need to be reconciled (pt 7). This is due to the difference Steven sees in the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic law (pt 3, 4, 5). As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the difference he claims is there, and in the same way I believe that Steven is mistaken if he believes there is more than one type of justification or righteousness. It is difficult for me to prove that something does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on Steven to produce evidence for this. My understanding of Scripture is that we are either absolutely of the light or absolutely of the darkness. We cannot be partially justified.

5 – Steven speaks as though it is our relationship with the covenant that is important in the OT (pt 8, 9, 10). In actual fact it is our relationship with God that is important. The covenant simply defines to some degree what the relationship is. It is a covenant relationship.

6 – Steven is under the impression that works of the law come before “absolute justification/righteousness” (pt 12, 22). Scripture gives a different understanding. Biblically it is always as a result of salvation that good works are performed. God certainly appears to work from this understanding in Exodus 20:2, when before the 10 commandments are given God reminds Israel that he is the God who has saved them. In Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the church in Rome to be living sacrifices in view of God’s mercy.

7 – No one has ever kept covenant with God. Even Moses failed to enter the promised land. In point 19 Steven suggests that the key difference between the old covenant and the new is that the mediator was Moses in the old, and is Jesus in the new. Moses, however, was a failed leader, an unworthy mediator. Jesus is the perfect prophet, priest and king, and ultimately the prophet, priest and king that Israel, even Moses, was waiting for.

8 – It is not an issue of correctly balancing two types of justification/righteousness, or for that matter, balancing the right combination of works and faith in Christ (pt 32). Even if you say that greater weight should be given to righteousness through faith in Christ, it is not about a balancing act. Rather it is about one coming before the other (though in the reverse order to what Steven claims in pt 28). It is through what God has done in Christ that believers are empowered to do good works – to become slaves to righteousness. John reminds us that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). In Christ we are taught how to love – how to fulfil the law (1 Thessalonians 4:9). With regards to the law, Paul says in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Through Ezekiel God made it clear that he would work in our heart with a new Spirit and that this would incline our hearts to follow his commands (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

9 – Steven does not realise that being under the law increases sin. Steven is working with a paradigm that suggests that being under the law will increase good works and even play a part in the process of salvation. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:7-11. When the law is combined with our flesh, sin and death are the result. How can Steven say that the law will bring the opposite BEFORE salvation? As a result, there is no good pastoral reason to point people towards works completely outside of the context of grace (pt 30, 31, 32).

10 – Under the ‘system’ that Steven proposes I wonder who it is that judges the correct balance between faith in Christ and works of the law. How does one know if they have the balance right? What assurance is there when it is not simply salvation/righteousness/justification through faith in Christ alone? I ask the question from both a covenantal and anthropological perspective.

In Conclusion, if I have misunderstood Steven or been unfair to him I would love to be corrected. I believe that this whole topic is central to our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and well worth discussing!

I have been off wandering the Blogosphere over the last couple of weeks and discovered that it was a dangerous place to be. I visited two blogs that were discussing issues related to gender. At just one of the blogs I was told the following:

I must submit
I am skating on thin ice
I must be quiet or I will be commanded to be silent
I was then commanded to be silent!
My thoughts and views are heretical
I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth
My words border on deception regarding the meaning of God’s word
I will not listen to god’s word
I am fundamentally opposed to God’s word and mock it
I only pay lip service to submission to the Word
I don’t like what the Word says and use arguments and exegesis to reject it’s clear teaching
I mimic Satan
I have given into temptation
I continue to promote rebellion
I need prayer (very true!)
I am not a sincere seeker of the truth
I hate the truth…I hate it sir!
If I was truthful I could not make a living as a pastor
I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing
May God bring me to repentance or expose me to my presbytery and flock so they’ll remove me from my pulpit.
My words are heretical and will destroy God’s sheep
I was to be silent…sir!
I distort the truth and devour the sheep
I am not interested in arguments but rather moulding scripture around my own cultural mores
I am a product of the reigning culture
I add to the words of scripture

Throughout the conversation I was polite, even though the very first sentence of the very first comment directed at me attempted to mock me. Being polite did not help. Readers were warned that my polite and nice manner was deceptive, just like the old wolf in sheep’s clothing trick!

I will not direct you to the blog. I do not believe that they deserve the attention. What I will say is this. Whether someone is Egalitarian, Complementarian, or Vegetarian, Christ calls us to love them. The church has been so sidetracked with issues time and again. When will we simply get on with loving others? When will we get on with loving ourselves?

I need to get out of the habit of looking at the CBMW website…this is their latest at Gender Blog with my thoughts underneath…

Is There Mutual Submission in Ephesians?

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Jeff Breeding
November 27, 2009

Here’s the question – in Ephesians 5:21, Paul writes that Christians are to “submit to one another.” So, do complementarians hold to “mutual submission?” Piper and Grudem provide a helpful answer:

Yes, we do. But “the way Paul teaches” mutual submission is not the way everyone today teaches it. Everything depends on what you mean by “mutual submission.” Some of us put more stress on reciprocity here than others. But even if Paul means complete reciprocity (wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives), this does not mean that husbands and wives should submit to each other in the same way. The key is to remember that the relationship between Christ and the church is the pattern for the relationship between husband and wife. Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What is interesting here is that there is some willingness to admit that “mutual submission” might mean “complete reciprocity”. What Grudem and Piper now claim is that husbands and wives do not submit to each other in the same way. This is very different to Grudems article that I responded to during our Blog Conference. In that article he claimed that “one another” did not mean “one another”, but rather “some to others”, i.e. some do not submit to others.

Thankfully G & P are here to set us right! They point us to the example of Christ and the Church and ask, “Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?” Answer, according to G & P is…very confused! Look at their answer carefully – I will break it down for us!

“Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?”

“They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church”.
The silly thing about this statement is that it suggests that there is authority involved…but who came up with that? The term ‘authority’ is not used.

“But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead.”
G & P want to use authority to distinguish between Christ’s submission and the submission of the church. There are several problems with this. Again, it has introduced ‘authority’ into the discussion. According to Grudem’s own research ‘origin’ is a valid meaning of ‘head’ – just as valid as ‘authority’. But the question remains, is this how the church submits to Christ – by affirming his authority? There is no doubt that the church recognise who Christ is – as the Son of God – but the church submits to Christ through loving (c.f. John 15:12, 17, 23-24, Romans 13:8-10, Philippians 2:1-2, 1 John 4:7-21). In regard to Christ’s authority, amazingly he has set it to one side preferring to be our friend (c.f. John 15:13-15) and brother (c.f. Galatians 3:25-29).

These statements  do not back up G & P’s point! But further to this is how G & P have included authority into the issue. Authority is not mentioned in the passage, but rather how Jesus loved the church to the extent of laying down his life (Ephesians 5:25). This is submission (as admitted by G & P in what they have written), and this is what is expected of husbands. Should wives who have been asked to simply submit to their husbands be willing to lay down their lives for their husbands? I would imagine so. After all, Christ’s example to the church (not just husbands) is that we should all lay down our lives for others…Christ’s example is surely for all of us.

The best image I could find on the topic without infringing our G rating!

I was listening to an audio download of a sermon on the topic of sex. It was presented by the minister who addressed the men, and then the minister’s wife spoke, but she only addressed the women. Something the lady said caught my attention (though as she is complementarian I do not think I was supposed to be listening!).

She said that when it came to sex, if she did not feel like having sex she would think about how she should submit to her husband, and so she would try to have sex even if she did not want to. She suggests that after going along with it for a while she might even find herself in the mood and enjoy it!

This all got me thinking. Should either spouse have sex when they do not want to? I know there are passages that suggest we should not with hold ourselves from each other (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7), but is the answer to take what is an act of unity and oneness, and ‘do it’, when essentially you are not wanting to. Its like pretending to be one…surely it can work towards undermining the oneness!

I wonder if when there is an ongoing issue of a spouse not wanting to have sex with their partner, perhaps the couple need to communicate, perhaps seek outside help, so any contributing issues can be worked through and dealt with. It reminds me of a speaker I heard once who said that if you are struggling to love someone, then do loving things and you will grow to love them. I recognise that it can be hard to love people, but if we do not deal with why we are struggling to love someone, then forcing ourselves to do loving things can produce feelings of resentment and passive agressive behaviour…not loving feelings!

Finally, I cannot help but wonder what type of loving spouse wants to have sex with their partner if their partner does not want to. I believe at the heart of eros is a desire to possess and be possessed. This means that when only half of this equation is met (one partner gets to possess, but the other partner has no desire/opportunity to possess) then the sexual experience is less than fulfilling.

I am not convinced that the Nike slogan applies to good sex!

Egalitarians are often accused of sliding the slippery slope to homosexuality. Thankfully there has been a Complementarian who has decided to try and settle the issue. I am thankful because they have given it their best shot and have failed to bring forward any evidence. So perhaps now we can move on beyond this rather distasteful conjecture. 

David Jones has written an article, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideaologies?” This article has been promoted on the CBMW site (and journal) and so it is to be assumed that they are to some degree approving of its content. The question is, does the article present a valid argument or not? 

First Jones cites CBMW as having raised concerns about the feminist minimisation of gender roles and how this gives rise to more homosexuality, especially in the 2^nd and 3^rd generations. Jones outlines a historical summary of 4 religious movements in the US that he claims back this up. I found this very unconvincing for the following reasons: 

1 – One organisation Jones investigates went from being a feminist movement to full on in favour of homosexuality in less than 13 years, where as another example was strongly egalitarian for over 150 years and yet the denomination still resists homosexuality. The point being, that obviously there are many factors influencing these organisations and why they do or do not change as is evidenced by the variation obvious in Jones own evidence. Jones takes none of this into account. Some of his examples have not embraced homosexuality.

 2 – There is no investigation of links with liberalism and embracing homosexuality. If you were seriously seeking to investigate any connection between biblical feminism and homosexuality then surely you would have to consider whether or not people are taking the Bible seriously and what difference this makes. Jones has not taken into account that the gender debate was hijacked by the feminist movement who often had strong links with homosexuality – but were not committed to scripture. To link all of the egalitarian movement to the liberal feminist/homosexual movement is to ignore the question as to why CBE formed from the dissenting members of EWC when EWC embraced homosexuality.

 3 – Jones claims that organisations/denominations that have held out against embracing homosexuality have been the ones who have resisted egalitarianism. The truth is that some denominations embrace change and others do not – if they were not going to embrace a Biblical concept of gender equality then they were never going to embrace homosexuality!

 4 – It is interesting to note that Jones picked four organisations/denominations that had gone through major changes/formations in the last 50 years, and yet fails to wonder as to whether or not denominations/organisations that have formed in the last 50 years have been more susceptible to infiltration by homosexual groups and what might have caused this. Jones has also ignored organisations/denominations such as the Salvation Army that appear to work against his theory. He also fails to recognise that his first example, the Evangelical Women’s Caucus, gave birth to “Christians for Biblical Equality” that has stood firm against homosexuality for 22 years.

 Second Jones considers what exactly it might be about feminism that increases homosexuality and its acceptance. It is nothing new in that it is what CBMW have been saying for sometime, that the lack of distinction in gender roles breaks down gender differences to the point that sexuality is blurred and confused.

 I noticed three things about Jones’ argument.

 1 – He has made little attempt to portray accurately what “evangelical feminists” believe. I am not sure why complementarians get to choose their own ‘nice’ name and also get to label the other side as “evangelical feminists”. The point that cannot be ignored by Interdependants and should not be ignored by Hierarchalists is that there has been a link between feminism and homosexuality. Within the feminist movement there have been strong links to homosexuality, some of the reasons for this will become evident under the next point where we will see it has little to do with a lack of ‘role’ distinction.

 What exactly Interdependants believe regarding Biblical Gender roles is not made clear by Jones, nor for that matter what hierachalists believe -  he never explains what “roles” refers to. Interdependants believe that there are some differences between male and female, not least of all childbirth! These differences do not, however, constitute any difference of worth or value OR hierarchy within a marriage. Really this is not an argument about whether or not a wife should cook dinner and the husband should mow the lawn. Rather it is about who should tell who what to do. Hierarchalists say that men should tell their wives what to do, and that wives should obey (whether or not it is a ‘loving’ hierarchy is irrelevant – there is hierarchy, which is the issue). Interdependants believe that decisions should be worked out as two who are one flesh, mutually submitting to the needs of each other. How this leads to homosexuality is not addressed by Jones in any way, shape or form!

 2 – Jones has ignored the research that indicates why people do embrace homosexuality. I would have thought that this would have been basic to a work like this, unless of course you were simply trying to make a point, rather than seek the truth.

Research carried out on twins indicates that homosexuality is not influenced by any genetic factor. I imagine Mr Jones would agree on this point. Probably the greatest factors consistent in both males and females who embraced homosexuality was, being brought up in urban areas, and also abuse earlier in life. Other factors include a failure to emotionally connect with the same gender parent.

 It is also interesting to note that in women who embraced homosexuality there is a strong link to education, much more so than in males. I find this interesting because, as the researchers noted, within universities there is a strong homosexual movement, and I might add a very strong feminist movement. One thing I think we can all agree on is that within both the homosexual movement and the feminist movement there has been a lot of anger, but in both movements it is fair to say that there has been abuse of many of those associated.

 There appears to be no research that indicates feminism itself leads to embracing homosexuality, though there appears to be a connection between feminism and homosexuality – there are similar underlying issues for some people who are in both groups.

 3 – Jones ignores all the historical evidence that speaks against his theory. This includes the fact that homosexuality was openly accepted within Roman life and yet it was a very patriarchal society. It makes no effort to understand how the Catholic Church, which models a very “complementarian” structure, has struggled with homosexuals within it’s ranks.

In conclusion Jones believes that there is sufficient evidence from his historical analysis to support complementarians concerns regarding homosexuality and egalitarianism. Further to this Jones sees the minimisation of gender differences by feminist type arguments leaves “but a small logical step to accept homosexuality”. I certainly do not agree with Jones as he has failed to provide any clear, thought out and objective data/research.

 I cannot help but feel that all of this is a distraction to what should be a Biblical discussion. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible mandates “roles” that Hierarchalists claim are essential. If discussion is kept focussed on a scriptural foundation, than homosexuality is not an issue. CBMW have tried to suggest the gender issue is a gospel issue, and as evidenced by this paper they have resorted to scare tactics. Mr Jones, lets just stick to the Bible from now on!

What is the church? This is a question that some of us in the church rarely consider, as it is so easy to simply get caught up in what was there when we walked through the front door of a church building for the first time and not to consider whether or not this is actually what Jesus wants his body to do.

Over more recent years it seemed to become an unwritten law that every church must have a mission or vision statement,an aim or purpose of intent (we have a mission statement at RPC…or is it a vision of a mission?). This can be helpful in giving an idea of what a particular church sees as it’s vision so you know whether or not you want to join them. It also serves as a way of expressing what various churches see as their main role/function and tells us something of their theology.

Following are some possible NT church mission/vision statements that I have not seen in churches today.

1 – Our aim is to suffer, just as Christ suffered before us.

2 – Our mission is to die to ourselves by submitting to Christ and to others.

3 – Our purpose is to be a sacrifice to God by the way we live our lives, not for ourselves but for Him and those he places within our reach. (C.f. Romans 12:1, 1 Peter 2:4-5)

4 – Our vision is to be the real and living body of Jesus here on earth. With the help of the Spirit we aim to take up where Jesus left off!

5 – To work together in complete unity with the rest of the body of Christ, united through the Holy Spirit. (C.f. Acts 2:43-47, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 & 12:11-27)

6 – To be committed to living out a unity not reliant on hierarchy to function, but rather the gifts given to each person through the Holy Spirit. (C.f. Matthew 23:6-12, Mark 10:42-45 & Galatians 6:3)

7 – We seek to be a group of people who accept others as Christ did, without judgement and condemnation, but love and forgiveness. (C.f. Luke 7:36-50, Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-38, Romans 14:1-23, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 & Galatians 6:1)

8 – We aim to not let an unhealthy obsession with the written word cloud our desire to know the living Word. (C.f. JOhn 5:39-40)

9 – Our vision does not include reducing the body of Christ to buildings, programs or times of the day.

10 – We aim to declare the Kingdom of God as something we do here and now as much through our actions as through our words.

I am sure there are other possibilities that people might be able to suggest. I hope this is not seen as simply a way of poking fun at the mission/vision statements of others – like I said, we have one too! I hope that it encourages us to stop and think about who we ARE supposed to be!

Craig Tcuker...he does not always look like this...

If you are interested in listening to the two main talks from the Flourish Conference by Craig Tucker, they are here. The sound quality is not great, and talk 1 is the second talk and talk 2 is the first talk!

The first talk is a bit of an overview as to the how and why women and men are equal but different. This includes comments such as Adam being the CEO of all of the world.

The second talk, like the first, had some great stuff in it, though it is interesting listening to Craig explain NT prophecy as being preaching, but how women can preach but not “teach”. Interesting!

I would love to know the thoughts of others!