Moved to a New Domain

If things Internetish are working correctly (doubtful, if you’re reading this), this will let you know that this blog, newly awakened after a period of prolonged dormancy, is now growing at another domain:

You may wish to adjust your bookmark, if you have one, to the page noted above.

Fr. Bill Mouser
for ICGS

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Better to Burn than to Marry

Over at the Bayly brothers’ blog, a column for Eternity Magazine written by their father Joe Bayly in 1963 has been reprinted. In that column Father Bayly explains he is continually being asked in college dormitories and frat houses (Bayly was on staff with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) “Why is pre-marital intercourse wrong?” The column gives his answer: the loss of any sense that there are moral absolutes.

It is instructive for understanding the moral landscape in America (and among those who name the name of Christ) to compare Joe Bayly’s colume with this report from CNN’s religion blog, which reports survey data revealing that single Christians indulge in fornication only slightly less than non-Christian single adults.

The question Joe Bayly was continually answering makes no sense, unless it’s already understood by the questioners (we assume they were more often non-Christians than otherwise?) that Christianity prohibits premarital intercourse. The CNN religion blog report, if we credit it, shows us that such a conviction is almost completely missing within those whom they survey identified as “unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29).”  Joe Bayly put his finger on a denial of moral absolutes. That would apply today, except for noting that the radical moral relativism today is probably a more advanced form of this sort of spiritual rot than what he was confronting on college capuses in 1963.

What’s interesting to me, however, is the CNN blogger’s contention that the retreat of marriage from the social fabirc of young adults is just as much a contributor to fornication as the cause Joe Bayly was speaking to almost 50 years ago. “Today, it’s not unusual to meet a Christian who is single at 30 – or 40 or 50, for that matter. So what do you tell them? Keep waiting?”

My 21-year old daughter recently became engaged. One temptation she now battles comes both from values which she has “picked up” from the world, and from challenges to her early engagement (!) from her Christian friends. And that challenge is this: that she is squandering the fulfillment attending single adulthood by marrying too young.

Joe Bayly’s analysis may be complemented by a different development which was likely embryonic in his day, namely that marriage itself is a threat to one’s personal development if entered into too quickly, by which the culture means before one is 30 years old.

For today’s single evangelical adults, who eschew marriage but not sex Paul’s dictum is turned on its head: today it’s better to burn than to marry. Quenching that fire is ever so much more fulfilling outside of marriage than tying a knot, dontcha know. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender wars, Marriage

Earthen Vessels in Evangelicalism

Here goes! An introduction to my engagement of Matthew Lee Anderson’s Earthen Bodies. You may find his own offerings on his own work at his blog Mere Orthodoxy. What appears here my blog is my own engagement with key ideas of Anderson’s book. And, there will be some ideas in his book I spend several blogs on, others which I ignore because they do not contribute to my purpose here in this blog.

With that caveat, I begin with Anderson’s introduction to his book, and I focus on an idea that lept out at me in his admittedly brief overview of evangelicalism, what I term the BEAPERs (Broadly Evangelical American Protestants). Here’s what Anderson wrote that I wish to comment on further. In a section with the heading “The Context for This Book,” Anderson writes:

The story of evangelicalism’s malaise is an easy one to tell, but there are some indications that the movement isn’t quite as unhealthy as we frequently hear. … The problem – and here I implicate myself – is that we writers, pastors, and thinkers often depend upon solving problems for our livelihood, and so we have a vested interest in pointing out what’s wrong and why our solution is right.

And evangelicals have, if nothing else, been very successful at harnessing energy into those solutions. The worldview and apologetics movement, the emerging church, the Gospel Coalition, Catalyst – these developments don’t arise in a vacuum. Their successes stem from a genuine desire to reorient evangelicalism around their respective understandings of the kingdom of God, but also point to a significant number of evangelicals who are open and eager for the message. These could be signs that evangelicalism has a rich store of energy waiting to be directed and not signs that evangelicalism’s day is past.

These two paragraphs are a flash from my past – 21 years in my past (as I write this), when Anderson was about to enter the second grade. I was embarking on a study/writing project that would produce two curricula – Five Aspects of Man and Five Aspects of Woman – designed to give an overview of the Bible’s understanding of the nature of masculinity and femininity. At the beginning of this project, I sought out John Hannah, one of my professors in Church history when I was in seminary, to ask him about who and when and where any fathers of the Church had written on such a topic, where any controversies about the intrinsic nature of manhood and womanhood had arisen. As a Church historian he would perforce know the history of Christian doctrine. I did not expect him to be an expert in this particular area, but I did expect him to point me to someone, hopefully a few, in the past who had turned up the Biblical soil.

After listening to me explain my project and the subject matter I wished to study, he rocked back in his office chair and his eyes began a slow journey around the top shelves of the bookcases in his office (it was wall-to-wall bookcases). Was he looking for a particular tome to recommend? He must have had some trouble finding it, for his eyes soon floated downward to fix themselves on me. He said nothing, but he pursed his lips. Finally, he said this:

Bill, we evangelicals are very skilled at telling people what is good to do. But we almost never tell people what is good to think.”

We stared at one another across his desk for a long moment. “There is no one you can recommend for me to read in this area?” I asked.

Among evangelicals? No. For that you will have to go to our Catholic friends.”

He politely wished me well. His allotment of time for me had run out. I thanked him and went on my way.

Obviously, I have never forgotten Dr. Hannah’s words that afternoon. And, for that reason, when reading Anderson’s two paragraphs above, Hannah’s two sentences flashed in my mind. For Anderson is saying in the introduction to his book what Dr. Hannah said to me 21 years ago, except Dr. Hannah was far more blunt. And Anderson agrees with what Dr. Hannah implied that evangelicals really need to do:

Evangelicals desperately need, then, an ordered account of how Scripture informs our understanding of the human body and its uses. But with few exceptions—like James K. A. Smith and Amos Yong—evangelical theology is still playing catch-up. As Westmont College theologian Telford Work recently pointed out in these pages, the theology of the body is one of evangelicalism’s least developed doctrines.

I fully agree with Anderson here, as did Dr. Hannah 21 years ago before Anderson said this in Christianity Today. I frame the need a tad differently, viz. to set forth an ordered account of what Scripture teaches us about human sexuality (including, obviously, the human body’s relationship to sexuality).

And, Dr. Hannah’s recommendation to me – to look to our Catholic friends – is advice which Anderson himself would follow 20 years later when compiling his own book. In an essay in Christianity Today in September of this year (2011), Anderson observed:

We need to develop an account of the body that avoids treating it as an instrument of personal pleasure bound only by a commandment not to harm others. Otherwise, we end up allowing hedonistic, self-centered attitudes to infiltrate our teaching and ultimately undermine our witness.

To develop such a theology, evangelicals should look deep into our own tradition, using the resources we have at hand. But we should not be afraid to consult other sources of Christian teaching. Probably the work that stands readiest for evangelical dialogue is John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, a compilation of weekly radio addresses the pope gave between 1979 and 1984. It has been influential within Roman Catholicism, but evangelicals have had virtually no engagement with it. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family has been something of a prophet crying out in the wilderness. From what I can tell, his 2011 pamphlet from Ascension Press—A Christian Response to the Sexual Revolution: An Evangelical Discovers the Theology of the Body—constitutes nearly the whole of printed evangelical reflection about this unjustly neglected topic.

By all means, let us consult Roman sources of Christian teaching on human sexuality – advice from my evangelical Protestant Church history professor 21 years ago! But, why should not evangelicals – who claim to honor the Bible as an inerrant and sufficient authority for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness – derive from the Scripture a comprehensive theology of sexuality? Anderson urges us first to look “deep into our own tradition;” but quickly he acknowledges that there seems very little to find there, something Dr. Hannah flatly admitted to me 21 years ago!

Even if one were to grant John Paul’s success in that enterprise (see the comments at Anderson’s essay at Christianity Today on this point), such teaching from a modern Pope, even one so popular as John Paul, is not going to percolate very well into the current BEAPER mind. Where the evangelical mind is not already hostile to any teaching from that quarter, it is never even aware of Roman instruction, looking with far more enthusiasm toward more fashionable instruction from the world.

Anderson at mereorthodoxy.comAnd, so, in Earthen Vessels Anderson sets out to begin a conversation about the human body. For a couple of decades now, I have attempted a conversation about manhood and womanhood, one that mostly attempts to articulate what it is good for us to think about men and women before one considers what is good for men and women to do.

To be sure, sex is something to do (or not, depending on the circumstance). But, sex is also something to be. The Bible says a lot about the latter, but almost no one within evangelicalism’s “writers, pastors, and thinkers” (Anderson’s catalog of evangelicalism’s academy) ever addresses this dimension of Holy Writ.

I commend Anderson for beginning that conversation again. I intend to respond to some (not all) of what he sets forth. God grant that a fruitful conversation will result.

Leave a comment

Filed under Earthen Vessels, Gender wars

Meat and Potatoes

avlxyz at

Lord willing (and assuming the flesh is not too weak to frustrate things) I’m returning to blogging here after a long hiatus occasioned by (among other things) diminished health. As before, I intend to comment – mostly polemically – against sexual insanity in the world and in the Church as well as against sexual shilly-shallying among those who deem themselves to be guardians of evangelical Protestant orthodoxy in America (and, occasionally, in Europe).

But, to this I intend to add a focus not heretofore present in this blog, namely to begin pounding out something I have long complained was absent within Broadly Evangelical American Protestants (hereafter BEAPERs). When it comes to things sexual, BEAPERs lack the meat and potatoes of the subject. They are like a gaggle of culinary amateurs who stumble upon the Wise Encyclopedia of Cookery (check out the customer reviews!). But, rather than learning from it, they simply display it prominently in their kitchens while they make endless creations out of Jello and Cool-whip.

In this case, however, the situation is worse. The religious feminists are now firmly in charge of BEAPER-land. They prominently display the Bible in their offices of power, but they never learn from it. Instead, they’re taking their cues from the World’s latest fashions tregarding he sexual analogs to Jello and Cool-Whip, as it were.

So, since BEAPERs won’t do serious theology about sex, I’m going to  undertake that project in this blog, toward two ends:

First, whenever I find a serious effort to do theology about the Bible and sex, I’m going to attempt to engage these works in this blog, in blog-sized chunks. Second, I am going to use this blog as a sort of “test kitchen” for my own contribution to the conversation I think has been badly needed for a very long time. That contribution will be to bring to completion a book I’ve had steeping on the back burner for over a decade now: The Masculinity of God.

I think I’ll begin in the next blog by introducing a work by Matthew Lee Anderson in which he attempts a preliminary engagement of a theology of the body. His subject is broader than human sexuality, of course; but, human sexuality must needs be a large idea in his discussion. So, I propose to take his book, chapter by chapter, summarizing what I find in it of significance for the building of a Christian orthodox consensus on sexuality generally, endorsing anything I can support as orthodox and Biblical, and criticizing some things (not everything) I find heterodox or sub-Biblical. Perhaps Matthew may eventually find his way over here and offer his own replies to what I present about his work.

Interested? Stay tuned. You won’t have to wait long.

Leave a comment

Filed under Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, Feminism, Patriarchy

Feminism Killing Off the Soaps

Oh, the irony!

ABC today announced the end of two long-running soap operas — “One Life To Live” and “All My Children.”  Also consigned to the ash heap of history is the career of Susan Lucci, daytime soap’s most famous acress.

And why?  Here’s how the AP story reported the reason for the demise of these (and, likely, other) soaps:

Soap operas have slowly been fading as a TV force, with many of the women who made up the target audience now in the work force. In place of the two canceled dramas, ABC will air shows about food and lifestyle transformations.

ABC wouldn’t say such a thing, of course.  ABC’s spokesperson — a man  — put it this way: “Viewers are looking for different types of programming these days.”

Doh.  That is, as my old logic teacher used to say, “language guaranteed” when entirely different viewers are involved.  ” ‘All My Children’ is averaging 2.5 million viewers a day, down 9 percent from the last TV season, and the median age of a typical viewer was nearly 57,” the Nielsen Co. said. So, over half of that soap’s viewers are over 57?  I wonder if Nielsen has any other info on the viewing audience, such as how many of them have an income higher than, say, the average welfare stipend?  No wonder it’s hard to sell ads for these programs!

No, instead of a viewing audience of wives and mothers, safely installed in a domestic environment, supported by a husband, with freedom to take a break from her “comfortable concentration camp” (Betty Friedan’s term for that sort of situation), ABC now seeks to attract any out there who can watch daytime TV to view programs devoted to food and lifestyle transformations.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kill Your Baby, Save A Tree

The Scientific American has an idea for addressing global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change; whatever):  contraception and abortion,  The goal: reduce the earth’s population and, therefore, the “carbon footprint” left by all those babies who are never permitted to get outside the womb alive.

David Bielo begins the article with a breathlessly delivered statistic and a hopeful prognostication:

An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.

There are so many ways this could be lampooned, the mind boggles. 

First, there’s the whole climate change folderol, which in another decade will be the butt of endless jokes, except for Al Gore and his enviro-nuts who have drunk uncounted gallons of the kool-aid.

Second, there is the link between population and the so-called carbon footprint. On one hand, the advanced nations are already in population decline (a fact ignored by Bielo in The Scientific American), a decline so severe that it is nearing irreversibility in Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands.  A panicked South Korea, where three out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion,  has decided to begin enforcing a long-ignored ban on abortions because of its now-irreversible population implosion, a fate also facing Japan. 

According to The Scientific American, this is all a very good thing and needs badly to be replicated in the United States and in those parts of Europe not already in precipitous population decline. 

Finally, if one reads between the lines, it is not hard to find an anti-human, pro-anything-but-human ethic behind all this.  Jeff Poor, commenting on The Scientific American article for the Media Research Center Network, notes that even more radical ideas are out there:

Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.

Okay, that’s radical, I suppose.  But it is any more radical than agitating for increasing the number of abortions, already in the tens of millions annually?  Is it any more radical than agitating for entire nations to commit demographic suicide?

[This blog is crossposted to St. Athanasius Anglican Church: Contra Mundum Redivivus]


Filed under abortion, Woman, the Lifegiver

Yoga and Egalitarians

Last night I attended the 40th Anniversary Dinner for the Institute for Creation Research, and the featured speaker was Dr. Albert Mohler, the fellow recently (and condescendingly, where not outright scornfully) profiled by Christianity Astray, a Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.  In his opening remarks, Mohler briefly recapped the current braying by evangelical jackasses about his recently published remarks on yoga and Christianity.

If you’ve got time and want to know why evangelical Protestantism is the milk-toasty, wishy-washy, know-nothing waste of time that it is, Mohler’s latest blog spells it out for you.

Listening to his remarks last night (he gave an overview of post-modern intellectual chaos and its newly murderous posture toward religion, Christianity, and Jesus himself), I thought, “I’ve got to check what he has said on his blog about this yoga business.” And, when I did so this morning, I further thought: “As with evangelicals and yoga, so with evangelicals and egalitarianism.”  The latter is the term of art for baptized feminism, a modern incarnation of several of the moral horrors Paul catalogs in 1 Timothy 1:9-11.

So, what has yoga got to do with religious feminism as evangelicals embrace it today?

Very little, if you’re looking at yoga vis-a-vis religious feminism.  But, if you ask “Why do evangelicals embrace yoga so enthusiastically?” you will find that Mohler’s answer to that question serves just as well to answer this question:  “Why do evangelicals embrace religious feminism so enthusiastically?”  Both errors are consequences of a deeper error: the spiritual lust among modern evangelicals to cook up their own religion beginning with evangelical soup stock, to which they add a little of this and a little of that from whatever strikes their fancy on the world’s spice shelf.

Mohler lists many things he’s learned from his encounter with evangelicals’ enthusiasm for yoga.  Read through his catalog and substitute “egalitarianism” for “yoga” throughout, and everything Mohler says is still true — except it applies to religious feminism rather than yoga.

Below are Mohler’s comments followed by the way egalitarians mimick those who think yoga and Christianity are compatible …

Mohler: “Evidently, the statistics reported by the yoga community are right. This is a female dominated field of activity. More than 90 percent of the protest communications come from women.”

Religious feminism, like secular feminism, is a female dominated field.  Yes, there are a few men who are out in front of the monstrous regiment of women who are the primary political power in religious feminism, but they’ve just gotten themselves in front of the mob.  The dirty little secret of most Protestant churches is this:  the men in leadership are window dressing.  It’s the women (and, often, just a handful of them) who rule the ecclesiastical roof.  And by far the majority of men who sit in evangelical pews are happy for the sisters to clamp the bit in their teeth and to tear off down the road.  Less work for them, dontcha know.

Mohler: “[A well-known local female evangelical yoga instructor] insists that yoga ‘enhances a person’s spirituality’ without any recognition that this is not what biblical Christianity is all about. But, she prayed before deciding ‘to mix yoga and Christianity,’ so everything must be just fine.”

Religious feminists are nothing if not pragmatic about what rings their chimes.  What the Bible teaches has little weight against what “enhances a person’s spirituality.”  Read any egalitarian forum, and note how many times you hear “God told me this or that, or “it makes the gospel so relevent to me,” and similar sentiments.

Mohler reproduces a quote from this local, evangelical woman yoga instructor: “I don’t like to look at religion from a law standpoint but a relationship standpoint, a relationship with Jesus Christ specifically.” Note, please, that the truth isn’t what’s important! Rather, it’s how the woman likes to look at religion that’s important.  This is essentially the egalitarian point of view on anything in the Bible:  they pick and choose what they like, or twist what they need, to conform to their modern feminist point of view.

Mohler: “There is no embarrassment on the part of these hundreds of email writers that they are replacing biblical Christianity with a religion of their own invention. “

Again, one must not question the egalitarians’ enthusiasm for their remade version of Christianity.  It’s the enlightened (and, therefore, the only defensible) version of Christian religion; and they do, indeed, have no sense for how out of line with historic Christianity their new-made religion really is.  Those very few who have not averted their eyes to 2,000 years of Christian faith and practice (e.g. Mary Daly) end up rejecting Christianity as hopeless and beyond fixing.

Mohler: “I have heard from a myriad of Christians who insist that their practice of yoga involves absolutely no meditation, no spiritual direction, no inward concentration, and no thought element.”

To which Mohler answers, “…  you are not practicing yoga, you are simply performing a physical exercise.”  The same sort of double-think operates with religious feminists within evangelicalism.  They loudly insist that they are not feminists.  Feminists, they insist, are those radical, bra-burning types, not the spiritual, loving, Jesus-worshiping folks that egalitarians claim to be.

But egalitarians say such things because they are blithely ignorant of how thoroughly patriarchal the Bible is, and how patriarchal the Church that grew from the Bible has been for 20 centuries.

Long before her death on January 3 of this year, Mary Daly was far more honest with the facts of the Christian faith, far more honest than the religious feminists who fill the pews of evangelical churches today. Mary Daly jettisoned the Christian faith as well as monotheism because she understood (and preached it in her classroom!) that feminism is diametrically opposed to the truth claims of the Bible – its claims about men, women, the relationship between the two, and God’s relationship to both.

Mohler: “I have heard from a myriad of souls who have called me insane, incompetent, stupid, vile, fundamentalist, and perverted. Some others are best left unrepeated.”

It would be tedious and defiling to rehearse here the similar slanders distributed by egalitarians against complementarians or, especially, against those who candidly confess, teach, and defend the patriarchy of the Bible.  Just read any of their blogs or forums to find out.

Worthy of special note, however, is the strategy of groups like Christians for Biblical Equality or the Egalitarian Christian Alliance to smear those who embrace Biblical patriarchy are promoters of violence against women and children.

Mohler: “… I have been treated to arguments like these. From a ‘devoted Southern Baptist church member who resents your ignorance’: I get much more out of yoga and meditation than I ever get out of a sermon in church. From ‘a Christian who goes to church every service’: My favorite image I use in yoga is that of Jesus assuming a perfect yoga position in the garden of Gethsemane as he prays. And, to cap it all off: How do we know that the apostles and early Christian guys did not use yoga to commune with Jesus after he left?”

Again, I run across statements like these in the forums of self-styled evangelical feminists.  Note the self-referential cast of these sorts of statements.  Note also the manifest ignorance of what the Bible presents.  Jesus doing yoga in Gethsemane???  Is that any more outrageous than Jesus being a feminist?  Paul being an egalitarian?

[This blog is cross-posted to my blog for St. Athanasius Anglican Church]


Filed under Uncategorized

Evangelicals and Divorce

Albert Mohler nails it with respect to divorce among evangelicals in this entry at his blog site, Here’s the money quote, though I strongly recommend you read everything at Mohler’s blog:

Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing. Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.

I think it’s really an understatement to say that evangelicals’ credibility is discounted by the way they turn their heads from the rampaging destruction of their own communities by divorce. Homosexuals see heterosexual Christians marrying, divorcing, and remarrying at will. But, the same Christians will deny homosexuals the same freedom of sexual/social congress that these Christians insist is paramount to healthy society.

“But, homosexuality is wrong!! The Bible says so!!

[cough, cough]

It’s a hopeful sign that voices from the Southern Baptist camp are now heard on this topic. See here for the text of a resolution adopted at the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, entitled “On the Scandal of Southern Baptist Divorce.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Divorce

Refocusing My Attention

Part of the reason there’s been cobwebs around here is this — I’ve had my attention focused elsewhere.  And, one of those other foci of attention has recently spawned a blog, one devoted to the needs and interests of my parish, St. Athanasius Anglican Church.

So, I’m posting here, to alert any remaining people who check in that they may look for things I post by checking that website, which happens to be a different WordPress blog.  The advantage, if there is one, is this:  at that site (see the blogroll for the link) you’ll find me commenting on things other than gender issues, as well as to the occasional gender-issue-related posts.

Additionally, there is a page at the other site where sermon audio is archived, as it is generated.


Filed under Blogroll

Promise Keepers and Crossing Fingers

Special promisesIn 1997, Promise Keepers fielded an event that was supposed to be epoch-making. Stand in the Gap brought together eight hundred thousand men (or one million men, according to PK accounts) to the National Mall in Washington on October 4 th, 1997 to recommit to marriage and family.And the aftermath? Within a few months, Promise Keepers had all but closed its main offices. The collapse of the movement was far more spectacular than the Washington event.

What happened?

David Usher provides a compelling analysis  of the movement’s catastrophic contraction in an article published in Men’s News Daily. Usher’s overview of Promise Keeper’s collapse begins with a widely read article by Bill McCartney on the eve of Stand in the Gap. Usher explains:

The collapse began with the widely-publicized article in the September-October 1997 issue of Policy Review, titled “Promise Makers”, which hit the newsstands just a few days before Stand in the Gap. This article received tremendous national attention.

Many conservatives were quietly expecting this watershed article would signal the beginnings of a real marriage movement. Instead, it was perhaps the most spectacular public display of self-deprecation witnessed in modern history.

The first few paragraphs of Bill McCartney’s Policy Review article were a shocking adoption of knuckle-dragging neanderthal feminist theory. It blamed men for all of society’s problems. In fact, it was so feminist I thought it could have been written by the National Organization of Women.”

Bait and Switch

Bait and SwitchIn the above-linked article by Usher, he demonstrates the radical feminist critique of American Christian manhood with copious quotations from McCartney’s article in Policy Review. I strongly urge you to read all of Usher’s critique as well as McCartney’s Policy Review article, available here online. Certainly McCartney’s article was read by thousands of men who understood it as a form of bait-and-switch. Promise Keepers held out the hope of reinvigorating a Christianity that was unashamedly masculine, that affirmed Christian manhood and sought to promote it. Instead, from its own founder, Promise Keepers became just one more mouthpiece for feminists (whether Christian or not) who viewed male headship in marriage, family, and church as a flaw to be fixed, a disease to be cured, a sin for men to repent of. No wonder Promise Keepers melted as quickly as a snowball in hell.

Since the contraction which Usher explains, Promise Keepers has continued to contract. A careful reading of their own history shows a declining number of men attending stadium or similar events since the 1997 Stand in the Gap and the contraction which followed. By their own testimony (laced with a generous dose of positive spin) they have continued to contract over the past decade. In fact, the contraction has gone far enough that McCartney now candidly speaks of an upcoming Promise Keepers event in Boulder, Colorado with these words  :

Our journey will begin with a stadium event in Boulder, CO, on July 31-August 1, 2009. We’ll celebrate our 20th anniversary as a ministry back where it all began–and where it will be re-launched–at Folsom Field.

Fish or Fowl?

Promise Keepers has always claimed it was a ministry to men. But with the relaunch, McCartney highlights three distinctives that will characterize the re-launched Promise Keepers. Claiming to take his cue for the relaunch from the First Century Church, McCartney claims that this church did three things:

Proverbs 31:31: They celebrated virtuous women at the city gates. We expect men to invite thousands of women to “A Time to Honor.” This will be powerful. We need to rally around women and raise the bar for what it is to be virtuous. The next generation must have a true model for womanhood.

Acts 2:43-48: They shared their resources equally. As the days get more difficult, the church that is truly anointed will be one that opens its arms to the less fortunate. We want to catalyze men to serve the poor, the oppressed and the needy through their local church.

I Corinthians 4:15: Honoring the Spiritual Fathers of the Faith. Paul said that though we may have countless teachers in the faith, we will not have many fathers. And he became our father through the Gospel. We want to honor the Jewish Believers who are the spiritual fathers of our faith.

Apostolic Christianity or Jewish Evangelism?

Concerning Spiritual Fathers: This sounds decidedly quixotic. It is one thing to argue in favor of evangelism of Jews, particulary based on Paul’s “to the Jew first, and then the Greek” statements. Two of PK’s Board members are involved in Jewish evangelism (Rabbi Jonathan Bernis) and encouraging “Gentile believers in Jesus Christ to embrace the Messianic Jewish community” (Dr.Raleigh Washington). But McCartney doesn’t even seem to have evangelism of Jewish unbelievers in view here, but rather “Jewish believers who are the spiritual fathers of our faith.”

It’s unclear who these “fathers” are. Paul evangelized the Corinthians and thus claims to be their father in the gospel. Is Paul, therefore, ipso facto the father of all believers today? Or, perhaps McCartney is referring to the Apostles who left us the New Testament. But, still, while some Christians have become believers by reading the New Testament alone, most have been evangelized by Gentile evangelists. Just what McCartney is talking about here awaits further developments.

Christian Welfare?

Concerning the sharing of resources: why is this agenda singled out as somehow unique, or distinctive? Yes, the sharing of resources marked the communal life of early Christians. But that has more or less been the case ever since. Today, there are scores of Christian aid agencies that are international in scope, alongside countless soup kitchens, second-hand clothing distribution networks, and single-mother ministries in churches across the land. Entire denominations have cast themselves as agents for social justice and aid to the oppressed. Why is this “new?”

It’s Still About Women, Evidently

Thumbs Up But, the first distictive in McCartney’s list looks decidedly like a retread, and a confused one at that. Citing a verse from the poem on the Virtuous Women (who is obviously a member of the aristocracy during the Golden Age of Solomon) in Proverbs 31, McCartney claims that the early church “celebrated virtuous women at the city gates.” So far as I know, the Apostle Paul commends a number of women for their character and works of mercy. But, to say that Christians themselves were “celebrating virtuous women at the city gates” is almost certainly false.

Christians (Jewish and Gentile alike) were mocked and persecuted and schemed against in the city gates. Jews and Pagans alike, threatened by converts to Christianity, persecuted Christians. To imagine the Christians themselves “celebrating” (what, exactly, is this supposed to mean???) in the city gates … it’s a preposterous fiction forced onto the NT and the early writings of the post-Apostolic fathers.

But, this is the 21st Century. The Evangelical Church is now feminist. And, if a ministry to men is going to have a snowball’s chance in hell, it’s going to need to bring the women in. Here’s how the PK website puts it :

1) Why are we inviting women?

The time for Proverbs 31:31 is long overdue! It’s time to bring our wives and daughters so that we can honor them together. They need to stand side by side with us as warriors of the faith.

Hmmmm. Evidently, Christian men don’t praise virtuous women in the gates (hence, it’s long overdue). I’m not sure why the burgeoning population of women in evangelical seminaries doesn’t count here. In another generation, evangelical pulpits will have as many or more women in them than men. Count on it — the seminaries’ Forward Looking Committees have it all figured out. The next generation of evangelical leaders are in today’s evangelical seminary classrooms. Count the division of the sexes and know the future!

I wish PK had been a less foggy about that warrior thing.

Do they mean this: “They need to stand side by side with us men who as men are warriors for the faith?”

Or do they mean this: “They need to stand side by side with us men, joining us to be warriors for the faith?”

You know, in the current climate there’s whole organization of women led by Carolyn Custis James who claims that the Bible calls women to be warriors. Women now populate all the armed forces, including combat units, so it’s a sure thing they can claim to be warriors for the United States. Is PK conforming to popular feminist and egalitarian notions about the warrior-ness of women? Looks like it to me.

Down with Male Headship

seenoevilMeanwhile, the entire, long, and tedious battle for the past 25 years has been whether or not men are heads of their marriages, families, and churches. On that issue, PK is quite clear :

What does PK think the role of women should be?

The role of women is not a topic we address at our events; however, we do believe husbands are called to love their wives just as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25).

I do not know how more studiously Promise Keepers can ignore the Scriptures than this. Paul has a lot of very clear things to say about the role of women in Ephesians 5. On one hand PK urges us to honor our spiritual fathers in the faith — including the Apostle Paul, for crying out loud — and at the same time refuses to quote the Apostle when he gives an answer to a question they themselves acknowledge is “out there.”

Promise Keepers makes a big deal out of integrity and courage. They would be a lot more convincing if they showed more integrity in how they handle the Bible, and less cowardice when facing the spirit of the age.


Filed under Egalitarianism, Feminism