Women’s Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue
A number of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.
My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism.
Controversy in Carolina
Which brings me to Fr. Robinson. Others have described the controversy in greater detail (see here, here, and here), but the simplified version is that Fr. Robinson was asked to speak on Critical Theory: Antithetical to the Gospel. Rather than simply focusing on Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory, Fr. Robinson went to the root of the matter and identified Marxism, Liberalism, and Feminism as the origin of the rest. In particular, he identified feminism as the gateway drug to Critical Theory in the church, calling women’s ordination a “Trojan Horse” and a “cancer.” In doing so, Fr. Robinson was simply following in the footsteps of another Anglican intellectual, C.S. Lewis, who in his famous essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, notes that ordaining priestesses seems to entail a number of other modifications to Christian theology, including addressing “Our Mother in Heaven,” and the notion that Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form.1 As Lewis notes, “Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.” You can read Fr. Robinson’s full remarks at his substack. He ably describes the ideological dimension of the slippery slope from feminism to other forms of Critical Theory (his account of Marx, Luther, and Liberalism is less compelling).
More than that, he briefly described the social dynamics in play and connected it particularly to empathy.
Generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?
To expand on Robinson’s point, he is correct that, in general, women are more empathetic than men. And, in itself, this is a God-given blessing. Empathy–that is, vicariously experiencing the emotions of another–can be a wonderful thing in its place. It fosters connection and bonding. It’s why women frequently act as the glue that holds communities together. Abigail Dodds describes some of the benefits of this God-given feature.
Research shows that women in particular are more empathetic than men when seeing other people in pain. I think this reflects a wonderful design feature that God has given women that benefits not only any children we might have, but our entire communities.
A woman who is sensitive to the feelings of others, especially their pain, will be a sort of first responder. She is able to move toward the hurting. She can sound the alarm that someone is in need. And very practically for mothers, she can sense her infant’s need for food and sleep and attention. She can detect a downcast glance from her teenage daughter or son. She can tell if her husband is carrying some frustration from his workday. Doesn’t this make sense with God’s design for a woman? The one he called helper (Genesis 2:18)? What a gift God has given to women.
Crucially, however, what is a blessing in one place is a curse in another. The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. There are times–usually involving grave error or gross sin–when God forbids empathy and pity. When someone–even a close family member–entices Israel to commit idolatry and abandon the Lord, “You shall not yield to him, or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). So also in the case of first-degree murder, or of bearing false witness in court (Deuteronomy 7:16, 19:13, and 19:21). In such cases, God is adamant that “your eye shall not pity them.”
This principle is highly relevant for the leadership and governance of the church (whether we’re talking Anglican priests, Presbyterian elders, or Baptist pastors). Whatever other functions ministers may perform (administration, service, care for the sick), the sine qua non of the ministerial office is teaching and guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. In such moments, empathy and pity are a liability, not an asset.
To use a biblical example, when Moses comes down the mountain in Exodus 32 and witnesses the gross idolatry of the Israelites, he says, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And the sons of Levi gathered to him. He then tells them to pick up their swords and to go to and fro through the camp, killing their brothers, companions, and neighbors. Their eye was not to pity those who had committed such evil. God’s response to their obedience was to ordain them to the priesthood.
Similarly, in Numbers 25, when the Israelites are confronted with the very first Pride parade, when the Israelite man struts through the camp with his idolatrous Midianite bride, Moses and the elders of Israel weep at the tent of meeting. Phinehas, however, takes action, following the man and woman into their tent and driving his spear through both of them (presumably while in coitus). And God’s response is to say, “That man will make a great priest.”
In other words, the Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.
What Robinson Revealed
But my interest in the story is not merely in what Fr. Robinson said, but in what happened after. For the fallout was almost a textbook demonstration of his point, as well as a demonstration of another feature of the emotional dynamics involved when feminism encroaches upon the church. While Fr. Robinson’s message was apparently well-received by many in attendance, others were decidedly nonplussed. And this was perhaps not surprising, since there were Anglican priestesses and advocates for women’s ordination in the audience.
Reading the various accounts of the reaction and the removal of Robinson from the subsequent speaker panel, it is not difficult to see what happened. Fr. Robinson’s talk was offensive to some of the priestesses in attendance; according to some accounts, a number of women (and men) walked out. No doubt some concerned and angry emails and texts were sent to the conference organizers, urging them “to do something about it.” And so they did, disinviting Robinson from the remainder of the conference.
Here we see an additional layer to the emotional dynamics. Put simply, it is this: men struggle to deal with the unhappiness and displeasure of women. Put another way, female distress activates male agitation. Male empathy for the unhappy woman is frequently a disguise for his own anxiety and angst. This is especially true of good men, who have been taught to be “servant leaders.” We’re all familiar with the modern social media phenomenon of “the white knight,” the man who, seeing a woman in distress (that is, engaged in online debate with a man), comes to her aid by attacking her opponents with a vehemence and zeal that he would not have if a man was engaged in the same sort of ideological conflict.
Of course, this phenomenon is again a perversion of a good impulse. Women are the weaker vessel, and the masculine impulse to protect them is noble and good. Men are taught from a young age, “Don’t hit girls. Treat them differently than the boys.” But the noble principle is also subject to gross manipulation, especially in the modern egalitarian world in which women enter the proverbial boxing ring, but conservative men still operate according to the old principle. As Lewis taught us, “Battles are ugly when women fight.” This is true, not merely of physical war, but also of ideological and theological battles.
In fact, we might state the challenge in this way: faithful men know how to resist unfaithful men. Good shepherds are willing to fight wolves. But faithful men struggle to resist unfaithful women. She-wolves, especially ones who present themselves as victims, give even faithful men fits, because of the unavoidable asymmetries in the dynamics. What’s more, ungodly women are often willing to exploit these asymmetries in order to steer entire communities. And it’s not just the she-wolves, but also the compromised (female) sheep, what Paul calls “the weak women” who are captured by false teachers due to their emotional instability, immaturity, and sin (2 Timothy 3:6-7).
A key part of the challenge is the failure to recognize the lie of interchangeability in all of its forms. Male groups operate according to male norms–oriented to things (or ideas), willing to debate, challenge, and provoke one another directly, and comfortable with hierarchy. Female groups operate according to female norms–oriented to people (or feelings), prone to indirect and subtle communication and sublimated conflict, and averse to open disagreement and overt hierarchies but comfortable with excluding those who violate their social norms. Making such a generalization already violates a number of feminist and egalitarian dogmas. But the more important generalization for our purposes is to note that mixed groups will inevitably tend to adopt female norms, including the orientation to feelings (there’s empathy again) and the move to exclude those who violate the norms of “niceness” by engaging in direct, challenging speech.
The unsurprising result, often unexpressed in public, but noted in private among men, is the frustration at the unfairness of the asymmetry of the mixed group. Direct speech is out; indirect speech is in. Open debate is out. Emotional reasoning is in. Ideas are out; empathy is in. What seems most compassionate and empathetic in the moment is prioritized over what is good and wise in the long run. Violate the new rules and expect to be policed by white knights and sidelined for being quarrelsome, divisive, and rocking the boat, as Fr. Robinson discovered.
In the face of this challenge, the solution in some circles is to put forth godly women to resist the unfaithful ones. If a female teacher is leading people astray, find a faithful female Bible teacher to answer her. You might call this the “Call Rosaria” option. But the challenge is that faithful women (including Rosaria) expect faithful men to guard and protect the flock. Outsourcing resistance to she-wolves to conservative shepherdesses is itself a subtle form of capitulation. And what’s more, there will never be enough godly, faithful women to meet the challenge, since the vast majority of them are too busy being faithful at their posts–raising their children, managing their homes, and serving the people of God in all the ways that are fitting and proper.
Identify the Battle In Your Context
So then, if fighting feminine fire with feminine fire is out, what then should we do? First, recognize where the particular battle is in your denomination or church. For ACNA, women’s ordination is clearly the issue, and the notion of “dual integrities” is obviously unstable and unworkable, an oxymoron.
In the Southern Baptist Convention, the ongoing fight over female pastors and the Law Amendment is a clear battle line. In the Presbyterian Church in America, the same feminist impulse lurks beneath the principle that “a woman can do anything an unordained man can do.” In non-denominational churches, the form the issue often takes is the pressure to get more women “up front” (not to preach at first, but to make announcements or read Scripture, etc) or to make sure that more women are “in the room where it happens.”
In a local church, the problem might manifest when there’s a repeated pattern of all-male elder meetings in which a difficult decision is made that draws clear lines, and then, after the elders have gone home and talked to their wives, the emails and texts start flying. “Brothers, I’ve been praying about it, and I think we need to reconsider our decision…”
In all of these cases, conservative churches and denominations that are engaged in such battles are in the early stages of sliding down the slippery slope pioneered by the mainline, and described in detail by Wayne Grudem in Evangelical Feminism: The New Path to Liberalism?2 To mix metaphors, that slippery slope is a one-way train with four stops (often represented by the four books that someone on that train could write). Stop 1: “I’m Not That Kind of Complementarian.” Stop 2: “I’m Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian.” Stop 3: “I’m Egalitarian.” Stop 4: “Sodomy Is Cool.” Or, as I’ve written elsewhere, “The frequent move from egalitarianism to the affirmation and celebration of homosexuality is not so much a slippery slope, but simply what cancer does when left untreated.” So the first step is to recognize how the cancer is expressing itself in your particular community.
Of Varieties of Complementarianism
Second, having recognized where the rot is, it’s imperative to dig deep roots in God’s revelation both in Scripture and nature. Over the years, folks have sought to distinguish between broad and narrow complementarianism (or thick and thin complementarianism, or hard and soft complementarianism). But it’s worthwhile to clarify what the fundamental difference between these groups is. To that end, let me suggest that the key division in all of these denominations (except ACNA, which already has egalitarian churches within it) is between natural complementarianism (or patriarchy) and ideological complementarianism.
The fundamental difference has to do with the relationship between Scripture and nature. For natural complementarians, the biblical restriction of the ministerial office to qualified men simply cuts with the grain of God’s design in creation. Biblical imperatives are built on divine indicatives. Nature and Scripture speak with one voice. Male headship in the home is unavoidable; it’s not a command, but a baseline reality, a fact, and the only question is whether a husband will be a faithful head or an unfaithful head. Likewise, male leadership in the church is simply an outworking of the way that God made the world and the way that he is remaking it in Christ. The Pauline restriction in 1 Timothy 2 is built on God’s design as testified in Genesis 1-2 and manifested in the concrete ways that he has made men different from women. Thus, for natural complementarians, male leadership outside the home and the church is normal and expected, and is why the Bible regards a nation ruled by women and children as a sign of God’s judgment (Isaiah 3:12).
Ideological complementarianism, on the other hand, regards the biblical commands about male leadership in the home and the church as arbitrary law overlaid on a neutered nature. At root, men and women are interchangeable, but God inexplicably assigns men to be the head of their homes (which, in this context, means that they are the tie-breaker in extreme circumstances) and to be elders in the church (which means they lead the congregation by serving them and doing whatever they want). The biblical restrictions, insofar as they exist, are ideology imposed on nature, not fitting commands derived from nature and clarified and reinforced by Scripture. In other words, ideological complementarians are egalitarian at heart, and maintain their complementarianism only because of a handful of verses in Paul, and only until they are able to rationalize and embrace the egalitarian contortions of those passages. Then they take the Feminist Train to Stop 3.3
Given this difference, the starting place for resistance must be an unashamed embrace of reality. As I’m fond of saying, the first imperative is to love the indicative. The first command is to love God and the way that he has made the world. In this case, that means gladly embracing, without embarrassment, the reality that men and women are gloriously different and complementary and that these differences are relevant in all areas of life. What’s more, it means celebrating (again without shame or embarrassment) the biblical teaching that accounts for, clarifies, and further grounds the reality of what it means to be men and women. Equally made in God’s image, yes, but men are the head and women are the glory. From this happy embrace of reality, we can then apply the steady pressure necessary to not only remove the feminist infection from our churches, but also to commend God’s design for men and women to a rebellious and confused world.
Finally, applying this sort of steady pressure in the church and in the world will require steady men, sober-minded leaders who possess a clarity of mind, a stability of soul, and a readiness to act. They must be clear-headed, humble, and willing to take the lumps that will inevitably come. They must develop the kind of Christian fortitude that will enable them to endure the hurt feelings and offense of priestesses and lady pastors, as well as the agitation and pressure of the nice guys. In other words, the key need will be leaders who have the moral strength and stamina to resist the inevitable emotional sabotage and manipulation while offering true care and compassion. Who is sufficient for these things? By the grace of God, we can be.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58)
Image Credit: Unsplash
See the “Consumerism, Oikos, and the Role of Women in the Church” series at Theopolis
https://theopolisinstitute.com/consumerism-oikos-and-the-role-of-women-in-the-church-part-3/
Joe: Here’s a vs out of context about a Midianite woman; therefore being anti-WO is “jealous w/a godly jealousy.”
Jesus to *women*: Go & tell my brothers I have risen from the dead.
Also Jesus: scorns not the virgin womb to be the vehicle for His body
Also Genesis: male and female together doing priestly work as icons in Eden
Also Junia and Phoebe and the πρεσβῦτιdas of Titus 2
etc https://mburtwrites.substack.com/p/the-women-of-the-new-testament
From the inflammatory image of a headless woman, to the blaming Cozbi & not the man who brought her into the camp, to the unsubstantiated statement that: male headship just *is* as an argument, the subtext of this piece is very revealing. Fascinating, too, to see an entire talking point revolving around the assumption that women (and others) objected to Calvin’s talk b/c of empathy rather than his misuse of Scripture, rhetorical contempt, and disregard of episcopal authority.
It’s so helpful of wammans to come into the comments and prove the exact point of the article.
Is anonymously dropping in the comments to call me a “wamman” the kind of sober-minded, steady, humble, clear-headed, character Joe thinks is required to lead?
Oh no, are you offended? Guess that means we need to reject scripture and go along with whatever feminism taught you!
…….lol.
Male supremacy and authoritarianism were not teachings of Christ.
One thing that seems to be missing from this very throrough article is Jesus.
Where does He fit into the equation? How did he treat women in His day? How did He react to hierarchies? Does He fit into the male norms listed? What did He teach us through the way He lived during His time on Earth?
Jesus didn’t align with any of this kind of thing, or (following your logic) He would have led the charge to stone the woman caught in adultery. He wouldn’t have sat to dine with the tax collectors; He would have picked up a sword to stab them. He wouldn’t have chosen *women* to go share the good news of His resurrection. There would have been no Martha and Mary. The heart of what Jesus preached was opposed to patriarchy, legalism and false entitlement, and 100% about love, grace and empathy. And He was the most Godly, masculine man that ever lived. Modern men’s desire to prioritize the words of humans (i.e. Paul) over the overriding words/actions/teaching/ministry of Christ, is desire to pervert who Jesus was and what He came to do.
How many matriarchs are listed in the Bible? How many of Jesus’ apostles are women? There is a huge difference in teaching, honoring, and, yes, even sending women as messengers as Jesus did, and ordaining them.
Your (and other commenters’) mischaracterization of Christ’s ministry proves the point of this article. He is the EMBODIMENT of true patriarchy. Yes, He is loving, compassionate, kind (not “nice”), and at times empathetic. But He also called a woman in need a dog, clergy vipers, and unhearing people swine. He took however long it takes to do so to make a whip, and then use it to drive money changers out of the temple. Where was His empathy for those people? You bring up the woman caught in adultery (a favorite of your feminized camp)—Jesus also told her to stop sinning.
Lastly, if you consider the epistles to be merely “the words of humans” and not the inspired Word of God, you are in grave error and peril. How can you claim that ANY part of the Bible is truly divine? Repent, and be saved.
The only confirmation anyone can come up with as to whether the Bible is the inherent word of God, is just their own (or others’) strongly held opinions. None of the Trinity came down to earth and said to all people that humans got the Bible right. I’m sorry, but there’s no proof. The Bible conflicts itself and conflicts what Jesus said and did in too many places to count, no matter how hard you pretend it doesn’t. Christianity existed for centuries prior to the Bible; all early Christians had were the words of Jesus. The human-compiled, exclusively male-approved Bible was not necessary for their salvation, nor yours nor mine. Jesus didn’t command anyone to put together a Bible. Men (solely) decided what would be included in the Bible, and one of their criteria was, do these writings support the current church teachings? A completely humanist motive by very human men, in a very male-centric time. The Bible includes what men wanted it to include. And those men and men like you demand that everyone agree that what they had put together was the inerrant word of God. Handy! And not at all self-serving! Paul, who lived after Jesus died, wrote in second Timothy what he himself allowed, in his own brand new church. He didn’t say that Jesus told him to make this an edict for half the planets’ population for the rest of time. If it had been that important, you would’ve thought Jesus would’ve gone ahead and preached that Himself. Whereever there is conflict between who the person of Christ was, and the words He said, and what His ministry was about— versus what human beings decided to come up with on their own, we must default to Jesus. Jesus > humans. The sole call to Christians is to be Christlike. Not: Christians should be Paul-like. Jesus didn’t leave women out or tell them their role in life was to be men’s service animals. He did not buy into the pop culture sexism of ascribing these qualities as female and those qualities as male, nor did He create division or assign authority to men over women. He just didn’t, no matter what kind of tantrum men have. Men who call themselves Christians should strive to view women as Jesus Himself did, and let their egos go. Christianity is not about them.
Why speak so confidently about a man (Christ) who you only know about through the writings of the men that recorded him? I’ve noticed all progressive Christianity inevitably leads to a rejection of Scripture as authoritative — it has to in order to make sense. But the problem then becomes that you are clinging to a Christ that is passed down through the very scripture you reject as tampered with.
If the Bible is falliable, recall that those same apostles were the ones recording what Jesus said and did. How can we then be sure that they even faithfully recorded Christ’s life, especially if they had nefarious, patriarchal motives? Everything you know (or think you know) about Christ is filtered through their writings. You cannot, as they say, have your cake and eat it too. Either Christ’s life was a curated story written by nefarious patriarchs, or this Word is the inspired scripture guided by God himself for our training, teaching, and edification, his direct apostles not excluded. I pray please reconsider this reasoning.
There is a need to clarify that egalitarianism is not a slippery slope to saying that “Sodomy is cool.” I know many egalitarians who are clear on sodomy being contrary to God’s Word. See the chapter on homosexuality in The Moral Vision of the New Testament by a well-respected scholar who is egalitarian.
And yet, egalitarianism inevitably leads to acceptance of Sodomy.
The history of all this is to recent and clear for any accept the very blind to misunderstand. Within our lifetimes we’ve watched all of this transpire.
Egalitarianism leads to acceptance of Sodomy as surely as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
The Church of God denomination began ordaining women in 1909 and is non-affirming. The Assemblies of God denomination began ordaining women in 1935 and are also still nom-affirming.
The pattern is clear, those current exceptions prove the rule.
Glad to know that this ideal church Rigney envisions (which gratefully doesn’t exist), seems such a “hospitable” place for the cohort of the population who is currently more literate, educated, and spiritually equipped to train the next generation & teach and train the the truth. Good luck running a church with women being told they’re stupid and useless. Start living in God’s reality, man. My wife is my better half and makes our church grow and run! I’m sorry for the women in your life if this is truly how you view them.
Well said, Walter. Here’s a list of healthy foods for you and your better half!
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/a-guide-to-foods-rich-in-soy
The article has links to “related conditions”: menopause and osteoporosis. I believe they will be helpful not only to you, but also to all the feminists in this comment section.
Are you seriously mocking a man who loves and cherishes his wife and sees her as a joint heir in Christ and DOESN’T view her as stupid?
Does that seem like a godly, Christ-like attitude to you?
If we examine history, men who have been at the leadership helm of the church for centuries, would be responsible for the moral decline and failures within the church. But if it clears your conscience to blame it on the emotions of weak women, you have simply demonstrated that men lack the true courage and conviction to do what is right and required of leaders.
“a perfect characature of everything that is wrong with the emasculated clergy class, John Piper”
Idk, man. Piper was fighting egalitarianism before it was cool to do so, even going as far as to argue that women ought not to be in positions of authority outside the church. (In the police force, the army, etc.) I’m old enough to remember him drawing fire from the likes of Rachel Held Evans, with the label ‘patriarchal’ being thrown around as a slur to demean him. It’s great that all y’all are fired up to fight egalitarianism today, but don’t forget that you stand on the shoulders of guys like Piper. You can praise Rigney to the stars without taking cheap digs at other men of God.
Sorry, I replied to the wrong comment!
This is a great article. And yes sifting through the comments we see that the usual suspects are triggered. Good. The article stands as it is. Let the soyboys, white knights and shewolves have their temper tantrum. God is unmoved. In fact, it is He who brought us to this moment, and it is He who is applying correction to His sick and wayward Church. Grace perfects nature. Nature originated at creation. The man was created first. Man had a calling and a task before the woman was created. He named (categorized) the animals before the woman came into being. The woman was created to be a helper, even a Prime Minister, unto the man but the man was always the king. The man was, is, and ever shall be responsible for how he orders his house, society and the church.
Ok, now that I’ve identified myself as a knuckle dragger, let me donate a huge stink bomb by naming names. God spends decades preparing His messengers for the appointed time. The reason this article is so full of insight is because the Lord has brought Joe Rigney through a unique path. First he raised him in the first generation of progeny from the illustrious petri dish of Moscow Idaho and all that means. Then God sent him out into Big Eva too with under a perfect characature of everything that is wrong with the emasculated clergy class, John Piper. Being subjected to a working environment filled with and boardroom led by estrogen fueled enuchs, Mr. Rigney has witnessed almost every permutation of wilting males in action pursuing the path of least resistance and rationalizing it all with the most subtle forms of sophistry known to man. Thus Mr. Rigney was created as a cork, sent away to be held beneath the surface in a pool of vinegar, contrary to his nature to float. Having rescued himself from that vat, he is now reporting that which he has both seen and heard. The question for us is, will we hear it or will we continue to be pickled?
“a perfect characature of everything that is wrong with the emasculated clergy class, John Piper”
Idk, man. Piper was fighting egalitarianism before it was cool to do so, even going as far as to argue that women ought not to be in positions of authority outside the church. (In the police force, the army, etc.) I’m old enough to remember him drawing fire from the likes of Rachel Held Evans, with the label ‘patriarchal’ being thrown around as a slur to demean him. It’s great that all y’all are fired up to fight egalitarianism today, but don’t forget that you stand on the shoulders of guys like Piper. You can praise Rigney to the stars without taking cheap digs at other men of God.
I apologize that I can’t correct the typos and grammar errors.
This is a great article. And yes sifting through the comments we see that the usual suspects are triggered. Good. The article stands as it is. Let the soyboys, white knights and “shewolves” have their temper tantrum. God is unmoved. In fact, it is He who brought us to this moment, and it is He who is applying correction to His sick and wayward Church. Grace perfects nature. Nature originated at creation. The man was created first. Man had a calling and a task before the woman was created. He named (categorized) the animals before the woman came into being. The woman was created to be a helper, even a Prime Minister, unto the man but the man was always the king. The man was, is, and ever shall be responsible for how he orders his house, society and the church.
Ok, now that I’ve identified myself as a knuckle dragger, let me donate a huge stink bomb by naming names. God spends decades preparing His messengers for the appointed time. The reason this article is so full of insight is because the Lord has brought Joe Rigney through a unique path. First he raised him as the first generation of progeny from the illustrious petri dish of Moscow Idaho and all that means. Then God sent him out into Big Eva to sit under a perfect caricature of everything that is wrong with the emasculated clergy class, John Piper. Being subjected to a working environment filled with, and boardroom led by estrogen fueled eunuchs, Mr. Rigney has witnessed almost every permutation of wilting males in action pursuing the path of least resistance and rationalizing it all with the most subtle forms of sophistry known to man. Thus Mr. Rigney was created as a cork, sent away to be held beneath the surface in a pool of vinegar, contrary to his nature to float. Having rescued himself from that vat, he is now reporting that which he has both seen and heard. The question for us is, will we hear it or will we continue to be pickled?
The comments are gold! You can tell Joe hit their idol just based on their reactions.
Imagine if the effort required to create this misogynistic, unbiblical nonsense had instead been spent on healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked – you know, things Jesus *actually* cares about?
We’d be much closer to heaven on Earth, that’s for sure.
Imagine if we gave Africa trillions of dollars in aid over decades and it was still an utter hellhole. Imagine if being “compassionate” to degenerates only led to criminals and druggies running rampant. Imagine if fake Christians were resorting to low-IQ guilt tripping to hinder God’s people.
We’d be a lot closer to the reality on earth, that’s for sure.
Hey Joe, your list of “woke” things is… race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+, but you don’t really parse these things out leaving me wondering how, say, race and abuse are the same. Many of your peers use a lens of “people” and “nonwhite people” (meaning you don’t see yourself as having a race) so it appears as though you are equating being Black with being abusive with being queer with having sex. Since all are apparently woke and therefore belong on the short list of cultural sins that need to be… stamped out? Repented of? Spirit of confusion I guess.
I can’t speak for the author, I never heard of him before this, but I think that’s just an unfair equivocation. By mention of ‘race’, we all take that as meaning the current debate on ‘equity vs equality’, ‘what is the extent of institutionalized racism in the modern day?’, and ‘what are we teaching our congregations about our roles in perpetuating a racist system?’.
He’s not listing things that are all bad, he is listing topics of disagreement between ‘woke’ and ‘non-woke’ congregations, for lack of a better term, of which race theory is prominent. I think you may be drawing out more than what is there out of a desire to be outraged.
A few things:
There’s a real odor of Eternal Subordination of the Son in this article. This is, at best, a sub-Arian heresy. The Trinity is not hierarchical. Christ’s submission to the Father is finite, as part of his modeling what it is for us to live within the will of God. The Church spent centuries debating and defining this. Too bad we choose to ignore that because we desperately want to find eternal basis for the subjugation of women (and, if we’re honest, non-white men). Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers taught us much better than this. (Then again, Gregory and Basil were influenced by their sister Macrina the Younger, so we probably shouldn’t trust them).
Do women in your congregations cover their hair in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16? If not, why the inconsistency?
When will we discuss the practice of sending female missionaries from the United States to other countries being “okay” because we don’t see non-white men as being equal with white men? We really can’t ignore the long history of this practice.
If women did not exercise leadership or teaching abilities in the Church, then there would be no ministry to or with children, or Sunday school of any kind, because in general men aren’t bothering themselves with that supposedly “lesser” work. So when will you and those who agree with you take that on? Or are you too busy?
What do you do with Phoebe, Prisca, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Junia (it is Junia, not Junias), any of the Marys, Julia, etc.?
Lastly, when we’re in eternity with our Lord, do you think that all the women who shared the Gospel will be consigned to the back of heaven? What about the people who come into redemptive relationship with God through their preaching and teaching? Will they find themselves in the back too? Or are the female preachers and teachers going to hell, along with all the people who learned from them? If this is your stance, what Scriptural basis is there for it?
Eternal basis for subjugation of women? Is someone establishing an eternal precedent? If so I am genuinely not aware. I think Christ’s submission to the Father’s will while on earth is a good representation of headship as it applies to us in our earthly lives. I dont know or necessarily need to know how things work for eternity, but I do think our temporal roles on earth are clearly outlined in Scripture.
And who is saying women cannot minister/speak over themselves or children? The context of these passages and this topic seems to be with respect to men. I pity whatever church you have in mind when you say children’s ministry is a “lesser” role, as my church has a very high value and near 50/50 spread placed on the ministry.
Regarding the women commended in the Epistles, you should check out Mike Winger’s ‘women in ministry’ series because he goes into each specific instance. In summary, none of those passages neccesitate an authoritative or eldership role placed on any of those women, but rather commendation for good work that has been done relationally.
Mary exclaimed that ‘all generations will consider me blessed’, and she was considered ‘full of grace’ by Gabriel. I think there is some obvious and clear scriptural evidence that women take central roles in the entire creation story, and that teaching/having authority over a church is simply a role that we are assigned. Most men in a congregation don’t teach or have authority over anyone in the church either, does that mean they are also consigned to the back of heaven? Is the ‘front’ of heaven reserved for only the leaders, or are we forgetting that the greatest among us is ‘last of all and servant to all’. Where are we getting this idea that the leadership, those in authority, are the ones getting the front-row seats in heaven? That is a core concern in the egalitarian movement that I see is completely unfounded. In my personal opinion, if Christ’s words on the last and servants being first ring true, the front seats are reserved for everyone in nursery ministry.
Saying that it’s sexist to restrict the office of presbyter to men (and only a very particular kind of man at that) is as stupid as saying it was racist to restrict the office of priests to the Levites. This idea that equality = interchangeability, that everyone has to be able to do everything that everyone else can do or else you’re saying X group is inferior to Y group, must be done away with. Was the tribe of Judah inferior to the tribe of Levi because Judahites couldn’t be priests? Was the tribe of Benjamin inferior to the tribe of Manasseh because they were given a much smaller piece of land, despite having a larger number of people? Of course not! God made different people, and different groups of people, for different purposes and He gave them different strengths accordingly. That does not mean one group is ultimately inferior to another. For one group to seek after what another has, even when it has no right to it, is just covetousness.
And lest anyone think I’m drawing false equivalencies, the verses restricting the office of presbyter to men are no less clear than those restricting the office of priest to Levites:
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer.” (1 Timothy 2:12-14)
Look at the reasons Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit and guarded from error) gives:
1. The order of creation (man was created before woman.)
2. The order of the fall (woman sinned before man.)
3. There’s also the implication that, in general, women are more easily deceived than men, though some dispute this reading. Either way, that’s how it always seems to play out.
Also, that he goes back to Adam and Eve and the fact that he also says women are kept silent in all the churches—”As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)—proves this rule isn’t limited to a specific culture at a specific place and time, but that it is a universal teaching based on the very nature of men and women for all time. The meaning is as clear as day and no amount of sophistry can obscure it. By going against it, you are turning the concept of equality, or what you think equality is, into a false idol and rebelling against the God who made you.
Good analogy with the Levites, it’s one of the best approaches I’ve read regarding this issue. I’m sure many in the other 11 tribest aspired to the glory of priesthood. Those that jostle for leadership and headship need to remember Christ’s words to his disciples when they asked the same: “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Matt 23:11).
As I mentioned elsewhere, I believe the greatest in many of our churches are those that faithfully and regularly serve in the nursery and children’s ministry, as those roles often require the most demanding responsibilities and the least recognition.
Most men, likely myself included, will never hold a teaching or elder position in the church either, and we are not considered less in the Kingdom because of our station, but rather based on how we serve.
Just beginning to wrap my head around Moscow theology. Really like this article, esp in your explanation of ‘natural’ complementarianism. In my words, Paul’s appeal to creation is more a statement of reality than a command, akin to ‘gravity’.
Q: Per the ‘slippery slope’. How do you account for ‘egalitarian’ denominations (women leadership) which have not ‘slid’?
Q: If these churches are truly ‘Christian’, does your view place them in a position of theological disagreement or moral disagreement?
Historical reference of the female response to a prohibition from God appears very early in scripture —- warning the image bearers that “rational thinking” will win out every time.
Yikes. You failed to mention all the women Jesus included in the NT. You failed to include that a woman is a man’s helpmeet (same word used for God in Psalms-a help in time of need) so she is his greatest source of biblical wisdom and guidance. What happened to women being the female representatives of God’s image? Aren’t you missing out on 50% of God’s image by enslaving women to men? You are now one of the wolves in sheep clothing being confronted by wise men…AND women. You are the unwise one being warned against by men and women. You do not know Jesus…one can know the OT but not know Jesus
“…noted in private among men, is the frustration at the unfairness of the asymmetry of the mixed group. Direct speech is out; indirect speech is in. Open debate is out. Emotional reasoning is in. Ideas are out; empathy is in. What seems most compassionate and empathetic in the moment is prioritized over what is good and wise in the long run.”
Hmm… Well, I was told by the writings of John Piper, Emerson Eggrichs, Gary Thompson, and others that as a woman, I’m supposed to show you respect by hinting around to things, dropping clues, and using indirect language so as to not usurp your authority as a man, which is basically the essence of indirect speech. So does this mean I’m allowed to tell you directly now that your ideas about empathy are off base, dangerous, and unchristian, or do I have to hint around at it? Because you’re throwing out the baby with the bath water while saying you aren’t by saying ministers of the gospel ought not include empathy when dealing with the truth.
This is dangerous and wrong. We’re supposed to speak the truth in love, sir, and if you can’t or won’t empathize as you speak the truth, you’re harming the truth. You seem to be grossly conflating empathy with capitulation and surrender. I can empathize with someone without condoning their sin or accepting it. It’s because I’m emotionally and intellectually mature enough to ground myself in principles like truth, justice, and righteousness and use them to temper my empathy. I can also use empathy, sympathy, and mercy to temper justice and such things. It works both ways.
Also, this isn’t a super power I possess as a woman. It’s a developed skill I’ve come into possession of as a Christian and a human who has actively chosen to mature and better myself. Hiding behind gross and inaccurate sex based stereotypes to justify your lack of emotional maturity isn’t going to wash in this life or the next. The Holy Spirit has empowered us to be able to do all things and achieve ALL the fruits of the spirit and sanctify every emotion, including empathy.
I strongly suggest, sir, that you sit down with your Bible, put aside your commentaries, and just read a little bit and see how much God empathizes with us without yielding His holiness and righteousness. He understands our weaknesses and sinfulness so well that at every turn He met is where we were and brought us to righteousness. He showed us empathy and compassion and used those as tools to help bring us to Himself. Or have you forgotten the ENTIRE redemptive story arc of the Bible?
I think instead of you trying to convince Christians to be less Christ-like and more pharisaical, you’d be much better served dropping out of the Jesus fish shaped lime light and go have a soul searching in the mountains moment with just you and your Hebrew-Greek Bible.
I hope I wasn’t too indirect for you.