SHEL: I don’t agree with all his theology but he has some great points on focusing on the main issues whilst disagreeing on the other parts. Mark Driscoll hits it on the head….If you think my sermons are hard…
October 27, 2009 by iMonk
I’ll never pass as an apologist for Douglas Wilson’s views on gender. I was turned off to his rhetoric long ago. At the same time, I’m the kind of person who can not like his views on gender and very much like his debates with Chris Hitchens and his books on church life. I’m the guy who has the views on grace that you like and the views on inerrancy you don’t like. I am all about the Gospel and I don’t believe in the rapture. I’m the guy who got followed to the car a few months ago by a good friend who said, “You’re such a good preacher; it’s a shame that you’re so wrong on Genesis.”
I have things I like about Piper and things I don’t. Same with Driscoll. Same with Wright. When my book is out there, it will be the same with me if you’re actually thinking and not just being a shill or a sheeple.
Molly’s story is heart-breaking. Her description of her husband’s domination of her life would have earned him a bloody nose from the “dudes” at Driscoll’s church. And if it makes your head hurt that traditional complementarians can get furious about the abuse of women by men who don’t understand the dynamics of complementarianism, then you’ve just proved to me that you aren’t listening to the depth and diversity of the conversation.
I have no sympathy for abusers. Not in any form, shape or fashion. But every day I teach at a school full of high school boys, many without dads, whose only model for being a man is a rapper or an athlete. They are 18 and can’t pull up their pants. They call women bitches and baby mamas without regret. And I see crowds of girls who buy it. They buy the disrespectful treatment and the commodification of their sexuality. I understand where complementarians are coming from when they look out at the destruction of traditional gender roles and wonder if anyone is counting the cost for what it means for boys to never become men and girls to literally idolize prostitutes as role models.
Egalitarians writing books about the evils of fundamentalism at Bob Jones and Christ Church, Moscow might want to visit their local public school- heck, visit their local Christian school- and see the state of things. See how the ideals of equality and respect are doing out there. If you can’t see why complementarianism makes sense in so many communities and sub-cultures, you’re looking past reality.
But the answer may not be traditional complementarianism. I don’t think it is. I believe the answer is the Gospel. I’m an egalitarian in most ways, but I know what I see supposed notions of progressive eqalitarianism doing in marriages and it’s not any reason to say stupid things like “complementarianism leads to abuse.” Abuse, rotten parenting, no agreement on moral/marital basics, financial sin, adultery, porn addiction- these are the sins in the majority of our homes, no matter our views on gender. Have any of you heard Douglas Wilson talk about how the sins of men have ruined families and destroyed the good name of “submission as unto the Lord?”Molly’s description of her husband is not just sad, it’s sick. Anyone who heard any aspect of that story and approved of us was furthering abuse. No question.
But the fact of abuse doesn’t encourage me to buy into the characterization of complementarians as abusers any more than I believed the study that said men who watched the Super Bowl were the most likely to physically abuse their wives. The badness of bad people will always find something to use as a prop. There’s always a justification for losing your temper or being a jerk. Sure, some props are more appealing to bad men that others. But that doesn’t make the prop bad and it doesn’t mean that we can say whatever we want about an author or throw 5 other characters in the same comment thread and say they are all of one sort.
The reason conservatives and progressives can’t talk to one another are the tactics of vilification. We turn to them too soon. We use them without restraint. We all turn into Bill O’Reilley. Both sides. And more often than not, none of it has anything to do with why Molly’s husband is an abuser. If he comes to me for help and says he’s following Douglas Wilson, I’m telling him that he’s using Wilson to justify abuse. His problem goes all the way to the core of the lies he tells himself to justify the pain he inflicts on others.
If you want to stop abuse, help Molly and her children. And see that the abusive husband takes moral responsibility for his sin, including his sin of using what doesn’t endorse abuse to justify his own.
Proverbs says spare the rod and spoil the child. Most evangelicals don’t believe that’s abuse, but has anyone used it to justify abuse?
He added this later…
UPDATE: All comments are now moderated. If you are here to say all complementarians are abusers, etc. don’t waste your time.
Despite what you may have read in the kinder, gentler corners of the blogosphere recently, you would all be surprised how un-contentious I am most of the time. In my real life, I regularly run from situations where I’m being pressed for my opinion. I much prefer print as the medium of debate. In real life, I’ll nod, blink, shrug, excuse myself, suddenly remember an uncompleted task, etc. rather than get into a tug-of-war about who is right.
But I’ve also learned what it is that snags me, and it’s not always the big issues. It’s usually one word. Yes, one word can throw my switch and give me an almost irresistible yearning to argue my point.
Three examples from the last 24 hours:
1) A debate is going on several places on the blogosphere around this question: “Are the doctrinally obsessed missing the heart of Jesus?”
My answer is a simply “yes,” and the reason is one word: obsessed. You said it. Not me.
Obsessed isn’t doctrinally interested, doctrinally aware or doctrinally correct. Doctrinally obsessed isn’t someone who makes doctrine a priority or who even brings it up frequently. Obsession is….obsession. Single mindedness. Idolatry. Loss of perspective.
I’m obsessed with vanilla oreos. When we are two weeks into February, I’m obsessed with “pitchers and catchers report.” I’m close to obsessed with a new Apple laptop. I’m obsessed with my family’s safety.
If I were obsessed with doctrine, I would be perverting my experience of the heart of Jesus, because obsession with doctrine is against the teaching and example of Jesus himself. Love God with all your heart, etc. Don’t be obsessed with the outlines and definitions. Let them do their good work. See the Pharisees for more information and I Corinthians 13 for a good picture of what we’re going for.
Doctrine rightly placed and rightly valued clarifies and carries the Gospel of Jesus. It centers it and gives it language. Obsession with doctrine equates Jesus with a right view of justification. If we don’t know the difference, our Christianity will become debate points and our discipleship nothing but promoting and publishing our favorite ideas.
2) An IM commenter says about Douglas Wilson, “…My abusive marriage was, in so many ways, modeled on his book, “Reforming Marriage.” (No disrespect to this commenter, with whom I greatly sympathize, as I do with all abused persons. Her comment simply raises an ongoing issue in talking about traditionalists and complementarians.)
I’m not a complementarian, but I understand and respect complementarians. I don’t agree with all of their rhetoric and I don’t agree with all of Wilson’s dramatic metaphors and illustrations in his early work on marriage (and on several other things as well.)
Now I don’t know what behavior the commenter is calling abusive, so I’m not assuming I know everything that went on in a family. That being said, the word “modeled” implies that Wilson would endorse the behavior the commenter calls an “abusive marriage.” I take your presentation and I seek to copy it, i.e. “model” it. It implies the abuser was following the words of Wilson in being abusive, not distorting or twisting them into abusive actions Wilson would not approve of and did not suggest. (I understand that Wilson’s rhetoric of male leadership inevitably leads to excesses with some people, and I have never known a complementarian that didn’t address that. But I lament the lack of focus on abuse, and have written about that here at IM.)
I don’t think we are going to get anywhere in talking about the differences in living out gender relations as Christians if we say taking the other fellow’s book at face value will lead you to abuse. We have to take a more complex view. Wilson is a great target, but great targets aren’t necessarily right targets.)
Anyone who has ever talked with an atheist who knows the Bible is aware of how someone can take many statements in scripture- such as the endorsement of stoning rebellious children to death – and say that abusive parents are “modeling” their abuse on a passage in Leviticus.
Here’s the problem: the writer’s choice of an illustration does not determine the ethics of a person undertaking an action. That ancient Israelites could stone their children in extreme cases and be right doesn’t imply that I should abuse my child and assume I’m right. No, no. That Wilson says a woman must be led by strong male leadership may fall far short of what I understand to be the New Testament message on family life, but it doesn’t give anyone permission to abuse a spouse and I don’t think complementarian views on male leadership make that jump without the addition of the male sinful nature. (Ever hear Mark Driscoll go off on the abusive men in his church?)
Someone who “models” their abuse on someone’s endorsement of strong complementarianism- such as you might see among traditional Amish or among Orthodox Jews- is not being approved in their abusiveness. They distorting a guideline.
I’m all for telling Wilson to chill out on some of those rhetorical theatrics, but the responsibility for abuse can’t be shuttled over to complementarians like Wilson, who teach that women are to be honored and loved as Christ loved the church.
Better sentence, in my opinion: “My confused husband took ideas from men like Douglas Wilson and misused them as a justification for abuse.” On target and helpful in this discussion.
3) My friend Mel says that “Swine flu is mostly hype, stirred up by the President and the media to get the public to support health care.”
The word that gets my attention: “hype.”
Hype as in “The reported numbers aren’t accurate?” Or hype as in “The reported deaths didn’t occur?” Hype as in “They are making this stuff up?” Really?
Now, if hype means “lack of context,” count me in. There’s not enough context in this discussion to be seen under a microscope.
And the public’s lack of scientific knowledge- it’s a known virus, people- is appalling. This isn’t the plague. 90,000 people die from the flu in a typical year in the U.S. The vulnerable populations don’t vary with any of these kinds of diseases. Various protocols are acceptable, but viruses aren’t going to be daunted. They’ve managed to be quite successful on planet earth.And swine flu as political? How far is that from Farrakhan’s line that AIDS was invented in government labs to kill blacks? Not much different, because now he’s saying swine flu is a plot to kill blacks. When you join the conspiracy club, please take note who else is at the party
The “hype” could be the swine flue, or it could be the various interpretations of why we keep hearing about it. Does someone really believe the President calls in the story? “I want H1N1 on the front page?” His own kids aren’t vaccinated!
Here’s no hype: H1N1 is getting attention because news networks are dying in a war with the internet. Disease, terrorism, crime, entertainment and financial apocalypse keep an audience on the line so advertisers will still pay for Cialis commercials. End of plot.
You can’t just make this stuff up. Mess it up? Sure, but not make it up.
So there you have it: Obsession, modeled and hype. My three words for today. Who knows what tomorrow’s words will be?