Within post-evangelicalism, no two issues divide the terrain more than the issues of women in ministry and the gay/lesbian question. I think how they relate to each other is telling as to what theological currents drive the various “streams” ‘emerging’ out of evangelicalism. In a continuation of my effort to sort out the streams of post-evangelism in N America, I lay out the tenets of the three positions (Neo-Reformed – Emergent – NeoAnabaptist Missional) on these two issues and some comments on the theological currents that drive each one. I HAVE GROSSLY OVER-SIMPLIFIED – THIS IS A BLOG POST REMEMBER – SO CUT ME SOME SLACK 
. In this post I treat Neo-Reformed and Emergent which leads to my second post on the Neo-Anabaptist Missional position. I hope to clarify the issues better so we can all discuss some day what drives us to the conclusions we have come to and why we come off certain ways to each other. In each position, I treat the position’s view on Scripture, authority in the community, sanctification, and desire. I hope this helps!
Position No. 1 – No Women in Ministry/ Not Affirming to Gay/Lesbian Sexual Relationships(The Neo-Reformed)
In this view – a.) women are hierarchically subordinate to men in ministry and b.) all gay/lesbian sexuality is against the norms of God-ordered creation.
This is grounded in a view of Scripture that sees it as propositional and perspicuous. Scripture as propositional truth is clear and absolute. What we need therefore is good study, someone with certain gifts, expertise and wisdom to make it clear. This understanding of Scripture lends itself to an autocratic view of authority. I mean this not in a disparaging way. Rather, because of this view of truth and Scripture, church authority in decision-making and leadership must be exercised in top-down fashion. Afterall, if we can’t all agree in church, who will make the final decision? All of this serves to argue for men to be over women in ministry because Scripture is clear on it and authority is autocratic. In this world, authority must carry itself in the same way within marriage. Men must be heads of their homes because – afterall – if a husband and wife disagree, who is going to make the decision? I am fully aware that various forms of soft complementarianism has “softened” how these principles are carried out within this group.
Within this view, sanctification is an individualistic pursuit. Sin is recognized, forgiveness received and then one seeks to follow (Scripture) in dependence upon the Spirit. Desire is, to grossly exaggerate, inherently depraved (some post Calvinist influence here). One must measure all desires against the Scripture, and all that doesn’t jive must be suppressed, or in effect denied. This is oft prone to a strange subtle legalism. “You are free, you are graced with forgiveness not of anything you’ve done, it’s all up to the Spirit now, but hey, you’re not doing it – the Scripture says ______ , so stop doing it!” I call this a Cartesianist view of sanctification. There is little appreciation here that cognitive knowledge does not lead to sanctification, that all desire must be reoriented in the spiritual disciplines of walking into the Spirit corporately as well as personally. This approach is oft prone to a harsh, dispassionate judgmentalism especially when it comes to the gay/lesbian question. The Scripture says “such and such” so for goodness sake, go and do “such and such. You will be blessed.”
It is out of this approach to sanctification, that this group speaks to the gay/lesbian issues. Because of what I see as lacks in this approach to sanctification, it comes off as lacking compassion and hopeless.
Of course this is the caricature of evangelicalism that so many people disavow these days. The Neo-Reformed carries much of this same theology yet softens it quite a bit with compassion and holistic mission. I see Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller and most Neo-Reformed bloggers coming down in this camp and attempting to reshape its theology away from the lacks mentioned above.
Position No. 2 – Yes to Women in Ministry/ Affirming of Gay/Lesbian Sexual Relationships (Emergent)
In this view – a.) women and men are equal to each other in the exercise of authority and roles within the church and marriage, and b.) gay/lesbian relations are affirmed as inherently life-giving, loving and God honoring when monogamous in some way.
The view of authority here is derived from the political understandings of Western political democracy, – liberalism as a political philosophy (which drives evangelicals and prot mainliner alike). Authority is best exercised in democratic fashion by a charismatic leadership within a tolerant inclusivist community. The singular concern here is the ultimate value of each individual to flourish into the person God created him/her to be. Each person is equal to the other and should be judged on skills and merits for the job or role in life, ministry and marriage. Women therefore should be considered equals with men in ministry and marriage. They should have equal access to the authority structures of the church. Scripture is interpreted via these values. Gay/lesbian peoples should not only be tolerated but also blessed in the ways God has created them. Scripture is interpreted via these insights.
Often the narrative of women and gay/lesbian relations is constructed via the historical progression of the liberation of the individual from oppression. The story goes, the African slave was once oppressed via Scripture. Today the slaves are free. Women likewise were once oppressed and today are emerging free. Now the same liberation needs to be set loose for the gay and lesbian peoples among us and welcomed and affirmed into full participation in the Kingdom. Scriptural hermeneutic is an evolving exercise and should be interpreted with this history in mind. This makes sense of the key value that drives this group, the liberation of the individual as seen and understood via a Western individualist romanticist liberal (read liberating here) understanding of the world.
Sanctification in the Christian life is the daily walk of following the way of Jesus. Desire is seen (mostly) as inherently good as created (versus inherently depraved in group one). The calling out of one’s sanctification is in challenging each one to live into the love, grace and renewal of all things inaugurated and exemplified in Christ. This is often understood in terms of “following the way” of Jesus. He taught the Kingdom of God, a new way of forgiveness, love, living for the other. Let us live into and work for these great ideals in the world. This is the Kingdom of God. Yet there is also an edge against “religion” that seeks to oppress individuals and maintain its ideology. Some deconstruction is in order to help us see how various power interests/religious structures are at work to hold us back from life with Jesus. (Derridian Messianic Democracy fits well with these values). It is this aspect of their critique which moves this group beyond the bland protestant liberalism of the past.
Of course, herein lies the ideas most associated with Emergent and the emerging churches that aligned with this group. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones and friends most often come down in this direction.
Have I been fair here? Have I overly generalized? Again, I am not trying to make enemies here – just get the lay of the land. I am sure people on both sides disagree, can you show me why, point me to some quotes? I am merely trying to delineate the issues in what is emerging in the three streams of post evangelicalism. In the next post, I hope to argue for a Neo-Anabaptist Missional position no. 3 which says: Yes to women in ministry, but is Non Affirming to Gay/Lesbian relationships as normative for the Christian life. I hope to show how this position is most adequate to the tasks of Mission/Witness in post Christendom, post modern contexts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
This strikes me as a pretty lucid analysis. Helpful/clarifying. Looking forward to your analysis of the Neo-Anabaptist missional position.
Can’t wait to see your next post, the camp with which I identify most.
Ummmm…pretty broad strokes there. I would consider myself “emergent” but I would say Yes to women in ministry but no to affirmation of gay/lesbian relationships. I really dont’ see the two things are related or dependant on one another.
To clarifyl, if one subscribes to a redemptive hermeneutic (a la William Webb) for example, you can come to different conclusions on those two topics.
Rob,
agreed, I see Webb’s hermeutic different than mine (in the next post) but nonetheless useful and informative to how I see the third position landing.
Thanks for posting this, David. I think your insight to link the various views on women in ministry and LGBT to the underlying paradigm – plus views of authority and sanctification – will be very helpful. And an inituitive response is that you’ve been pretty fair, also realizing that with categories of generalization, any particular person within a category might disagree more or less. But, if we’re out to survey the land, then we can’t do Venns in a vacuum. (I know I mixed my metaphors, but that’s probably just an indicator that it’s coffee time. Again.)
These are both topics I’ve written about in times past, though more about LGBT. In my writings on the church and LGBT, I’d boiled the array of views down to the three main ones, which seem to match well what you’ve shared so far:
1. Rejecting and Condemning. (Anti-gay.)
2. Welcoming and Affirming. (Pro-gay.)
3. Welcoming and Transforming. (Anti-sin, pro-people. Sex outside of marriage is outside God’s design and therefore is a moral issue; all sinners are welcomed; discipleship is about transformation and obedience to God’s mandates on morality and social ethics.)
I see the first two as using a reductionist, Western, either/or processing paradigm, and they just end up on opposite ends of a polarity. The third is holistic, paradoxical, both/and processing, so it is likely the minority view in the Church at this time, because it’s difficult for either/or processors to move to both/and thinking.
Whether using these slogans, or the titles you’re using, it strikes me that there are proponents of each of these three views both inside and outside the post-evangelical church community. So, I think that adds some weight to the applicability of your framework. For instance, some typical differentiation of movements around these three views:
1. Rejecting and Condemning. [Fundamental / Conservative / Neo-Reformed]
2. Welcoming and Affirming. [Liberal / Progressive / Emergent]
3. Welcoming and Transforming. [Paradoxical people from within any movement or “stream” / Neo-Anabaptist]
Looking forward to the next post on the Neo-Anabaptist Missional view, so as to consider all three together …
David, what is your reasoning for considering the “Women in Ministry” and the “Gay/Lesbian” issues together? I agree that they can be divisive issues, put I am not sure I see the connection.
David,
I would encourage you to find more charitable with the first position. Thought not a student of Keller, what I’ve read of him is very redemptive, not simply condemnatory.
Even the most conservative and reformed of my friends would probably agree that cognitive knowledge does not inherently lead to sanctification. Most of them would reject your characterization that authority must be “autocratic” in the sense that most people use the word. “Hierarchical” might be more accurate–the wife submits to the husband, the husband submits to God, both seeking to love one another in the way that God intends. The husband is to love the wife by exercising wise and prayerful judgment in decision-making. This sound incredibly patronizing to some, and may leave open the door for autocratic leadership, but it certainly doesn’t *require* it.
Furthermore, the neo-Reformed belief of inherent depravity, I think, leads to a very strong drive toward surrendering to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the God, we can’t hope to achieve any kind of goodness. But I don’t know how much room there is for “the journey” of sanctification, a term exalted by the Emergent camp. In the neo-Reformed stream, is transformation more of a moment?
I am not in this camp, but I want to make sure our characterization of this is charitable–how would they describe their own position?
David,
Your thesis here makes sense in light of how the post-evangelical world is trying to situate itself between difficult (possibly exclusivist) passages of Scripture and the (mostly inclusivist) centripetal forces in Western politics/culture.
I find what brad said about welcoming and transforming to be refreshing, though what that will mean in a mission/ana-baptist context needs be fleshed out.
What I’d like to see you possibly address in outlining that third approach is how missionals will handle this issue (or maybe avoid it?) in the political sphere vs. how it will be handled in the community of the faithful and their institutions.
i appreciate your thoughts on this daid, and look forward to your final thoughts in the anabaptist-missional direction…i also really appreciate brad’s thoughts…i think wrestling with this so we cabn help others engage in a centered-set kind-of-way is really important, so thanks for this conversation.
I am reminded of something Darrell Guder said at a gathering a year ago when asked about “women in ministry.” “Well, I’m reformed so of course I’ve never had any problem with that. After all, we are the champions of the priesthood of all believers.”
To that point, there are several iterations of reformed churches that affirm the role of women in ordained ministry.
So, unless you’re thinking about this is a different direction, I am wondering if “neo-puritan” might be a more accurate moniker for the first category than “neo-reformed.”
As one who constantly laments the way in which consumer-driven churches have co-opted missional language, I wonder how many in the reformed tradition lament the way in which people like Piper, Driscoll, & Mohler have co-opted the designation, “reformed.”
Nate,
Thanks … that’s all so important to take in as I quickly typed out an admittedly caricature of this view. I am going to go back and change autocratic to heirarchical (to me actually in an academic way – autocratic sounds less prejorative than hierarchical – but now I see what you’re saying) … on sanctification, I’m trying to say the way it has most often developed within the evangelical landscape … It’s oversimplified yes … but because Reformed theological in the evangelical (N American) context cannot escape its individualism, sanctification ( I would argue) inevitably turns Cartesian… even if it dies pay homage to the dependence upon the Holy Spirit (which I think I also acknowledge in the quick summary).
Hey but I endorse everything you said in your comment.
JR … yes I am aware of the Neo-Puritan label that has been perhaps more discerning of the theological currents that drive the Piper/Carson etc. coalition. I just can’t bring myself to adopt that label for the post evangelical discussion. I get the difference between the GOCN folk, who are largely reformed (Hunsberger, Guder, Van Gelder etc. except for Roxburgh who is baptist -formerly that is) … and the Piper/Carson/Driscoll/Keller coalition. Still however, the massive blogger group and the main figures self identify (perhaps wrongly) with Neo Reformed. Right? Of course I can’t ever see Guder call himself Neo anything … that’s not his gig.
All in all, I think most theologians looking at evangelicals recognize a morphing of a post Reformation stream of thought which has moved into an enlightenment /modernist/individualized form of the basic ideas of Luther and/or Calvin. But in each case Luther and/or Calvin wouldn’t recognize it as their own if they were alive today …
Thanks for the push back …
DF
Seems as though I’ve heard all of this before, many many years ago
Good breakdown and I’m looking forward to seeing your next post, but you may want to rethink your categories or add a fourth one: pietist/paedobaptist that would reflect bodies like the Evangelical Covenant Church that have emerged from the pietist movement and are not credal, anabaptist (although some individual congregations practice adult baptism), do not affirm same-sex relationships, but do ordain women and hold to a high opinion of the authority of Scripture and apostolic succession in ordination.
David, I appreciate your willingness to rethink the use of the word “autocratic”. Like yourself, in my mind it was less negative than hierarchical, but it carries too much baggage. Like the others, I am very excited to read your next post.
Having grown up in the Evangelical Covenant Church myself, Eric’s question also intrigues me, so I want to lend my vote to hear your thoughts on that too.
Peace,
Jamie
Eric, Jamie,
I’m warm to evangelical covenant … several strengths …I think they are a interesting hodge podge much like my own denomination … I’m looking at the major streams however of theological tradition.
Ev Cov., and several other hodge podge evangelical traditions morphing off of ethnic church roots … it seems to me … provide a good combo of stuff for progressive evangelicals to land … and therefore have potential to provide good soil for missioanl church … but as far as giving theological grit for the postions I’m seeking to stake out … they themselves have been mostly borrowers from others … not the main stream themselves
That’s not a bad thing … probably a good thing ..
for now
peace bros …
Well said, David. That makes perfect sense.
Peace,
Jamie
David,
Thought provoking post. Thanks.
It seems that this kind of polarization (or “oversimplification”) is all to common these days. I have no doubt that I am guilty of this too. Nevertheless, rather than creating two poles that separate and divide people, and then claiming a “third way” (which is always the writer’s position), I am interested in what it might look like for each of us who come from divergent perspectives to have a seat at a table that values listening as opposed to shouting, an open hand as opposed to a closed fist, etc. It seems that whether we are talking about women in ministry or GLBT issues, everyone is talking past one another, which of course leaves us at a stalemate with little or no opportunity to move forward in joining God in his mission of healing and restoration. I realize that everyone wants to be right. What I am saying, however, is that maybe we need to nail our desire to be right to our crosses and become each other’s servants for a moment. Perhaps this too is oversimplified (and naive). But I think it is worth the sacrifice to have such a dialogue.
Nate,
Some pushback eh?
… It seems that a way forward is to somehow clarify the differences, what lies behind the positions … not a final word … but an attempt to move further into hearing the issues… It concerns me that any attempt (and I admit fully these are caricatures) to clarify gets pegged as polarization … when it is often the case that this accusation is the polarizing element – i.e. assumes “we are positioning for a win” … but progress .. true discenment into the future relies on clarifying the positions into the concrete issues we are facing … It seems this maybe is what is behind the pushback recently behind Brian McL’s NKoC ?… The subtle innuendo taht if you disagree …”you are polarizing, or disocouting the other position etc.” … whereas we are really seeking some dialogue here … on these urgent issues for hurting people in our communities that demand some movement towards justice … To just hold all positiosn in mutual tolerance is its own sort of pronouncement … do we ever have progress by the Spirit? Call me a latent Hegelian .. but I think not
Peace bro … and I’d like to hear some of your challenges and advances in my outline of “the third position”
[...] a post last week, I was setting up how I think these three emerging ways play out in relation to two issues: the [...]
[...] A couple weeks ago I began a series of posts on the post-evangelical landscape regarding two controversial issues – women in ministry and the normativity of gay/lesbian relations. To reiterate, I contended that how a church/movement comes down on these two issues together reveals much about the assumptions that drive their theology. The manner in which the Neo-Reformed missionals reject women in ministry and/or GLBT relations together reveals much about the way they do theology re: Scripture, authority, sanctification etc. Likewise, the way the post Emergent/emerging coalesence here in the U.S. (heretofore referred to as pEC) affirms both reveals the underlying assumptions that drive the way they do theology. As I see it, getting at these assumptions improves the conversation in the post-evangelical landscape moving us further together into the Kingdom of God. [...]
[...] posts to follow I would like to address the three themes within this whole series of posts (see here) following this Missional Logic. The three themes are a.)sanctification, b.)the way the community [...]
[...] back when, I started a series of posts aimed at unraveling the two issues of “women in ministry” and GLBTQ relations in terms of the [...]
[...] way back last March I started a series of posts on the two issues of a.) women in ministry and b.)the normative status [...]