Sexist and Proud of It

Personal Ramblings

Immediately, you’re thinking, “Please tell me he did not just say what he just said.”  Well, the fact is it does take some explanation to get it straight.  So, here goes.

According to the dictionary, a feminist is “one who advocates political, social, and economic equality for women, as compared with men.”  A sexist, on the other hand, is “one who makes a distinction on the basis of gender.”  To put the two in similar terms, a sexist makes a distinction based on gender, and a feminist does not.  Period.  End of story.

But wait.  That means everyone is either one or the other.  And we all know that a good Christian shouldn’t be a sexist, since that degrades women, and he can’t be feminist, either, because that adopts the world’s liberal modernism.  So we have to be something else.  Only, there is no “something else.”  Either you make a distinction on the basis of gender, or you don’t.

Now, in your defense, I have at least one dictionary at home that already defines sexist, a word with less than a century of usage, as “discrimination by members of one sex against another, esp. by men against women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior.”  I must argue, however, that the editor of that dictionary has pulled the implication into the definition, and I cannot allow that.  “Especially by men against women”?  Does that mean it is less sexist for women to discriminate against men, thinking women are superior?  And what if the attitudes are not “based on the assumption that one sex is superior?”  What is it then?  Because whatever word that is, that’s the word I am.

But there is no other word.  That dictionary is twisting this word according to its own political agenda.  Is that one a sexist who discriminates on the assumption that men are superior to women?  Yes, he is.  And I would not be proud to be that kind of sexist.

Rather, I would be the kind of sexist our grandfathers were.  They would give up their seat for a lady, but not for a man.  They would open the door for a woman, but another guy could just get it himself.  They saw women as different, and because of it treated them with more — not less — honor.

But, to get back to the basic definition, a sexist is one who discriminates on the basis of gender.  I do this.  And not on the assumption that men are superior to women, but on the overwhelming wealth of Biblical and empirical (i.e. personal experience) evidence that men and women are different.  Wonderfully different.

Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”  Gender, you see, is not a minor attribute that has developed over time.  It was the one primary distinction created into us from the very beginning.  Nowhere in the creation account is there any mention of race, language, or cultural heritage.  No mention of social or political or economic status.  We are not told He created “rich and poor” or “black and white”.   But He did create “male and female”.

Of course, today’s church leaders like to say that Jesus changed all of that with his kind treatment of women, and that today there is no difference between man and woman.  Some even go so far as to support homosexual unions, on the ill-conceived notion that the New Testament has over-ruled the Old Testament on the fact that men and women are inherently different.  Sorry.  Wrong answer.

Yes, Jesus was kind to women.  He loved and respected women.  He still does.  He treats women as the equal human beings that they are.  Through His death, He even made them equal heirs in His kingdom — sons of God, whether male or female.  (In the culture of that day, only sons could inherit anything.  The way Jesus made clear that His inheritance was made available to all was to call us all “sons” of God, both men and women.  Modern Bible translations like to change that to “children”, but that misses the point.  The way Jesus said it was just weird, which actually served to draw attention to the fact that women and men are legal equals before God.)  John 1:12 says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become sons of God….”  Galatians 3:28 reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“There,” the feminist will argue.  “You said it yourself.  There is no male or female in Christ.  So don’t discriminate.”  But the verse also says, “there is neither slave nor free,” yet in numerous other places the New Testament instructs slaves, “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart…” (Ephesians 6:5) and so on.  They are not slaves as they stand before God in Christ.  But they are still slaves in the social order.

Women, of course, are not slaves, and should not be treated as such.  Neither are they inferior to men.  They are, however, wonderfully and amazingly different than men, and they are designed to serve different roles than are men.  It would be foolish to pretend otherwise.  This is why the New Testament also includes instructions specifically for women: they are not to teach or have authority over a man (in the church) (I Timothy 2:12); they are to be “discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands…” (Titus 2:5), and they are to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”  (Ephesians 5:22).  Most of these verses, however, come right before or after parallel verses instructing husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially, which only furthers the point:  the New Testament includes instruction specifically for men, as well.

So, why does the Church of the Living God bow to the modern pressure to be feminist, to fail to discriminate (i.e. make a distinction) where God has already made the distinction so clear?  Why are we so afraid of being labelled “sexist” that we actually are feminist?  Most Christians I know today are by definition feminist: they advocate social, economic, and political equality for women, regardless of the family and social structure outlined for us in the Bible.  But if you dare call them feminist, they take offense.  It is okay to be one, but it is a sin to call a spade a spade.  I guess that is partially because we are being left without any words for who we are really called to be.  We are not to be sexist in the sense of discriminating against women as though they were somehow inferior.  But we are not to be feminists at all.

God made a distinction.  Let us rejoice in it.  I, for one, am sexist (in the pure sense of the word), and proud of it!

The Worst Church Sign

Theology

Over the last few weeks, I have had to drive to work passing what I now believe is the worst Church sign I have ever read.  You know the ones I mean — those signs in front of church buildings that get a different message every week or so.  This one, tragically, has had the same message all month:  “Look busy, God is coming.”

Never mind the grammatical offense that two independent clauses such as these must be separated by a semi-colon or a period, and not a comma.  This sign bears at least three other offenses to the name of Christ Jesus.

The first is in the first word: “Look”, as in “Look busy.”  Look busy?  You mean, “Act like you are busy even if you are not”?  The implication that I find so offensive here is that we can fake out God.  I remember times in grade school when the teacher would step out of the room.  The class would go nuts, having all kinds of “fun”, but there would be a look-out at the door.  When the teacher was about to return, the look-out would give the signal, and everyone would return to his desk and pretend that nothing ever happened.  If the teacher bought it, no one would get in any trouble.  Teachers, after all, can be deceived.  But God?  Never.  In Psalm 139, David confesses to God, “You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off.  You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways.  For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Yahweh, You know it altogether.”  (Psalm 139: 2-4)  You can look busy all you want, but “The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19) — and He will not be fooled.

The second offense happens to come in the second word (so far, the sign’s writer is two-for-two!): “busy”.  Why in the world should the imminence of Christ’s return prompt us to look “busy”?  Is that what He will be looking to reward when He gets here?  Is that what He seeks in His saints?  “Busyness is next to godliness,” huh?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  I remember Martha — the busy one — and her sister, Mary.  Jesus rebuked Martha in all her busyness, saying, “You are worried and troubled about many things.  But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”  (Luke 10:41-42)  Jesus did not tell His disciples before His ascension, “Okay, guys; get busy!”  Rather, He instructed us to abide in Him.  “Abide in Me,” He said, “and I in you.  As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in Me.  I am the vine, you are the branches.  He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without me, you can do nothing.”  (John 15:4-5)  Of course, you can look busy doing your nothing and hope God is fooled when He gets here.  Somehow, though, I really wouldn’t count on it.

The third offense comes in the third word.  “God.”  In a manner of speaking, the offense to the name of Jesus is the name of Jesus, or rather the lack of same.  Where is it?  Why is it omitted?  Where in the Bible does one ever read that “God” is coming back?  We simply don’t.  In the Old Testament, we are warned repeatedly of the “Day of the LORD”;  literally, it is “the Day of Yahweh,” and it bears His covenantal name.  In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus will return (“Even so, come Lord Jesus!”).  But never is His return spoken of with the generic reference to “God.”  Why is that?  Because throughout the ages, men have always insisted that there are many gods, and that they are all pretty much the same.  Today, we are told by our president that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same god.  If “God” is coming back, it is left to each individual to decide for himself just who that “god” is.  But according to the Bible, the One coming back is the one with a Name, a holy Name, a Name that is above every name.  The One returning is Jesus, Yah-shua, Yahweh Saves.  Those who know Him by name will rejoice in His return, while those who despise His name should be very, very afraid.

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Democracy and the Fall of the Southern Baptist Convention

Church Commentary, Theology

In recent years, the Southern Baptist Convention have added to their Baptist Faith and Message that the church is to be ruled by majority vote.  That is, the body of Christ should be a democracy, at least for the largest denomination in North America.  It figures.  After all, it has worked so well for America in general.  Plus, we have all that biblical support for the idea.

Like that day on Mount Carmel, when King Ahab was trying to decide whether to serve Yahweh or Baal.  I am sure you will recall the account:  Ahab stood up and began, “Okay, folks, let’s get this over with.  I have a 10:00 tee time with Ben-Hadad, and I DON’T want to miss it.  Prophet Elijah, I understand you have an item of business?”

Elijah rose to address the crowd:  “How long will you falter between two opinions?  If Yahweh is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”

At that point, Ahab broke in:  “Okay, Elijah.  One motion at a time!  To repeat, Mr. Secretary, the first motion was, ‘If Yahweh is God, follow Him.’  Do I hear a second to the motion to follow Yahweh?  None?  Very well.  Sorry, Elijah.  Let’s move on to the second motion: ‘If Baal, follow him.’  Is there a second?  Oh, good.  Got three or four of them.  So.  Any discussion?”

Elijah again stood to address the crowd.  Ahab glared at him.  “The chair does NOT recognize Elijah at this time.  Did I mention I have a 10:00 tee time?  We do not have time for one of your sermons.  Anyone else?  Ah, the question has been called for.  All in favor of serving Baal, please signify by saying, ‘Amen.’  Oh, good grief!  Elijah wants a hand count.  Fine.  All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.  No, Zedekiah, your OTHER right hand.  Fine.  Hands down.  Now, any opposed?  Good.”

“Well, folks, I have good news.  The vote was 400 to 1 to follow Baal.  Clearly, the Lord has spoken through the voice of his people!  And even better…  Looks like I’m going to make my tee time!  Meeting adjourned.”

It is sad, really, that our national forefathers had the wisdom to establish a republic and not a democracy, recognizing how easily a majority can be swayed by their sin nature.  Yet, as a church, the SBC has failed to see that problem.  Victor Hugo once wrote, “Every civilzation begins as a theocracy and ends as a democracy.” Are we ready for the end of the SBC?

Consider the problem and its probable outcome.  In a sense, really, the church is to be congratulated.  We have been trying for 30 years to get unsaved people into the pews, and now that is exactly what we have: pews upon pews full of unsaved people!  Only now we want to make sure the church is run by their vote!

Imagine with me a congregation of 50 people.  Billy Graham has estimated that, in an average congregation, only about 20% are saved, or 10 of our 50.  The Barna Research Group has found it even less: only 9% of church members actually hold a Biblical (i.e. saving) world view!  But let us be generous, and say 40 of the 50 voting members of our imaginary congregation are actually saved.  They have a lot of 40-to-10 votes, but pretty much every one is in agreement to call Pastor Adam.

Pastor Adam is young and exciting, enthusiastic for outreach, and armed with a great strategy for soul-winning.  He has a proven formula to get those unsaved people into the pews, written by a best-selling author or mega-church pastor.  And so it begins.

Three years later, Pastor Adam is called to a new and more challenging (read: larger and wealthier) congregation.  By then, his outreach strategy has doubled the size of the church, bringing in and baptizing 50 new members.  The trouble is, most of these people seem genuinely unchanged by the Gospel they purport to have embraced.  Only 10 of the new 50 ever actually met Christ (though all 50 “prayed a prayer” and got wet).

Now the church has a dilemma.  It is split, 50-50, and it is time to call a new pastor.  What is more, the church doesn’t KNOW it is split 50-50, doesn’t even realize there is a problem.  So, when Pastor Bob comes along looking just like Pastor Adam did, all 50 new members are thrilled to find someone like the man who converted them (to the church, not necessarily to Christ), and most of the other 50 are at least willing to go along.  After all, he DID double the size of the church.

By the time Pastor Bob leaves his wife and runs off with the nursery worker two years later, the church has doubled again, under the same human-fueled outreach programs, putting another 80 unsaved people (and 20 genuine Christians who slipped through somehow) into the pews.  It is time to build a bigger building — and call a new pastor.

By now, slick but shallow Pastor Chuck has no trouble being voted in, since the unsaved out-number the Christians by almost 2 to 1. Then things really get rolling downhill, so that by the time Pastor Diabolos applies for the job, he is voted right in.  Oh, a handful of old fuddy-duddies leave the church over it, but what is that?  The church of 50 has grown to a church of 400, with the offerings to go with it, in only a few years.  Clearly, the Lord has spoken through the voice of His people!

Now, these illustrations may serve to spotlight a problem, but to establish the Truth requires Scripture.  Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus give us a wealth of insight into God’s design for the ruling of the Church.  I made it my practice to read them regularly during my 13 years of pastoring, as I believe every pastor and church leader should.  God’s design starts with the appointment of elders (Titus 1:5) or overseers (Titus 1:7), who are to “take care of the Church of God” (1 Timothy 3:5). The parallel sentence structure of that verse strongly implies that he cares for the church by ruling it (“If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?”), and the word “overseer”, which to us has become a title, was a simple word with a literal meaning when the New Testament was written: they are to oversee the church.  Those three letters (to Timothy and Titus) are also chock full of instructions to overseers on how to lead, teach, train, and guide their own congregations.  Paul understood that, although God can work through a majority, it is certainly not wise to count on a majority, even in the church.  Especially when the right to vote is as easy to get as saying a prayer and taking a dip in water.  Inside.  Where it is warm.  Where no unsaved people will see you.

I know, this measure by the SBC was put to a vote, and the majority already decided that I must be mistaken.  I don’t mind.  I have a habit of standing with the minority, but then, so did all my childhood heroes: Elijah, Moses, Jesus and Paul.

So, the SBC encourages democratic rule.  I prefer the theocracy.  And God laid out that He would rule through elders and overseers.  Not Lone Rangers, mind you, like our modern business-inspired church CEO’s, but what the early church fathers called primus entre pares: first among equals.  The church should follow a group of elders, those wise and experienced in the faith, full of the Holy Ghost, with one from among them designated to take that first step to lead.

All in favor, please signify by saying, “Amen.”

Sheep and Goats

Theology

Here’s something to think about, especially if you believe a man with “free will” would ever choose God:

Based on the New Testament, at what point, and by what means, does a goat become a sheep?  Scientists and husbandmen (i.e. those practicing husbandry: shepherding, goat herding and the like) are not the only ones who would be baffled by such a question.  I must admit, I can find no Scriptural answer to it, either.

Apparently, in the Scriptures, goats don’t actually become sheep.  Lost sheep become found.  Goats remain goats.

In Luke 15:4, Jesus begins his parable of the Lost Sheep by asking, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them . . .”  That is, the sheep in question already belonged to that man before it ever went astray.  Applying this to ourselves, and adding in the inescapable fact that we all are born in sin, and enter this world already apart from God, it stands to reason that we must actually belong to God from before we were ever conceived (physically, I mean).  We are born lost, but we are not born goats.  We are born sheep, who must be found.

That fits in with what the psalmist wrote in Psalm 139:16, which says, “In Your book they were all written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them,” or, as the NIV words it, “All of the days ordained for me were written in Your book before the first one came to be.”

The wheat and the tares works the same way — each is as it is from the moment it is sown (and, of course, even before that.)

Likewise, two other major pictures of salvation point directly to the idea that God chose us without the help of any “free will” on our part.  The first is that of being “born again.” Which of us had to ask or volunteer in order to be conceived?  I don’t recall that my parents gave me any choice in the matter.

The second is that of being transformed from death to life.  Now imagine with me that you have discovered an Elixir of Life which will revive the dead.  Any amount of decay can be reversed in moments, and any person who was dead can be made alive.  So, you throw together a few vials of this stuff, drive down to the local cemetery, and make the wonderful offer:  “Anyone who wants to be revived with this Elixir of Life, just raise your hand.  Anyone?  Anyone?”

In fact, I am unable right off to think of a single Biblical metaphor for the kingdom of God which does NOT demonstrate salvation by God’s election — but feel free to respond if you think of one; I’d like to look at it.  Especially if you find one in Jesus’s own words.  I figure, since He’s the One who did it, He had the best notion of how it works, and He’s the one who gave us most of these….

Raising Anchor

Church Commentary

The following is an article I wrote for The Baptist Banner, printed August 2005.  It is addressed to Southern Baptists, as that is the conservative Southern Baptist paper for Virginia, but the concerns expressed are universally true.  If preachers abandon the Word of God and the sacred calling to grapple with that Word personally, therewith to feed their sheep, the consequences will be devastating.

Raising Anchor

Dating back past the Trojan War, even to the serpent in the garden, one frequently finds that a seemingly blessed gift is in fact the vehicle of one’s own destruction. Satan convinced Eve that the fruit would make her wise. The Greeks convinced Troy that their wooden horse was the envy of the ancient world. Likewise today, many hail as a great boon a vehicle of imminent danger to the cause of Christ. Specifically, the much-lauded and respected Dr. Rick Warren is succeeding single-handedly where the entire liberal agenda could not – in leading Southern Baptist pastors and churches to abandon the infallible and inerrant Word of God. If we do not wake up and stop the trend immediately, our “Conservative Resurgence” will have been nothing more than “one last gasp”. Specifically, Doctor Warren undermines our conservative stance in three ways: by teaching, exemplifying, and marketing a dangerous form of sermon preparation which is independent of God’s inerrant Word.

Now, to begin, it is necessary to define our terms. For the purpose of this article, “the infallible and inerrant Word of God” refers to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. The Southern Baptist Convention, in its updated Baptist Faith and Message, and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, by vote in their annual meeting on November 11, 2003, have both acknowledged the Bible to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God in the original manuscripts. (This emphasis is the very part we have just added.) Our definition for this article, then, simply reflects this shared conviction. Sadly, Doctor Warren’s ministry would lead us away from this standard.

First, Pastor Warren teaches that we ought to use less than the standard by avoiding the original languages in our preaching. “Pastors need to realize that no one cares as much about the Greek as they do,” he claims. “[A]n overuse of Greek and Hebrew word studies discourages confidence in the English text.” (The Purpose-Driven Church, p. 233). While both of these statements may be literally true, they do not support avoiding the original manuscript. So what if original language study questions the authority of the English text? That is because the only authority the English text has is in its adherence to the original manuscripts! In contrast, Dr. Paige Patterson (then Southeastern’s president) taught at Binkley Chapel on May 1, 1997 that language study should be embraced in our preaching. “One theory,” he said about the use of Greek and Hebrew in preaching, “says that you should no, no, no, no never ever, ever, ever use it. That’s pretty stupid! Come and study it for three years and never use it. That’s some pretty clever thinking.” (Original emphasis). Yet pastors by the thousands are chasing after this one who teaches that these texts are to be avoided, lest we bother our listeners with such trivia as what God actually said.

Pastor Warren then goes a step further, not merely teaching, but exemplifying abandonment not only of the original texts, but even of the more conservative and literal translations. In his own works, he most often uses the New International Version (a dynamic equivalency translation rather than a literal translation) and such paraphrases as the New Living Bible and The Message. His Purpose-Driven Church cites 194 Bible passages in the main text. Of these, 60 come from paraphrases, 120 are credited to the New International Version, and only 13 are taken from the New American Standard, King James, and New Revised Standard Versions, combined. (The last is from The Jerusalem Bible). Understand, there is nothing sinful in reading “looser” versions, or in referencing them in one’s sermon to express a concept in more modern terms. To base the entire message upon them, however, to the exclusion of the original languages and direct translations, is dangerous at best, and possibly deceptive and treacherous. In The Purpose-Driven Life, for instance, Warren often uses paraphrases to support his own points with their extra-biblical content. Consider this example (one of many) from page 268 of that book: Warren wants to point out that, “We are all uniquely shaped.” His verse to support this, taken from The Message, says, “Each of us is an original,” which fits his point exactly. Unfortunately, what Paul actually said (from the New King James, a literal translation), was, “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.” (Galatians 5:26) While our uniqueness is not an unbiblical principle, neither has it been supported by the Scripture in this instance – yet, the reader is deceived into thinking that it has. Using this method of “Bible exposition”, one can easily make the Scripture seem to say whatever one would like! In essence, while perhaps our churches have not drifted anywhere yet, those following this model have raised anchor, and once the anchor is out of the sand, drifting is inevitable!

Sadly, the assault on Truth does not stop with erroneous teaching and a faulty example, but is marketed, as well. Our misled brother, in an alleged effort to minister to over-worked pastors, writes sermons using these same anti-Scriptural guidelines, then sells them on the web. Not only is he teaching us to abandon the inerrant original-language Scriptures; not only is he setting a poor example in his own published works. He is actually marketing poorly and dangerously written sermons, selling them to pastors to preach from the church’s pulpit! Tragically, too many pastors are yielding to the temptation to sub-contract the sacred calling God has placed upon their lives, and this highly-respected writer is making money off of their weakness. He short-circuits God’s call to pastors to “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) He invites them to ignore God’s declaration that “I am against the prophets, who steal my words every one from his neighbor.” (Jeremiah 23:30) While we praise Rick Warren for the number of books he can sell and the amount of money he can make, we overlook the inestimable damage his work is doing in our churches, as he leads pastors to a place where God Himself has promised to stand against them!

Church, we are responsible to protect the sacred message in the pulpit. We must call our pastors to write their own sermons, and to write them (with commentary help if necessary) from the original text – the only truly inerrant and infallible Word of God. We cannot afford to raise anchor when the gales and tides against us are so great!

 

Sheep are Led

Church Commentary, Poetry and Songs

The following is a poem I wrote on my way to work the other day, which communicates a major concern I have with a popular direction the Church seems to be taking anymore:

Now a goat — you have to drive him,
so you push him to and fro,
’cause a goat’s so independent,
he knows just where he wants to go;
but a sheep — he needs a Shepherd,
and he listens to one Voice;
so it seems to me, American Church,
that we have got one choice:

Don’t let purpose drive you,
when the Son of God would guide you,
and lead you in His perfect, loving plan,
for His thoughts are not like our thoughts,
and our ways are not His ways;
you have to trust when you don’t understand.
For a life that’s worth the livin’,
know that sheep are led — not driven.