This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other articles on similar themes are available.

BGC Shoots & Ladders

A fictional conversation overheard following the Baptist General Conference's annual meeting in Cromwell Connecticut, June 22-26, 1998, in which the BGC Affirmation of faith was revised to use inclusive language.

Sven: Strap on your skis, Inga, we're about to hit another slippery slope.

Inga: I think I can guess what you're talking about. The delegates to the 1998 BGC Annual Meeting voted by 69 percent to adopt an inclusive language Affirmation of Faith. Since only 66 percent was required, we now have an Affirmation that includes women as part of humanity and as equal recipients of the gospel. Critics warn that this is part of a hidden agenda that will lead to women becoming ordained ministers and possibly worse!

Sven: Worse than women serving God the way men do? What could be worse than that?

Inga: Apparently these critics believe that if women are allowed to become pastors and elders and televangelists, then many of them will start lusting after vulnerable young women like--

Sven: --their current pastors and elders and televangelists?

Inga: That, apparently, is the slippery slope many of the opposing delegates were concerned about.

Sven: So by treating women as men's equals, and therefore allowing women to serve God in roles traditionally reserved for men, we'll be opening the closet door to lesbianism?

Inga: As strange as that sounds, this has actually been proposed in a book edited by a BGC pastor and a former Bethel professor. It's called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW), John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Crossway Books, 1991). See for yourself on pages 82-84, 376, and 407.

Sven: Well it's funny you should mention that book because it's behind the slippery slope I actually wanted to talk about.

Inga: You mean you weren't referring to the "secret feminist agenda" behind the new Affirmation of Faith?

Sven: Of course not. If anything, this revised Affirmation has only affirmed some common ground between differing segments of the BGC. The delegates affirmed that while we don't all embrace feminism, yet we do indeed regard women as part of humanity and as being referred to in the articles of the Affirmation.

Inga: So you don't think there's some kind of conspiracy behind it that will lead to women serving God in capacities equal to men?

Sven: As a supporter of the new revisions, I'd say the pro-women's movement in the BGC has been anything but secretive--and certainly not feminist. I believe the correct word is "egalitarian."

Inga: What's the difference?

Sven: Well, while many secular feminists reject submission and have taken to treating women as superior to men, Evangelical egalitarians teach equality of the sexes and mutual submission. Besides, the Affirmation can't lead to women's ordination since there have been women lay-ministers in the BGC as far back as the late 1800s. And the first woman of many to get ordained in the BGC was Ethel Ruff in 1943-- that's decades before bra burning and the ERA.

Inga: But if that's so, where are all the lesbians?

Sven: I haven't seen any. Though, judging by the 31 percent of the delegates who voted against the revisions, some of whom may have been women, we may have some women who like being called brother.

Inga: Okay, okay, Mr. Wiseguy--or should I say, Wiseperson? What's this slippery slope you're worried about? Are you referring to that slope of cultural irrelevance you're always talking about?

Sven: No, but you're correct that the delegates narrowly avoided that one.

Inga: How did they do that?

Sven: The new revisions actually clarified the original intended meanings of the Affirmation. That means had the delegates kept the old wording, it could actually have led to a change in how BGCers have always understood the relationship between men and women. Some of those changes are articulated in the book you mentioned (RBMW). But more critically, had they yielded to the opposition on this language, it could also have led to a slope away from our historic direction as a conference.

Inga: I get it. Ever since we conference Baptists began, we've had a love for missions that makes us sensitive to the need of crossing cultural barriers and being culturally relevant. That's why a Swedish church was formed in America in the first place, and why English was later adopted, and why the BGC is multicultural today. Had the delegates failed to adapt the Affirmation, we very well could have begun a slide toward cultural irrelevance and lost our sense of mission to the largest people group in the world--women.

Sven: Exactly. And not only women, but a society in general that is sensitive about gender-inclusiveness.

Inga: Sounds like the slope of cultural irrelevance leads to something like Amishness. I think the delegates were wise to steer clear of it. But if that's not the slope you were concerned about, what is?

Sven: Well it again involves the book you mentioned. As you know, RBMW is probably the most influential book today among those who argue for retaining traditional gender roles.

Inga: You're referring to those who call themselves "complementarians."

Sven: Yes, though I personally don't think the term fits them.

Inga: Why not?

Sven: Because complementarity is when two parts mutually complete one another. Whereas RBMW's idea of complementarity is more like "men rule" and "women submit."

Inga: That doesn't sound mutual to me. So what would you call them?

Sven: I think it's more accurate and more honest to describe these folk is hierarchalists or patriarchalists because they believe men and women are part of a hierarchy of authority, with God on the top rung of their ladder, Christ on the second, men on the third, women below that....

Inga: Followed by children, slaves, dogs, cats, mice and cheese?

Sven: Something like that.

Inga: With all this talk of slopes and rungs, it sounds more like a game of Shoots and Ladders we're playing, Sven. But shouldn't Christ be on the same rung as God? I thought we in the BGC all believed that Jesus is equal to God?

Sven: Now you're seeing the slope I'm referring to. What's alarming is that this book and its authors figure prominently in the thinking of those who opposed the new Affirmation, yet its authors argue vehemently for the idea that Jesus is eternally subjugated to the Father.

Inga: One of that book's editors even wrote an article in the BGC's magazine, didn't he, opposing the use of inclusive language in Bible translations?

Sven: That's right. And the other editor was quoted by another author in the Standard as opposing the very kinds of revisions made to our Affirmation of Faith at the last annual meeting.

Inga: So what's this slippery slope you're concerned about?

Sven: Okay. Here's the deal. In their book, RBMW, Grudem, Piper, and the authors under their editorial direction, not only argue that women are to be subordinated to men, but one of their supportive arguments tampers with one of our most fundamental and sacred doctrines.

Inga: You don't mean the doctrine that the offering must come before the sermon?

Sven: No, I mean the doctrine of the Holy Trinity itself.

Inga: Oh Sven! How can that be? You're not seriously going to suggest that these esteemed theologians are somehow at risk of committing heresy, are you?

Sven: Actually, I don't have to. The charge of possible heresy has already been raised at a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society by a professor emeritus of Wheaton College. He pointed out that what this book teaches about Jesus Christ looks more like Arianism (an early church heresy later adopted by the Jehovah's Witnesses) than it looks like historic Christianity as expressed in the creeds and confessions of the church.

Inga: How so?

Sven: Well, according to an article by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian in the March 1997 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and reprinted as the appendix to his latest book, Community 101 (Zondervan, 1997), Grudem and Piper's book teaches that one reason women must submit to men is because as image bearers of God they reflect an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity. They claim that Jesus, though equal to the Father in essence, is subordinate to the Father in authority. I checked on this and Bilezikian is correct. In fact, RBMW raises the issue in several places. Grudem further defends this Subordinationism, quoting several Reformed thinkers to do so, in his recent Systematic Theology (what I call complementarianism's "Grudemus Maximus").

Inga: Are you saying that Piper and Grudem think the Father and Son are not equal in essence?

Sven: No--and yes. Piper and Grudem claim that Jesus is equal in essence but not in role or function. Though most orthodox theologians agree that Jesus took a subordinate role in the incarnation, most see this as a temporary arrangement. Bilezikian points out, however, that by making Christ's subjection to the Father an eternal thing, rather than seeing it as a temporal measure taken for the sake of salvation, then subordination (instead of equality) becomes a permanent feature of the Trinity. Permanent features are usually associated with essence, whereas as temporary arrangements have to do with the mode, operation or "economy" of the Trinity.

Inga: But I thought the biblical and historically-orthodox view was that Jesus is fully God and therefore is equal to the Father in power and authority?

Sven: Exactly. And there lies the slippery slope. For example, The Athanasian Creed (c. 500) said: "What the Father is, such is the Son, such also the Holy Spirit." It then went on to call them equally uncreated, unlimited, eternal, almighty, God, and Lord, coequal and coeternal. In other words, because the Son is "eternally begotten," he shares his Father's nature and is therefore his equal in power and authority. One of the most Reformed statements of faith, The Second Helvetic Confession (16th century), put it this way: "Therefore we condemn ... all heresies and heretics who teach ... that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or a less...."

Inga: But Sven, haven't you heard? Baptists are "non-creedal."

Sven: That may be true. But there are two things to consider. One: When there is a consensus among such historic documents, Baptists would do well to take note. And two: Our own Affirmation--that document the "complementarians" didn't want to change--also addresses this important doctrine.

Inga: What does it say?

Sven: Article 2 says the three persons of the Trinity are "equal in every divine perfection."

Inga: Ouch -- that would certainly include divine authority. So if Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority, he is less than equal in a divine perfection and therefore is not equal to God. That would mean he isn't God. Right?

Sven: Quite a slippery slope, huh? That's why orthodox believers historically have denounced the doctrine of Subordinationism, especially regarding eternal aspects of the Trinity.

Inga: Surely these guys must have some scripture to back up their ideas.

Sven: Yes, Inga, they do. Remarkably they use some of the same passages so often cited by Arius and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyone familiar with how to refute those interpretations will also be equipped to discern the complementarian's use of the same verses.

Inga: Give me an example.

Sven: Okay. Both the JWs and the complementarians like to cite 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, which speaks of Christ ultimately and finally surrendering everything to the Father, Jesus himself becoming subject to him, so that God will be "all in all."

Inga: Wow! How do you explain that?

Sven: Again, Inga, I don't have to. It has already been explained by a preeminent scholar and commentator, John Calvin.

Inga: But I thought these guys, Piper and Grudem, were the Calvinists?

Sven: There are more of us than you might guess. Anyway, Calvin recognized in his commentary on this passage that it appears to conflict with other passages that clearly teach "of his kingdom there will be no end." Calvin reasoned that since the Father exalted Christ in the same nature in which Christ was abased, this passage speaks only of Christ's human nature. Calvin said Christ will not "resign the kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity...."

Inga: So will Christ be subjected or not?

Sven: Only his humanity will be subjected--or rather, de-emphasized. His divine authority and the status of his Person won't. Godness is Godness. As God, therefore, Jesus will always be equal to God.

Inga: Explain what you mean.

Sven: You see, the major problem with the RBMW view is that it fails to see Christ's subordination as a voluntary act done only for the time of his humiliation in the flesh. It regards his submission as an indication of an eternal position of secondary status. But in his final exaltation, when all his enemies are vanquished, Christ returns fully and eternally to his divine reign.

Inga: So Christ actually continues to reign as co-equal with the Father, not as a subject or as a secondary ruler?

Sven: Exactly. Since his enemies will no longer oppose him, and the Church will be one with him, Calvin concluded that Christ's human mediation will no longer be needed. His humanity is then set aside (or subjugated), though Christ as a Person is not. "Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God." God will be "all in all" in that the veil of Christ's humanity will no longer obstruct from view the three-Personed God, who will be openly gazed upon and worshiped.

Inga: If Calvin answered that objection back in the 1500s, I don't understand! How can scholars like Grudem and Piper--who claim to be Reformed and who are so good at attacking weaknesses in other people's books and theologies--have missed such a fundamental point in their own book? And how can so many people who are concerned about biblical purity in doctrine be buying into the hierarchical, patriarchal views they teach?

Sven: I don't know, Inga. But like I said, strap on your skis. We're in for another one....