Church Voices

As I noted before I’ve been following the Driscoll church planting video “controversy” closely and came across this from Tall Skinny Kiwi. What was telling was this comment from a particularly nasty egalitarian named Paul. Check out his condemnation:

The men here who are defending the Driscoll view of women are strangling themselves with the long cord that runs from ancient female oppression in all cultures through to the burqa today.

I pity you all for the trajectory of history is not on your side.

Now, egalitarians consistently tell us that they have honestly and legitimately come to the conclusion that scriptures doesn’t just allow for the option of female elders, but demands it in the name of equality. In other words there’s a scriptural mandate for female elders.

So why is it when I see egalitarians condemning complementarians it is never in terms of scripture. Take a note of Paul’s rhetoric, he’s claiming that God, through his word, demands female eldership, yet, the biggest condemnation he can level is that the “force of history is not on your side”. You’d think if someone believes you are violating God’s commands and twisting his word that he’d be a bit more concerned about the trajectory of God than the trajectory of history.

This is why I don’t take the vast majority of egalitarians seriously (by that I mean those in the blogosphere, and especially those that crank up the rhetoric to holy war level). While they claim their views are grounded in scripture, it doesn’t really seem like even they take that seriously. I’m casting a wide net here (and I realize there are exceptions) but we’re generally talking about people who believe when Jesus said “its harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” he meant “its harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” while doing backflips with texts that read as complementarian supports on their face.

Meanwhile, their ultimate judge is the “trajectory of history”. And that’s what I keep coming back to. Choosing that as the judge of complementarians is so telling. When Tupac rapped “Only God can judge me” that resonated with a lot of people, because that’s understandable. After all God knows the truth, God knows our hearts, God knows what is just. There isn’t anyone or anything more qualified to judge us. So when someone writes “the trajectory of history is not on your side” thats far more than just smack talk. Its indicative of what that person believes our ultimate judge will be. In this case complementarians aren’t being judged by God, they’re being judged by the “trajectory of history”.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but when I read egalitarians, especially their hysterical outrage, I don’t get the sense that scripture is driving their rants, rather that they’re outraged because of their culture, and their view of history. Not their view of scripture.

As I stated in an earlier post, I would prefer to open the doors of the eldership wide to women. But I can’t do that and remain faithful to scripture. Sadly, from what I’ve read in this latest dust up egalitarians in the blogosphere are letting their culture shape their theology, instead of the scriptures.