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!
Democracy and the Fall of the Southern Baptist Convention
November 8th, 2006In 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.”
Posted in Church Commentary, Theology | 2 Comments »