Identifying himself as a “moderate evangelical Christian,” Gushee, who moved from Union University to Mercer in recent years, wastes no time identifying his major opponent: the conservative group CBMW, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which in their Danvers Statement propagates a “complementarian” view of gender roles (he also mentions “the Southern Baptist Convention” as barring women from service as pastors). This “complementarian” approach finds in Scripture the teaching that men, as fathers and husbands, are to be heads of their households, with their wife called to submit to their leadership. Complementarians also believe that the role of pastor or elder is in Scripture reserved for men, on the basis of the teaching of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-13, which roots such a notion in the divinely created order.

Gushee acknowledges that 1 Timothy 2 “appears to forbid women from teaching or having authority over men in church” and that Ephesians 5:22-33 “calls on women to be subject to their husbands,” but he rejects this as “an archaic theological vision that wounds millions of devout Christian women and restricts the full exercise of their gifts.” He challenges theological conservatives who support Sarah Palin to acknowledge that they have become “full-fledged egalitarians” in the political sphere and points out that, if elected vice president, and if John McCain were to die in office, Palin “would be in authority over every male in the USA as president.” He also asks if, since Todd Palin, Sarah’s husband, is the head of their home, this means that Governor Palin, once vice president or president, will need to submit to her husband in the exercise of her political office.

These are clever questions indeed, questions that Gushee seems to think are virtually irrefutable and that conservative evangelical Christians are unable to answer. My purpose in this brief response is not to address the questions Gushee raises (though I do not think they are quite as irrefutable as Gushee seems to believe). Indeed, Palin’s nomination raises all kinds of interesting issues that require further discussion. My concern here is rather with the forum Gushee chose for his frontal assault on his fellow evangelical Christians (albeit less “moderate” than he). Here is my question: Is it appropriate for Gushee to seek to ridicule, or at least embarrass, his brothers and sisters in Christ on the pages of a national newspaper for their “archaic” beliefs? Or is this the equivalent of believers bringing lawsuits against fellow believers in worldly courts, a practice Paul condemns in 1 Corinthians 6?

The world needs the gospel; it does not need to watch conservative and “moderate” evangelical Christians be at each other’s throats in contentious public debate. How does the spirit and tone of Gushee’s contribution to “The Forum” in the pages of USA Today serve the gospel? How does it serve to bring the lost closer to Christ and help them come to terms with the salvation he offers and the judgment incurred by those who reject what God has done for them in Christ? How is the piece charitable and constructive? The way I see it, maybe conservative evangelical Christians are facing “The Palin predicament,” but by targeting CBMW and complementarians in his Op-Ed piece in USA Today the way he chose to do, Gushee has created a predicament of his own.

by Andreas Köstenberger - September 18th, 2008.
Filed under: Culture, Family, Gender Issues.