The Theological Implications Of A Woman’s Role In Church Leadership

By Mike Stallard

[Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

We live in a schizophrenic society. On one hand, it is alleged that we have evolved socially to the extent that women are equal with men in every social area of life. Women can lead the home. They can oversee the church. They can govern the nation. They have a government-sanctioned right to do with their physical bodies what they want, including the abortion or murder of unwanted children. On the other hand, right across the hall from where an abortion might occur, in the same hospital, tens of thousands of dollars or more are spent on high-tech equipment, high-priced drugs, and expensive health expertise to keep a premature female baby alive.[1] The contrast is striking.

From the vantage point of such a conflicted mindset, our culture is struggling with the identity of manhood and womanhood. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? What do men and women have in common and what is different about them? Do any differences go beyond mere biology and influence the social realm? The schizophrenia continues. There are simultaneously the drive on the part of many modern feminists to mold men to be more sensitive and caring in a perceived feminine way and the often asked question, “Where have the real men gone?” One cannot have it both ways. Both concerns cannot radically coexist in present dialogue about social issues. It is not possible (at least for the same promoters) to seek to feminize men and then reasonably complain about the fact that true masculinity has declined.

This paper is designed to look at how the feminist impulse brought on by the modern feminist movement has affected the theology and practice of the church. To be sure the placing of a woman in the role of pastor has consequences that must be covered in such a study. However, the presentation here swings a larger orbit to analyze the impact that feminism, which is usually behind the idea of female pastors, has upon theology in general and church practice in particular. Hopefully, the result will be a more complete theological mosaic showing many potential points of damage to life, ministry, and theology which must be avoided.

This study is the first in a series of articles given on this issue by numerous authors. Many of the other articles will deal with specific biblical texts in the debate so it is not necessary to do so here. As such, this article assumes that the exegesis of the many significant passages has already been done (Gen 2, Eph 5, 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11 and 14, etc.). A second supposition is that the complementarian view is the correct understanding of these passages following a grammatical-historical interpretation. The word complementarian here carries its normal meaning within the modern debate over evangelical feminism. It is the view that men and women have been designed by God differently, even relative to social roles, so that men are to be the leaders of the home and the church and women are to complement them in supportive, yet meaningfully significant ways of ministry unto God. It is also this author’s view that God’s ways are always best.

Bibliology, Hermeneutics, And Theological Method

The first area to investigate involves the core area of bibliology. In particular, this paper will briefly explore possible feminist inroads into bibliology by means of gender-neutral translations. In conjunction with this, a pertinent evaluation of theological method in recent arguments for female pastors will be given, an evaluation which highlights the lack of biblical authority for such approaches at a methodological level. One key area to be discussed is the recent ethical system called the redemptive movement hermeneutic.

Gender-Neutral Translations

One modern controversy that lends itself to questions about the contemporary feminist or egalitarian agenda, while also influencing church life at a basic level, is the debate over gender-neutral translations. A so-called gender-neutral or gender-inclusive translation is one that is advertised to tone down patriarchal elements in a translation of the Bible. This could be something minor and innocuous like the use of the term “children of God” in English for the phrase “sons of God” when the context is talking about both men and women as sons of God. The masculine-oriented term (sons) is replaced with a more generic term (children) that better communicates that both genders are included in the expression (e.g., Exod 19:6— “These are the words you shall speak to the children [sons] of Israel”).[2]

However, there are more grievous problems on the other side of the spectrum. In liberal circles, radical feminist versions of the Bible have been presented, many of them coming out in the 1980s.[3] One of the first such examples published by and for the National Council of Churches is An Inclusive Language Lectionary (1983–85).[4] In this translation of the Scriptures intended for liturgical readings, several gender-neutral changes can be observed. In John 3:16, God gives “His only Child” rather than “His only Son.” The extent to which the translation attempts to remove as many masculine pronouns as possible can be illustrated by the translation of John 1:12: “The Word was in the world, and the world was made through the Word, yet the world did not know the Word. The Word came to the Word’s own, but those to whom the Word came did not receive the Word.”[5] The New Century Hymnal published by the United Church of Christ a few years later begins the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father-Mother in heaven.” In the same hymnal the liturgical reading of the Nicene Creed states, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Sovereign, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father-Mother and from the Child.”[6]

Such examples clearly go out of their way to remove the original, historical context of patriarchal language with which the Bible was written. This is done for the contemporary purpose of satisfying the feminist impulse. Relative to evangelical circles, the controversy has centered mostly on the TNIV published by Zondervan. To be sure this translation is not radical like the previously mentioned ones. Gender inclusive terms are only used for human beings, not for divine persons like Father, Son, and Spirit. Yet, debate continues over the appropriateness for such changes.[7] One of the most disconcerting issues in the current debate is the extent to which evangelical Christians have succumbed to the world spirit of the feminist impulse in such translation approaches:

The elimination of any significant role difference between males and females represents the essence of evangelical egalitarianism. No one in the evangelical camp would deny that the Bible is all-inclusive. However, the Bible, since its inception, in spite of male-generic language, has successfully managed to include all—men and women, boys and girls. It is this biblical notion of inclusion through differentiation, enshrined in male-generic biblical language everywhere, that the TNIV eliminates. Though claiming that the removal is “gender accurate,” there is reason to wonder whether the TNIV committee has imposed onto the inspired text, wittingly or unwittingly, an essential egalitarian principle, without debate or discussion. Future readers of this Bible will never be faced with the issue, because the Bible—that is, this Bi-ble—by its omission, tells me so. In this subtle way, a theological opinion about the inappropriateness of male representation in language (or at least the theological conviction of its unimportance) is given the status of “biblical” authority.[8]

The possibility that gender-inclusive language is being driven by the feminist impulse in this way is highlighted by the fact that the ideological trail often runs from the liberal side of the spectrum to the evangelical side at a later time. In this case, the rise of evangelical discussions about gender-neutral language follows behind by about a decade. Thus, one must be cautious when approaching the issue of allowing gender-neutral translation philosophy since one may even inadvertently be succumbing to the feminist impulse. Practically speaking, if a woman serves as a pastor, it might be easy to pick out which translation she might be prone to use in the pulpit.

Hermeneutics And Theological Method

An interesting development in the interpretation of the U. S. Constitution parallels similar deliberations concerning the biblical text. Joseph Story, an early U. S. Supreme Court Justice (1811-1845), described the preferred approach to interpreting the text of the Constitution with these words:

In construing the Constitution of the United States, we are in the first instance to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain, clear and determinate, they require no interpretation….Where the words admit of two senses, each of which is conformable to general usage, that sense is to be adopted, which without departing from the literal import of the words, best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design of the instrument.[9]

Story’s hermeneutics for understanding the written Constitution are a far cry from contemporary judicial activists—and those who support them—who want to read into the text (as a living breathing document) some contemporary ideological or values-driven view of what should be as opposed to what actually is in the text.

In a similar way, the world of biblical studies is inundated by a plethora of theological readings. By this is meant that the starting point for such readings and interpretations is not the text itself but some concern external to the text. From that vantage point, literal interpretation as grammatical-historical interpretation has no place at the hermeneutical table. Hence, we see on the theological landscape forms of theology such as liberation theology, ecological theology, black theology, gay male theology, and, what is pertinent to our study, feminist theology. Often some particular class of alleged victims is used as a starting point around which to craft a system of theological insight into righting the ethical behavior of oppressors.

Sometimes the concerns of theological readings are totally foreign to any biblical text. For example, some liberation theology expressions are essentially Marxist systems of belief that form the main message while biblical language is hijacked as slogans to persuade others (e.g., “let my people go” from the Exodus ac-count).[10] In another example, one female, feminist theologian (considered part of the liberation theology movement) commented about the role of a woman as an academic theologian: “Her involvement in liberation theology is not ‘altruistic,’ but it is based on the acknowledgment and analysis of her own oppression as a woman in sexist, cultural, and theological institutions. Having acknowledged the dimensions of her own oppression, she can no longer advocate the value-neutral, detached stance of the academician.”[11] To parse this statement, one must begin by noting that the female liberation theologian selfishly begins with an understanding of her victimhood as she begins to map out her theological position and activities. She cannot and will not come to the text as it is for what it says, but with a preconceived agenda that is value driven. What value drives the agenda? The answer is the feminist impulse. Such an approach should be avoided by the biblicist because it obviously ignores the grammatical-historical context and the original meaning of the text.

Other times the theological reading adopts a theme that is truly in the Bible. For example, God is surely interested in how people treat the poor (e.g., Prov 14:31). This is not an isolated theme in the biblical text but occurs frequently and is transdispensational. To move it to the center of one’s entire theological worldview, however, may cause one to lose perspective of other areas of biblical truth which have priority such as the gospel of eternal life.[12]

In contemporary evangelical theology, there are many current efforts to ground theological systems in some particular insight or doctrinal theme. The incarnation of Christ, the communitarian trinity, the idea of community[13] itself (usually with the church in mind), and possible combinations of the above are all found as the starting grid for developing one’s theology.[14] While the doctrines of the incarnation, the trinity, and community are valid biblical thoughts in and of themselves, they are not necessarily God’s intended structures for bringing the whole of theology together. In theologies of this stripe, however, they sometimes function as a theological reading of the Bible rather than an exegetically-driven approach to grounding the theological enterprise.

Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic

Similar to the philosophy of theological readings, one recent evangelical attempt to support the idea of women as pastors does so by using many extra-biblical points of culture as the means for developing an ethical support for the position. William Webb has created a system for determining when the biblical text is transcultural or culture-dependent, a system which he calls redemptive movement hermeneutic.[15] The approach has three broad strokes.[16] First, one determines the contrast between the culture of Bible times and the actual teaching of the Bible on a particular issue. In this contrast one learns which way the Bible points relative to its own current culture. For example, the Bible, although it has slavery in it, is more lenient and less cruel in its understanding of slavery than was the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East. Second, the interpreter must find the direction (redemptive movement) that the Bible itself shows along its own historical path. That is, over time does the Bible get stricter or more lenient on a particular issue like slavery? In the case of slavery, the New Testament presentation seems to have moved beyond the Old Testament to a teaching that the slave and master are equals in Christ even though slavery as an institution is not removed. Third, the interpreter can perform an extrapolation of the trajectory of the first two points into modern-day culture on a particular ethical point. For example, in our own modern culture we can affirm the need to eliminate slavery altogether. Thus, in the end, we can move to an ethical position for our day that is superior to the ethics of the Bible, but we can do so only because of the direction of redemptive movement within the system.

How does such a system work out to support women as pastors in local churches? Similar to the example of slavery, one can argue that (1) the Bible has a higher view of women than the culture of its day; (2) within the Bible the role of women improves with the advent of Jesus and the church, although the role of pastor is forbidden for them in the text; and (3) one can formulate a view favorable to the present-day role of women pastors since the direction of the Bible relative to its own culture is opening up in greater ways for women.

Along with Webb’s general approach here is an exegetically indefensible view that the role of submission for women to their husbands is the result of the fall in Genesis 3 and not part of creation design in Genesis 2. In this way, just as illnesses are a consequence of the fall but we seek to heal people with modern medicine to diminish their impact, the submissiveness of women, which is likewise a result of the fall, can be diminished by our more enlightened understandings, allowing women to be equal to men in leadership roles in the home and in the church.

What can be said of such an approach? Apart from questionable exegesis at times, the redemptive movement hermeneutic assumes a kind of universal culture in both the Ancient Near East and in contemporary times.[17] Which culture from among many cultures in the Ancient Near East will serve as the starting point of initial comparison? In addition, it assumes that this information can be clearly known, a doubtful assumption in many cases. Second, it emphasizes the idea of progression in the Bible rather than the content of the Bible. Third, it assumes we can know and evaluate to-day’s culture clearly. Related to this, one must also ask which culture among many choices is appropriate for our modern-day extrapolation. It is quite clear that the redemptive movement hermeneutic will not work in modern-day Saudi Arabia, even though that particular culture considers itself to have developed quite a bit further than the Christian Bible. Fourth, it denies the sufficiency of Scripture since ethical decisions require a rather large amount of extra-biblical information. Finally, it is not all clear that the view actually embraces inerrancy. Thus, it will not function well as a method to obtain an evangelical approach to ethics.

In the end, Webb has crafted a method that incorporates both Scripture and culture as authoritative. In the presentation, culture seems to have the upper hand. This is illustrated by another article written by Webb entitled “Balancing Paul’s Original-Creation and Pro-Creation Arguments.”[18] The need for such balancing is obvious for the evangelical egalitarian when confronted with the clear creation and design arguments of 1 Timothy 2 based upon Genesis 2. However, what is telling is the subtitle of the article: “1 Corinthians 11:11–12 in Light of Modern Embryology.” What is the basis for understanding the text of Scripture? It is not the actual text. Modern scientific discoveries and understandings never even considered by the original authors reign over biblical understanding. Methodologically, this is not a biblically-based approach to integration of text and extra-biblical issues. The cart is leading the horse. The feminist impulse from culture is leading interpreters to a (wrong) theological conclusion.[19] House comments that influential feminists within evangelicalism have “developed an obviously inadequate view of inspiration and an unacceptable hermeneutic. In seeking to cause the biblical text to speak their language, rather than learning its language, these feminists have often eisegeted the Scriptures and fabricated inconsistencies and tensions in Paul of which he was unaware.”[20]

What is the real issue at stake here? Ultimately, the Bible has lost its full authority. Obedience to its clear outlines has been dismissed in favor of a present day, politically correct notion of how things ought to be. Thus, disobedience is one of the consequences of the feminist pulpit.

The Doctrine Of The Trinity

Another area which is damaged by the feminist impulse can be found in theology proper. In particular, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity must be distorted to coincide with feminist understandings. This comes to the forefront in even trying to use the traditional words to describe the persons of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit. Two of the three terms are masculine thus inviting patriarchal notions of God. Feminist egalitarians prefer to use other terms like Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer instead. However, such words do not yield the same information. They could deny the eternal nature of the relationships involved and lead to modalistic perceptions. In addition, both the Father and the Son are clearly referred to as Creator. Thus, the proposed terms have the wrong range of meanings to substitute for the traditional terminology.[21]

Another key doctrine to be investigated in this respect is the subordination of the Son to the Father. Traditionally, it has been asserted that Christ was submissive to the Father functionally, while still being equal in essence with the Father. In the feminist understanding of male and female roles, it is claimed that a submissive role functionally and socially (in the family or in the church) automatically means that the woman does not have equal status with a man. Thus, in the egalitarian approach, subordination and equality cannot be true simultaneously. However, this contradicts the classic expression of the Trinity. Orthodoxy affirms that one can have functional subordination and at the same time possess ontological equality.[22]

Consequently, for the feminist impulse to hold sway, the doctrine of the Trinity must be altered to fit the desired scheme. This is usually done by a simple denial of subordination in the Trinity. For the last fifteen years or so it has been common to see feminist egalitarians quote the early church fathers to that effect. For example, Gilbert Bilezikian, a leading egalitarian, has written a rather confusing statement:

Because there was no order of subordination within the Trinity prior to the Second Person’s incarnation, there will remain no such thing after its completion. If we must talk of subordination it is only a functional or economic subordination that pertains exclusively to Christ’s role in relation to human history. Christ’s kenosis affected neither his essence nor his status in eternity.

Except for occasional and predictable deviations, this is the historical Biblical trinitarian doctrine that has been defined in the creeds and generally defended by the Church, at least the western Church, throughout the centuries. …Thus it is impossible within the confines of orthodoxy to derive a model for an order of hierarchy among humans from the ontological structure of the Trinity, since all three persons are equal in essence. Moreover, because Christ’s functional subjection is not an eternal condition but a task-driven, temporary phase of ministry, it is presented in Scripture as a model of servanthood and mutual submission for all believers (Phil 2:5–11). Because of its temporary character, Christ’s subjection does not lend itself as a model for a permanent, generically-defined male/female hierarchy.[23]

In his zeal Bilezikian has said too much. While it is true that the church fathers and the orthodox view claims there is no ontological hierarchy or subordination within the Godhead, neither do complementarians suggest such a thing. Bilezikian allows for functional subjection of Christ, but that is exactly what complementarians do as well. So what is going on? The egalitarian here has not understood church history well, since it can easily be proved that the church fathers argued clearly for both an eternal ontological trinitarian scheme and an eternal functional or economic trinity.[24] After all, the incarnation of Christ is certainly a fact that will be forever true which illustrates that hierarchy will continue at some level. However, Bilezikian seems to be making a second mistake here by assuming that complementarians are making ontological statements about men and women in asserting diverse and hierarchical roles. The submission of the female in matters of home and church is not an ontological matter, but one of functional design. The complementarians correctly suggest that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity provides the perfect model for understanding how women are still equal to men within the complementarian framework. In the end, the egalitarian simply assumes the notion, contrary to sound doctrine, that equality of essence necessarily means the absence of any functional hierarchy. Consequently, the doctrine of the Trinity is at best misunderstood and at worst distorted by those advancing the feminist impulse.

Christology

The feminist impulse has also affected the doctrine of Christ. Two particular avenues of influence cover both the person and the work of Christ. As to Christ’s person, we are all familiar with the modern controversy which has swirled around Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.[25] There are many angles to this story that are well known, including its claim to be based upon historical facts that, upon investigation, are a bit shadowy.[26] However, for our purposes here, we want to highlight the introduction of the Sacred Feminine into discussions about Jesus Christ. One of the themes of the book is that the Church hid the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene because this would have proven he was not God, contrary to the decisions of the church councils. But beyond this, this fanciful theory promotes the idea that the church put down women and protected their male monopoly as they forced Mary Magdalene into historical exile. In the book, the character Robert Langdon asserts, “Powerful men in the early church ‘conned’ the world by propagating lies that devalued the female and tipped the scales in favor of the masculine.”[27] What the world needs now, according to this storyline, is the rediscovery of the Sacred Feminine to restore truth and balance to history.

Of course, Dan Brown’s work is fictional. Nonetheless, its claim to be rooted in some measure of historical accuracy forces a response. From the biblical point of view, Jesus is God (John 1:1, Rom 9:5, Heb 1:8, 1 Cor 8:5–6, Phil 2:9–11). However, in Brown’s worldview Jesus was married and merely human rather than the God-man of Scripture. This is a distortion of the biblical portrait of Christ that has been wrought by the pursuit of the Sacred Feminine.

In addition to the person of Christ, the view of the work of Christ has been affected by feminist leanings. In particular, the notion of a nonviolent atonement has emerged in recent times, a view which constitutes a version of the Christus Victor atonement theory of Gustaf Aulen from the earlier twentieth century. Aulen’s view is itself an adaptation of the older ransom-to-Satan view of the atonement.[28] In feminist-influenced pictures of the atonement, there is a tendency to believe that the penal substitutionary and moral influence theories encourage female submission while the ransom theory points women to liberation.[29] McKnight summarizes: “Some feminists have repudiated the cross as an instrument of powerful violence against the oppressed and powerless, and have therefore sought out a theory of atonement that is virtually cross-less….The cross, so they are arguing, justifies violence against the weak.”[30]

In addition, the idea of male harshness is mirrored according to this view in the penal substitutionary view of Jesus on the cross. It is modern feminist understandings that can rescue the atonement from its harsh punishment angle. Jesus did not and could not die to satisfy the vengeful wrath of a harsh Father. In fact, such a view according to the nonviolent understanding would be “divine child abuse.”[31] Weaver words it this way:

The image of narrative Christus Victor avoids all the problematic elements in classic atonement images, particularly those of satisfaction atonement. It reflects the ecclesiological world view of the early rather than the medieval church. It is grounded in assumptions of nonvio-lence––the nonviolence of Jesus–– rather than violence. In particular, it does not assume retribution, or the assumption that injustice is balanced by the violence of punishment. It does not put God in the role of chief avenger, nor picture God as a child abuser. And it is abundantly obvious that God did not kill Jesus nor need the death of Jesus in any way. Jesus does suffer, but it is not as an act of passive submission to undeserved suffering. Jesus carries out a mission to make the rule of God present and visible, a mission to bring and to give life. To depict the reign of God as made visible by Jesus, it is necessary to make use of the entire life and teaching of Jesus, rather than focus only on his death. When this mission threatens the forces of evil, they retaliate with violence, killing Jesus. This suffering is not something willed by nor needed by God and it is not directed Godward. To the contrary, the killing of Jesus is the ultimate contrast between the nonviolent reign of God and the rule of evil.[32]

In short, Weaver argues that the “death of Jesus is not needed to satisfy God’s honor.”[33] Furthermore, Weaver’s book The Nonviolent Atonement[34] is advertised on amazon.com as a work involved with “sharp debates about the death of Jesus sparked by feminist and womanist theologians.”[35]

What can be made of such feminist-induced theories of the atonement? First and foremost, they must be rejected in favor of the biblical teaching on the matter:

The biblical evidence lines up with the penal satisfaction view. It is hard to take passages like Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:21–24, and Hebrews 9–10 in any other way. However, Christians must be honest about the harshness contained in the view, at least harshness as some would view the term. In the penal substitutionary view, violence is done to Jesus. Although the spiritual aspects of the atonement are not as obvious, Mel Gibson’s The Passion shows with horrifying details the physical violence involved. That Jesus experienced such violence cannot be doubted. It is recorded in all the Gospels. However, the idea that Jesus did this as a substitution and that even in his soul he experienced judgment (as Isaiah 53 notes) for the sins of others shows that the intent of the atonement is punishment, a harsh word to many in our culture.[36]

Consequently, the conclusion can be drawn quite easily that the feminist impulse is affecting current discussions of the work of Christ on the cross in a direction away from the biblical teaching of penal satisfaction. Such wrong views have distorted the atonement by abandoning the doctrine of propitiation. A pastor with such leanings, male or female, may indeed have a crossless gospel to preach.

Biblical Anthropology

The modern issue raised by the feminist impulse is at its core the nature of men and women. This pursuit focuses on continuity between the genders more than on discontinuity. Later articles in this series will deal with exegetical matters and implications in key verses such as Genesis 2. Without entering into the details, there are a few theological implications that can be mentioned that help to frame the impact of the modern feminist impulse upon a view of men and women.

First, according to the Genesis creation account there is a balanced treatment between continuity and discontinuity between men and women. In Genesis 1:27, both men and women are considered made in God’s image. In fact, the relational aspect between men and women, far more than the biological and instinctive relationships of God’s other creatures, is related to the fact that men and women are image-bearers or the “living statues” of God in culture. In this respect, men and women are absolutely the same. However, in the next chapter, the role assignments that God gives are different. The calling and commands are given to Adam. Then, Eve is made to be a “helper” to him (Gen 2:18). This supportive role of the woman does not make her less in the world. God’s design is clear. There is both continuity and discontinuity between men and women. There is a continuity of essence demonstrated by the fact that both are made in the image of God. However, there is a functional discontinuity with various roles for each in God’s economy. The feminist neither recognizes this clear, biblical teaching nor does justice to its content.

Second, the feminist impulse of our culture intensifies an imbalance in the male-female relationship. If the feminine is to be elevated and emphasized, there is not the desired effect of just bringing the woman up to the level of the man. Instead, what is happening in our culture is a conscious attempt to bring man down. By this is meant the feminization of men and the designation of “maleness” as bad. We saw this in the earlier discussion of the nonviolent atonement as male-driven views demonstrating male harshness (like penal satisfaction) were to be rejected. Why? They are rejected largely because they have masculine overtones which are defined as harshness. Marshall, in a negative assessment of belief in a penal substitutionary death of Christ, comments that satisfaction theology “reflects the ‘law and order’ priorities of those thoroughly identified with the prevailing system–ruling-class, white, male clerics” (emphasis added).[37] The conservative, antifeminist political activist Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum complains, “The feminist battalions are even on the warpath against the right to be a boy. In elementary schools across America, recess is rapidly being eliminated, shocking numbers of little boys are drugged with psychosomatic drugs to force them to behave like little girls, and zero-tolerance idiocies are punishing boys for indulging in games of normal boyhood such as cops and robbers.”[38] If such an anti-male environment actually exists in our culture, it must not be allowed into the church. To those who would argue from the feminist side that the snuffing out of masculinity will cause the decline of murder, rape, and war, Schlafly points out the irony:

“Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady— like gentlemen who stepped aside so that, of the people who survived the sinking of the Titanic, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second-class were women.”[39] Would it ever be possible that elevating women (in the way that feminists desire) could be done so that the good side of masculinity remains? It is unlikely. To tamper with God’s design always produces unintended consequences in culture.

However, the question goes deeper. John Piper, speaking of the true, biblical vision of manhood and womanhood, notes that “we must commend the beauty as well as the truth of the vision. We must show that something is not only right but also good. It is not only valid but also valuable, not only accurate but also admirable.”[40] With that in mind, he offers two helpful definitions:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.[41]

At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.[42]

In God’s design, the man offers strength and stability; the woman offers depth of beauty with relational and nurturing power that a man could never muster. It is a good trade. It is a marriage made in heaven. The specific design for men finds expression for some in the role of pastor as God leads them in the life of his church.

Ecclesiology

The main issue for church life for the evangelical, Bible-believing Christian should always be “What does God’s Word say?”[43] The issue of women being pastors is simpler than many make it out to be. If the Bible teaches that women should not be pastors, then it is disobedience to God on the part of any church and any people who allow for the practice of women pastors. On the other hand, if the Bible teaches that women can be pastors, then those who are preventing them from being pastors are preaching a false message and are disobedient. The problem is not communication skills. Many female speakers using the Bible have done far better at communicating than some men have done. However, the issue is not entirely skill sets. The overall concern is obedience to truth. The complementarian position is true to the Scriptures (as other articles in this series will show). Therefore, it must be practiced in obedience to the God who designed men and women and how the church is to function.

However, one often overlooked implication is the need for our churches to champion a positive statement about the role of women in a local church. The debate over whether women can be pastors sometimes leaves the impression that women can do nothing in the church or that all we are interested in is the pastoral role. In our churches, though, it is important to remember that few are actually pastors in any given congregation—that means that few men in a congregation function as pastors. What about the other men as well as the women? What can be lost in all of this is the biblical teaching of how the body of Christ functions. Pastors carry out a certain role of praying, teaching, equipping, and overseeing. They do not perform all functions of the ministry and, in fact, should focus on getting others to do ministry (Eph 4:11–16). In fact, the Scriptural model for ministry yields a picture in which every church member is significant and has a needed role within the body (1 Cor 12). There are many ministries that cannot be done by the pastor (he is not really gifted or qualified to do them!) and there are people who will listen to others—including women— who would not listen to a formal church leader. It is such a doctrinal context out of which we should discuss the positive role of women in a local church.

The specifics of what women can do to support the ministry of a local church have some clear Scriptural warrant. It seems that a woman can let her house (along with the hospitality she would bring to the occasion) serve as a place for missionaries to stay (Paul), even perhaps for Bible study and church planting efforts (Lydia, Acts 16:14–15). Women can be involved in sharing the faith (Priscilla, Acts 18:26; woman at the well, John 4). They can even serve others to the point of risking their lives (Rom 16:3–4). Women can teach other women, and, in fact, are commanded to do so, although the instruction does not necessarily entail doing a Bible study (Titus 2:4).

However, what appears to be the supreme contribution of a woman to her local church, if she has a family, is to care for and strengthen her family. Local churches do not do well without strong families who are growing spiritually. The often-debated Titus 2 exhortations to the woman with a family show the significance of her role as she is submissive to her husband and preventing anyone from maligning the word of God on her account. What our culture appears not to understand is the importance of motherhood and the management of a home.[44] The feminist impulse looks at the role traditionally carried out as consigning women to be cooks and maids. However, this is a gross cheapening of what the role actually entails. Not only does the woman set the tone of the family, but it takes quite a bit of skill and hard work to manage a home. This is not an insignificant undertaking. The landscape of current cul-ture—its broken families, its wayward children, its malaise of spirit—is proof enough of the significance of a mother and home-maker-manager. Consequently, one of the most valuable things a woman can offer her home and her church is her opposition to the feminist impulse.

Conclusion

Based upon the previous survey of doctrinal controversies, a mosaic can be constructed that shows why accurate teaching in the matter of women pastors is necessary. If a pastor or church allows for women pastors by capitulating to the feminist impulse in our culture and if that pastor (male or female) preaches a message based upon the direction of feminist-induced doctrines as presented here, he or she (1) will preach from a gender-neutral translation, (2) start his or her theology from a cultural vantage-point instead of the Bible, (3) teach a distorted view of the Trinity, (4) present a Jesus who is merely human, (5) reject the good news that Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, (6) voice the denigration of maleness, and (7) disobey the clear teaching of Scripture about the need for male leadership in our churches. To be sure, not every “progressive” person affected by the feminist impulse will do all of these since this is a list of both evangelical and nonevangelical ideas relative to feminism and egalitarianism. However, the contrast is quite refreshing when I listen to my bride of twenty-seven years who reads the text at face value and confidently affirms that God’s ways are best, even when the conclusion is that women should not be pastors. For in the end, nothing is taken away from women. They simply remain free to carry out the high and exciting calling that God has devised for their lives in a different arena.

Notes

1. I first saw this illustration of cultural schizophrenia years ago in C. Everett Koop, The Right to Live, the Right to Die (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1976).
2. For a summary discussion of this kind of permissible gender-inclusive translation, see Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words (Nashville: Broadman and Holman), 98–99.
3. For an analysis of radical feminist versions of the Bible, see Mark Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 60–73.
4. Victor Roland Gold, et al., An Inclusive Language Lectionary, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983–85).
5. I have obtained the examples from this translation from Michael D. Marlowe, Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture, <http://www.bible-researcher.com/ill.html> (accessed 29 December 2007).
6. I have not seen this hymnal directly. It is published by Pilgrim in 1995. I am citing it from John Cooper, Theological Forums 26 (December 1998), <http://rec.gospelcom.net/TF-Dec98cooper.html> (accessed 29 November 2007). This is a theological journal for the Reformed Ecumenical Council. Cooper does not approve of the translation changes.
7. This author has addressed the TNIV debate in an earlier article to which the reader can turn for a more complete discussion. See Mike Stallard, “Gender-Neutral Translations: The Controversy Over the TNIV,” JMAT 7, no. 1 (2003): 5-26. See also Rodney J. Decker, “The English Standard Version: A Review Article,” JMAT 8, no. 2 (2004): 10-11.
8. Peter Jones, “The TNIV: Gender Accurate or Ideologically Egalitarian?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002): 16.
9. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and the States, Before the Adoption of the Constitution (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, 1833), 1.3.402; Story’s three-volume work is available from <http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm> (accessed 29 November 2007).
10. For example, Gustavo Gutierrrez, a well-known Latin American theologian argued that one influence upon modern theological reflection was Marxist thought: “… contemporary theology does in fact find itself in direct and fruitful confrontation with Marxism, and it is to a large extent due to Marxism’s influence that theological thought, searching for its own sources, has begun to reflect on the meaning of transformation of this world and the action of man in history. Further, this confrontation helps theology to perceive what its efforts at understanding the faith receive from the historical praxis of man in history as well as what its own reflection might mean for the transformation of the world” (A Theology of Liberation [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973], 9–10).
11. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, “Toward a Feminist Biblical Hermeneutics: Biblical Interpretation and Liberation Theology” in A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 358–81.
12. Ronald Sider and the Evangelicals for Social Action represent a wing of professing evangelicalism that wishes to elevate the social dimension of Christian witness (see their website at http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=home). This is not a bad thing, since many Bible-believing churches do not have any serious social action ministries to demonstrate love for the community. The tension arises when the priority of the gospel of eternal life becomes secondary in light of such social efforts.
13. See Stanley Grenz, Created for Community: Connecting Christian Belief with Christian Living (Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint, 1996).
14. One example that expresses itself in terms of interpretation is Jens Zimmerman, Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).
15. William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001). Some surface similarities may exist between Webb and Charles Kraft (see Charles H. Kraft, “Supracultural Meanings Via Cultural Forms: Anthropologically Informed Theology” in A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Donald McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 309–43.
16. Within these three broad strokes, Webb has developed sub-points giving various steps to develop. These steps number over fifty, thus producing a rather large, unwieldy system that will not be deemed practical if pushed on all particulars.
17. For a more complete presentation of a refutation of the redemptive movement hermeneutic, see Mike Stallard, “The Implications of the Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic,” JMAT 9, no. 1 (2005): 5-29 and Wayne Grudem, “Should We Move beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?” JETS 47 (June 2004): 299-346.
18. This article was given to the present author by personal e-mail from William Webb, 8 April 2004. It is not known if the article has been published.
19. One interesting Catholic and detailed study of the integration of Scripture and extra-biblical sources comes to opposite conclusions to Webb. See Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980).
20. H. Wayne House, “Paul, Women, and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism,” BSac 136 (January 1979): 53.
21. For this discussion, I have followed the excellent work of Bruce A.Ware, “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to the Father?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6 (Spring 2001): 6-7.
22. It is impossible to read the Gospel of John and not see both an idea of subordination on the part of Jesus to the Father and equality with him. In John 1:1 and throughout, Jesus is God. In John 14:28, the Father is greater than the Son. Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17 demonstrates this tension in God who has become flesh.
23. Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” JETS 40, no. 1 (1997): 60-61.
24. Peter R. Schemm, “Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6 (Spring 2001): 14; Seealso Ware, “Tampering with the Trinity,” 8–10; Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 103; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 124–39.
25. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code: A Novel (New York: Doubleday, 2003).
26. See Darrell L. Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville:Thomas Nelson, 2004).
27. Brown, Da Vinci Code, 124.
28. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor (Repr., New York: Macmillan, 1969).
29. Scott McKnight, Jesus Creed blog, <http:www.jesuscreed.org> (accessed 30 November 2007).
30. Ibid.
31. Christopher D. Marshall, “Atonement, Violence, and the Will of God: A Sympathetic Response to J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 76, no. 1 (2003): 67-90, <http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/jan03marshall.html> (accessed 16 July 2005).
32. J. Denny Weaver, “Violence in Christian Theology,” Cross Currents 51 (Summer 2001) (accessed 30 November 2007).
33. Ibid.
34. J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). For an excellent critical review of Weaver’s work, see Telford Work, “Review of J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement,” Theology Today 59 (October 2002): 510-13; <http://www.westmont.edu/~work/articles/nonviolent.html> (accessed 30 November 2007). Also see Mike Stallard, “The Tendency to Softness in Postmodern Attitudes about God, War, and Man,” JMAT 10, no. 1 (2006): 105-12.
35. Accessed 30 November 2007.
36. Mike Stallard, “Tendency to Softness,” 107.
37. Marshall, “Atonement, Violence and the Will of God.”
38. Phyllis Schlafly, “Feminism Meets Terrorism,” Eagle Forum, 23 January 2002, <http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/jan02/02–01-23.shtml> (accessed 1 December 2007).
39. Ibid.
40. John Piper, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 33.
41. Ibid., 36.
42. Ibid., 46.
43. This section will not deal with any implications for church life mentioned in the various passages in the debate about women pastors since these passages will be dealt with in following articles.
44. For a good corrective, see Dorothy Patterson, “The High Calling of Wife and Mother in Biblical Perspective” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 364–77.

The Tendency to Softness in Postmodern Attitudes about God, War, and Man

By Mike Stallard [1]

[Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

As most thinking and informed Americans know, there is a debate at the popular level (and scholarly level as well) about the cause and solution to modern terrorism, especially of the Islamic variety. Is America to blame for the rise of such terrorism? Is Israel to blame? Or both? Or can we identify the entire Western culture as the culprit that is responsible? Questions from that side of the debate tend to anger political and moral conservatives who see such questions as at best peripheral and at worst a missing of the point entirely in such a way as to make the solution to Islamofascism harder to come by. Are not, such conservatives ask, the terrorists themselves the guilty parties? Are they not responsible for their own actions? From this side, there should be no switching of the victims. The Islamic radicals are not the victims. They are the predators who prey intentionally upon innocent civilians, including women and children, believing there to be no such thing as true civilians when jihad is in the air (and it always is). Conservatives would caution those who would want to turn such wicked men into the real sufferers:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter; Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight ... Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! (Isa 5:20–21, 23)

Conservatives would point out that those who are “soft” on terrorism sometimes give the impression that Islamofascists can be reasoned with and dealt with like an ambassador dialoguing and negotiating a peace. Conservatives would hasten to add that the terrorists need to be confronted and defeated. They do not need therapy.

I know that at the outset my presentation is coming across sounding like an op-ed piece for some newspaper (probably not the New York Times which would have little interest in my conservative outlook). But the issue of “softness” versus “hardness” in our culture is what I want to get at. Another way to say it is “positive” versus “negative” in our understanding of certain features that make up the public square and its ongoing debate about directions and doctrines for the future of Western Civilization. To look explicitly at the American scene, the concern I have is that the red state-blue state dichotomy is partly over this very issue. As numerous polls have shown, most red staters would agree that the Democratic Party is perceived to be soft on terrorism and national defense while Republicans score better on that point.

Furthermore, at the heart of this issue I wonder (no doubt controversially) if attitudes of such softness come from the downplaying of certain strengths that men, as opposed to women, bring to the issues of life.[2] Men tend to be more decisive and have been, for good and ill, the “warriors” and “providers” of the world. Women have been looked upon as the nurturers and the ones with deeper capacities for emotional expression. I heard Luther cited as saying that a woman has more nurturing capability in her pinky finger than a man does in his entire body. From that angle, the soft response would be feminine and the hard response would be masculine. By themselves, the softness and hardness aspects are neither good nor bad. They are just different. Each can shine as a positive in diverse life contexts. Of course, the modern feminist movement has tried to do away with any such distinctions in our thought patterns. It is a useful exercise to ask if their course of action has been wise. Sure, we have to be careful not to overgeneralize. Women can and have done a good job of being “mean” and being good fighters when events called for it. Western men have, on occasion, shown a depth of emotion and nurturing capability that goes beyond the general tenor of their makeup and at times have shown great compassion. God has created all human beings with wonderfully crafted capabilities often untapped.

However, if I am right that the rise of feminist attitudes in culture are connected to ineffectual responses to terrorism,[3] there is the further question of how the church is contributing to or is combating this trend. With this in mind I want to discuss three theological areas in which tendencies toward softness are showing up in either pop culture or in Christendom itself: the doctrines of the second coming of Christ, the nature of God, and the atonement. The reader of this paper might be surprised to learn along the way that softness in these theological areas dovetails nicely with many pop culture discussions about terrorism.

The Second Coming of Christ

I had never associated Tim LaHaye with Islamic terrorism until I was forced to do so when reading a recent New York Times editorial that caught my attention.[4] LaHaye is co-author of the highly successful Left Behind series, founder of the Pre-Trib Research Center, author of scores of books, and perhaps the most influential evangelical Christian of the present generation. The hard-hitting editorial by Nicholas Kristof entitled “Apocalypse (Almost) Now” begins with the words, “If America’s liberals think they have it rough now, just wait until the Second Coming.” Admittedly from a liberal perspective, Kristof begins with the complaint that if LaHaye’s approach to the second coming is accurate, it will not be a positive experience for most, including himself: “The ‘Left Behind’ series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world’s Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire.” So much for a positive, loving encounter when Jesus comes. As Kristof sarcastically notes, “Gosh, what an uplifting scene!”

A Saudi Version of Left Behind

The tie to Islamic views comes into focus when Kristof goes on to claim that “if Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.” I am not sure who the “we” is in his statement. He seems to want at least to include evangelical Christians who think like LaHaye. However, his huffing and puffing leaves the impression that he feels himself qualified to be a mind reader and soothsayer who can predict what we would do if the Saudis wrote an Islamic counterpart. Actually, I, for one, would be quite pleased. A contribution of everyone’s predictive view of the end of the world would be fine to get out on the table. If Kristof’s view is ultimately agnostic (which is my suspicion), his particular novel would be short and comprised of empty white pages, so it probably would not make the New York Times bestseller list. How many pages does one need to say, “I don’t know”? The plot line might be a little thin. Perhaps he could call Jerry Jenkins for some help.

Beyond such sideshows, there really lurks a profound misunderstanding on Kristof’s part. Although Kristof does not directly address terrorism, he indirectly raises the question with his reference to Saudi views. In my opinion, there is little doubt that Kristof wants to damage LaHaye and Jenkins by the means of guilt-by-association. The thoughtful reader would naturally ask, “What is the difference between Left Behind and radical Islam?” I believe that Kristof is probably sincere in believing the two are similar. He is right, of course, at one level. Moslem teaching generally holds that Christians will end up in hell, and born-again Christianity has predominantly taught with a tear in its voice that those who deny Jesus Christ are rejecting the only cure for their sinful condition. However, in light of the militant history of Islam from its beginning until now, Christians should be forgiven if they have doubts about whether the Moslem belief carries a “tear in its voice.”

Kristof’s terse comments unfortunately slide right by some significant differences between Islam and Bible-believing Christianity. First, conversions according to evangelical Christianity come through the preaching of the truth. There is no conversion by the sword. There is no beheading of infidels when they fail to heed the message. It will do no good to throw the Crusades in the faces of LaHaye and Jenkins. We are talking about Bible-believing Christians living in postmodern America who believe sincerely, following the teaching of Jesus, that the gospel is spread through proclamation and that alone. This is the evangelical way. It is God who works in men’s hearts when they hear the message of truth. It is not the tip of a sharp sword that brings the change.

Second, I doubt if the New York Times editorialist has come to grips with the fact that the biblical understanding found in LaHaye’s portrayal of the second coming is something that God himself through Christ brings about and not men. Kristof can reject a God who judges if he wishes (we will talk more about this later), but he should not avoid the truth that evangelicals today shun the practice of taking judgment into their own hands as Christians. In other words, we do not believe that the action of Jesus as described in second coming passages is something we should imitate in today’s world. There are certain prerogatives that belong to God alone. This appears to be somewhat counter to the Koran-believing Moslems who implement judgment upon those who disagree with them as a matter of course in the present time. There is no waiting until God comes to make all things right. This difference in message and method is something that should not be glossed over in any comparison between the two.

Judgment, Hell, and Exclusivism

Behind all of the blustery language, what is Kristof’s real beef with the Left Behind series? His sincere concern is that the second coming of Jesus is portrayed as an event of judgment. In fact, he believes that it is impossible actually to love people if we believe this picture of Jesus’ coming. It would be a kind of hatemongering, to use one of his words. There is a certain kind of softness in his understanding that is common in various facets of our postmodern, truth-denying culture. Kristof rejects LaHaye’s understanding of the second coming (which by the way is the biblical view and the tradition of the church for almost 2000 years) largely because it is too harsh. Bible-believing Christians should not back down from the challenge. Second Thessalonians 1:6–10 teaches the following:

For after all, it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day.

This passage says it all. Kristof does not like three different aspects of this doctrine. First, there is the actual judgment that is caught up in the event itself. Other passages are just as explicit. Revelation 19:11–21 pictures Christ as a Warrior Lamb and not as a sweet little lamb upon his return. He will smite the nations and rule with a rod of iron (v. 15). He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood (v. 13) and treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God (v. 16).[5] Clearly, the biblical portrait of Christ’s return is not entirely “sweet Jesus.” It is a time when in righteousness He judges and makes war (v. 11). Such judgment scenes are plentiful in the biblical record. The harshness of such descriptions does not easily square with much of the cultural mentality, especially from the liberal side of the spectrum, which downplays personal accountability and judgment. Love to them is, whether they understand it or not, a sentimental notion whose optimism in human nature at best borders on naiveté. In such a state of mind, God can only be portrayed as a skyward grandfatherly image sitting in a rocking chair waiting to shower gifts upon his grandchildren.

In addition, Kristof reacts negatively to the doctrine of hell that is associated with the assignment of men and women (as he understands it) to everlasting destruction when Jesus comes. It is not judgment in general but the aspect of everlasting fire that Kristof alludes to twice in his piece with language that shows his contempt: “Jesus intends to roast everyone … because they weren’t born-again Christians” (emphasis added). He accuses LaHaye and Jenkins of being enthusiastic about the future slaughter of unbelievers and apparently in an earlier article had charged them with celebrating that fact. However, most evangelical Christians react to the doctrine not by celebrating it, but by taking actions of love to share their faith so that others can escape the future judgment. Kristof has simply caricatured LaHaye on this point. Furthermore, it is not clear to me how there can be ultimate accountability without an after-life judgment like the hell of the Bible.[6]

The third aspect of the doctrine of the second coming that irritates Kristof in conjunction with its implications of judgment and hell is the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ that the doctrine entails in the Left Behind series (and in the Bible).[7] Consistent with his postmodernism, Kristof rejects these exclusive claims made by evangelical Christians concerning Jesus and acceptance of him. The New York Times essayist responds to a prior email from Jerry Jenkins by noting, “I’d forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren’t born-again Christians.” Such a comment would be laughable if its consequences were not so serious. Kristof does an obvious job of critiquing someone else’s view from within his own worldview rather than showing inherent problems with the other view.

Included in this attempt to dissuade, Kristof overtly blunders in his use of the Bible. I can see why he would use Gandhi as an illustration since Gandhi’s soft Hinduism allowed for the postmodern “truth” of all other religions. However, where does he get the “good Samaritan”? In the Bible, Jesus’ story about the good Samaritan does not identify this man as a Christ-rejecting bad person (Luke 10:25–37). In fact, the passage is not even remotely about eternal life, being born again, or hell. Why does Kristof use this example? I believe the worst here. More needs to be said than “I’d forgotten the passage … .” You can’t forget something you have never read. Someone critiquing the biblical view of any issue should take the time to read what he is attacking. In the end, his critique only makes sense if the Bible is not true and Jesus is not who he claims to be. There is much at stake.

Cheap Shots

Kristof’s complaints about judgment, hell, and exclusivism are the thrust of his analysis. However, there are a few other things that we should mention in passing for the sake of completeness. About one-third of his article is taken up with the cheap shot about the lucrative nature of sales for the Left Behind series. There might be some things about the marketing side of the popular series that even some evangelicals would do differently. However, the personal attack is unwarranted. One wonders if he would be willing to criticize Dan Brown’s financial profit from The Da Vinci Code, the hostile attack upon traditional Christian teaching about Jesus.

Kristof also continues to show his ignorance of biblical doctrine when he seems to assume that LaHaye and Jenkins would believe that giving their money to the poor would help get them into heaven. I think he sees an apparent contradiction in their lives. However, most evangelicals believe that someone is forgiven through simple faith and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross and not by doing good deeds. Therefore, he shows a total unawareness of the evangelical worldview which he is criticizing that makes it hard to take him seriously. This is especially true when he preaches the need to dialogue about faith among different groups and seemingly sees the lack of this on LaHaye’s part. In the end he is guilty of what he accuses others. I am always a little leery of those who quickly pull out the loaded term bigotry in religious discussions as Kristof does in his rant. Its use predictably cuts off dialogue, the exact opposite of what he preaches. He is somewhat aware of this when he correctly notes that “this column will seem pretty snooty.” His self-awareness is beyond his understanding of conservative, biblical Christianity.

The Authority of God’s Word

Another wrong turn from an evangelical point of view comes to the surface when Kristof addresses the biblical authority upon which LaHaye and Jenkins base their views of exclusivism. He comments, “I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I’ve sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they’re just applying God’s word.” Kristof’s point is often made in popular culture, but it is not logically defensible. The thrust of it is to suggest that there can be no assurance of any religious truth simply because there are competing claims of authority. However, on the contrary, there exist no rational grounds for saying that both of the competing claims are wrong. It is logically possible that one set of claims is true to reality. However, Kristof assumes that the mere statement of the competing claims makes his point. He can only make the attempt because he has bought the Kantian assumption (without realizing it) that religious truth claims involve a different and unknowable domain than other claims.

Guilt by Association

A final way in which Kristof shows a lack of precision is his historical analysis which is in fact a guilt-by-association argument. He accuses LaHaye of being a wild date setter in the mold of the nineteenth-century Millerites, Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth, and the booklet “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988.” Other predictions have all been wrong, so LaHaye’s predictions are wrong also. But what exactly are LaHaye’s prophetic insights? Kristof quotes from the Left Behind website which notes that LaHaye and Jenkins “think this generation will witness the end of history.” That Kristof makes so much of this statement is problematic. It is one thing to make wild predictions about specific dates. It is quite another to believe that the stage is set for the end time events. While personally I would have used the expression “may witness” rather than “will witness” in the website statement, it is still important to recall that the Left Behind novels never make any specific predictions about the time when Jesus will return. Kristof’s exaggeration is unfair even if more predictable than the second coming. Perhaps as in the case of the Bible, he has not read the Left Behind series as much as he should.

Summary: Softness or Harshness?

In our analysis of Kristof’s editorial, the main point still stands. He rejects the biblical view of the second coming as portrayed by LaHaye and Jenkins because it is an act of judgment which is related to the casting of people into hell who have rejected Christ. In other words, such a God is pictured as being tough-minded and meting out punishment. Kristof’s view represents a large cultural pocket of Westerners who reject the classical Christian faith because it is too harsh at points like these. The increase of such “softness” in the West in the last two centuries cannot be said to have produced less harshness in the real world. In fact, softness about sin along with unrealistic views of the world has perhaps made a harsher world a more dangerous reality. I recently read an anthology of the writings of Gandhi, someone mentioned in Kristof’s article. Gandhi was a man who can be genuinely admired by Christians for his love of peace and nonviolence. However, as I read his writings, there were many times I wrote in the margin the word naïve. That is how I felt when reading Kristof’s short piece. The depraved world is worse off than he knows, but God will return one day to make all things right, even if such a coming is not according to Kristof’s script.

The Nature of God

The article by Kristof in the end raises the question, not directly addressed, of the nature of God Himself. So now I will turn to another expression in pop culture to discuss “soft” attitudes relative to theology proper or the doctrine of God. The cultural expression I want to evaluate is the famous Star Trek phenomena. I know some of you non-trekkies will moan when I say this. But the truth is the television series in all its various forms along with the generated movies has paid much attention to the issue of religion and used the forum to explore spirituality. In fact, an entire book has been written about the religions that appear in Star Trek.[8] Therefore, it makes a good source of information for popular thought about God. In particular, I have chosen to look at a scene from the fifth movie, Star Trek: The Final Frontier (1989).

The plot of the movie moves along simply. Sybok, the mystical and estranged Vulcan brother of the rational Mr. Spock, thinks he is getting messages from God to go find God beyond the great barrier of the galaxy. To do so, a plot is hatched to hijack a starship which just happens to be the Enterprise with Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, and all the famous crew members aboard. When they cross the barrier and get to the planet from which the messages had been sent to Sybok, they encounter a being that at first they think is God, but in the end turns out to be a hostile, alien creature, which had been imprisoned on the planet and was luring someone to help him get off. In the end, predictably the creature is destroyed and the day is saved so that it was possible to make the Star Trek VI movie.

Classical Theism

Interestingly, while many of the religious notions that surface in Star Trek are decidedly mystical and Eastern, this movie at the beginning seems to view God in somewhat of a classical Western sense; that is, what we call classical theism. They are not expecting God to be the sum-total of all things as in Star Wars. He is no impersonal force identified with the universe as in Hinduism. Instead, the characters in the movie are expecting a single being who is the Creator of the universe. This classical sense of monotheism is striking until the very end of the movie. After their disappointment in finding out that the being was not God, the show near the end has Captain Kirk commenting that maybe God was not out there, but was in here (pointing to his own heart). Thus, a more Eastern concept of God emerges in the end which is in harmony with liberal versions of Christianity in the West. This may be a major point being made in the movie. The classical God of the Christian West does not really exist; people find God in their own thoughts and hearts—perhaps we craft God after our own image.

Nonetheless, before the shift at the end of the movie, there are several revealing comments as the characters of the movie face the being who they think for a time is God. In the dialogue between the characters and the alien being, there are several ways that the characters come to the conclusion that the being is not this Creator God that they had hoped he would be. The first hint is the fact that the alien needs a starship to get off his planet. This was particularly bothersome to Captain Kirk. The captain is viewing things either through the prism of omnipresence or omnipotence or both. The true God, although localized in heaven (the planet they were on), because he was omnipresent could project himself anywhere in the universe if he wanted. There were no limitations for him. It could be that the script writers had the omnipotence of God in mind. The God who created the universe should be powerful enough to get himself off a planet without the aid of a starship. The second hint that this being is not God comes when he does not know who Captain Kirk is. The lack of omniscience on the part of the being, coupled with his need of a starship, convinces Kirk and Spock that the being is not God. Thus, the divine characteristics of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience may be part of the dialogue.

Harshness in God

At this point there is nothing in the characters’ expectations about God that would be inconsistent with the biblical view of God. However, the last reason the characters of the movie realize the alien is not God goes to the heart of my concerns in this article. Because of the rebellious doubting of Kirk and Spock, the angered alien shoots an energy bolt from his eyes to knock down and injure both of them. Turning to Dr. McCoy, who sometimes in the series uses the term “sweet Jesus,” the alien asks him if he too doubts. McCoy’s answer could not be clearer: “I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.” The last evidence that this being could not possibly be God is that he was not sweet enough. He was a God who was harsh and meted out severe forms of judgment to doubters. In the plan of the movie, such a being could not be the one true and living God, if such a God were to exit.

We could argue about the expression “for his own pleasure” in McCoy’s line. The Bible does teach in general that it is a good thing for God to judge the wicked. Obviously, such judgment would be something about which God is pleased in some way or he would not hand out retribution. God does not consider that he is wrong in doing so. It is clear that unbelievers are vessels that ultimately demonstrate the riches of the glory of God regardless of their destination and the experience of his wrath (Rom 9:21–24). However, we should stop short of viewing this as if God were an eight-year-old boy who enjoys tearing the wings off of flies. There is nothing trivial about God’s judgment upon the wicked. The Bible says that God takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek 33:11; cp. Ezek 18:23). There is an emotion of regret that should be in the heart of every true believer over the ultimate destiny of unbelievers, but also a confident knowledge that it is a right thing for them to be judged by the Lord.

Sweet Jesus

Let me illustrate this issue of harshness from a different direction using an anecdote from my past. Once while a seminary student and during my aerospace engineering days, I was making a technical presentation to my engineering group of around twenty-five people. I took about one hour for the overall presentation, but in the middle of it, my boss stopped me to ask a question. I was expecting from him some inquiry about the airborne software I was working on. However, I was a bit shocked when he asked, “Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament?” Everybody there knew I was a seminary student. It was probably an attempt to embarrass me, although he may have been struggling with some questions. I politely told him the last time I read the Bible they were the same and went on with my presentation.

Behind this question, which I had heard before from others, was the heresy dating back to Marcion in the second century.[9] In that scheme, the God of the OT was viewed as a hateful God while Jesus, the God of the NT, was a sweet and loving God. Jehovah and Jesus could not be reconciled. I encourage those who struggle with such questions to read the Psalms and see some of the OT grace and love of God. Then I ask them to follow up by finding in the Bible the person who describes the teaching of hell most often and thoroughly. They will surprisingly find out it is “sweet Jesus” (Matt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 11:23; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43–47; Luke 10:15; 12:5; 16:19–31; cp. Rev 19:11–21; 20:11–15).

It is easy to see that the nature of God as a judge bothers some people and makes them reject the biblical view of God. Again, Christians should be honest about the judgment and justice side of God’s nature. We should reject the effeminate portraits of Jesus that make him look like he just came out of a beauty parlor and wouldn’t step on an ant. The Bible teaches that God is both Judge and Lover. Without the former, one ends up with a “mush” God who cannot stand up to evil. Without the latter, one ends up with a harsh God. Churches have erred on both sides. God must always be presented as both—the God in balance whose ways are always right even when his nature leads to the judgment of men (Rev 19:2).

The Atonement

Unfortunately, the second coming of Christ and the nature of God do not stand alone to represent doctrinal areas in which “soft” attitudes have damaged both theology and life. A third area that needs to be examined is the doctrine of the atonement, in particular, the nature of the atonement—what happened when Jesus died on the cross. By soft approaches in this area, I refer to the removal of judgment or violent aspects of the atonement because of their harsh nature. Although soft approaches have abounded throughout history, there seems to be a resurgence of them in our day with new twists that need to be explored.[10]

Various Views of the Atonement

There have been several views of the atonement that have been advanced throughout the history of the church. One early view in church history was the recapitulation theory of Irenaeus (second century) which suggested that Jesus’ life more than his death atones for sin by providing the restoration of what Adam had lost. Other Christians early on like Origen (d. 254) posited a ransom-to-Satan view in which Jesus died to pay off the devil who held men hostage. While this view dominated much of the early Middle Ages, the main contenders for the attention of Christians since then have been the Abelardian, governmental, and Anselmic views. The Abelardian view of the atonement, named after Peter Abelard (1079–1142) can be described as an example or moral influence view of the atonement. Jesus died as an example of sacrificial love that can spur us on to better lives. This kind of approach is current in much of liberal theology in various forms.

Being codified by Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), the governmental view of the atonement teaches that Jesus died to satisfy public justice. Jesus’ death thereby becomes a deterrent to sin, the structure of moral government is restored, and sin is punished not because it deserves to be but because of the demands of moral government. Charles Finney, the famous evangelist of the Second Great Awakening in nineteenth-century America held to a form of this view, which continues to be the basic understanding for many classical Arminians.

The Anselmic view is a satisfaction view. Anselm (1033–1109) held that Jesus died to satisfy the honor of God. While his satisfaction idea was correct, it remained for the Reformers (especially Calvin) to clarify that Jesus died to satisfy not the honor of God but the wrath of God upon sin. In other words, the death of Jesus was a matter of retributive justice by substitution. Jesus was “punished” in our place. The satisfaction view goes back to the earliest church fathers. The Epistle to Diognetus in the Apostolic Fathers (early second century) contains it in seed form.[11] This understanding could be called the penal satisfaction view.

The biblical evidence lines up with the penal satisfaction view.[12] It is hard to take passages like Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:21–24, and Hebrews 9–10 in any other way. However, Christians must be honest about the harshness contained in the view, at least harshness as some would view the term. In the penal substitutionary view, violence is done to Jesus. Although the spiritual aspects of the atonement are not as obvious, Mel Gibson’s controversial movie The Passion shows with horrifying details the physical violence involved. That Jesus experienced such violence cannot be doubted. Its record is in all the gospels. However, the idea that Jesus did this as a substitution and that even in his soul he experienced judgment (as Isaiah 53 notes) for the sins of others shows that the intent of the atonement is punishment, a harsh word to many in our culture. Michael Card, the contemporary Christian songwriter and artist, captures this sentiment perfectly in his song entitled “A Violent Grace”:

So ruthless He loves us, So reckless His embrace
To show relentless kindness to a hardened human race
The joy that was before Him on the man of sorrow’s face
And by His blood He bought a violent grace[13]

The Nonviolent Atonement

In opposition to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, a recent position has been put forward and labeled as the “nonviolent atonement.” One principal proponent who has written a book on the subject entitled The Nonviolent Atonement is J. Denny Weaver, a religion teacher at Bluffton University in Ohio.[14] The sentiment represented by this view is certainly not new. It is similar to the old charge that conservative evangelical Christianity taught a slaughterhouse religion due to its view of the sacrifice of Christ and its similarities to the OT sacrifices that anticipated his work on the cross. In addition, Weaver’s approach is a refinement of the earlier Christus Victor model of the atonement advanced in the early twentieth century by Gustaf Aulen.[15] That model is itself a refinement of the ransom-to-Satan view. Aulen summarized his view with these words: “Its central theme is the idea of the Atonement as a Divine conflict and victory; Christ—Christus Victor—fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, ‘tyrants’ under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to himself.”[16] While no one who holds the penal substitutionary view of the atonement doubts that the atonement accomplished by Christ is a victory over Satan, proponents of the satisfaction view would reject the Christus Victor approach as diminishing the value of the cross and being overly selective concerning NT passages which reflect upon the value of Christ’s death.

Weaver’s refinement of the Christus Victor view of the atonement adds the unique contribution of conversation with modern liberation and feminist theologies. The amazon.com website advertisement of his book notes: “sharp debates about the death of Jesus sparked by feminist and womanist theologians are the current cutting edge of discussions about Christology and atonement.”[17] In Weaver’s understanding the nonviolent perspective of Christus Victor is much superior to the violent dimensions of the satisfaction view. One must be cautious here. He is not accusing those who hold to penal satisfaction as being personally violent people. He is suggesting that the view accommodates violence as a positive category which in turn yields the sanctioning of unacceptable social activity.

One sympathetic response to Weaver’s approach comes from Christopher Marshall who sees a connection between satisfaction theologies, the attitudes about God they produce, and the social ramifications that then ensue:

Those who take seriously Jesus’ call to nonviolence must learn to read the Bible, do theology and think about God in light of this basic commitment, which is by no means easy. The Bible itself is full of violence, much of it ascribed directly to God. … This compromise [with violence] has rested upon, and has strongly reinforced, a view of God as a violent and punitive deity who gets his own way—whether in the short term, through crusade or inquisition, or in the long term, through eschatological judgment and everlasting coercion.[18]

Thus, according to this perspective, the satisfaction view of the atonement is part of an interpretive matrix that yields a harsh God. Marshall states his rejection of the unsatisfactory bent of this state of affairs in stark terms: “Such a God is increasingly hard for people to believe in. Many people today prefer atheism or agnosticism or some vague form of pantheism to the violent deity of traditional religion. And who can blame them, especially in these days when violence is fueled by religious fundamentalism on the upsurge around the world.”[19]

However, since the Bible seems on the surface to teach the view that must be rejected how should a theologian respond if he is troubled by the Bible’s violent terminology? Marshall grounds his Christian nonviolence by seeking “to go behind the violent imagery used in the Bible to portray God’s work and to find a deeper, nonviolent reality beneath. My recent book Beyond Retribution attempts to furnish biblical and theological foundations for the so-called restorative justice movement. Its central thesis is that the biblical witness to God’s justice is better characterized in restorative or redemptive categories than in retributive or punitive ones.”20 The literalist would retort right away that this approach is nothing more than allegory. Marshall understands the seriousness of this issue when he notes that “two of the biggest hurdles I faced in arguing for this thesis are New Testament passages about Final Judgment, which anticipate wrath and damnation on God’s enemies, and popular theologies of the Atonement, which attribute the salvific power of the cross to some cosmic act of substitutionary punishment.”[21]

The specific summary of criticisms of the penal satisfaction view that Marshall gives centers on four points. First, he points out that many feminists have charged satisfaction theology of using the language of “divine child abuse.” The Father is in an abusive relationship with his son Jesus, demands absolute obedience, and pours out unmerited suffering in order to “defend his own dignity.” This caricature ignores the voluntary nature of Christ’s involvement, his own position as a member of the Trinity, and the fact that his sacrifice was an act of love for others, not simply a defense of God. Methodologically, this feminist starting point is human sociology and not the text of Scripture. However, Marshall’s rendition of this point highlights the feminist intensification of “softer” notions of the atonement.

A second criticism of penal satisfaction is that this view like all others represents the interests of views of specific groups. In other words, there is the question of power that hides behind all theological statements. The particular problem with satisfaction theology is that it “reflects the ‘law and order’ priorities of those thoroughly identified with the prevailing system-ruling-class, white, male clerics.”[22] What should be our response to this? We should reject the notion that to properly contextualize and state theological positions means to recognize power concerns in history. Sometimes, people really do hold to positions because the text of the Bible drives them to. This notion of power plays is a common one in postmodern times in which language has been reduced to references to advantaged states of affairs rather than to reality.[23] But all language is not used in the way that certain politicians and media personnel use it. Honesty has not entirely disappeared from the world.

A third criticism of penal satisfaction according to Marshall is that it has “permitted the ruling elite to participate in systems of oppression without any sense of inconsistency with their Christian commitment.” In his mind, theology has been separated inappropriately from ethical commitment. He goes on to complain that “not only can satisfaction atonement accommodate violence, it may even encourage violence.” One particular culprit here in Marshall’s mind is Calvinism, which leads to excessive and harsh treatment of criminals. Again, the argument is methodologically flawed. One’s starting point should not be ethical commitment. One’s starting point should be the text of Scripture. Also, it cannot be seriously affirmed that proponents of satisfaction theory have been more evangelistic in spreading the “violent” faith. Wars and violence were just as much a part of the early church and medieval period when the penal satisfaction view did not predominate in much of Christendom. Furthermore, I doubt that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin held to the satisfaction view! The entire criticism is one of special pleading. The total depravity of man is a better starting point for understanding war and violence than are satisfaction views of the atonement.

A fourth criticism of the penal satisfaction view which Marshall summarizes is that “its depiction of Jesus obediently accepting death without protest to meet some divine obligation represents an unhealthy pattern for other victims of oppression to emulate.” In other words, the penal view of the atonement discourages active resistance to injustice and exalts innocent suffering. Again, in this stunningly absurd criticism, a particular view of desired behavior is being read back into Bible statements about the atonement. Jesus’ death was not about giving an example of letting people practice injustice. It should be taken at face value and framed by the language and purpose which God gives it. The entire array of concerns as expressed by Marshall betrays a kind of theological fantasy world of overstatement, innuendo, and tenuous connections. One is reminded of U.S. Supreme Court justices who make the Constitution say what they want it to say based upon their prior ethical beliefs and concerns. I doubt that Weaver, Marshall, or any of the supporters of nonviolent atonement would want people to read their own writings in that fashion.

The incomplete strategy of this group of interpreters can easily be demonstrated. Telford Work summarizes Weaver’s choppy presentation:

Weaver’s selectivity can be jarring. In appealing to Lev 16’s scapegoat ritual on the Day of Atonement, Weaver ignores the bloody scenes on both sides of it, in order to make the astonishing claim that “for the most serious and comprehensive sins, blood is not involved.” … Weaver cites Heb 10:1–18 but not 10:19–31. Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, who pervades the New Testament, is passed over—as is Passover itself. Weaver blames the continuing theological power of retributive justice on Constantinianism and punitive Western and American structures of justice, but contrary biblical evidence is a more significant explanation for it, and for the appeal of something like satisfaction theory from as early as Athanasius (not just Anselm!) through today.[24]

Thus, not only does the Weaver and Marshall camp use allegorical method, they ignore biblical information that does not fit with their view. Therefore, it is impossible to say their view is based on biblical theology.[25]

Pacifism or Just War?

Nonetheless, one must understand the larger concern of Weaver and those in his camp. He apparently is a liberal Mennonite pacifist. In an article entitled “Remembering the Future: September 11 and War with Iraq,” Weaver argues that the United States was just as responsible for the terror attacks as the terrorists were because of support for Israel and so-called economic violence.[26] He naturally disputes the cycle of wars or cycle of violence that occurs regularly in the human experience. Besides the current cycles of violence between the U.S.-Israeli axis and the Moslem world, he suggests that the cause of World War II can be found in the humiliation of Germany in World War I. Weaver’s over-selectivity surfaces here as it did in his use of scripture. Such a conclusion is quite a generalization. Although German humiliation would be a factor, it would be quite difficult to say it was the cause of the Second World War. Why is the cause not seen in one insane man’s personal response to the first war rather than seeking to lay the blame on the war in general? Furthermore, I find it quite interesting that Weaver never recalls for his readers that the end of World War II, with its absolute victory for the Allies over Germany and Japan has produced sixty years of peace between those nations and the Allies along with democratization and demilitarization. His silence may be partly because of the difficulty that pacifism has relative to the Second World War. If there were ever a war that could be justified, this would be one. The traditional Christian position of just war theory acknowledges that war (with its associated violence) can be justified, but that compassion is expressed in conjunction with war by proper rules for the justification and proper means for its execution.[27]

What does all of this have to do with a nonviolent atonement and the overall issue of harshness versus softness in theological doctrines? Have you noticed that in our discussion certain areas and views have converged? On the one hand there is rejection of an atonement where God punishes His Son, an everlasting punishment of the unrighteous in hell, the penal view of the atonement since it is divine child abuse, domination of culture by white males, all forms of war, and the penal satisfaction view as a power play by adherents. On the other hand there is the promotion of feminist theological insights, pacifism, atonement as victory over Satan and oppressors, and a restorative approach to the atonement. In all of these, there is a deliberate choice by those who hold the so-called non-violent view of the atonement to use softer language to describe life and doctrine. Hard masculine images are rejected in favor of softer, more feminine, and nurturing descriptions. The warrior is rejected; the lover is embraced. The theological and ethical ramifications are everywhere.

Conclusion

I have discussed three specific areas of theology: the second coming of Christ, the nature of God, and the atonement of Christ. In particular I have tried to demonstrate that contemporary cultural and theological responses in these three areas have shown some aberrations in the direction of softness. A perceived hardness in each area is usually tied to some form of God’s judgment whether involving deserving men or of Christ himself on the cross. This hardness is then abandoned by those who prefer a kind of sweetness in God and his actions and in man and his ways. Oftentimes the perceived harshness is viewed as flowing from political power plays and male dominance in history. It should be, according to this understanding, modified or replaced by insights from feminist and other advocacy groups. Without hesitation my response to all of this is to encourage Bible-believing Christians to stand their ground and not abandon the so-called hard sayings of God’s word. Pastors should not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God even when such proclamation is not culturally acceptable. Jesus is returning to make all things right even when that coming includes judgment from God. There is a real hell of eternal destruction to be shunned. Jesus in space and time really did die a violent death, physically and spiritually. It was an event of unspeakable punishment. War is sometimes a viable option for the believer. God is the Lover-Judge in perfect balance.

However, maintaining such clear biblical yet harsh doctrines in our day may have advantages that transcend church life. The teaching of the harsh edges of the Christian faith may bring back into focus the gender balance obscured by feminism and that is needed to view the world and its problems correctly. In other words, if it takes a resurgence of the hardness that male-warriors can bring to the table in order to revive theological balance as well as protect our families and nation in time of war, it would be a welcome development.

Notes

1. This paper was originally delivered at the Conservative Theological Society in August 2005 under the title “Is the Doctrine of the Second Coming Too Negative? An Essay on the Feminization of Postmodern Western Culture.” I have made some minor modifications in this presentation, but the overall thrust of the paper has not changed.
2. I want to mention in passing John Eldredge’s popular work Wild at Heart: Discovering the Passionate Soul of a Man (Nashville: Nelson, 2001). While I do not endorse all of his use of Scripture, analysis, and proposals for change, he is right about the need that men have for more adventure and that trying to make them think like women is counterproductive and even dangerous to our culture.
3. In no way am I suggesting that feminism is the cause of terrorism. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that it is the only reason that we have so often adopted an appeasement mentality in modern times in Western culture when it comes to terrorism. Terrorism is a complicated phenomenon with many streams of influence and interaction. What I am suggesting is that the feminization of culture is one of many factors that influence the Western world’s response to Islamic terrorism in a negative way.
4. Nicholas Kristof, “Apocalypse (Almost) Now,” New York Times, 24 November 2004, (accessed 7 July 2005). In particular, Kristof reacts to statements in Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Glorious Appearing: The End of Days, The Left Behind Series, vol. 12 (Wheaton: Tyndale, 2004).
5. For a scholarly exegesis of Revelation 19:11–21, see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8–22 (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 380–401.
6. I do not have the luxury of space and time here to give an in-depth defense of the doctrine of hell. One avenue that would need to be discussed would be the association of rejection of hell with a light view of sin. Generally speaking, how can human beings decide that Hitler’s sins in the Holocaust were more serious than anyone’s rejection of the Creator’s purpose for their lives (unbelief)? The light view of sin actually stems from a man-centered view of all the issues rather than a theocentric vantage point. For a thorough defense of the biblical doctrine of hell, see Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1995).
7. For a discussion of the inclusive-exclusive debate over the nature of Christian soteriology, see Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
8. William Cassidy, Susan L. Schwartz, and Ross Kraemer, Religions of Star Trek (New York: Basic Books, 2003).
9. See Tim Dowley, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 102–3. The early third-century church father Tertullian wrote Against Marcion to refute these false notions.
10. Christopher Marshall, “Atonement, Violence and the Will of God: A sympathetic Response to J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 77 (January 2003), edu/mqr/pastissues/jan03marshall.html> (accessed 10 January 2006). Marshall favors those approaches and would probably not accept my “soft” label. He has written the book entitled Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). He appears to be a faculty member of the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.
11. The statement in question comes from The Epistle to Diognetus, IX.2–5: “But when our iniquity was fulfilled and it had become fully manifest, that its reward of punishment and death waited for it, and the time came which God had appointed to manifest henceforth his kindliness and power … he did not hate us nor reject us nor remember us for evil, but was long-suffering, endured us, himself in pity took our sin, himself gave his own Son as ransom for us, the Holy for the wicked, the innocent for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins but his righteousness? … O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable creation, O the unexpected benefits, that the wickedness of many should be concealed in the one righteous, and the righteousness of the one should make righteous many wicked!” (The Epistle to Diognetus, IX.2–5, in The Apostolic Fathers, The Loeb Classical Library, vol. 2, trans. Kirsopp Lake [reprint ed., Cambridge: Harvard U, 1976], 369–71).
12. Still one of the best detailed resources for explaining the biblical portrait of the atonement is Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956). Morris later wrote a more popular version of great value entitled The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983).
13. This is the chorus of the song “A Violent Grace” on Michael Card’s album Soul Anchor (2000) with Sparrow Records.
14. J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
15. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, trans. A. G. Hebert (Reprint ed., New York: Macmillan, 1969).
16. Ibid., 4.
17. Accessed 16 July 2005.
18. Marshall, “Atonement, Violence and the Will of God,” 70. There are some disagreements between Weaver and Marshall, but overall Marshall concurs with most of Weaver’s innovative proposal.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., 71.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 74.
23. For a discussion of how the concept of power figures into much of postmodern thinking, see Millard J. Erickson, Truth or Consequences: The Promise and Perils of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 136–49.
24. Telford Work, “Review of J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement,” Theology Today 59 (October 2002): 510–13, (accessed 16 July 2005).
25. I find it a bit contradictory that Marshall’s school website advertises his interest in biblical theology. See chris_marshall/index.html> (accessed 25 July 2005). It is possible that they are using the term differently than I would. However, I do not see in this entire approach anything that approaches the desire to let a comprehensive discussion of the biblical categories as found in the text guide discussion. At too many places ethical concerns seem to hijack exegesis.
26. J. Denny Weaver, “Remembering the Future: September 11 and War with Iraq,” DreamSeeker Magazine 3 (Winter 2003): 34–37, (accessed 16 July 2005).
27. See Mike Stallard, “The Biblical Basis for a Just War,” JMAT 6, no. 1 (2002): 21–43.