Why We Are Egalitarian

Much has been said and written concerning gender and church leadership in Baptist circles long before us. Most of the conversation puts those in favor of gender equality (egalitarianism) on the defensive, always hermeneutically revisiting the same texts which appear prohibitive of female leadership over and over, placing the burden of proof on those who do not exclude women from positions of teaching and other responsibilities in the church.

Our beloved brothers and sisters who believe in complementarianism have set the agenda of how the issue is discussed, leaving others in the discussion at a decided disadvantage. It is our perspective that the burden of proof should rest on the one who proposes a doctrine that excludes over half of the Body of Christ from teaching and leadership.

What we hope to do in this post is to work both sides, the traditional texts which appear to cast a negative light on female leadership and those which seem to assert the active role of women in those endeavors. We are not intimidated by the task of working with the traditional texts that are often cited in support of subjugation of women, for we believe that when rightly understood our position is strengthened. However, we want to take the time to elaborate on the positive side of scripture which strongly supports egalitarianism. When the negative texts are understood and then added to the truly revolutionary teachings of the Bible, the result is a strong case for egalitarianism.

The “usual suspects” of texts that are often cited as discussion stoppers are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:2, and 1 Timothy 3:8-12. The texts we believe point us in the affirming and positive direction our faith wants to take us are Joel 2:28-29, Acts 2:17-21, Galatians 3:28, and Acts 21:8-9.


First, let us begin where we always are forced to begin, and that is by working from the negative.
To understand Paul’s teachings on gender roles in church life we must first consider three important contexts: the social context of the churches to which Paul was writing, the context of Paul’s own life and ministry, and the location of those teachings in the context of Paul’s letters. All of these will prove vital in accurately assessing Paul’s views on gender and church leadership.
Since they affect the entirety of the Pauline corpus, let’s look at the social context in which the churches were located and Paul’s own social situation. In looking at the contexts surrounding the Pauline churches, the most obvious detail that should strike any student of the first century is the extremely low status of females in Hellenistic culture (Harnack, 1908; Chadwick, 1967; Stark, 1996). This led to a multiplicity of problems, including female infanticide. In fact, out of six hundred Delphi families reconstructed by Lindsay (1968), only six had raised more than one daughter (see Stark, 1996). The result was an extreme imbalance in sex ratios (approximately 140 males to 100 females). It is virtually impossible to obtain a sex ratio over 106/100 without serious tampering. In fact, Dio Cassius, the senator and historian of the late third century, suggested that the population decline experienced by the Empire was due to its historic shortage of females (The Roman History).
As females were of such low value even within Hellenistic families, they were certainly not privileged with investments such as education or even basic literacy. This was particularly true among slaves and non-citizens. This was true even among Jewish families, as was suggested by one second century Rabbi, it was preferable for the teachings of the Torah to be burned than for them to be given to a woman (Numbers Rabbah 9:48; see Keener, 1992). These inequities will play a major role in determining the roles with which women in the first century church were entrusted. We’ll get back to this…
Before we do, let’s examine the status of women in the context of Paul’s own life and ministry. In practice, did Paul really exclude women from leadership or other positions of responsibility? That is a difficult case to make when we see who he placed in those positions. The presentation of his most determinative letter in the life of the church (Romans) was entrusted to Phoebe—not only a woman, but a deaconess in Cenchrea, the eastern seaport on the Corinthian isthmus. Within this same letter Paul sends greetings to Junia (always a feminine name in Greek) and her partner, Andronicus (we have no evidence about any marital connection between them). Paul commends them as being “outstanding among the apostles.” There have been those who have attempted to exclude Junia from apostleship by suggesting that Paul really meant that this pair was simply well known among the apostles, but that is an extremely weak grammatical stretch.

Let’s begin our exploration with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which is often quoted to exclude women from teaching/preaching in the church. In fact, I remember this argument being put forward when I (David) was a young college student to suggest that one of our female Biblical Studies professors should not be allowed to teach at a Christian College. In this passage, Paul states that

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

On the surface, Paul’s language in this passage appears to limit the participation of women to a greater extent than is seen in the vast majority of evangelical churches today. However, there are those who infer from Paul’s statement that women should not be allowed to teach/preach in the context of the church.

It is easy to arrive at this conclusion when interpreting a passage for all that it could possibly mean, but this is a pretty weak interpretive strategy (Keener, 1992). We would do better to focus on the evidence concerning what Paul meant (meaning) before we arrive at a conclusion of what it might mean for us in a modern context (application). In fact, even as written, Paul is not saying that women should not teach or engage in church leadership.

If we want to apply the scripture as written, the women in the church would not be allowed to speak at all in any capacity. In fact, to apply it strictly, we may not allow women in Bible study at all since the appropriate place for them to learn is at home from their own husbands. Thus, even those among us who would be the most restrictive of female participation in leadership are applying some form of softening interpretation when attempting to adapt this teaching in a modern context. Let’s explore some contextual issues which, if we are intellectually honest, will affect this interpretation.

Let’s begin with the most obvious. If Paul is prohibiting women from speaking, teaching, or preaching in 1 Cor. 14, then he must have altered his opinion since writing the following imperatives in three chapters earlier in 11:4-5:

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

While it is tempting to launch into a discussion on the cultural significance of head coverings here, the point that is relevant to our topic is that Paul gives these instructions under the assumption that some women will be praying or preaching in the church setting at Corinth. With this in mind, we look at the location of Paul’s instructions within the context of the letter. These imperatives are placed in the context of Paul’s emphasis on maintaining order and discipline in the ritual life of the church. Having already discussed the disruption caused by the inappropriate use of spiritual gifts, Paul turns his attention to the problems caused by women in Corinth disrupting the teaching and worship life of the community by asking questions that could easily be answered by their husbands at home.

In a sense, Paul is not restricting the teaching offered by learned women as much as he is instructing unlearned women to learn in a manner that is less disruptive to the proceedings. It also implies that men, who would have had greater access to the Torah (in Jewish homes) and the philosophers, to assist their wives in understanding. Paul is suggesting that if the women cannot learn in a way that is less disruptive, then they are to stay quiet and ask their husbands for assistance when they get home.

Another common question about this instruction is whether Paul is writing as a missionary to assist the Corinthian churches, or as a theologian writing a paraenesis (general moral teaching) for all the churches for all time. This question almost answers itself. In this letter, Paul clearly shows a familiarity with the Corinthian situation that there is very little doubt that he is writing specifically to them.

The next question concerns the issue that, while writing specifically to the Corinthian churches, does Paul intend this to be universal teaching for all churches in all contexts. Of all his letters, Paul only writes this to Corinth (and possibly Ephesus if you read 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in a similar fashion, yet none of the other churches in the Pauline circuit receive these instructions. We would ask if it is responsible to universally apply this to all churches in all contexts when Paul did not give these instructions to any other churches in his own time. This is especially applicable when many modern readers use it to exclude over half of the body of Christ from leadership and other positions of responsibility.

Now we move to 1 Timothy 2:11-14

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Even though this is not what he says, if we are to interpret Paul’s instructions as a universal prohibition on women speaking in the church context, then Paul again must have changed his position since writing 1 Corinthians 11, where he clearly assumes women will be praying and prophecying (preaching) within the worship life of the community. At the time, the number of women capable of teaching/preaching would have been relatively small. As we stated earlier, women were far more likely to be novices (not able to teach) because of their common lack of education and knowledge in their oppressive misogynist culture. This would certainly not apply to all women (e.g., Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia), but it would have surely applied to most females in the churches of the first century.

Paul continues with one of the most misunderstood, yet most often quoted, passages in the modern church. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” is often cited as the evidence that slams to the door on all discussion of female leadership within the church. Upon a more informed look, that door certainly does not slam as loudly as some might think. Paul’s use of the present-indicative οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω suggests that Paul is not teaching this as a command/imperative. Perhaps a more natural thought for thought paraphrase in modern English would be “I am not allowing a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” While Paul is not necessarily implying that this is strictly a temporary practice, he is not commanding it as a universal prohibition either.

When we combine this with the presence of female leadership in the Pauline Circle (Euodia and Syntyche, Junia, Pheobe, Priscilla, Lydia), we certainly cannot interpret this statement as a general prohibition of female teaching. Paul is clearly, in the present tense, prohibiting some women from teaching or usurping authority. The question remains, knowing that Paul has already placed women in authority, is why these particular women whom he writes about to Timothy are disallowed (Wall and Steele, 2012). The fact remains, the females Paul prohibits from teaching are excluded because they are unlearned (novices), not strictly because they are females. More light falls on this when we look at Paul’s illustration of the Genesis account when he says Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα· καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν (For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.) Paul suggests that Eve was deceived as a result of her place in the order of creation. In the Genesis account, Adam was created first. Created later, Eve was not present when Adam received his instruction from God regarding which fruit in the garden may be eaten. Adam did not adequately fulfill his responsibility bringing Eve to the same level of understanding, so in her ignorance she was easily deceived. With her inclusion in his argument, Paul is suggesting that the life situation of first century women was analogous to that of Eve. They were less literate and learned, and therefore, much more likely to be taken in by false teachers—not because they were female, but because they were novices.

From teaching we move on to 1 Timothy 3, perhaps one of the favorite passages among those who seek to exclude women from service and responsibility. While among the most abused contexts, this discussion of the qualifications of deacons is also among the easiest to clarify if read with some intellectual discipline.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Of all the passages we have discussed, this discussion of overseers and deacons is the one we hear cited more than any other. To clarify this, we must first understand that this chapter constitutes a discussion of the qualifications of overseers and deacons. Within this context, the first interpretive issue is Paul’s use of the masculine forms he sometimes uses within the passage. For example, Paul’s statement Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ (This word is faithful: If anyone aspires to oversight, it is a good thing he desires to do.). While τις (anyone) is neuter, Paul does use the masculine form ἐπιθυμεῖ (he desires) as he does with most of the verbs related to both overseers and deacons. We have heard this used often among those who aren’t paying close attention to the Greek to demonstrate that Paul intends for only males to perform either of those duties. Yet, in first century Greek, masculine forms are used in describing any group that might contain even one male (even if it includes one hundred females). This is not unlike the practice among modern English speakers who might say, “if one wants to be a physician, he should go to medical school.” This does not indicate that only males can be a physician, but the masculine is used as an all-inclusive form.
The second interpretive difficulty is that Paul asserts that overseers and deacons must be μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (husband of one wife). Countless times has this been used to demonstrate that overseers and deacons must be men, but this is not even what Paul says. Paul asserts that leaders such as overseers and deacons must be “husbands,” not mere men. If were are to take this in the literal sense as many do in theologically conservative evangelical churches, then Paul, Timothy, and many of the apostles would not qualify as for these responsibilities. Paul’s assertion is that these leaders must be monogamous (and a Hellenistic woman would not have had multiple husbands), not men.

While our arguments will not convince everyone, our goal is to show that those who do not accept suppression of women are not, as we are constantly accused of, throwing the Scriptures out the window. Far from it. We value highly the teachings of the Bible and come to our conclusions because we believe it is what the Bible teaches and not simply based on modern cultural norms.


We promised a proactive treatment as well, and to set that discussion let us think about the general progression of the biblical material. One does not have to work too hard to see in the Bible a move from an emphasis on kingdoms and empire that use power and might toward the liberty of the individual. In broad sweeping schemes we see the blessing of God moving from kings, priests, and prophets toward the personal and liberating relationship of the individual. Jesus informs Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). This simple statement informs us that Jesus rejects the power structures of this world. Those power structures include kings, emperors, armies, slave masters, and gender bias. The Messiah proved this to be true when he built his church after his resurrection because he bypassed the need for priests, kings, and prophets. Something new happened and that was a relationship with the individual.
This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. It is exactly what Joel said would happen. The Hebrew prophet was stuck in a world where men and priests held all the spiritual cards, yet he glimpsed a future when it would not be so.

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. (Joe 2:28-29)

There are many shocking elements to this prophecy. One is that the Spirit of the Lord is promised to all flesh, meaning all human beings. It is a universal promise that transcends the de facto xenophobia practiced by the Hebrews in antiquity. That the Lord God would allow gentiles to access spiritual enlightenment, without any conditions or ceremony is beyond imagination. It is a divine glimpse.

The second shocker here is the double emphasis on both men and women engaging in spiritual activity. If all Joel said was the last line, “Even on the male and female servants . . . I will pour out my Spirit” then one could argue he is saying that they can be spiritual without making a statement regarding total equality. But Joel doesn’t just say that. Instead, he says both sons and daughters shall “prophesy.”

The third shocking revelation in this prophesy is that ageism is obliterated. It would be a false technique, in our view, to parse some kind of nuanced difference between dreams and visions in this passage as Hebrew parallelism is likely at play. The point is not the difference between what the young and the old are doing but instead that both young and old are doing it. We moderns might read that passage and say that the norm is for the young to dream and have visions and the prophetic anomaly here is that the old are allowed to tag along on the vision quest. This is backward from the likely way the Hebrews understood it. Old age was revered, and the wisdom of time that the priest or prophet gave gravitas to the dreams. For Joel, the anomaly is that he young will tap into these dreams and it will transcend the generations. Perhaps one can hear the echo of Paul encouraging Timothy. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young.

All barriers are crushed.

If this passage only existed in Joel, that would be enough to cause a serious discussion about the ability for men and women to both prophesy—to lead, teach, preach, and speak in the community of faith. Yet, this is not all we have. One of the most fascinating parts of studying the Hebrew Bible is examining how the first Christ-followers interpreted the texts. Thus, Peter quotes Joel in the very first sermon of the new covenant age. Peter felt the rush of the wind, saw the tongues of fire, heard the miracles of hearing and he knew exactly what was going on. It was the fulfillment of Joel.

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream drams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.(Acts 2:16-18)

There is enough here for us to discuss for a long, long time. Pentecost was many things, but it was not simple. However, the major emphasis we have in bringing this text is the male and female aspect. That Peter quotes the text so authoritatively could tell us something important. That important fact is that men and women were both gathered in the upper room praying (c/f Acts 1:13-14) and when the Spirit manifests himself it is both men and women who run down the streets and begin to preach.
There was complete gender equality on the day the church was born.

Another favorite passage is Galatians 3:28, where Paul states that

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

One wonders if Paul was thinking of Joel when he wrote these words, for they echo the destruction of barriers between ethnicity and gender. Paul lived in a world filled with the obscenity of slavery, and he could see the arch of faith bending away from such an economic arrangement. This passage, more than any other, spells out that in the church there can be no barriers or classes. There is no ethnic superiority, there is no economic superiority, there is no gender superiority. A poor gentile woman is on equal footing in every way as a rich Jewish man.

One final passage, we think, might help pull the curtains. We have already alluded to, in our early defensive stand, the role of such women in the early church as Phoebe, Junia, and Priscilla. Our contention is that these women were not alone. Who else could have led the early Philippian church other than Lydia (Acts 16:11-15). Paul and Silas were there for such a short period of time, who could have discipled the jailor and his family in that same city? When one eliminates the gender bias of generations, it becomes apparent that both men and women were involved in every aspect of ministry. This is apparent, we think, from Acts 21:8-9.

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.

Paul and his traveling companions (including Luke) were on their way to Jerusalem. They stayed with the famous evangelist on their way. Philip was one of the original seven of the Jerusalem church. Now we can imagine him older in years, and he seems to have raised his daughters to lead with spiritual gifts as the Bible says they all four prophesied. This probably means they were teachers in the context of the church.
The Scriptures gives us no further information, but it is startling.
From these texts we believe a case can be made, a strong case, that women were as involved, if not more involved, in the leadership ministries of the early church. It is the conservative, biblical, fundamental view of the Bible that comes to this conclusion. Those who hold to a view that women are not qualified for certain ministries in the church simply because of their gender must be forced to deal with these passages, for in our view they are clearer, much clearer than the texts use to support subjugation. Taken en masse, it is apparent that the Bible, and the early church in specific, pushes us toward egalitarian equality.
**Very special thanks to our longtime friend and mentor, Robert W. Wall, for his advice on the verbal aspect of the 1 Timothy passages. Thanks Rob, for the past twenty years of friendship and support.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church, Penguin Publishing, 1993.
Dio Cassius. The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus. Penguin Classics, 1987.
Harnack, Adolf von. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, University of Michigan, 1908.
Keener, Craig. Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
Lindsay, Jack. The Ancient World: Manners and Morals. G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1968.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton University Press, 1996.
Wall, Robert and Richard B. Steele, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. In The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary, Eerdmans Publishing, 2012.

A Few Thoughts on the Papal Visit to the United States

The current visit of Pope Francis has attracted a great deal of media attention this week—welcomed attention in our opinion, if for no other reason than it has taken the spotlight off of Donald Trump for a few precious moments. abc7chicagodotcomWe have enjoyed a few conversations about this profoundly decent man as we have seen his visits to Washington DC, Philadelphia, and New York City.
Our conversations have been quite mixed, almost as mixed as our thoughts. Why would we say this? As a matter of our Biblical interpretation in the free-church tradition, we see little scriptural justification for an institution such as the papacy. It just doesn’t fit our view of scripture or of community life.
Historically, Baptists have been some of the most vehement anti-Catholics, to our shame. There is much of Roman Catholic doctrine that we find odious, wrong, or just downright silly, but there is also much of it that we find true. We serve the same Lord, but in radically different ways. It is a grace that the Lord has allowed different structures for different kinds of people to respond to the same Lord.
Now, back to the Bishop of Rome. His speech before congress was, homiletically speaking, brilliant. He presented himself humbly as one wanting to dialogue—not preach, not chastise, not catechize, but to dialogue about key issues through the framework of the lives of American historical figures. That provided a bridge to his audience. It is impossible to go wrong citing Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. Likewise, presenting two people most Americans have never heard of created a teaching moment.
The issues he addressed, seem to us, valid. Who would want a spiritual leader that didn’t advocate for stewardship of the environment, care for the poor, openness to immigrants, defense of the family, civility in behavior, and stress the sanctity of all human life? His hermeneutics of the Golden Rule were spot on.
savetibetdotorgSome have argued that a religious figure should not be embraced in such a way as Pope Francis has been. To this we call shenanigans. People should remember that the Dalai Lama made a similar sweep through congress only last year, although he didn’t address a joint session, Benjamin Netanyahu has, and so too did Mikhail Gorbachev. Pluralism does not mean all religious discourse is unwelcomed, it simply means that all religions are part of the public discourse. For crying out loud, it says “In God We Trust” above the platform of the House!  In a free pluralistic society, there are many ways in which our people approach the Divine and that should be part of the conversation.
The bottom line is, if you’re going to have a pope, which we don’t think you should, but if you’re going to have one, Pope Francis is a fantastic one to have. We like him, so far.
While Pope Francis I (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) is the Roman Catholic Church’s first from the Jesuit order, he chose the name of Francis to honor St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of the Franciscans. He has clearly demonstrated a humble spirit in the way he has occupied the role of Pope by choosing more modest accommodations than usual quarters in the Apostolic Palace, wearing much less ornate vestments and jewelry than his predecessors, and his unabashed support for the poor along with his continual discussion of the structural problems which perpetuate economic inequality and poverty. As is evidenced by his reception here in the United States, with the exception of Bill Maher, even those who vehemently disagree with his traditional positions on many controversial issues very much respect his authenticity in representing Christ.
As for us, we find Pope Francis endearing because the papacy is finally occupied by one who takes Matthew 25:31-46 seriously. This is the teaching of Jesus regarding whose faith he will find credible at the final judgment. The light of Jesus’ answer should put many of us to shame when he focuses on our response to the poor, disenfranchised, sick, and imprisoned. While many in the church have become rigidly pharisaical regarding peripheral or even biblically unsupported issues, Pope Francis has demonstrated what real spiritual leadership looks like by graciously declining a lunch with the leadership of the United States Congress in favor of dining with the homeless of Washington D.C. In a spirit of humility, Pope Francis neglected to mention that he was not only eating with the homeless, but he will be working to serve them at the lunch provided at St. Patrick’s Church.  This represents the theme of ‘pastoral ministry’ which he has brought back to the Roman Catholic Church, and we agree with him on that wholeheartedly.
As Christians who have spent a lifetime in the free-church tradition, we find the institutional papacy a little off-putting. But if there is to be a pope, we are sure excited that it is a profoundly Christ-like individual like Pope Francis.

images from abc7chicago.com and savetibet.org

Some Thoughts About Donald Trump

We get it.
We will not pretend to not understand why some people have hitched their proverbial horses to the Donald Trump wagon. People are angry with their government. They feel betrayed. There is a sense of disconnect between voters, primarily conservative voters, and what has been coming out of Washington for more than a generation.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: Donald Trump listens at the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C Groundbreaking Ceremony at Old Post Office on July 23, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/WireImage)

This is evident in the fact that the current top contenders for the Republican nomination for President are outsiders when it comes to national politics.

Anger is a large part of Trump’s appeal. He comes across just as angry as most people are. Angry at China. Angry at Mexico. Angry at gangs. Angry at ISIS. Angry at the tax code. Angry at a lack of opportunity. Angry at rising prices. Angry at being told you’re intolerant and backward. Angry that things are changing. Angry because everyone else is not angry too.

But there is more than anger going on. There is also a great deal of anxiety. Indeed, anxiety might be fueling the Trump movement more than anything else. The anxiety comes from a feeling of helplessness. People feel helpless because the economy hasn’t turned around like we were promised. People feel helpless because America is fractured, and the political class is facilitating it. People feel helpless because ISIS doesn’t seem to have an easy solution. People feel helpless because their children don’t understand them, and they don’t understand their children. People feel helpless because something they might say could offend someone.

The economy. The price of oil. The environment. Russia. China.

The anxiety is exacerbated by the appearance of weakness. Whether you support President Obama or not, it is undeniable that he takes a weak stand on most issues and as a whole projects weakness abroad and at home. The President is thoughtful, reflective, careful, and deliberative. To most people that looks like weakness. Putin has certainly interpreted it as such.

Enter Donald Trump. Nothing about him appears weak. He is confident, brash, rich, and he has a spotlight. Most people who say they support Donald Trump are looking for strength, attitude, and posture. They want someone who has strong ideas about ISIS, about oil, about trade, and immigration. Even if those ideas are not well thought out or even rational. It looks like leadership.

There are times when Donald Trump calls to memory Teddy Roosevelt with his manliness, in-your-face style, and recklessness. There are other times he reminds of Winston Churchill because he is unabashedly nationalistic. He wants to sound like Ronald Reagan who stood strong against all adversaries, domestic and foreign.

But Trump doesn’t quite hit those same notes. It took some thought to figure out why, but it has something to do with his focus. A key example of this comes from an answer to a question at his Iowa press conference. Trump was asked to follow-up on a statement he’s made several times that he loved the Bible. The reporter asked him why he loved the Bible, and could he reference a particular part of it. Here is the exchange as reported by Breitbart.com,

Tuesday in Iowa before his campaign event, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump was asked at his press conference, “You say the Bible is your favorite book, is there anyone in the Bible that you relate to that you can compare your life to and look up to?”
Trump said, “Nobody that I would compare to. It’s a great question. I love the Bible. I love the Bible. I’m a Protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. I went to Sunday school. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking was my pastor. To this day one of the great speakers I’ve seen. You hated to leave church. You hated when the sermon was over. That’s how great he was at Marble Collegiate Church. And I also had a church in Jamaica Queens. I grew up in Queens, First Presbyterian Church of Jamaica. I was there for years and that’s where I went to Sunday school. One of the things that’s so incredible about the New Hampshire numbers is I lead with everybody. I lead with old, with young.”

“As you saw, everybody,” he continued. “But one of the groups I lead with substantially evangelicals and I led in Iowa, too, with the evangelicals because they get it. They are incredible people that are smart and want to see the country thrive. But the beautiful thing because it was such a comprehensive poll in New Hampshire and they just went over everything, Tea Party like leading by a lot. Moderates leading by a lot. Everybody. It’s literally, I think, you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but I think I led with every single group and by substantial numbers. So I was very honored to lead with the evangelicals. I love the evangelicals.”

Notice what happens? Trump is asked to talk about the Bible, and he shifted it in two directions. The first direction was to talk about churches and preachers. The one preacher he mentioned was Norman Vincent Peale. Peale was hardly a Bible man. People may debate his validity in ministry, but his emphasis was upon the individual’s ability to positively improve their own life. Most Baptists just couldn’t stomach Peale back in the day, leading to the often quoted proverb, “Peale is appalling but Paul is appealing.” That is Paul as in St. Paul, who could actually quote scripture.

The second thing Trump does is to shift the discussion away from the Bible and faith altogether and point to . . . drumroll please . . . himself! That’s right, Donald Trump is asked about the Bible, what he liked and how he related to it, and instead of quoting Psalm 23, The Beatitudes, The Prophets, or even 1 Corinthians 13, he namedrops a long dead preacher of pop psychology and then talks about how far ahead in the polls he is with evangelicals.

That is probably because Donald Trump does not know the Bible, or anything about the Bible, and really doesn’t care much for it. His materialism, many marriages, lack of compassion, boastfulness and ego demonstrate that he is only self-centered. That is what is different between him and Roosevelt, Churchill, and Reagan. Those men, whether you agreed with them or not, each earnestly thought they were doing what was best for their country. Trump only wants what is best for him. In that regard he resembles many other seekers of power throughout history who trumpeted the virtues of religion for their own purposes such as Napoleon, who said that “religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”

This brings us to our assessment of why Americans, not just evangelicals, should be wary of Trump. As social scientists (Jamie, while a pastor, is also an historian and David is a sociologist), it is almost impossible not to see in Trump the majority of the characteristics of psychopathy. In observing his speeches and performance in two debates, virtually all of Robert Hare’s (the leading research in the area of psychopathy) criteria are readily seen in Trump’s behavior—criteria such as these few…

–glibness and superficial charm—Trump!
–grandiose sense of self-worth—Trump!
–pathological lying—Trump!
–cunning and manipulative—Trump!
–lack of remorse—Trump! (check out Trump’s dodging of the ‘forgiveness’ issue by clicking here)
–emotional shallowness—Trump!
–callousness and lack of empathy—Trump!
–unwillingness to accept responsibility for actions—Trump!
–lack of realistic long-term goals—Trump!

Now, lest we be accused of suggesting that Trump is a rapist or murderer and would therefore fit in with the immigrants and minorities he so often speaks of, most psychopaths do not end up becoming serial killers. Most do, in fact, go into big business. His narcissistic qualities are precisely why Trump was incapable of calling out a supporter when he inappropriately asserted that “America’s real problem is Muslims,” one of whom is President Obama, “who is not even an American.” Unlike Senator John McCain, who quickly corrected a supporter who said similar things in 2008, Trump cannot entertain the possibility that one or more of his fans might be outside the mainstream.

While it appears that even some of Trump’s supporters are tiring of his attempts to insult his way to the Republican nomination, many seem to find his verbal abuse and callousness appealing for the sake of spitting in the face of political correctness. In fact, he is tearing to shreds with his antics any sense of decorum or civility necessary for a republic to function. He has taken to the extreme what Os Guinness was concerned about when he suggested that,

Name-calling, insult, ridicule, guilt by association, caricature, innuendo, accusation, denunciation, negative ads, and deceptive and manipulative videos have replaced deliberation and debate. Neither side talks to the other side, only about them; and there is no pretense of democratic engagement, let alone a serious effort at persuasion.

We share the frustration of political correctness run amok, but our aversion to Trump has nothing to do with political correctness. From a historical Baptist Christian perspective, this is about refusing to support public behavior that is such an affront to Christian thinking. From the perspective of a concerned citizen, this is about attempting to preserve whatever remnants are left of the civility of the American public square. Unfortunately, the most thoughtful respondents to Trump’s antics have been shouted to the margins by those who confuse decibel level with credibility. We prefer, as we have so often, Bonhoeffer’s approach when he said,

Unless we have the courage to fight for a revival of wholesome reserve between man and man, we shall perish in an anarchy of human values . . . Socially it means the renunciation of all place-hunting, a break with the cult of the “star,” an open eye both upwards and downwards, especially in the choice of one’s more intimate friends, and pleasure in private life as well as courage to enter public life. Culturally it means a return from the newspaper and the radio to the book, from feverish activity to unhurried leisure, from dispersion to concentration, from sensationalism to reflection, from virtuosity to art, from snobbery to modesty, from extravagance to moderation.

It’s unfortunate when a man like Mr. Trump, confusing star power with populism, uses religious structures, media, and combative gimmicks to win attention and sound tough. In reality, he may be just a psychopathic dictator waiting to happen because it is really all just about him.

image from yahoonews.com

That Indiana Law Everyone Is Talking About

The Crossroads at a Crossroads

The Crossroads at a Crossroads

The State of Indiana recently passed a new law, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is similar to laws in other states.  These laws are commonly abbreviated RFRA (pronounced riff-ra) and are not unusual in American life.  The difference is that Indiana’s law, as we understand it, takes the language a bit further by pushing religious freedom decisions into the sphere of the marketplace, and there is no state law that bars discrimination based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.  Most people believe the Indiana RFRA law is designed to discriminate against gay people.

Jamie’s View

If I understand the Indiana law correctly, and I may not because I am not a lawyer, it means that a person can refuse to serve someone because of the individual’s religious convictions.  This means that a Muslim greeting card owner has the right to not sell me a box of birthday cards because I eat bacon.  Likewise it means that a Pentecostal purist who owns a butcher shop can refuse to sell meat to someone who drinks wine.  It means a Baptist who owns the sandwich shop can refuse to serve the ham and cheese sandwich to the Episcopalian who practices infant baptism.

You see where this falls apart?  If we allow the person who is working in the public sphere of commerce and trade to use religious persuasion as an excuse to not serve someone, then we are de facto creating a world where anyone can refuse to serve anyone else.  It is the ultimate, perhaps, slippery slope toward social chaos.    

At face value, the Indiana RFRA law makes no sense, destroys community relationships, rejects Jesus’ call to serve the whole world, and only adds fuel to the fires of misunderstanding between Evangelicals and secular world. 

More troubling, perhaps, is the wrapping of the issue of homosexuality with religious liberty.  Religious liberty actually should move in the other direction.  Liberty means people are free to choose how to live their personal life without the public judgment and oppression of society.  The Indiana RFRA law does exactly that—it takes personal choices and opens them up to public scrutiny.  I understand that people are against gay marriage, that it is unsettling, and I’m not really a big fan of it either, but even more, I cannot support discrimination.  I have said and written many times before that the burden of freedom means people should be able to live their lives as they choose, and I have the freedom to say and teach what I think about it, but I don’t have the right to restrict others in their pursuit of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and buying a cake.  The Indiana law is discrimination and has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom.  

Once upon a time it was Baptists who championed individual choice, liberty, and freedom. 

David’s View

As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.—Abraham Lincoln

I have been keeping my eye on this recently, primarily because Arkansas is getting ready to pass such a bill (and they will).  Essentially, Jamie and I see eye to eye on this issue, as we do with many others (after all, this is not a debate blog, but one exploring historical Baptist perspectives).  The Indiana bill suggests that a “person” can avoid engaging in behaviors or commerce with others, if that behavior or commerce would substantially violate their own religious freedom.  In short, I don’t like this trend at all, on either political or religious grounds.  Here are a few of my concerns.

1)       Unfortunately, Section 7 of Chapter 9 of the bill defines a “person” as one of the following:  “(1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.”  

Thus, an organization, no matter how complex, is also considered a “person” for the purposes of this legislation.  This is not the first time this problem has come up.  The United States Supreme Court ruled recently that, regarding campaign finance reform, organizations (corporations) are equivalent to persons, and money is equivalent to free speech.  Thus, corporations giving obscene sums of money to political candidates are simply exercising their right to free speech in supporting the candidates with whom they agree.   Yet, those same corporations are giving the same obscene amount to each candidate on the ballot even when those candidates express opposing views on the issues relevant to the corporation.  This is not protecting the exercise of free speech, but protecting their ability to buy access by giving corrupting amounts of money to whomever might win the office.   This is the same issue I have with this bill.   Businesses and corporations are not individuals or private enterprises.  They are profiting from doing business in the public sphere.  Thus, they have a responsibility to the public good.  Undoubtedly, the “public” will include those whose lifestyles and practices I might find personally offensive, and in a free society, we cannot discriminate which of the public we will serve.  I thought we had already dealt with this issue when we got rid of signs such as these:


2)      While I might disagree or even take offense at someone’s lifestyle, I fail to see how selling them a product, serving them a piece of pizza, or having them as a student in my class would be a violation of religious freedom.   This level of social intercourse does not require that I adopt their lifestyle or approve of it—and this is where the problem lies.   We have equated “tolerance” and “approval.”  In a free society, people have a right to “be” who they are as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others to “be” who they are.  If I do business with someone whose lifestyle I might disagree with, this does not infringe on my right to be what I have already chosen to be—a businessman.   If we are to remain a free society, we are required to tolerate those who make difference choices (yes, even those one might believe are morally reprehensible), but we do not require that others approve of those choices.   Too many among us seem to believe that being civil and tolerant is indicative of moral approval, and those are two conceptually distinct ideas.  It’s very telling that when the Baptists were being persecuted in Virginia for preaching without a license by a religious majority who were offended by their theology and lifestyle, it was Thomas Jefferson who joined with them.  This unlikely partnership resulted in The Virginia Statutes on Religious Freedom.   Why was this an unlikely partnership?  Because Thomas Jefferson could not have disagreed more with them regarding the substance of their religious choices, yet he was willing to fight for their right to choose and discuss their beliefs in the public square.

3)      As a Christian (and a Baptist), I cannot see how associating with those whose lifestyles I might disagree would violate my religious freedom or make me any less of a faithful believer.  First, normal, social commerce with someone whose lifestyle is contrary to my Christian beliefs is not indicative of my joining that lifestyle any more than it indicates they have converted to Christianity.   I serve a Messiah who was chided for continually associating with tax-gatherers and sinners.  This same Messiah prayed on behalf of those who were unjustly executing him.  Second, if I were a Muslim waiter and afraid that serving bacon to a patron would violate my religious freedom, that is a choice that should have been made when I decided to accept a job at a restaurant that served pork products. 

As a result, not only do I find this type of legislating troubling from a political perspective, I find it morally outrageous as a follower of Jesus Christ.

The Reflective Christian’s Heartache: The Pain of Finding a Theological Home

For today's Underground Baptist, here is an essay from David about
the difficulties academics and intellectuals can often have in finding
nourishment within the faith community.

David Caddell, Reflectively Baptist

While I was raised in a rather fundamentalist tradition, I was fortunate to be surrounded and supported by mentors who encouraged my skepticism (not cynicism). They encouraged me to ask difficult, even painful, questions.

In college, I was fortunate to serve on staff under a pastor who encouraged me to think and feel deeply about the scriptures and God’s concern for social justice. It was during this time that I first encountered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s paper entitled, “My Pilgrimage to Non-Violence.” At that time, I had no idea just how determinative King’s views would eventually become for me, nor how prophetic he would be of my own experience of the church. It was in my senior year at California Baptist University that I first read these words:

Ten years ago I was just entering my senior year in theological seminary. …Having been raised in a rather strict fundamentalistic tradition, I was occasionally shocked as my intellectual journey carried me through new and sometimes complex doctrinal lands. But despite the shock the pilgrimage was always stimulating, and it gave me a new appreciation for objective appraisal and critical analysis. My early theological training did the same for me as the reading of [David] Hume did for [Immanuel] Kant: it knocked me out of my dogmatic slumber.

At this stage of my development I was a thoroughgoing liberal. Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I could never find in fundamentalism. I became so enamored of the insights of liberalism that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything that came under its name. I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.


Dr. King, also Reflectively Baptist

The basic change in my thinking came when I began to question some of the theories that had been associated with so-called liberal theology. Of course there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to cherish always: its devotion to the search for truth, its insistence on an open and analytical mind, its refusal to abandon the best light of reason. Liberalism’s contribution to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.

By the time I was finished with graduate school and in a different church setting, I began to become increasingly uncomfortable with my experience on Sundays, sensing that I was expected to check my intellect at the door. I was surprised by the reception I received from many fellow Baptist Christians as someone who had lost their confidence in Christian orthodoxy as a result of brainwashing at the hands of a secular university establishment that was at odds with Christianity. I suppose I was surprised since I received far more support for my faith from graduate professors who did not share that faith than I did from most of my California Baptist University professors.

I was a young professor at a Christian university, experiencing what I thought the church should look like–not at church, however, but in my workplace. I came to feel increasingly out of place at church and unwelcome by my pastors who repeatedly suggested that a vibrant faith in Christ was inconsistent with the intellectual life. More and more tired of the intimation that reason was not a tool that could be used effectively in service to a life of faith, I began to realize that, if I were trapped on a deserted island with my pastor and Christopher Hitchens, I would find both equally annoying (although I’m sure I would find Hitchens much more entertaining).

Why was I feeling so uncomfortable? Because the intellectually reflective Christian has indeed been marginalized in the world of conservative Protestantism, being treated as if thinking too deeply about the scriptures or the world around us is an undesirable enterprise. This abandonment of reason is precisely why I will never again feel truly at home in my religious tradition. The intellectual laziness at the heart of the rejection of reason has fostered a strongly Baconian approach to studying the scriptures, where evangelicals attempt to “convince their audience that they are merely contemplating simple conclusions from the Bible, ” when they arrived at those simple conclusions because they are incapable of considering how those conclusions have been shaped by their own nineteenth century assumptions of how a text should be read (a disgraceful intellectual habit that remains to this day). My discomfort stems, not from their conclusions (although they can be strange at times), but from their confidence in the infallibility of their own understanding. This unreflective confidence in their own understanding indicates an extreme arrogance and naivete. In other words, it’s not their confidence in the scriptures that is problematic. It’s the uncritical faith in themselves that is worrisome.

In the meantime, to where am I going to retreat? Like Martin Luther King, I cannot see myself ever finding theological meaning among the liberal mainline. While I very much enjoy my discussions with my liberal Christian friends, I can never feel at home with liberalism’s failure to come to grips with the reality of human sinfulness, need of Christ’s redemption, and, as King suggested, that reason must be tempered by “the purifying power of faith” if it is to avoid human rationalizations and distortions. While I remain convinced of the invaluable partnership between faith and reason, I can never feel comfortable with theological liberalism’s lack of patience with the supernatural hocus-pocus in the scriptures that I happen to believe in. While I might find a more suitable sociological fit in that environment, I could never stop choking on the bones in liberal theology and anthropology that I find antithetical to scripture.

What Must We Do?
If conservative evangelicals, particularly Baptists, are to reclaim their historic identity, we are going to have to take the following painful steps:

  1. We must get over our inferiority complex causing us to declare war on academics and fight so hard to demonstrate our moral superiority to them.
  2. We must realized that our poor intellectual habits have changed the way we view the scriptures and taken us to strange theological places where we might not want to be.
  3. We must instill a sense of intellectual discipline in our Bible study which allows us to remain cognizant of how our own circumstances might be affecting our view of the scriptures.

Netanyahu, Obama, and Iran

On Tuesday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States House of Representatives.  It has been a controversial issue.  Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Netanyahu without consulting with the Obama Administration.  The Obama Administration, feeling slighted, has strongly criticized the move as partisan, mostly because Netanyahu is up for election later this month back in Israel.  For their part, Boehner and Netanyahu argue that the issue is Iran, specifically President Obama’s handling of the negotiations.  What most people are talking about is how the whole thing has strained U.S.-Israeli relations.

Jamie’s View

Netanyahu Before Congress

Netanyahu Before Congress

I actually have three, distinct thoughts on this.  First, it could all just be political grandstanding.  Boehner wants to look like the Republicans are the ones who really care about Israel, and who has answers for complicated foreign policy.  Netanyahu wants to stick it in the eye of Obama, whether.  If he loses the election, he’ll never get the chance again.  Netanyahu has felt slighted by President Obama for six years, and now he can lecture him, again, in his own backyard.  President Obama is the one who made this a big deal by loudly protesting in the media about it.  He is trying to make himself look like the one who is working to keep ‘partisan politics’ out of foreign policy.

My second thought is that this whole thing is only magnified because of the religious significance of Israel.  Obviously, it is important to many Jewish Americans, but the issue is also important to many evangelicals who believe that America’s security is tied to the ‘blessing’ of political Israel, as if political Israel is the same thing as genetic, or biblical Israel.  You have to admit, it makes it all interesting.

My third thought is the old sleight of hand idea.  The real issue is Iran.  So, just perhaps, President Obama, Boehner, and Netanyahu are all on the same page.  They are executing a deftly devised diversion.  While the whole world is looking at one thing, they will miss the real thing—which is a back door diplomatic, or maybe even military, solution to Iran.  I’m just saying, when two people fight as publicly as Obama and Netanyahu have, it makes you wonder if they are really just pulling a fast one over on us. 

David’s View

While I have intentionally avoided watching too much of this soap opera play out on television, I have had some similar thoughts, such as

1)    While I am not crazy about our treatment of Israel at the hands of the Obama administration, I do see much of this as political grandstanding on the part of Republicans in Congress (although I don’t understand why President Obama has been such a baby about it).  I tend to agree with the substance of the Republican position on Israel, I still believe strongly that foreign policy is the charter of the Executive Branch, regardless of who happens to occupy that office.  This is the essence of a rational-legal system of authority such as ours.  I don’t think I am being hypocritical here, since I have had similar concerns about the President’s foray into the legislative arena.

2)    The significance of this as a religious issue is clearly blown out of proportion by modern evangelicals, who tend to be rather Zionist due to their view of the equivalence of spiritual Israel with political Israel—a stance Paul takes strong exception to in Romans 9.  It’s also interesting how quickly we forget that many evangelicals and Jews at the end of WWII had no problem with a Jewish state being established in formerly held German territory in the event that a return to Palestine was not politically expedient.

3)    Having said this, we must not underestimate the importance of the political alliance between the U.S. and Israel.  The United States remains Israel’s only significant ally, and Israel is the only nation in the region with which the U.S. has consistently had a stable relationship.

4)    While I think Jamie’s third possibility is very interesting, I’m not a very good conspiracy theorist, and I am pretty convinced that the acrimony between Obama administration and the Boehner/Netanyahu alliance is too toxic for them to pull anything over on anyone.  It’s not a conspiracy, just a big, embarrassing mess.  It makes me wonder just how badly we covet the rest of the world’s ridicule.

image from jpost.com