Bill Smith, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On November 22, 2020 By Bill Smith In Counseling/Piety, Culture, Theology 2

Freedom From Fear

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. ~ Hebrews 2.14-15

Fear is paralyzing. Growing in the soil of uncertainty and the prospect of losing what we hold dear, fear blooms full flower, debilitating us so that we are unable to take the risks of living life. If allowed, fear will tyrannize your life, manipulating all of your thoughts and actions to avoid the perceived threats. You will see the world around you, whether people or air itself, as out to get you and those whom you hold dear. Consequently, you will live your life with a bunker mentality.

One of the main instigators of fear is lack of hope. You see little to no prospect beyond your present circumstances, so you must hold on to whatever you have right now, anxiously guarding it at all costs. And it is costing you. Your health is suffering and your joy is practically non-existent.

If people can convince you to be afraid, they can control you. They can tyrannize you. If they can convince you, for instance, that a virus will take the most precious thing away from you–your life–they can make you comply with all sorts of irrational strictures. Though the science is hardly conclusive, they will convince you to wear a mask, viewing others as a constant threat to your well-being and understanding yourself as a weaponized pathogenic murderer whose breath will slay hundreds around you. They will convince you to cut yourself off from human interaction by covering your face or avoiding holiday celebrations because of the tyranny of fear. You might even become an evangelist of fear, an ordained “Karen,” calling the infidels on social media and in stores to repent and believe the gospel of fear, adorning yourself with the vestments of fear, and participating in the sacraments of fear. You want to save the world through the world joining you in fear of death.

Fear keeps people under control. Rome used fear to bring in and sustain the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. If a nation didn’t want their gift, they would crucify hundreds and thousands to bring the rest under control. Our governments in the United States use the threat of taking away your livelihood to give you the gift of life. Keep people in fear and they will stay under control.

But what if people are not slaves to fear, especially fear of death, the ultimate threat? What if they have hope that this life is not all there is to this life? Those types of people can be trouble.

Hope is powerful. Hope draws us into the future, infusing our present words and actions with purpose and meaning. Hope will move you to take what others consider “risks,” suffer hardships, and even face death. Hope drives us. Hope defines and directs our lives. Hope subjugates fear.

The Sadducees who questioned Jesus in Luke 20 were a hopeless lot. They didn’t believe in the resurrection. Because of this, everything that they would ever have, they believed, was in this present life. They were the aristocrats in Israel empowered by Rome and liked things the way they were. Jesus proclaiming a kingdom that demands taking up a cross and following him with the hope of resurrection did not appeal to them. They had their best life now. They had their only life now. Jesus and his gospel were not expedient for their present circumstances, and his claims and actions in the temple threatened to undo their present comforts, overturning the system in which they had power and influence. The lack of hope, the fear of death, controlled them. Jesus’ hope and confidence in the face of death drove him into non-compliance with the present powers-that-be and disrupted the status quo. Fearless people rooted in hope always do.

Those of us who have taken up our crosses and followed Jesus are to have the same hope and, consequently, the same fearlessness that he had in the face of the ruling class in Israel. We are not to be controlled by fear of man or his weapon of death. That is bondage. The life that they promise under their tyranny of fear is mere existence; it is amorphous, expressionless faces, empty feasting tables, unpopulated sanctuaries, isolation, and dying alone. They do it all to save your life. They do it, they say, so that you may survive. And you may survive … for a while … but you’re not living.

Christ Jesus, by suffering death on our behalf and rising again from the dead came to free us from the bondage of the fear of death that holds us in bondage. Believe. Hope. Live.

On November 15, 2020 By Bill Smith In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom Like

Taxes

The issue of taxes can be a volatile subject. A political party’s position on taxes is one of the great dividing lines that emerges in many political campaigns. Taxes don’t merely concern issues of dollars and cents (though we are all happier to keep as much money as we possibly can). Taxes speak to issues of authority, the size and scope of government, charity, private property, civic responsibility, and many other issues.

Let’s look at one particular tax for illustrative purposes: property taxes. We pay property taxes to provide a number of different services for the local area. Whether you agree with those services and the place of government in providing them is not my concern at this point. The tax itself is the issue. What does the property tax say about private property? Quite frankly, it tells the citizenry that there is no such thing as private property. You have the privilege of spending money on a piece of land and building a house on it, but the land is owned by the local government. If you don’t believe me, don’t pay your property tax. You will see who owns the land within a few months. You will be evicted from the land and house you thought you purchased.

(more…)

On November 12, 2020 By Bill Smith In Culture, Men, Wisdom 1

Letters To Young Men: Hypergamy

Dear Young Man,

In our continuing journey into masculinity and, in particular, intersexual dynamics, I will now address the subject of hypergamy (hī-pûr′gə-mē). To give credit where credit is due, Rollo Tomassi has developed this theory more than anyone else that I know of in the area of intersexual dynamics. Old PUAs (“Pick-Up Artists”) worked off of the principle of hypergamy in what they called “game.” Understanding hypergamy helps you understand why some of those cheesy game techniques worked (more or less). They hit upon some creational realities that they twisted.

Hypergamy basically means “marrying up.” It is understood in places like India to speak of women who marry into a higher caste. The story of Cinderella is something of a story of hypergamy; the poor girl catches the attention of the prince who then marries her. In the social and psychological sciences, hypergamy deals with “mating preferences.” It can refer to men marrying up, but the word primarily refers to a woman’s desire to marry someone who is superior to her in a number of areas such as physical strength, earning potential, height, humor, and other things. The woman desires a man who is of high value relative to her.

(more…)

On November 8, 2020 By Bill Smith In Discipleship, Theology Like

The Vineyard

In Luke 20 Jesus tells the story of Israel in a parable concerning a vineyard in which the lord of the vineyard has hired tenants to tend and guard his vineyard. The lord of the vineyard created this vineyard to enjoy the wine that would be produced. The tenants were expected to cultivate this vineyard so that the lord of the vineyard might have what he wished. Jesus goes on to tell how the tenants were rebellious, beating and killing the many servants the lord sent to them. Finally, he sent his only son. The tenants believed this was their opportunity to seize the inheritance for themselves, consuming the vineyard’s produce completely upon themselves. They kill the son and cast him out of the vineyard. This, as I said, is the story of Israel killing the prophets and eventually Jesus himself.

There is much on which to focus in this parable, but the underlying imagery of the parable is intriguing. A vineyard. Why a vineyard? How does the imagery of a vineyard reflect God’s relationship with his people? How does the imagery of a vineyard tell us what God expects of us?

The imagery itself is common in Scripture when speaking about Israel. In Psalm 80 we sing that Israel is a vine that has been delivered out of Egypt and planted in the land God promised. In a song closely associated with Jesus’ parable, Isaiah relates Yahweh’s condemnation of Israel with the imagery of a vineyard (Isa 5.1-7). God’s people are to be a vineyard. The purpose of a vineyard is to produce grapes that can be crushed, turned into wine, and consumed. Wine induces joy (Ps 104.15) and rest. It can also cause one to become drunk and stagger to his own destruction (Jer 25.15; Rev 14.10; 16.19). Whatever the result of the wine might be–blessing or curse–what lies at the bottom of the imagery is that wine is consumable.

Vineyards are meant to produce in order to be consumed. So it is with the lives of God’s people. We are created to produce fruit to be consumed by others: God himself, our fellow Christians, and the world around us. The question is then, “What sort of fruit are we producing?”

In the song of Isaiah (Isa 5.1-7), God found only wild grapes that weren’t beneficial in any way. Israel had not fulfilled her purpose. She was created in order to bring joy and rest to the world for those who saw her faithfulness and followed it and condemnation to those who refused to follow it. But her unfaithfulness did neither. Consequently, God tore up his vineyard. God still expects consumable fruit from his people. Paul tells us in Galatians 5.22-23 what this fruit is: “… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control….” This is the fruit that we are to be producing that is to be consumed by those around us.

How do we know if we are producing these fruits? Is it a matter of my personal evaluation of my life? Not really. You can tell what people are eating by the consequences. In the same way, you can tell what people are consuming from your life by the consequences in your relationships. Are people encouraged in your presence? Is your presence joy-inducing? Or do good folks dread to see you coming, knowing that you are going to have a list of all that has gone wrong throughout your whole life, and you’re willing to share with anyone who asks, “How are you doing?” Are your friends, spouse, and/or children at rest in your presence, able to laugh and relax, or does your presence produce tension? How do the unrighteous respond to your presence? For those longing for life, are they able to consume your presence and find that life? Are those who are in open rebellion against God repulsed by your presence? Our lives are created to be and are consumed by others around us. What kind of diet are we providing?

On November 1, 2020 By Bill Smith In Church, Culture, Politics, Theology 1

The Politics of All Saints Day

From the earliest days of history, there has been a war going on; sometimes with more visible intensity and sometimes with less, but it is always there, churning underneath friendships, marriages, and geopolitical relationships. This war is the war between the woman and the serpent, between her seed and his seed established by God just after the fall, declared plainly to us in Genesis 3.15. From the beginning, it has been a bloody battle. Cain, the seed of the serpent, killed his righteous brother, Abel, the seed of the woman, because Abel’s deeds were righteous and Cain’s were wicked (1Jn 3.12).

The battle has continued through the ages, both before and after the coming of Christ Jesus. Those opposed to God and his way of ordering life have sought to eradicate the righteous, whether they were the prophets of the old creation, Jesus himself, or his apostles. The war continues even after that first generation after Jesus’ resurrection. The early church tells us of men such as Polycarp and Justin, women such as Perpetua and Blandina along with many others. The cruel ways in which all of these died cannot be matched, but the numbers of modern-day martyrs far exceed the numbers of our early church. One author says that 2019 was one of the bloodiest years in church history. We hear of eleven Christians beheaded in Nigeria in December of 2019, and this is followed up by over 1,200 being killed in Nigeria in the first six months of 2020. Then there is the Middle East where there is what some are saying is coming close to Christian genocide. North Korea, China, Sri Lanka, and many other countries are targeting Christians for persecution and death.

The war has never stopped. While we know that there is a war, the question must be asked, What are we fighting for? Is this war merely the fact that these individuals over here don’t like the individuals on the other side of the line? No. This is a political war, and the feast of All Saints is all about politics.

The feast of All Saints began in some form or fashion early in the church. Though it is celebrated at different times in different branches of the church, there is a time in churches all around the world that the church commemorates the lives of all of the unnamed martyrs along with those loved ones we have personally known who have borne faithful witness to Christ throughout their lives and have now, having fought a good fight, have gone to their rest. Many saints’ lives are celebrated by name throughout the year. All Saints is the day for the millions of others who have no special day, giving the church a time to reflect upon those unsung heroes, as we might say, or those whom we knew personally, who encouraged us and left us an example to follow. This follows the pattern of Hebrews 11 of remembering and being encouraged by the departed faithful.

When we think about the martyrs and celebrating their lives, we probably recall the courage of a Polycarp or Thomas Cranmer who faced the flames, or Ignatius, who was torn to pieces by lions in a Roman arena. Their courage rooted in faith was exemplary and is to be emulated by all of us in our daily lives. But their deaths witnessed to more than just personal courage rooted in their own convictions. Their deaths were a proclamation to the world, and particularly their persecutors, that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.

In Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection, the nature of his kingdom was revealed as one that had power over death itself. Being that this was the greatest power of any government over its people, a power that kept people subservient through fear of death, Jesus Christ and his people declared through their willingness to die that all political systems, all governments, were ultimately subservient to Jesus’ lordship and would, eventually, be subjugated by him. The Christian faith threatened to undo all of the political systems based on the fear of death. Martyrs were and are the ultimate witness to the principalities and powers that their time is short.

We have a hard time in America understanding martyrdom because we view religion as a private commitment that is not to interfere with politics. As Amy Coney Barrett proudly proclaimed, her personal religious beliefs would not interfere with judgments about the law. And that’s the way it ought to be. Don’t bring religion into politics. There should be a wall of separation between the church and the state, right?

When we think like this, we yield the field, forsake our mission, and are poor stewards of the inheritance left to us by the martyrs. The Christian mission has always been political because the purpose of man is political; that is, we were created to take dominion, build a kingdom, build the city, the polis, of God so that every area of life images the life of God’s heaven. There is no “secular” space in this sense; some sort of neutral space where God does not claim absolute rule. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus was granted all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father (Matt 28.18; cf. also Phil 2.5-11). Through the blood of his cross, Jesus reconciled the world to himself, putting everything under his lordship, visible or invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers (Col 1.15-20).

The word gospel itself, as it was used in the first century, was a political announcement. It was used to speak of the birthday or the conquest of a king. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the announcement that Jesus is Lord; that he reigns, having received the nations as his inheritance, just as the Father promised. All kings must come and bow and kiss the Son lest he be angry (cf. Pss 2; 72). As we proclaim the gospel, the church is a threat to the political systems in rebellion against the Christ of God.

As we worship, offering up our prayers, God shakes up the geopolitical landscape (cf. Revelation, esp. 8.1-4). Worship is a political action.

The martyrs did not give their lives because they had personal disputes about private, interior religion. They were killed because the church’s existence and her proclamation that Jesus is Lord threatened to undo all of the kingdoms of the world–the political systems. They could courageously give their lives because death had been conquered, stripping every satanic kingdom of its greatest weapon: fear of death (Heb 2.14-15).

We may not give our lives as many of our fathers and mothers did or as many of our brothers and sisters are doing even now. But we must live with the bold faith of the martyrs, pressing the crown rights of King Jesus through every square inch of the world.

On October 25, 2020 By Bill Smith In Culture, Discipleship, Politics, Theology Like

Authorized

What if your pastor and elders mandated that every person attending worship must wear a toga? They have concluded that this will be good for the spiritual health of the church by promoting unity among the members as well as warding off evil spirits and those who aren’t serious about worshiping Jesus. After you finished laughing because you thought it was a joke, realizing that your church leadership was serious, you would rightly question whether or not the command was legitimate. Do they really have the authority to do that? If they insisted they did, quoting Hebrews 13.17, then you would probably leave because you realized that this was outside of the boundaries of what they can require. And you would be right.

The same is true with civil governments, a reality that has smacked us in the face in 2020. Governors and local officials have been issuing mandates that tell us what we must wear, how we shop, with how many people we can gather, and in what manner we may or may not worship. While there are questions concerning the effectiveness and consistency of the enforcement of these mandates, there is a more fundamental question that underlies everything: do they have Constitutional authority to make and enforce these mandates under penalty of law? Being a Constitutional Republic means that this is the issue that goes beyond masks and mass gatherings. The law of our land is (theoretically) king, not the officials. They are elected to protect our Constitutional liberties and are subject to them as well. They cannot make laws that contradict the Constitution (again, theoretically). When they try, it is appropriate to call them on it through the means provided to us.

(As a side note, if you are quick to question and challenge your church authorities but not so quick to question and challenge your civil authorities, that should be a troubling revelation about yourself.)

Israel faced something of a Constitutional crisis, you might say, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was proclaimed king by the crowds, and then proceeded to take over the Temple. Can he do that? What right does he have to do that? Those are not improper questions. However, if you ask those questions, you had better be ready for answers that might not be so comfortable to accept.

The present leadership in Israel likes the way things are, and they don’t want to be challenged. They are the ones who will do the questioning, thank you very much. Jesus has upset their political applecart. But they can’t just lynch Jesus. They must put him on trial and find him guilty, putting him to death under the authority of the law.

But of what can they accuse him? In Luke 20.1-8 we find their first attempts to discover legal reasons, the authority, to accuse Jesus. They ask him by what authority he is doing these things (that is, all those actions he took at the temple). If they discover that he doesn’t have the proper authority, they can condemn him for not being properly authorized. He could be condemned as one who is impersonating a king and, thus, rebelling against proper authority.

As Jesus does throughout Luke 20, he turns the tables on his inquisitors here. Jesus will answer their question if they answer his. Jesus isn’t afraid to answer their question. Recently, he bravely stopped the center of the life of Jerusalem in the Temple. That was quite the public display; hardly the actions of someone who would be afraid of answering, “In what authority are you doing these things?”

No, Jesus is leading them somewhere without ever answering their question directly when he asks, “The baptism of John: was it from heaven or from men?” The only reason the officials seemed stumped is that no answer was expedient for their present power. They can’t say that his baptism was from heaven because they didn’t follow him. That would put them as rebels against heaven. They can’t say it was from men because they feared the people who believed John to be a prophet. The people would turn against them. So, they don’t answer the question. Neither will Jesus answer their question … at least not directly.

John was a priest and prophet in Israel. His father, Zechariah, was serving his priestly duty in the Temple when he learned about the promise of John’s conception and birth (Lk 1). Being in the priestly line of Israel makes John a priest. He is a servant in God’s house, authorized to baptize. Being a prophet also meant that John was authorized to anoint kings as Samuel and Elisha did before him. When John baptized Jesus, Jesus was lawfully being anointed as king of Israel. The Father and Spirit witnessed to this when the heavens tore open and the Father said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and the Spirit descended upon Jesus like a dove. John’s baptism was from heaven. Since it was from heaven, Jesus is their king. Since Jesus is their king, he has the authority to do what he is doing.

Jesus was baptized with a baptism from heaven. Were you? Who authorized your baptism? Does its authority rest in men or in God? Since our baptism is a baptism into Christ (Rom 6.1ff.) and in it we put on Christ (Gal 3.27), the baptism that Jesus receives is the baptism that we receive. We participate in his baptism. Our baptism is authorized by heaven. This means, at least, that our baptism means what God says it means and is not dependent upon our “authorization” through feeling or even what we think it means.

When we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that baptism comes from heaven and says about us that we have authority; authority to be called “sons of God.” Being baptized means that we have been authorized by heaven to be God’s representatives in the world. When we speak, we speak for heaven. When we act, we act on behalf of heaven. All of our words and deeds are done as those who have been baptized. When the world comes to test us like they did Jesus, seeking to find fault with us, we must be careful to speak with the authority of heaven, saying what God would say about the matters. When our cultural leaders say, “How can you be so intolerant of this sexual lifestyle,” or “How can you be so narrow in your views to think that the Christian faith is the only way,” we must speak as those under authority and authorized to speak only what God has commissioned us to say. We condemn only what God condemns. We commend only what God commends. When we do so, we do so with the full weight of the authority of heaven. When we commend what God condemns or vice versa, we have stepped outside of what we have been authorized to say and are misrepresenting God himself. Let us then be careful in our words and deeds to reflect faithfully God’s own attitudes and actions.

On October 21, 2020 By Bill Smith In Counseling/Piety, Discipleship, Men, Wisdom Like

Letters To Young Men: Frame

Young Men,

It has been a little while since my last letter. Some other projects needed attention.

In dealing with issues of masculinity, I have written to you concerning the state of masculinity in our culture, the man and his mission, as well as how to develop your mission. This letter fits hand-in-glove with the previous two. It is inseparable and, indeed, integral to your mission: frame. It is impossible to complete your mission without frame, and it is impossible to have frame and not have a mission. Frame is a concept used in the field of psychology. The manosphere men didn’t invent it, but they have fruitfully explored it in how it relates to masculinity and, more specifically, intersexual dynamics.

(more…)

On October 18, 2020 By Bill Smith In Counseling/Piety, Discipleship, Theology, Worship Like

The Temple of the Lord

From a distance, it must have been an awe-inspiring sight. There, sitting atop a mountain was a magnificent work of architectural art. Jutting up above the walls and drawing the eye to itself sat the Temple in Jerusalem. On a mountain peak outside the city looking in, one could see this marvelous structure, buzzing with human activity, and, if the wind was just right, one could smell the aromas of meat grilling on the altar. The beauty of the Temple told the onlookers and worshipers that this was the place where one came to meet the God of Israel and to be a part of his people. This is where one went to meet God and sit and have a communion meal with him, finding life.

During Jesus’ day, the Temple had become an architectural deception. Though everything about it screamed “LIFE,” it had become nothing more than an elaborate tomb, filled with rotting flesh and the stench of death. There was nothing there to satisfy the soul. This happened over the years of neglect and rebellion. Certainly, no one intended for it to turn out this way in the beginning. It probably started slowly and crept like a slow-moving cancer through the years until the time when Jesus came and gave the diagnosis and pronounced it dead (Lk 19.45-48).

(more…)

On October 13, 2020 By Bill Smith In Culture, Theology Like

Patriarchy & the Masculinity of the Passion: A Response to Peter Leithart

Recently, I was involved in the Conversation at Theopolis Institute concerning the Manosphere. My long-time friend, Peter Leithart, a man to whom I am indebted for much of what I know of biblical theology, wrote one of the essays for the Conversation in which he addressed five different yet interrelated topics. The format did not allow me to engage a few of the topics Leithart addressed, so I would like to continue the conversation.

Two areas of Leithart’s essay that are of particular interest to me are 1) the patriarchy and 2) the masculinity of Jesus, particularly as it is expressed in his Passion.

The patriarchy is obviously on Leithart’s mind in the essay. Even though the word “patriarchy” was not used by the previous two authors in the Conversation, Leithart sees it as something of an undercurrent in their writing as well as a topic many of friends have broached. He homes in on the etymology of the word (making linguists everywhere shift in their seats wondering if he is going to build an argument based on strict etymology rather than usage/semantic domain). While Leithart is correct that the etymology of the word speaks of “father-source,” that is not generally how the word is used in normal parlance. Patriarchy is normally understood as “father rule” (arche can speak of a principality or rule as a derivative of being a “source” or “beginning”). Even if Leithart concedes the point that patriarchy refers to father-rule, I can see where the use of the term can be a little muddled in a context in which we are really talking about men, in general, ruling. Maybe it would be appropriate to use the term “androcracy,” man-rule. However, this does not need to devolve into a logomachy. The substance of the conversation concerns whether or not men should be the primary rulers in the home, church, and society and what that means in intersexual relationships in each of these spheres. (I might annoy the reader by using one or the other or both words throughout this response. Not many people up to this time in history have had a real issue with the word “patriarchy,” but I am an irenic guy. I can go with the flow in order to deal with the substance.)

Patriarchy/Androcracy is concerned with cultures–home, church, society–and not so much with interpersonal relationships between individual men and women generally. The questions are: Should these societies be ruled in a hierarchy with men in the primary place of rule? Should they be co-ruled so that men and women share the same type of authority? Should women be the primary rulers? Added to these questions, we must ask, Is the nature of authority and hierarchy from creation fluid so that it changes from one thing in the beginning to something else as creation matures into and throughout the process of new creation?

My position is that God created the man to be the primary ruler of the home, church, and society. The woman’s role includes rule with the man, but that rule is not the same kind and is subordinate to the man. Leithart emphasizes the co-rule of the man and woman, Adam and Eve, Christ and the church, noting that distinctions need to be recognized and the relationship between the two is asymmetrical (under #3 in his essay), but emphasizes that the church, for instance, should have an atmosphere of “neither male nor female” in accordance with Galatians 3:28. He did not have much space to work that out, so I hope this continuing conversation will bring some clarity on the nature of this asymmetrical co-rule.

Both of us ground our positions firmly in the Scriptures, appealing to them as the final authority. However, there are points at which we seem to be viewing the world through the lens of Scripture in different ways. That’s understandable. We all still have blurred vision. That’s why we have these conversations.

God’s authoritative revelation is the Scriptures. But God also speaks without words, a truth that we learn from what God himself says. In Psalm 19 we learn that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (Ps 19:1-3) What God creates speaks wordlessly in the substance of its creation, how it is created, and in what order he creates the various entities. Why did he create this animal this way over against the way he created another animal? Why did God not create all things at once instead of in the revealed sequence? All of these aspects of his creation speak; they are the revelation of God’s glory. We cannot have perfect or even proper understanding apart from special revelation, but looking through the lens of Scripture, we can interpret the creation, hearing what God says wordlessly through it. The Scriptures themselves teach this hermeneutic, particularly in this area of the rule of man.

In 1Timothy 2:9-15 Paul bases the proper order of the church principally on the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve. For this reason, a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man within the church. The same hermeneutic is used in 1Corinthians 11.8-9 when Paul says that the man was not made from the woman by the woman from the man. Paul concludes by the way and order of creation that the woman is the glory of the man and made in man’s image. From that point on there is a mutual dependence between the man and the woman because the man is born of the woman. Paul is not only teaching us what to believe, but he is also teaching us how to read the Scriptures as well as creation through the Scriptures. What Paul says about the nature and order of creation are not the limits of the way we are able to use this creational hermeneutic. Like Paul using allegory or parable in Galatians 4 to speak about how two women are two mountains or Matthew using Hosea’s phrase “out of Egypt I have called my son” to refer to Jesus, so in this creational hermeneutic we are given principles of looking at creation through the lens of Scriptural categories, precepts, principles, and patterns to interpret the creation.

For instance, in intersexual relationships, we can start with something obvious: the male and female anatomy. God commanded the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, but there is no special revelation instruction on how this is to take place or who has what role in procreation. All of that is patently obvious to us now, but it is something that might not have been to the first man and woman (though I am sure they figured it out quickly!). The man and woman had to figure it out, apparently, through anatomy and “doing what comes naturally.” The man is obviously equipped to penetrate and plant seed in the woman because that is the nature of his body. The woman is equipped to receive the man and his seed as well as gestating and giving birth to a baby because that is the nature of her body. The woman’s sexual organs, her bone structure (especially in the pelvic region), and her breasts speak to tell us that she is the one to conceive, carry, give birth, and nurture a child. God speaks through the way he made us.

This is also true about the man’s bone density and muscle structure making him more tolerant of outside physical stresses that come with his revealed duty to work the ground and guard the Garden. God speaks through the structure of the man’s body, and that is interpreted through Scripture.[1]

This truth is also why scientific and socio-scientific evidence of sexual differences can be used to help us understand intersexual dynamics. Leithart does not dispute this but thinks that nothing normative can be drawn from the evidence. I believe that much of the evidence, when viewed through the lens of God’s creative process and the vocations of men and women specifically revealed, is instructive about the nature of reality (i.e., the way God created and sustains the world).

All of this gets us to the question of the patriarchy or the androcracy itself. Adam was created as the head of humanity. He is the source (patriarch in the way Leithart suggests is a more proper way to think of patriarchy) as well as an authority in whom is invested the destiny of mankind. The initial relationship between the man and the woman is not limited to marriage. James Jordan asserts (and I am certain Leithart agrees), the primary relationship between the first man and woman is as liturgical partners.[2] This first relationship is archetypal of societal structures. Men are given the position of rule. Androcracy structures the world and history. Adam is the head–source and authority–of the first creation humanity. Christ Jesus, the last Adam, is the head–the source and authority–of the new creation (cf. Rom 5.12-21; 1Cor 15:21-22, 45). Reality is structured as a patriarchy or androcracy. If this is true of the meta-structure of the world, how can it not be true of the smaller “worlds” created to reflect and live in harmony with that meta-structure?

The Scriptural declarations and commands, therefore, that men are heads of their wives and that only males may occupy the primary authoritative roles in the church (e.g., pastor) are not arbitrary commands or thin types. They are not merely superficial “roles” assigned to males that could just as well be handled by females, only held back by a bald prohibition by God. Androcracy is reality. Societies at every level are in tune with reality when there is masculine leadership. When women and children lead society, it is a curse (Isa 3:12) because it is a distortion of the created order.

None of this means that women have no sort of rule whatever. They do, but it is of a different sort and is subordinate to men’s rule. Neither does this mean that every woman must submit to every individual man. However, it does mean that where there are organized cultural situations, women should desire and submit to male leadership; they should want male/masculine leadership in society.

Women enjoy their own sort of rule, and they are quite powerful within a well-ordered androcracy, wielding influence with men as husbands and sons. They are co-rulers with man as Leithart points out. But their rule is of a different kind, in different areas, and is under the headship of men. This is not only proven from the creation and its typology into all societal relationships, but it is also proven in the relationship between Christ and his church.

The church rules with Christ. The Bible is quite clear on this. But the church does not have equal authority with Christ. It is improper, for instance, to say, “The church is Lord” in the same way that we say, “Jesus is Lord.” We recognize that Christ is the head of the church, exercising authority over her. He has given authority to the church to rule with him, but he remains the authority over the church and is responsible for everything done by her. There is a division of labor between the man and the woman that is fixed and non-transferable. One might dare to say that men and women were made for specific purposes, and those purposes include different sorts of rule in relation to one another.

To reiterate, the patriarchy or androcracy is not a matter of choice; that is, it is not an option that God puts out there for us to implement in our homes, churches, or society at large. The androcracy is. It is reality, unalterably. We submit to it and accept our responsibilities to our blessing or fight God’s created order to our curse.

A thin complementarianism will not be able to withstand the assaults from the Feminist movement, especially when they see Scriptural commands as “culturally conditioned” and/or the fact that we have matured past those strictures and structures within the new creation. Jesus and Paul both appealed to the original creation with all of its structures as normative even in and throughout the new creation. The new creation is about restoring the old and taking it to its fullest glory, not growing out of it. Consequently, any appeal to a “neither male nor female” that muddles the hierarchy, first, has Paul contradicting himself because of his insistence on the differences elsewhere, and, second, is in danger of losing male leadership altogether because of the sheer wispiness of the foundations.

Rejection of the androcracy was one reason for the fall and since then all men and women have fought this order. Men are sloths, not wanting to take their responsibility to love women by leading, protecting, and providing for them. Women are always pushing to rule men. All of this rebellion against androcracy or patriarchy does nothing but bring disorder and disharmony. We must get in line with God’s reality.

There have been many instances throughout history in which the patriarchy has been twisted so that men rule tyrannically, crushing those who have been given to their care. This has happened inside and outside the church. Consequently, when some hear the word “patriarchy,” there is a negative visceral reaction. But as with any other aspect of God’s creation, the abuse of some does not nullify the goodness of creation. Because gluttons abuse food does not negate the fact that food is a blessing from God. Because drunkards abuse alcohol does not mean that alcohol cannot be used to God’s glory. Because some engage in illicit sexual activity does not mean that sex is to be abjectly rejected. So it is with the patriarchy (or androcracy, if that makes it more palatable). The answer is not to capitulate to a restructuring of God’s created order (the approach of Feminism, for example). Rather, it is for men to take up their responsibilities to be the men God called them to be.[3]

The patriarchy is not the only area of interesting conversation in Leithart’s response. Toward the end of Leithart’s essay, he spoke of Jesus’ manhood or masculinity. Masculinity cannot be defined succinctly, for it involves many things. However, there are some basics about masculinity that we know from Scripture as well as how we read creation with the spectacles of Scripture. God created man to lead, guard, and provide. He has a mission toward the world, and the woman, the feminine, is his helper. He is to act upon the world, changing it (dominion). He is not to be passive toward the creation. He is in submission before God and active toward the world.

Leithart notes that there were some aspects about Jesus that people in the Greco-Roman world have recognized as manly; namely, his acts of power. But then, in his death, he “subverts ancient masculinity” (under #4). He uses Aristotle’s model of male-female as active-passive respectively to say that Jesus undermined this understanding by becoming passive in his death.

But did he?

From the perspective of some, possibly. However, to frame even the crucifixion in terms of passivity is problematic. Jesus is far from passive. In his death, onlookers may see passivity, but he makes it clear before and throughout his trial, suffering, and death that he is in complete control. No man takes his life (passive). He gives it (active; cf. John 10:17-18). In laying down his life Jesus is acting upon the world and for his bride. He is being masculine. He is giving his life for a purpose; his purpose, his mission.

I’m not even sure that Jesus’ crucifixion would have redefined masculinity in the ancient world. Leon Podles in his book, Losing the Good Portion: Why Men are Alienated from Christianity, speaks of how Jesus is masculine in terms of Greco-Roman categories.[4] The Roman soldier at the cross certainly believed Jesus was a man and acting manly. He confessed “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). Saying that the Greco-Roman world would have seen Jesus as other than masculine is questionable.

However, the Greco-Roman world would have understood Jesus’ masculinity is not the fundamental question. Does Jesus act in a masculine way as the last Adam? Is he masculine as God defines masculinity? Of course, the answer is, “Yes.” That masculinity does not show a “feminine side” at the cross. Jesus is masculine all the way through his suffering and death.

First, as stated, Jesus is giving his life, no one is taking it from him. This is his mission in submission to the Father. Jesus avoided death many times before the cross, and he made clear throughout his trial that he was not a helpless victim. Second, viewing the cross in isolation from the rest of Jesus’ acts, especially his resurrection, gives a truncated and distorted picture of what masculinity looks like. Jesus lays down his life and takes it up again. He is not a weak, effeminate, helpless victim, but one who remains in control the entire time doing exactly what he came to do.

The full picture of masculinity is not the crucifix, especially when interpreted as Jesus being passive. The full picture of masculinity is seen from the womb to being seated at the right hand of the Father, riding out on a white horse with King of kings and Lord of lords on his robe and thigh, destroying his enemies (Rev 19:16). Laying down his life was a vital part of his masculine mission, his mission as the Man.

As assaults on masculinity and the patriarchy relentlessly besiege the church, it is helpful to have these conversations and clarify why structures ought to be ordered the way they are and why men need not be cowered by assaults on genuine masculinity. I pray that this furthers the conversation for the health of the church and the glory of God.

[1] The examples could continue. If you are interested in further reflection on this, I highly recommend Werner Neuer’s book Man & Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991).

[2] http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-86-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-1/

[3] Discussion of what constitutes a biblical patriarchy/androcracy goes far beyond the scope of this response. That will have to be another conversation at another time.

[4] See pp. 22-42.

On October 11, 2020 By Bill Smith In Discipleship, History, Theology, Wisdom Like

Jesus Is NOT Coming Soon!

When I was growing up, the churches I attended heavily emphasized the imminent return of Jesus. We even sang the song, “Jesus is coming soon / morning or night or noon / many will meet their doom / trumpets will sound / all of the dead shall rise / righteous meet in the skies / going where no one dies / heavenward bound.” Jesus could come at any time and rapture all of Christians out of here. Seven years of tribulation would start after this followed by Jesus returning to finish off the world and establish his millennial kingdom. We developed ways of thinking about how it would happen and when it would happen.

Everything in the news pointed to this imminent return of Jesus. The development of the European Common Market, the Illuminati, the Russian Bear coming from the north, China’s one million (or was it two million?) foot soldiers, a computer called “The Beast,” threats of computer chips in the right hand and forehead to buy and sell, Henry Kissinger’s name somehow adding up to 666, Israel becoming a nation again in 1948, the red heifer being bred in Jerusalem, talk of rebuilding the temple, and even unseasonably warm or cold weather (because you don’t know the times or seasons). Hal Lindsey wrote The Late Great Planet Earth in the ’70s. There were eighty-eight reasons why Jesus was coming in 1988. When that didn’t happen, the Gulf War in the early ’90s was a sure sign. I was working in a Christian bookstore during seminary in the early ’90s at the time and Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis by John Walvoord was selling like hotcakes. (You can get it pretty cheap now!) There were movies such as A Thief in the Night and A Distant Thunder that dramatized the rapture and after-effects used to scare teenagers into a decision. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye is where I started losing touch with that part of the American Christian world, though I’m certain it remains alive and well. (They must be having a field day with 2020!)

The disciples had their own version of this when they were nearing Jerusalem in Luke 19. This is it. All the signs point to the kingdom of God coming immediately, which means that the old order is done away with and David’s victorious son is enthroned in Jerusalem. All of that would happen, but just not the way they envisioned it. Jesus had to instruct his disciples in the fact that he was not coming soon, at least not in the way that they were thinking.

To instruct his disciples in the time and manner in which the kingdom comes, Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman, ten servants, and ten minas (that’s money not little fish). (Lk 19.11-27) The nobleman (who is, no doubt, Jesus) goes away to receive a kingdom. He entrusts each of his ten servants with a mina apiece and expects them to do business and make a profit while he is gone. He will come back and evaluate what they have done, expecting that they have been faithful stewards, having made him a profit. Consequently, he must give them time to do what he expects them to do.

Jesus is working with a deep theme that begins with man’s creation and runs through all of history. The theme goes something like this: God creates and establishes his people, gives them commands and responsibilities, leaves them to do what he says, and eventually returns to evaluate their work, dispensing rewards and punishments. This is a pattern established before the fall. God created Adam, placed him in the Garden with specific commands (work and guard the Garden, don’t eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), gave him help to complete his task, left, and eventually returned to evaluate what Adam did.

This is what God does with Israel over its history. Israel is created at Sinai, given commands and responsibilities, he leaves them to do what he says, and eventually, he comes to visit them in the Person of Christ Jesus to evaluate their work, dispensing rewards and punishments.

Jesus says that this is the pattern that he will continue to follow with his church. Jesus creates the church through his death, resurrection, ascension (the time he receives the kingdom; cf. Dan 7.9-14), and the pouring out of his Spirit at Pentecost. He gives gifts to the church through the Spirit. While he is gone, seated at the right hand of the Father, he expects the church to “make a profit,” investing the gifts he has given to see them multiply. What started with small gifts in the first century must be multiplied until all of the nations are discipled. (Mt 28.19) Jesus will come back when the time for this mission is completed, and each of us will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of the deeds done in our body, whether good or evil. (2Cor 5.10) Each of us will give an account for the stewardship Jesus entrusted to him/her.

This is typified every week in our worship-work pattern. On the Day of the Lord, the Lord’s Day, we gather in the presence of our King to be re-created through worship, instructed, and supplied with what we need to go out and do the work we have been called to do. As images of God, we are to go out and be productive, taking what the Lord has given us and making more out of it. But the Lord’s Day is also a day of judgment, an evaluation of the work we have done the past week; works that we are presenting to him through tithes and offerings, which include the bread and wine of the Supper. Jesus evaluates our works dispensing praise as well as rebuke.

These weekly patterns are microcosms of history, reminding us that we have responsibilities to be faithful stewards of what our Lord has put in our hands. One day these weekly judgments will give way to the final judgment. Our desire should be to hear on that day, “Well done, good and faithful servant!”