Too many times, trying
to get a handle on complex disagreements within the Body of Christ is like
trying to grab a fistful of Jell-O. And not the cubed, wobbly, gelatinous sort
either. More like the runny, near-liquid stuff that races away across the
tabletop or squirts between your fingers when you finally catch up
with it.
Good luck nailing that down.
A long-time reader
pointed me to this blog post by Barbara Roberts at A Cry for Justice,
which might well represent the quintessential runny Jell-O story.
A quick summary of the parties involved: Barbara, whose blog exists to advise and support Christians experiencing
spousal and familial abuse, quotes extensively from the sermons of a Bible
teacher named John Fonville in order to trash “Reformed” theologians John Piper
and John MacArthur for promoting what is sometimes called “Lordship Salvation”.
Barbara claims these “Reformers” are not actually “Reformed” at all. At the same
time, she repudiates the “Easy Believism” of Zane Hodges and others. In brief:
Piper and MacArthur disagree with Hodges, Fonville disagrees with the first two
at least, and Barbara disagrees with all three. Other Christian parties with
opinions get called to weigh in as well, complicating matters.
Folly and Shame
There’s a basic
principle found in the book of Proverbs that we ought to observe when taking
sides in a disagreement, which is that if one gives an answer before
he hears, it is his “folly and shame”. So let’s avoid being foolish and shameful.
But that’s tough. In
order to understand Barbara’s argument and even form an opinion (and good luck
forming an intelligent one in this case), the reader needs to be conversant
with multiple theological positions and agendas and sufficiently well-read to
distinguish “real Reformed” from “fake Reformed”. He or she must have slogged
through enough Piperian “Lordship Salvation” (LS) theology to understand
whether Barb (and especially Fonville) are fairly representing what Piper
teaches (which may or may not be precisely equivalent to the way MacArthur
frames the same subjects). He or she must have explored Hodges sufficiently to
understand the Easy Believism/LS divide. That’s probably a year’s worth of
reading right there, otherwise you will just be talking out your ear when you
start taking sides.
Agendas in Collision
Then, assuming we want
to “hear” what this disagreement is really about, there’s Barbara Roberts’s own
agenda, which cries out for exploration and clarification before we might dare
to offer our thoughts. See, Barb seems to have devoted a big chunk of her life
to “victims of abuse”, as she defines the term. For Barbara, the main reason to
trash Piper and MacArthur is that the view of scripture they offer is
challenging and painful for the people she cares about. It makes leaving their
husbands a whole lot more difficult (the vast majority are women, though
Roberts concedes some men are also abused).
So Barbara’s problem
here, I think, is not really Lordship Salvation (which, she concedes, until
hearing Fonville’s sermon she didn’t even understand, let alone had explored in
detail). A hint: that is usually not the best position from which to opine
dogmatically about a subject, hence the need for Fonville, whose understanding
of Piper and MacArthur’s positions is better developed.
The Real Issue?
If I may venture an
opinion myself, Barbara’s real issue does not seem to be a scripture-based
disagreement with the details of Piper’s theology or MacArthur’s: it’s that
they are two well-respected pastors with huge followings in Reformed circles.
If they declare, “Stay With Your Husband, It’s Christ’s Law”, they influence
other believers to think that’s the way it should be and make it tougher for
the “abused” to leave their spouses in good conscience.
As Barbara Roberts puts it:
“For a Christian victim of domestic abuse, Lordship Salvation induces false guilt and terror that they are going to hell if they don’t comply with the church’s counsel and the abuser’s demands.”
That’s as far as I
care to go with discussing the blog post. It’s Jell-O. Lots and lots of runny Jell-O.
A veritable Jell-O quagmire waiting to swallow the unwary.
Back in the Real World
But theoretical
arguments often have real-world consequences. So imagine yourself an elder in
your local Reformed church. You are confronted by some poor woman who, after
immersing herself in Barbara’s blog daily for six months, considers herself
egregiously ill-treated by her Christian husband and believes she has
justification for leaving him. Oh, he’s never actually hit her. Not once. But
in her mind he has established “a pattern of coercive control”, manipulating
her into “subordination” out of what she calls “a profound mentality of
entitlement”. He’s “abusive” by Barbara Roberts’ definition of abuse. [All
these terms, by the way, come directly from Barbara Roberts’ home page.]
Such a story can be
very compelling, especially to the naturally compassionate. But again the
writer of Proverbs has some sound advice about disagreements, which is that “the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” I have certainly found that to be
the case when Christians disagree.
It is not impossible
that your inquirer is looking for your permission to declare herself a victim
and exit her marriage. To make such a move without the elders on board is
scary, because your congregation is full of regular Piper and MacArthur readers
and listeners. She would be unlikely to find sympathy and support from her
fellow believers without first gaining yours.
Sometimes I’m absolutely delighted not to be an elder.
The Jell-O Quagmire
I will wisely avoid
offering a lot of complicated advice to elders in similar situations other than
this one-liner: Stay out of the Jell-O quagmire.
One thing you can be
quite sure of is that unless this woman is unusually well-read (something a
shepherd would probably know already), her understanding of the complex
theological issues considered in Barbara Roberts’ post is a great deal foggier
than yours. These issues are simply being raised to disqualify the opinions of
MacArthur and Piper, who would not favor a speedy and well-supported exit from
an uncomfortable home situation. What she has discovered is someone who appears
sympathetic to her complaints about her relationship and is encouraging her to
do what in her heart she already wants to.
So ignore Barbara.
Ignore John, John and John. Ignore the “theologies” and the “isms”. Ignore Zane
Hodges too, at least on this subject. Ignore all generalizations. Especially, ignore
the word “abuse”, which you will not find used in the “Cry for Justice” sense
or in the context of marriage even once in your New Testament. Not one single
time, and not in versions modern or ancient. You will not help this woman by
touching any of these ‘tar babies’ or by encouraging her to use someone else’s
language to describe her dissatisfaction with her own marriage.
Specifics, Specifics, Specifics
It’s not for me to say
whether such a woman should leave her husband. I’m not naive enough to believe
that no Christian husband is ever violent toward his wife. It happens, sadly.
And I’ve certainly seen Christian husbands with attitudes toward their
marriages that needed major work. But discontentment in marriage can arise from
numerous other sources than abuse, and I’ve seen definitions of abuse that trivialize
the word. Many of the reasons cited for leaving Christian marriages today do
not even pass within hailing distance of the biblical standard.
Every home situation
is different, and divorce is hugely damaging to everyone involved. There are
good reasons to be exceedingly careful. Most elders know this well.
If there is no
evidence of physical danger to your complainant, at least you have time. Time
to talk about the specifics of her marriage rather than about vague
generalities. Time to look at actual verses of scripture together rather than
encouraging her to adopt or reject the positions of Christian theological
movements she barely understands. Time to see if there’s another side to her story. Time to come to an understanding of what is
actually happening in this woman’s home rather than what is happening in some
blogger’s head.
Time to avoid grasping at Jell-O.
No comments :
Post a Comment