A few weeks ago, a small group of us gathered at our church for a midweek night of worship. During that meeting, we recorded a new song written by our worship pastor Matt Damico. It’s titled “In My Place,” and it is a really wonderful, fitting tribute on this Good Friday.
“But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.”
“God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation in His blood through faith, in order to demonstrate His righteousness.”
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us– for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’”
-Galatians 3:13 Continue Reading →
Neil Shenvi has a helpful article explaining the meaning of the term “whiteness” within critical race theory and how it differs from common usage. That difference causes big time problems. From Shenvi’s conclusion:
Exploring the historical conception of ‘whiteness’ and its connection to racism is a worthwhile subject. At one point, it did indeed connote or at least suggest “membership in the superior racial caste.” However, few if any Americans today would endorse that understanding. Consequently, the antiracist is taking a morally neutral term and using it to express a deeply evil concept. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Of course, in principle, we are free to define terms however we want as long as we’re consistent. But the goal of language is effective communication. If I insist on defining “moron” to mean “French hockey player,” I shouldn’t be surprised if a roomful of French hockey players is offended by my definition! We should choose words that convey our meaning as clearly as possible and -as Christians- as charitably as possible.
To minimize the possibility of misunderstanding, a simple solution is available: substitute the phrases “white racial superiority” or “membership in the highest racial caste” for the term ‘whiteness.’ Since these phrases already carry extremely negative connotations (with good reason!), the antiracist runs no risk in confusing their hearers.
This is a helpful article. Read the rest here.
Last year, I read Richard Delgado’s and Jean Stefanic’s Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, and I noticed some of the same problems of usage. “Whiteness” is used to refer to a hegemonic social construct, but it is also used right alongside the term “white” as a racial category. Sometimes it is unclear whether Delgado and Stefanic are criticizing whiteness or people with white skin. For example:
Many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent. The interplay of meanings that one attaches to race; the stereotypes one holds of other people; the standards of looks, appearance, and beauty; and the need to guard one’s own position all powerfully determine one’s perspective. Indeed, one aspect of whiteness, according to some scholars, is its ability to seem perspectiveless or transparent (p. 91, underline mine).
Delgado and Stefanic obviously employ “white” to refer to skin color in the first instance. While the later use of “whiteness” would seem to be referring to a hegemonic social construct, it is unclear if that is all that it means. Is “whiteness” only referring to a social construct in the second instance? Delgado and Stefanic have just said that “no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” That seems to suggest that all people with white skin to some degree share in the culpability of whiteness as a social construct. If that is the case, doesn’t whiteness implicate all people with white skin?
In any case, this terminology can be very confusing at best and positively divisive at worst. I think Shenvi’s suggestions for speaking more clearly would do a great deal in providing clarity to our conversations about these sensitive issues.
I have been preaching through 1 Corinthians at my church and have just completed a series of sermons on Paul’s long section about matters related to public worship (chs. 11-14). At the beginning and end of this section, Paul addresses the role of women in public worship. In chapter 11:2-16, Paul introduces the idea of male headship and the need for women to honor headship when they pray and prophesy in the gathered assembly. In chapter 14:34-35, Paul says that women need to “keep silent” and to “subject themselves” when prophecies are uttered during congregational worship.
One item that stood out to me in both of these texts is that Paul grounds his teaching about male headship in the common practice of all the churches. After instructing women to honor male headship by wearing head coverings, Paul writes:
1 Cor. 11:16 “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”
Likewise, when giving instructions about orderliness while people are prophesying, Paul writes:
1 Cor. 14:33-36
33b as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And 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. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
Notice what Paul is doing. In both of these texts, Paul says that his teaching about headship and submission is not some sidebar item that churches can either take or leave. He says that his teaching on headship, manhood, and womanhood are a part of the apostolic foundation that he has laid in “all the churches of the saints” (14:33b). To depart from this foundation is to depart from something that the apostle believes to be fundamental.
In 11:16, it’s as if Paul is saying to his readers, “If you don’t like honoring headship in worship, you need to know that you are out on an island. If you want to follow me and the other apostles, you won’t fight me on this. You will turn your heart toward honoring headship in the way that I am telling you.”
In 14:36, Paul says that the word of God is not the exclusive domain of any one church. The word of God did not originate in Corinth, nor was Corinth the only place to which the word of God came. The word of God is abroad in the churches. The Corinthians need to pay attention to how the Spirit of God is moving and working in all the churches.
If all the churches are hearing from the Spirit one thing, but the Corinthians are practicing another thing, then that’s an indication that the Corinthians are the outliers, not everyone else. Everyone else is observing male headship. So also should Corinth. This is in keeping with 1 Cor. 11:16 where Paul writes, “We have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”
This emphasis from Paul struck me because of discordant notes that I have been hearing lately. Right now, these notes seem to be low rumblings, but I can imagine that they may be getting louder in days ahead. I have heard some people denigrate “biblical manhood and womanhood” as “white” theology that is rooted more in racial stereotypes than in biblical teaching.
While it is true that all of us need to be on guard against unbiblical stereotypes, we need to be very careful that we not throw out the baby with the bathwater. My concern is that some may be in danger of casting aside what the Bible teaches on these things simply because of an alleged association with “whiteness.”
This would be a serious mistake—indeed a grave error putting one outside of the apostolic teaching that Paul intends for “all the churches.” It would be casting aside God’s design in creation. It would also be a rejection of the very truths that God intends for our good and flourishing.
Paul wishes to emphasize that his teaching about male headship is not something that is good for some people but not for others. It’s not merely a cultural construct. No, it is a part of God’s creation design, and it is the pattern that must prevail in every church. If that is true, then we ought to honor the headship norm just as all other faithful churches do. And we ought to beware of any attempt to denigrate this teaching as a mere cultural construct that can be set aside. No, this is the word of God, and as Christians we are duty bound to uphold and cherish this teaching.
Paul says that the headship principle is recognized in all his churches. And so it must be in ours.
Maryann White is the mother of a Notre Dame student, and last week she penned an Op-Ed for the Notre Dame campus newspaper titled “The Legging Problem.” The basic thrust of White’s article is a complaint against immodesty among women. In particular, she has a problem with the legging trend. She writes:
I’m not trying to insult anyone or infringe upon anyone’s rights. I’m just a Catholic mother of four sons with a problem that only girls can solve: leggings.
The emergence of leggings as pants some years ago baffled me. They’re such an unforgiving garment. Last fall, they obtruded painfully on my landscape. I was at Mass at the Basilica with my family. In front of us was a group of young women, all wearing very snug-fitting leggings and all wearing short-waisted tops (so that the lower body was uncovered except for the leggings). Some of them truly looked as though the leggings had been painted on them…
I was ashamed for the young women at Mass. I thought of all the other men around and behind us who couldn’t help but see their behinds. My sons know better than to ogle a woman’s body — certainly when I’m around (and hopefully, also when I’m not). They didn’t stare, and they didn’t comment afterwards. But you couldn’t help but see those blackly naked rear ends. I didn’t want to see them — but they were unavoidable. How much more difficult for young guys to ignore them.
As you can imagine, the students at Notre Dame did not appreciate this Op-Ed. Some students protested the Op-Ed by organizing a “Love Your Leggings Day” for the campus last Tuesday. The Washington Post reports:
A student group, Irish 4 Reproductive Health, similarly declared Tuesday to be “Leggings Pride Day.” On Facebook, the group explained that White’s letter, although well-intentioned, “perpetuates a narrative central to rape culture” by implying that women’s clothing choices are to blame for men’s inappropriate behavior.
Wow. Rape culture? This mother’s simple plea for modesty is supposed to be viewed as advancing rape culture? To be sure, there are lecherous men in the world who are more than willing to blame their evil behavior on how women dress. We can recognize that any such insinuation is a moral dodge and must be repudiated. The sinner has himself to blame for evil choices that he makes, and he cannot rightly blame anyone else for what is his own fault.
Having said that, it is really problematic and sloppy to equate modesty with rape culture. Albert Mohler discussed this on The Briefing this morning and said this:
Illegitimate is the argument that concern for modesty is simply part of that shame culture, that talk of modesty is just a way of shaming females. That is not a legitimate argument. The Bible makes clear it’s not a legitimate argument. The Bible makes clear why we wear coverings for those private parts in the first place. Then the question is, “As we extend from that to appropriate clothing, what would that look like?”…
Wearing clothing that directs attention to those private parts rather than away from those private parts is inherently problematic. It is by biblical definition, whether male or female, immodest. One final thought about this for Christians, one of our responsibilities to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ is to encourage one another to holiness. Everything we do, including our choice of clothing, but including everything else should at the very least be judged by that standard.
I couldn’t agree more. Modesty is not “rape culture.” The way in which we choose to adorn ourselves is morally implicated. In fact, modesty is a part of biblical virtue (1 Tim. 2:9). Kevin DeYoung elaborates:
Modesty operates with the Bible’s negative assessment of public nudity post-Fall. From Adam and Eve scrambling for fig leaves (Gen. 3:10), to the dishonorable nakedness of Noah (Gen. 9:21), to the embarrassingly exposed buttocks of David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4), the Bible knows we inhabit a fallen world in which certain aspects of our bodily selves are meant to be hidden. Indeed, this is precisely what Paul presumes when he speaks of “our unpresentable parts” which must be “treated with greater modesty” (1 Cor. 12:23). There’s a reason momma called them private parts…
Modesty demonstrates to others that we have more important things to offer than good looks and sex appeal. The point of 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3-4 is not an absolute prohibition against trying to look nice. The prohibition is against trying so very hard to look good in all the ways that are so relatively unimportant. The question asked of women in these verses–and it certainly applies to men as well–is this: will you grab people’s attention with hair and jewelry and sexy clothes or will your presence in the room be unmistakable because of your Christlike character? Immodest dress tells the world, “I’m not sure I have anything more to offer than this. What you see is really all you get”…
If the Bible is to be believed, this whole business of modesty is not irrelevant to Christian discipleship. Our bodies have been bought with a price. Therefore glorify God with your body (1 Cor. 6:20). Which means we don’t show everyone everything we might think is worth seeing. And it means we won’t be embarrassed to keep most private those things that are most precious. Shame is a powerful category, in the Bible and in our own day. The key is knowing what things we should actually be ashamed of.
(You can listen to the rest of Albert Mohler’s commentary below or download the audio here.)
I was really grateful to read a strong and clear statement about human sexuality from the President of Covenant Theological Seminary. You can watch the full statement above. A transcript of the first four minutes of the statement is below.
“Hi, I’m Mark Dalbey, President of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. I’m here today to respond to a number of questions and concerns that we have received about our commitment to biblical sexual ethics in light of a conference that was held in St. Louis last summer called Revoice. Here’s what we believe about biblical sexuality.
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Sexual intimacy is only to be expressed in such a marriage. Homosexual desire is a result of the fall. It’s a sinful desire that is to be mortified and resisted and in no way dignified. Homosexual lust, homosexual intimate behavior is sin and condemned by God.
As to the Revoice conference, Covenant Seminary does not endorse, promote, or have a role in the Revoice conference. We do not agree with all of the views that were shared or taught at the Revoice conference. Dr Sklar, Old Testament professor and Vice President of Academics, who has two commentaries on the book of Leviticus, was asked to speak and did speak on Leviticus 18 and 20 and the continuing relevance in God’s moral law of forbidding homosexual lust and behavior. Covenant Seminary does not advocate for queer theology, Covenant Seminary does not teach that a person should identify as a gay Christian, and Covenant Seminary will not have any of our faculty speaking at the 2019 Revoice conference.
Much of what is being said about Covenant Seminary is [a] sinful, slanderous, violation of the ninth commandment which teaches in the Larger Catechism that we should promote and preserve the good name of our neighbor and ourselves when necessary. Sadly, it is necessary for Covenant Seminary to do this given that we have been under these slanderous attacks.
Here is what we teach our students about how to relate to homosexual people who are unbelievers. We teach them that they are to hold uncompromisingly to the biblical sexual ethics. We also teach them that they are to love unbelievers as those made in the image of God, that they are to recognize that we are fellow sinners ourselves as we seek to communicate the good news of the saving and transforming power of the gospel to people involved in a gay lifestyle. Christians are to build relationships with unbelievers of all kinds, including those who are homosexuals, and we are to live out the gospel call to not only love God but to love our neighbor as ambassadors of Jesus Christ. Our churches should be promoting this. We teach our students to love people well and to communicate the unchanging truth of God’s word in winsome ways that the Holy Spirit might change hearts and bring people to Christ.
We also teach our students as they minister to fellow believers who have all kinds of struggles including struggle with same-sex attraction and temptations that we are to love them and pastorally care for them. We are to disciple them by using the ordinary means of grace that they might grow in Christlikeness and have strength to resist ongoing temptation. We also teach our students that they are all to find their core identity in Christ and not with whatever particular sinful struggle they may have. Our churches should welcome fellow believers who have ongoing temptation and struggle with same-sex attraction to be full members of the body of Christ that will be able to exercise their gifts and that also would benefit from the ministry of others in the church.”
I woke up this morning to a troubling Op-Ed in The Washington Post by Cynthia Nixon. The entire article is a call for an end to civility toward anyone who holds Christian convictions about sexuality. In particular, the essay responds to the fact that former Vice-President Joe Biden recently referred to current Vice-President Mike Pence as a “decent man.” Nixon unloads on Biden for this flash of tolerance and civility, arguing that Mike Pence’s Christian convictions about sexuality are worthy of the severest public outrage and opprobrium. She writes,
I think it’s important to explain why calling Pence “a decent guy” is an affront to the real meaning of the word….
These are not the actions of a decent man. The fact that Pence does vile, hateful things while well-coiffed and calm doesn’t make him decent; it makes him insidious and dangerous. Respecting each other’s rights and humanity is what makes us civilized — not keeping a civil tone while doing the opposite.
It’s easy to say nice things about Pence when you’re not personally threatened by his agenda. If Biden were being directly attacked in the same way that our community is, I think he would see Pence from a very different vantage point…
And then she ends with this chilling conclusion:
When you’re fighting for the rights of marginalized communities who are under attack, it’s okay to stop being polite. This is not a time for hollow civility. This is a time to fight. If Democrats are too wedded to the collegiality of the Senate dining room to call out the Republicans who espouse homophobia, how are we ever going to stop them?
It is hard to imagine that The Washington Post would allow this kind of open animus against adherents of any other point of view. Can you imagine an Op-Ed arguing that it’s time to toss civility aside and embrace open animus towards anyone who supports, say, the Green New Deal? And yet, here it appears as a matter of course that it is open season on Christians who dare to affirm what the Bible teaches about sexual ethics.
This is the new reality for Christians who hold the line on biblical sexual ethics, and I don’t see any signs of things letting up. On the contrary, this kind of open animus only seems to be spreading. In light of this, it is good for Christians to remember a few things:
1. The Lord Jesus has prepared us for this.
In Matthew 10, Jesus prepares his disciples for opposition to their mission. The entire chapter is bracing, not least because Jesus is so forthright about what his disciples should expect: “And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Jesus told us that we would face open animus, and we would do well to prepare ourselves for the kind of lives Jesus told us that his disciples would have. This is what we signed up for. “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
2. We must not respond in kind.
Those who oppose the Christian message will increasingly call for an end of civility toward Christian conviction. The rallying will become more brazen. As it does, we must commit ourselves not to respond in kind.
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?” (Matt. 5:44-46)
We need to be ready to love our neighbors and our enemies and to bear witness in a culture that is increasingly hostile toward us. Christians may someday face fines and other penalties for their convictions on marriage. Our churches may eventually lose tax exempt status. Any number of negative outcomes are possible in the approaching conflagration. Ours will likely be a costly love and a costly witness. But this is precisely the kind of discipleship that Jesus has called all of us to, and we must never return evil for evil (Rom. 12:17).
3. It will be worth it.
Every one of us will be tempted to fudge the message in order to avoid conflict. Don’t do it. Being faithful to Jesus and his word will be worth it no matter what it costs us to do so. We have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 12:4), and I don’t see that coming any time soon. But even if it were to come to that, it would be worth even losing our lives for the sake of Christ and his word. No matter what we suffer or what we give up for Christ, it will be restored to us and then some in the age to come. “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it” (Matt. 16:25).
The opposition is increasing. Jesus has prepared us. Let’s be ready.
In 1 Timothy 5:19-21, the apostle Paul explains how to deal with a pastor who is sinning.1 Some readers understand Paul to be setting a higher standard for pastors than for other members of the congregation. I think this is a mistaken reading of Paul’s words, for Paul wishes for everyone to be treated equally and without “partiality” (v. 21). Paul writes:
19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
Paul’s process for dealing with elders accused of a sin lines up with what Jesus says must be done for any brother that is accused of a sin. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus says that if a church member sins against you, you should go to them in private. If they don’t repent, then you take along two or three witnesses to establish the charges made against the sinning brother. If they establish the charges and he still refuses to turn from his sin, then they are supposed to put the matter before the church. If he refuses after it is brought to the church, then he is excommunicated. Continue Reading →
By now you have read the news about the United Methodist Church—that conservatives within the denomination beat back an effort by liberals to affirm gay marriage and LGBT clergy. The New York Times reports:
After three days of intense debate at a conference in St. Louis, the vote by church officials and lay members from around the world doubled down on current church policy, which states that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” The vote served as a rejection of a push by progressive members and leaders to open the church to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Now, a divide of the United Methodist Church, which has 12 million members worldwide, appears imminent. Some pastors and bishops in the United States are already talking about leaving the denomination and possibly creating a new alliance for gay-friendly churches.
This is without question good news. The United Methodists are now the lone hold-out among the mainline denominations which have embraced the sexual revolution and affirmed gay marriage and gay clergy. That alone is a big deal. And a welcome development.
In large part, we have the African Methodists to thank for this result. They form about 30% of United Methodists worldwide, and they are vastly more conservative than their American counterparts. With the help of the African Methodists, the liberal plan to affirm gay marriage and gay clergy was defeated in a 53 percent to 47 percent vote. North Africa gave birth to Western Christianity centuries ago. Now Africa is coming to the rescue of a compromised Western Christianity—at least in its Methodist version. Thank God for our African brothers and sisters.
Dr. Jerry Kulah, an African delegate who is a professor at the United Methodist University in Liberia, addressed a group of reform-minded Methodists who were attending the conference in St. Louis. Among other things, Kulah said this:
We Africans are not children in need of western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics. We do not need to hear a progressive U.S. bishop lecture us about our need to “grow up”…
We are grounded in God’s word and the gracious and clear teachings of our church. On that we will not yield! We will not take a road that leads us from the truth! We will take the road that leads to the making of disciples of Jesus Christ for transformation of the world!…
Unfortunately, some United Methodists in the U.S. have the very faulty assumption that all Africans are concerned about is U.S. financial support. Well, I am sure, being sinners like all of you, some Africans are fixated on money.
But with all due respect, a fixation on money seems more of an American problem than an African one. We get by on far less than most Americans do; we know how to do it. I’m not so sure you do. So if anyone is so naïve or condescending as to think we would sell our birth right in Jesus Christ for American dollars, then they simply do not know us…
Please understand me when I say the vast majority of African United Methodists will never, ever trade Jesus and the truth of the Bible for money.
Amen. Thank God for such clarity of conviction. The Africans understand that there can be no fellowship with those who affirm LGBT immorality. None. The Africans were willing to walk alone rather than continue on with an apostate American Methodist movement. The key word there is “apostate.” To embrace LGBT immorality is to embrace apostasy. The Africans understand that.
What the liberal American Methodists wanted was a “One Church Plan,” which would have treated LGBT as a matter of moral indifference among United Methodists. Although it was pitched as a compromise, the plan’s effect would have been a total capitulation to the liberals.
What the liberals want—more than anything—is for the conservatives to concede that LGBT affirmation is an issue about which otherwise faithful Christians might agree to disagree. The Africans said no. And they were right. To grant that LGBT affirmation is in any way compatible with Christianity is to lose the essence of Christianity. You can have LGBT affirmation or you can have Christianity, but you can’t have both.
This is the bottom line that I fear many so-called evangelicals have yet to come to grips with. There can be no compromise with LGBT affirmation. The Bible and the entire 2,000-year history of the Christian church simply won’t allow it. This is why so many of us signed our names to article ten of The Nashville Statement:
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
Evangelicals who have been drifting away from biblical fidelity on these issues have often been running under the cover of confusion—confusion about what is essential and what is not essential to the Christian faith. From the very beginning of the Christian faith, sexual morality has always been central. Those who wish to follow Jesus must pursue sexually pure lives. A person may follow Jesus, or he may pursue sexual immorality. But he cannot do both. He must choose. One path leads to eternal life, and the other does not. These are not new teachings. They are the ancient faith.
And yet, there are many “evangelicals” who are trying to convince other evangelicals that homosexual immorality is a special case. They are trying to convince people that same-sex immorality and following Jesus can indeed go together. And yet, scripture teaches that anyone who persistently rejects God’s revelation about sexual holiness and virtue is rejecting Christianity altogether, even if they claim otherwise. Or as the apostle Paul puts it, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality… Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thess. 4:3-8). The stakes are higher than the revisionists want you to believe.
Authentic Christians labor for moral clarity on the point not so that we can say to sinners, “Keep out!” We are standing with our arms wide open saying, “Please, come in. Come to the waters of life available to any and every sinner who turns from sin to trust in Christ.” But we cannot make plain the path to life to those who think they don’t need it. And the revisionists of our time are leading precious people away from Jesus and not to Jesus because they are telling them that they have no judgment to fear. This is the opposite of love.
Real love—as God defines it—always rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). And that is what the Africans did in St. Louis this week. My hope and prayer are that American evangelicals will draw strength and courage from the example of these African brothers and sisters. I know I have.
When I first came to Southern Seminary to apply for the Ph.D. Program in 2001, I went to the Boyce Centennial Library and checked out a 1996 PBS documentary titled “Battle for the Minds.” Back then, it was only available on VHS, and it was not allowed out of the library. You had to watch it right there in the AV lab.
After seeing the documentary, I searched high and low to obtain a copy of this video for myself. When that proved impossible, I began trying to find a copy online and have searched for it at different times over the years. I searched and searched, and it has eluded thus far… until today. Someone shared it on YouTube about five days ago, and a friend sent it to me this afternoon.
The story of Southern Seminary’s recovery from theological liberalism is well-known at this point, but this documentary is not a sympathetic look at that recovery. In fact, the producers would not have viewed it as a “recovery” at all but as a regression. The documentary focuses on the debate over women in ministry, but through the course of the video it becomes clear that the issues were much deeper. At heart, the debate was about biblical authority, which had been shunned by many on the faculty at that time.
When the video was produced, many of the theological “moderates” hoped that there still might be a chance to stop the conservative resurgence at Southern Seminary. We all know now that this was not to be. But things didn’t seem so clear for those in the midst of the struggle in the mid-90’s. This unsympathetic video bears witness to that.
When I first watched this documentary 18 years ago, it was only five years old. Nevertheless, the documentary bore witness to a Southern Seminary far different even from what I experienced in 2001. It is certainly a world away from what Southern Seminary is now.
This is a time capsule worth the time to watch.