Polygamy in the Service of Feminism

Here are some comments on a section of Rachel Held Evans’s A Year of Biblical Womanhood. I don’t know if I’ll make it through the whole book, but I’ve read enough to know that Evans is a capable writer. She tells entertaining stories, and can be quite funny at times. But these qualities can’t make her message any less frustrating.

On pp. 58-61, Evans writes about her interaction with a woman involved in a “Christian” polygamous marriage. This marriage began monogamously, but after the husband got hot for another woman (during his wife’s pregnancy), he “re-examined” the Bible and came to the conclusion that polygamy was fine by God. He then convinced his wife to abide his new convictions and the marriage took on a third member. The two wives initially shared the same house, but now live separately. The husband has one family with his first wife, and another family with his second wife. He alternates between houses each night of the week.

I had to pause and reflect. This wicked distortion of marriage provides a clear picture of human depravity. Only scaly eyes can see justification for polygamy in the Bible. Here is a man who is utterly blinded by his lusts and has duped two women into going along with him. He needs repentance. The story is disturbing on multiple levels.

But what also disturbed me were Evans’s motives for telling the story. She showcases this polygamous family, not so that she might speak to the manifest sin of the adults involved, but rather so that she might attempt to convince Christians that they need to get over the word ‘biblical.’¹ In effect, what she’s trying to say is, “See? These kinds of families claim to be biblical too. And you know what? They kind of are biblical, because polygamy is regulated in the Bible.”

Aside from the patently simplistic hermeneutics required to make an argument like that², I think it’s telling of Evans’s priorities that this is the way she chooses to capitalize on this polygamous family. She expresses no repudiation of the arrangement, and provides no discussion of God’s creational design. All she’s concerned with is persuading her readers that the Bible is unable to give us a consistent message. And this is what she has to do in order to keep promoting feminism from an “evangelical” perspective. Ignatius said of early heretics, “They speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it.”

Given her rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture, I can’t help but wonder what basis Evans would have for constructing a Christian case for monogamy as opposed to polygamy. After all, if the Bible, being an ancient collection of texts written by various authors, is unable to give a consistent vision of womanhood (as Evans suggests), then what makes anyone think that it could possibly give us a consistent vision of marriage? Or sexuality? Or even salvation?

Notes

1. Evans writes, “Now, we evangelicals have a nasty habit of throwing the word biblical around like it’s Martin Luther’s middle name. We especially like to stick it in front of other loaded words, like economics, sexuality, politics, and marriage to create the impression that God has definitive opinions about such things, opinions that just so happen to correspond with our own.” (xix-xx)

2. Divorce is regulated in the Bible too. Does that mean God is cool with divorce?

You Have to Say More

Plero: You’re a paedobaptist, right?

Agno: That’s correct.

P: So you believe in infant baptism?

A: Yes.

P: Why?

A: Why not?

P: Uh, because the Bible says nothing about baptizing babies. Where do you find that in Scripture?

A: That’s a fair question, and I’ll answer it in due time; but do you mind if I ask you a question first?

P: If you must.

A: Ok. Here’s my question: Do you believe that women should be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper?

P: Um, yes. Of course.

A: Ok, good. But let me urge you to abide by your own standard, the one you just held me to in regard to infant baptism. Believe it or not, there isn’t one verse in the Bible that commands us to give communion to women, nor is there a single description of a woman partaking. In other words, we don’t find a verse that says, “Thou shalt give communion to women,” nor do we see any verse that says something like, “And then the women partook of communion.” So is it fair to say that the Bible does not allow women to partake of communion?

P: I see what you’re doing, but it’s not going to work. Scripture might not expressly command us to give communion to women, but we know that Christian women are valid participants based on who they are in Christ.

A: Care to elaborate?

P: Sure. It’s simple. Everyone who is a member of the body of Christ has access to the Lord’s table. Christian women are part of the body of Christ, and so they can legitimately partake of communion as well.

A: Exactly! And that’s precisely the way I argue for infant baptism.

P: Wait, what? I’m not following.

A: Notice, you’ve just admitted that an express biblical command is not needed in order for us to legitimately give communion to women. So why are you requiring that I give you an express biblical command to baptize infants?

P: Ok, fine. But I gave you a theological rationale for why women can legitimately partake of communion.

A: Exactly! And that’s what you should be doing. In terms of female communion, you offered a rationale based on the status of Christian women in the body of Christ. In terms of infant baptism, I can offer a rationale based on the covenant status of infants born to Christian parents.

P: Well, let’s hear it then.

A: Gladly. Covenant members receive the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17). The sign of the new covenant is baptism (Col. 2:11-12). The children of Christian parents are included as members of the new covenant (Matt. 19:13-14; Acts 2:38-39; 1 Cor. 7:14). Therefore, the children of Christian parents should receive baptism.

P: Woa, slow down. I don’t know if I accept all of those premises, or your use of those texts.

A: Fair enough. We can address them again some other time. My only point here is this: Not every aspect of Christian doctrine and practice is spelled out explicitly in Scripture. Sometimes we have to argue from good and necessary inference, just like you did in your argument for the inclusion of women at the Lord’s table. In our debate over baptism, it doesn’t do much good for you to simply state that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention the baptism of infants, as if that settles the issue. You have to say more.

P: We’ll talk again soon.

Trinitarianism Is Complementarian

Some egalitarians, and particularly those of the feminist variety, like to appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity in support of their rejection of complementarian ideals. In their opinion, the equality of the three divine persons should do away with any and all talk about the distinct roles of husbands and wives. Since men and women are created in the image of God, then it follows that men and women are equal in value.

I've simplified the argument somewhat, but for whatever reason, it seems like some egalitarians are under the impression that complementarians disagree with the notion that husbands and wives are equal. The validity of the above argument and the truth of its conclusion are things that any complementarian will notice and point out immediately. Egalitarians who make these kinds of assertions show that they don’t really have a solid grasp on either complementarianism or trinitarianism. So here's my attempt to un-muddy the waters.

Kevin DeYoung provides what I think is one of the most helpful and basic summaries of the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t know if this summary is unique to him or reproduced from another source, but in any case, DeYoung explains the Trinity by way of seven key statements:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father is not the Son.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. (source)

DeYoung then writes, “All of the creedal formulations and theological jargon and philosophical apologetics have to do with safeguarding each one of these statements and doing so without denying any of the other six.”

This is where the egalitarians fumble the ball. In their egalitarian vision of the Trinity, they aren’t being careful to safeguard all seven statements. They want to emphasize the first four, but they keep quiet about the last three. They do this for one of three reasons: either (1) because they’re not aware of the importance of distinguishing the divine persons and their respective functions, or (2) because they recognize that having a right understanding of these distinctions hurts their argument greatly, or (3) because they actually deny any distinction between the persons. In the first case, they show that they don’t understand trinitarianism and need to brush up. In the second case, they’re being dishonest. In the third case, they’re modalist heretics. I want to give egalitarians the benefit of the doubt, so I’ll assume the first option is true.

DeYoung goes on to quote the Athanasian Creed: “Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

The emphasized portion of the above quote, and the last three of DeYoung’s seven summary statements, teach what egalitarians need to remember about the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. In other words, they are different persons who do different things.

First, the Father is not the Son. It is inaccurate, even heretical, to teach that the Father died on the cross (patripassionism). It was not the Father who died, but the Son. In fact, the Son willingly submitted to his Father’s will when he laid down his life for the salvation of the world (Matt. 26:39). As a side note, this submission of the Son to the Father demonstrates the falsehood of what egalitarians frequently claim, namely, that submission entails inequality or inferiority.

Second, the Son is not the Holy Spirit. It was not the Son who was poured out at Pentecost, but the Spirit. Jesus told the disciples that he would send them another helper, i.e. someone else who will do something else (John 16:7).

Finally, the Spirit is not the Father. Rather, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. With authority, the Spirit is sent into the hearts of believers to help, comfort, and sanctify. This authority is not tyrannical or domineering, but it is nevertheless real authority.

These considerations help us to see how, contrary to what egalitarians would have us think, complementarianism is consistent with, and even derived from, trinitarian theology. There is headship in the Trinity whether egalitarians want to acknowledge it or not. Since complementarians recognize this headship, they are often charged with promoting heresy; and I suppose it would be heresy if it wasn’t in the Bible. Paul said, “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).

The heresy that egalitarians are mistakenly appealing to is the heresy of subordinationism. Subordinationism teaches that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father. In other words, the Son is essentially a lesser quality being; he is less God-like than his Father. But complementarians are affirming no such thing when they acknowledge trinitarian headship and point out that a parallel exists between this and marital headship. Just as complementarians affirm the ontological equality of each divine person, so also do they affirm the ontological equality of all husbands and wives. At the same time, just as complementarians affirm the personal and functional distinction between each divine person, so also do they affirm the personal and functional distinction between all husbands and wives.

To express this in a simpler fashion: All the divine persons are equally God and equally valuable, just like all husbands and wives are equally human and equally valuable. Yet at the same time, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personally distinct, and function in complementary ways; just like all husbands and wives are personally distinct, and function in complementary ways.

In other words, trinitarianism is complementarian.

Fred Sanders, who is obviously much smarter than I am, has written a helpful and thorough article about this, though he seems to suggest that the Trinity should not inform anyone’s view of gender, either egalitarian or complementarian, which I don’t agree with. Give it a read anyway. I’ll leave you with a paragraph from that article, and a personal postscript:

Sanders writes, “So when gender warriors on either side appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity, I don’t expect much light, though there’s always plenty of heat. A particularly unfruitful line of inquiry is the question, “what did the church fathers say about this?” Pursuing that question can lead to very long but irrelevant florilegia: endless quotations of classic theologians talking about something else, presented as if they are talking about Trinity and gender. They almost never were.”

Postscript: Personally, my suspicion is that here we’re dealing with people who wouldn’t have given much thought to trinitarian orthodoxy had they not stumbled upon a (defective) way to make the Trinity serve their egalitarian vision of manhood and womanhood. In some situations, egalitarians strongly emphasize the need to contextualize Christianity by casting off the dated traditions of the past in order to make Scripture's message more relevant to our own culture. But whenever they see an opportunity to advance the egalitarian cause, they call an audible and present themselves as stalwarts of historical orthodoxy.

Doug and Nancy on Complementarian Family Life

"A two-year-old boy should be taught to respect his baby sister because she is a girl. A five-year-old boy should be required to say "yes, ma'am" to his mother simply because she is a woman. Young boys need to be taught to stand when a woman enters the room. They should be taught to hold open doors for women. They should seat their mother at the dinner table. These are not arbitrary or random cultural practices which have no meaning. They are a constant daily reminder to males -- whose lusts when unmortified always degrade women -- that women must not be degraded, but rather honored."

Doug Wilson, Future Men: Raising Boys to Fight Giants

"Just as men need respect from their wives, so sons need respect from their mothers and sisters. Of course, respect to your son will look different than respect to your husband, because your son is not in authority over you, but it is respect nonetheless. . . . Mothers, remember that Dad is the head. You must not take your duties of obedience lightly. Your son will respect you when you respect Dad. And sons should hear often from Mom's lips what a great Dad they have. This is important in growing healthy sons. Mothers must also learn how to respect their sons, and they must teach their daughters to respect their brothers. This not only prepares daughters to be practiced in giving respect, but it also teaches sons what they want to look for in a wife."

Nancy Wilson, Praise Her in the Gates: The Calling of Christian Motherhood

Reflections: 1 Samuel 26

In this passage, God caused a deep sleep to fall on Saul’s army, such that David had a perfect opportunity to assassinate the man who sought his life. But this providential state of affairs didn’t mean that killing Saul was sanctioned by God. This was Abishai’s mistake: “God has given your enemy into your hand this day. Now please let me pin him to the earth with one stroke of the spear” (v. 8). Abishai’s premise was correct, as God had indeed worked this miraculous circumstance (v. 12); but Abishai’s conclusion was wrong. David, on the other hand, rightly recognized that even though God had given him the opportunity to slay Saul, it would be a crime to put his hand out against the Lord’s anointed. Rather than acting on slippery human interpretations of divine providence, David relied on wisdom and God’s objective moral standard. Not every door that God opens is meant to be taken, at least not in the way we might initially think.

Ginsberg, Beatniks, and Romans 1

Q: Allen Ginsberg was the most famous figure of the “Beat” movement and an outspoken proponent of its philosophy. What perception of the “Beat” movement and the “hipsters” that populated it do you get from “Howl”?

A: I get the impression that the Beat Movement was comprised of those who were in truth the products of prolonged adolescence,

who refused to grow up, having been proverbially sacrificed to Molech by their own parents,

who sought to be free from any authority whose name was not “me,”

who had no objective sense of right and wrong, and no interest in pesky moral standards,

who skillfully strung together long lines of random, discombobulated nonsense and were able to pass it off as poetry,

who were the espousers of a godless worldview, and spent large amounts of energy suppressing the truth in unrighteousness,

who enjoyed a heyday that has come and gone, were an unfortunate blot on American society, and will hopefully be remembered historically as a prime example of what not to emulate.

When Does Theology Superintend Hermeneutics?

The “plainest” interpretation of a biblical text is not always the best one. In fact, sometimes it’s the worst. Let’s imagine that Peter Pagan is a person who has grown up in an entirely secular home and has never been taught even the most basic biblical truths about God. If Peter decides to read the Bible one day, and chooses, naturally, to start at the book of Genesis, it won’t be long before he reads this verse: “But the Lord called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” (Gen. 3:9).

For a totally non-theological secular person like Peter, the plainest way to interpret the content of this verse would be something like this: “God is here seeking to gain information that he does not yet possess. He is unsure of Adam’s location and so, in order to find out, he asks Adam the question, Where are you?”

After all, is this not the plainest way to understand a question?¹ If I send my friend a text message with the same inquiry, “Where are you?”, I expect him to understand that I have a deficiency in my knowledge of his current whereabouts and would appreciate his help in obtaining that information. So our friend Peter will likely assume the same thing of God as he first reads Genesis 3:9, and I’m willing to admit that this is, in fact, the “plainest” way to understand God’s question; and yet it is emphatically incorrect.

Peter’s plain understanding is actually the worst way to interpret God’s question because the same God reveals elsewhere that he is a God whose knowledge has no deficiencies (Psa. 33:13-15; Pro. 15:3; Heb. 4:13). There is not one true fact, nor one state of affairs in the whole universe of which he is not aware. This will rightly lead Peter to reevaluate Genesis 3:9 and abandon what he initially thought was the best (i.e. plainest) interpretation of the verse. He will understand God’s question as simply a rhetorical confrontation, or perhaps a way of testing Adam, but not as a request for unknown information. Theology does, at times, dictate the way we interpret certain texts, but that is not always a bad thing.

And I suppose neither is it always good.

Notes

1. Irony intended!