A friend said something about Denny Burk’s “review” of my book that really resonated with me. I’m trying to have a conversation about discipleship in the church. In my book, I ask church officers to lead discussions as I look through Scripture, identify the struggles of men and women in the church, and explore within the bounds of our confessions. Burk dismisses all of this and wants to tell us all what to think: what to think about me, what to think about my book, and what to think about biblical manhood and womanhood.
Denny Burk, the President of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, reviewed my book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology and posted it online. I’m not really sure how to respond. It’s a very negative review, aggressive even. And I really think Burk can do better than this. A basic element in a review, especially one published in a journal, is to accurately describe what the book is about. Burk never does this. This reads like an ad hominem against my honesty and motive in writing, claiming that I am opening a doorway for those who don’t like what they see in certain versions of complementarianism to exit. He says I use well presented, but bad arguments to lead a whole generation of dissatisfied people out who already were looking for the door. And since I have identified this “pre-made audience” I don’t even need to bother with things like good exegesis. He compares me to Rob Bell and Donald Miller, saying that like them, in the end I will be forgettable only after having left behind a vast number of sheep who were led astray by my writing, which is according to Burk, a briefly held way-station on the movement from narrow complementarianism to egalitarianism.
My pastor is preaching through 2 Samuel and we got to the doozy “You are the man!” section last Sunday, where Nathan confronts David with his sin in chapter 12. He violated Bathsheba, and then tried to manage this sin, leading to the murder of Uriah and taking Bathsheba as his own wife. There is David, likely sitting on his judgement throne, and the prophet Nathan stirs up David’s heart against the nature of his sin by telling him a parable of sorts for David to judge. We are familiar with this story—David’s righteous anger is kindled and he declares that the rich man deserves to die. And Nathan does the ol’ switcheroo: “You are the man!”
I was listening to a fascinating discussion about power and trust on a secular podcast, called Work Life with Adam Grant, between organizational psychologist Adam Grant and clinical psychologist Esther Perel. It made me think a lot about all the discussions around authority and submission and really took me back to Ephesians 5:18-33. Here is an excerpt, with a few edits, of what Esther Perel said about power:
There is no relationship that doesn’t have a power dimension. It’sintrinsic to relationships. It’s not good or bad, just part of fabric of relationships. Because in relationships you have expectations, and with expectations come a degree of dependency/reliance, and that dependency confers to the people to whom you depend…[bestowing] power. And that power gets neutralized by making it become something that is benevolent, which we then call trust. So that it will become power to rather than power over. But everybody understands that power is not just a vertical axis that comes with authority. Anybody who’s had a two year old knows that….You can have power that comes from the bottom up, the power that constantly deflects energy, the power that takes the authority away from the people in authority. Power is multifaceted.
Some are asking me more about my theology of gender. I’m working on another book that will continue to speak to that, but mainly because I want to reinvigorate the church in Song of Songs. This book, found in the center of our Bibles, teaches us about Christ, his church, man, and woman. It teaches us the whole point of it all. And it’s not a list of roles and hierarchy, but a love song. We are ripe for a positive kind of sexual revolution in the church and recovering a good theological anthropology will have a lot to do with it. I am convinced that it will take a cooperation of academics, pastors, and informed/thoughtful laypeople (men and women) to do it. We desperately need to peel away the Aristotelian mindset of men and woman that still pervades much of the teaching on sexuality in the church today. Teaching on some of the themes in the Song of Songs is just one contribution to this. Here is an excerpt from a chapter I am working on:
Dream, if you can, a courtyard An ocean of violets in bloom Animals strike curious poses They feel the heat The heat between me and you
Perhaps these lyrics in Prince’s popular song accidentally describe what we see in the best song of all, the Song of Songs. In it, we see the lushness of the garden scenes highlighting the “lushness of sexual exclusivity.” The animals in the Song seem to metaphorically participate in the meaningful, erotic, intimacy between these lovers. Nature, wildlife, and even we as the readers feel the heat.
The intimacy of the love between the man and the woman in the Song can be taken at a plain sense reading, teaching us about the goodness of marriage and even sexual union within it. This is how we most naturally can identify with its language. And yet, it also points to something quite astounding—the spousal love of God for his people. Christopher West elaborates:
Steven Wedgeworth has posted an article claiming he has been doxed and deepfaked by a malicious group of people. I would be one of those malicious people, because I shared the Genevan Commons Screenshots website on my blog. And I did that because I have been harassed by this group for over 2 ½ years now. Waiting for someone in the group to speak out. Waiting after confronting people in the group. Waiting for the people I’ve told about it to do something. Waiting while my reputation was continuously slandered, my looks picked apart, while they go after anyone who hosts me or says something positive about my work, while they go after my own session, and plots increased to “stop my agenda.” I drove to speaking engagements in fear, knowing these men have joked around about showing up and have called ahead to warn churches to guard their families from my danger. Waiting. No more.
During times of trial, many Christians rightly find comfort in the Psalms. I have been turning to the Song of Songs. It’s led me to read a lot of commentary and sermons on the Song as I have been studying it. The latest issue of Credo Magazine is out and I have a review published of Ellen Davis’s excellent commentary on the Song of Songs. Here’s a short intro. excerpt:
What do we do with the Song of Songs? Many scholars have differing interpretations on its writer, when it was written, and why it was written. Is it one, unified song or a compilation of songs? This book found right in the middle of our Bibles is thought by some to be the most secular book in Scripture and by others the most biblical of Old Testament texts. Although the Song has enjoyed much popularity in the past—many have even looked to the Song to help them interpret other parts of Scripture—today many avoid it. How often do you quote from the Song of Songs to encourage, exhort, or teach a brother or sister in the faith? This year, it was even parodied in the popular Babylon Bee featuring imaginary Valentine’s Day Sweetheart candies with messages such as “UR Breasts = Fawns” and “Hey, Tower Neck!” It’s funny because it really speaks to our awkwardness with handling the language in the Song.
“Don’t participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
There are a few posts and comments rising against my sharing the recent website of Genevan Commons screenshots because, along with the screenshots, standards, definitions, and a help and hope page, it provided the membership lists. And the membership list of the group also gives the information these members provided on their Facebook profile, such as their employers. I’ve been accused of both doxxing and slandering for sharing this website.
We the undersigned, as ministers, elders, and members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), present and publish this open letter in order to express our deep concern with regard to many comments and posts which were published on the “Genevan Commons” Facebook group and which were recently made public.
Our concerns include these:
We are greatly concerned that members of our church, including Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller, along with others, have been subjected to disparaging comments which are “corrupt,” “foolish talking,” and “coarse jesting” (Eph 4:29; 5:5). Such words are never acceptable, and certainly not from officers of the church.
We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have sworn to be accountable to “their brethren in the Lord” (4th ministerial ordination vow), would attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy, as if “locker room talk” could somehow be exempted from the accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to privacy. Indeed, our Lord warns us that “whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops” (Luk 12:3).
We are greatly concerned about the overtly misogynistic tone of the critiques leveled at women authors, whom many Geneva Commons members have not honored as fellow image bearers (Gen 1:27), as fellow heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet 3:7), and as members of Christ’s body who are endowed with many glorious and useful gifts for the building up of the church (Eph 4:7). Rather than thoughtful critique, we are dismayed to find officers of the church deriding and mocking others. Such behavior is completely unacceptable towards our sisters in Christ. It is the opposite of love.
The ninth commandment forbids “undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others” (WLC 145); therefore, we cannot remain silent after the public revelation of such unedifying words.