Wayne P.

I had the privilege of meeting Alan Johnson, emeritus professor of New Testament and Christian Ethics at Wheaton, at the recent conference on gender and culture sponsored by Christians for Biblical Equality in St. Louis. In a private conversation he used the term “casuistry” to describe this sort of rule-making that the CBMW has spawned. I had to look this up when I got home: Webster defines it as “a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine.” Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (ed. by Carl F. H. Henry) expands, “All conceivable contingencies are taken into account and a detailed list of rules is provided so that the permissibility or culpability of an act may be determined.” It is clear, as you said, that this reflects the pharasaic approach to life and legality.

Patti R., whom I had also met at the conference, pointed out to me what I’d overlooked (being a man, I suppose) as many times as I’d read John 20. The risen Lord waited until after Peter and John left the empty tomb and then appeared to Mary Magdalene, whom He then sent as the first witness to the resurrection to tell the other disciples. If the CBMW was right, then why did Jesus do this? He shattered their rule book 2,000 years ago!

On the subject of authority, is it just me or does the complementarian position essentially ignore what Jesus said about authority in passages such as Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:24-27? To use the term “servant-leader” on the one hand (supposedly drawn from these texts) while at the same time encouraging the very attitudes that Jesus challenged (the worldly concepts of authority & power that the disciples associated with greatness) is just incredible.

BTW, the conference was a watershed event for me. I flew to St. Louis knowing that I was “leaning” in this direction (having studied the issue for several years); I flew home afterward with the conviction that this is who and what I am.