The difficult truth about the role of women that was lost in the outrage for/against Harrison Butker's speech

 

It was entirely predictable that NFL kicker Harrison Butker's commencement address would be condemned in most blue circles and lauded in red ones.  The click-bait outrage fueled Culture War industry needs new topics on a daily basis, and this one is a near-perfect Rorschach Test that allows both sides to see what they hope to see in it.  For example:

Chiefs' Harrison Butker 'said nothing wrong' during faith-based commencement speech, religious group says - Fox News

vs.

Backlash over NFL player Harrison Butker’s commencement speech has reached a new level - CNN

To read the full text of the speech: Full Text: Harrison Butker of Kansas City Chiefs Graduation Speech - National Catholic Register

While Harrison Butker said a lot of things in his speech about politics, COVID19, and the Catholic Church (especially the Traditional Latin Mass), some of which was good and true but parts of which were conspiracy-theory driven and dangerous, it was his address directly to the graduating women that caught the attention of most:

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker...

I say all of this to you because I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God's will in their life. Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”

Here is the difficult truth that Butker didn't mention in his speech: For most young women in America today, there is no choice between being a homemaker and having a career.  Most won't get to choose because they will have to work throughout the years in which they may or may not be also fulfilling the role of mother.  Economic realities are, in fact, realities.  

When I was growing up I was blessed to have a mother who was, mostly, able to be at home before we went to school and when we came back home.  My mom, Kathy, worked a few odd-jobs during those years, but it was mostly running day-care out of our home that helped to pay the bills.  My dad, Walt, worked hard for over 40 years at Amway, working his way up the ladder and teaching himself the math that his high school education didn't include.  I'm exceedingly proud of the hard work and dedication of both my dad and my mom during the decades when my brother, sister, and I were growing up.  We were blessed to have both of our parents so involved in our daily lives.  

That was then, it was tight for us with my dad's income as the primary, supplemented by what my mom could earn, but the economic situation for most of my generation-X, and certainly the generations after, has gotten more difficult.

The reality is, most of the women hearing Harrison Butker's speech will need to work full-time, or close to it, if their future family has any real chance of owning a home and paying the bills.  It won't be about choosing the "vocation" of being a homemaker, but the juggling of multiple roles and responsibilities, something women have known about for centuries.

The stay-at-home mom may be an ideal among Christian conservatives {and not just Catholics, see: Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'? - blog post 10/19}, but the economic choices facing would-be mothers and fathers don't care if you root for the blue team or the red team.

I'll let a story from my own life and marriage to Nicole be the last thought here: When we were first married in 2001, my wife worked full-time as a teacher (first at Saranac High School, then Pewamo-Westphalia, both in MI).  That continued for the first 9 years of our marriage.  It wasn't because she wanted to work full-time, but because even with my own multiple jobs added to the mix we struggled to pay our modest mortgage each month, and in fact had a significant debt-load to climb out from under when we moved to PA in 2012.  We both worked hard, but we were spinning our wheels financially.  To make matters worse, from 2010-2012 we didn't have any health insurance.  I was working multiple jobs but none of them had benefits.  I know that this story will sound familiar to a lot of people.

It may come as no surprise, then, that our daughter Clara wasn't born until 2015, after our financial situation had improved significantly (and when we had health insurance).  If God had blessed us sooner with a child, we would have celebrated and praised that blessing, but Nicole would have been forced to return to work as soon as she was physically able after that child was born.  I know many women who have done just that, returning full-time to the work force within a few weeks of giving birth.  I can't begin to imagine how difficult that must be physically and emotionally, they're amazing.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if the "ideal" family in Harrison Butker's view has a stay-at-home mom to the millions of families for whom that "ideal" can never be a reality.

Let us remember to support and encourage the young mothers and fathers in our own churches and communities who are trying to juggle all of the roles and responsibilities that reality has tossed at them.

Sermon Video: Suitable helpers united as one - Genesis 2:18-24

Why would the chosen bond of a marriage covenant be stronger than the given bond of the family we have had since birth?  What is it about humanity that demonstrates our fundamental need for relationships with each other, especially that of a husband to a wife and a wife to a husband?

In this text, the book of Genesis demonstrates that it was God's design in his creation of humanity that included the idea that a husband and a wife are two halves of a better whole.  God shows this truth to Adam through a vision of Eve as his "other side," an analogy that Adam quickly grasps and one reinforced by the finale of the section, "that is why a mean leaves..."

In the end, this passage reinforces the absolute ontological equality of men and women, for God has created a union of equals, one in which we can both be our spouses' "suitable helper."

Sexist Gospels? Another reminder that Inspiration and Inerrancy matter

In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women.  This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating.  That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be.  That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all.  That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all?  The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors.  In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy,  believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}

In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father.  Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall

Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}.  Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place.  In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers.  In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy?  Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture.  What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view.  What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text.  The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women.  God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote.  It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal.  Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when?  Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself.  Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead?  Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more.  If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value?  On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender.  We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other.  These things are necessary.  What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written.  The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.

Sermon Video: Propriety in Worship - 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Having dealt with issues relating to how Christians ought to function within the outside culture, Paul now turns to the proper function of the Church itself, beginning with propriety of worship.  In doing so, Paul relates the 1st Century viewpoints regarding what is fitting and proper for both men and women to show respect for God while at worship to the Genesis account of Creation, a connection aimed at ensuring that the way in which the Christians were conducting themselves would bring glory to God, not man.  In doing so, Paul appeals to traditions that he taught to the church when he founded it, reminding us that our worship (and the way our local church or denomination functions in general) is by necessity both a reflection of theological choices and the culture from which we are drawn.  As such, it is not incumbent upon 21st Century Christians to imitate the style of worship of our ancestors in the faith, but rather to ensure that our worship is also fitting and proper, that it glorifies God and serves as a witness to those outside of the Church of our submission to the Lordship of Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below: