Jim Kushiner has been working very hard, especially for the last few years, in raising money for the ministry of the Fellowship of St. James. My wife and I have always been enthusiastic contributors to Touchstone, but know that there is some irony in this, since the things I write for the magazine and Mere Comments, and the way I write them, have to be one of the chief causes of the unpopularity of the journal among "moderates" who wish to be orthodox and egalitarian at the same time, and would be pleased to help fund us if we validated their pretensions, or at least didn't call them bad names. More than once I have heard complaints from those quarters that we have failed in being a true representative of mere Christianity–that is to say, Christianity with a nice, shiny new egalitarian rider.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is gold in them there hills if we change our tack. Look at modernizing Evangelicalism: there’s money–at least to begin with–in keeping the egalitarians happy, in the appearance of good sense and moderation in the context of modern realities–a good definition in any generation of the Broad Road. The temptation to relax on these things is always there, even in the matter of what advertising we will carry. Touchstone has developed some status over the years, is grudgingly read and quoted by people who don’t like us, and one picks up signs from time to time that criticism from us nettles the Sensible far more than you will hear them admit in public.
But if we are correct on these things, I hope we enjoy the patronage of the Lord, from whom all funding flows. If he kills us–and kill he does, even the best of his servants, Glory be to God–that is a death we can be satisfied with, and given the choice between living well in disobedience and living poor in his good graces, I trust we shall make the choice that marks most of history’s saints. We don’t wish to be well-spoken-of by all men, but are happy and grateful when we get the support of those who love us.
Yours is only one voice for Touchstone, so this orthodox egalitarian continues to read. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I am egalitarian because I believe it is scripturally true.
Most conservative Christians in America are complementarians, so you may have to find another reason why funds are so hard to come by. Perhaps the poor economy?
Pax
Mr Hutchins, thank you for your stand, which I hope will be part of the fulfillment for you of the wildest hope the heart can entertain, namely, to hear, one day, “well done.”
Ms. Hawkins,
FYI: You may be new to Touchstone so you might not know that Dr. Hutchens is not just “one” voice for Touchstone but has been chosen over and over by the editors to be the voice for Touchstone on this issue. I’m sure you are aware that Arius quoted much from Scripture, but, of course, the Church spoke and his interpretation of Scripture was rejected as yours on egalitarianism has been for 2,000 years. You will hopefully someday realize that you will have to choose between being an “orthodox egalitarian” and an orthodox Christian. I pray you’ll decide sooner rather than later to follow the Church on this.
A bold opinionator named Steve
(although it seems hard to believe)
Kept the faith of the Fathers
Despite who it bothers
And that’s why we never will leave.
Thank you for your faithfulness in this matter, Mr. Hutchins. Sometimes, it can be a bit lonely and it’s good to know others are staying true to the faith once delivered.
Ms. Hawkins, please. Have you ever seen evidence, here or elsewhere, that I have a hard time believing egalitarians think their position is “scripturally true”? That is the whole battle–the alteration of consciousness and conscience to the place where professed Bible-Christians are able to believe this new gospel, despite what they find in their Bibles. It would approach psychological impossibility to stand against the old one with the remarkable boldness they show unless they had come to believe what they profess. You would be wholly accurate if you said I believe egalitarian conviction comes from having been successfully deceived.
And while we’re on accuracy–did I say I attributed Touchstone’s difficulty in raising money to its anti-egalitarianism, or that people who might otherwise be pleased to contribute do not because of the magazine’s persistence in this area? Is this such a fine distinction that you really can’t make it out? Our more knowledgeable detractors know that Hutchens is far from the only problem here. Some of them prefer drawing beads on other editors, who sing the same tune in a different key. A matter of dis-taste, I think.
Time and again those who don’t like our editorial position on egalitarianism attempt, as you have here, to make us out as stupid: we think our opponents are acting against their consciences, or aren’t really aware that the bad economy might be a significant factor in fund-raising difficulties. They are telling us more about themselves than they are about us. Why do they feel such a powerful need to misrepresent? Bad consciences, maybe.
Bravo, Steve! Both for the original post and for your response to Ms. Hawkins. ‘Tis a pity she is mistaken on several counts. First, that she can be both orthodox and egalitarian. Second that she seems to think what she believes to be “scripturally true” determines what is, indeed, scripturally true.
But poor Ms. Hawkins is also decieved on the nature of “complementarianism” which is hopelessly and fatally compromised just where it pretends to set itself apart.
She really can’t have been reading here long if she thinks you’re the sole spokesman on this issue.
I am tempted to turn about the typical religious feminist line and point it squarely at Gina Wright Hawkins: You really need to get out more, at least read some more than you evidently have, dear.
Kamilla
Keep up the good work Mr. Hutchens, being a student of the seminary and a librarian has made you a formidable intellectual, and I am always challenged by your articles.
Might I suggest that the battle line over egalitarianism is misplaced? I agree with you on the issue, but I think that first there is the actual definition of what the argument is over, and second that your position is entirely dependant on Tradition/past practice/apostolic succession. If you cannot convince an evangelical of one of those things first, I don’t see being able to move them past, “Why not?”.
Wow, folks. Not really feeling the love. I have been reading this blog off and on for about three years now and find much of what is written wonderful and I love the attempt at orthodox ecumenism found here. Christ’s desire for unity of his body is not something I think is secondary and am thankful for this blog and Touchstone in working toward this.
When I say that I continue to read because Mr. Hutchens is only one voice, I mean just that, and it is not because of ignorance that I make such a statement. When I read this blog, I’m particularly pleased when I find Lars Walker, Anthony Esolen, Hunter Baker and James Kushiner has written a new post. (Btw, I obviously read Mr. Hutchens also.)
The point I understand Mr. Hutchens is making here is that if Touchstone/Mere Comments were to become a forum for not only complementarians, but also egalitarians, then T/MC’s might receive more funding. My only point was that I doubted that to be the case because most Christians in the Evangelical/Roman Catholic/Orthodox traditions, i.e. your audience, are complementarians.
The accusation that I have attempted to make anyone look stupid is unjust. Assigning motives to my remarks is a very dangerous place to tread and I ask you to reconsider. If I have indeed been deceived, then I pray to have my eyes opened to the truth. As it is, my study of the scriptures and church history and much prayer have led me to a more egalitarian view.
Pax
Ms. Hawkins, I did not need to “assign motives to your remarks.” They plainly accused us, on their face, of being too dull to understand what wiser people suspect about the difficulties of which I spoke. And then you turn right around and accuse me of ignorance and viciousness in presuming to assign bad motives to you. This sort of thing we have found consistently in dealing with egalitarians–denial, evasion, and accusation that we lack charity (“Not really feeling the love”) because we point out exactly what they are themselves doing without mincing words. I am trying to help you–to wake you up–and while you may perceive the discipline as uncharitable because it makes you uncomfortable, that is far from my intention.
Mr. Espe, I am rather mystified as to why one would think that well-exercised egalitarians, or their opponents, are having difficulties on “the actual definition of what the argument is over.” Evidently, however, you know something by way of “actual definition” that I have missed, so I am bound to crave your counsel on the matter.
No, an honest reading of the Bible would be enough to correct the egalitarians–the common readings of centuries shared by all the churches (including many modern Evangelicals) before the egalitarian attack on Christian doctrine. If Protestants appeal to the Bible only, then to the Bible they must go. I wouldn’t require anything else of them, given their beliefs about authority.
What good would it do, though, to tell egalitarian Protestants that their beliefs are novelties unsupported by church tradition, if the scriptures that stand at the head of the tradition are read as egalitarians read them? Take, for example, the ones who say that patriarchalism, while “in the Bible,” isn’t really “biblical”–even in the places it would seem intentionally taught by the biblical writer. Really now–why bother such people with extra-biblical authority?
Seminaries, Mr. Espe, are the best heretic and jackass breeders in the world. I left mine with the admonition that the Nicene Creed was not adequate for my file’s Personal Statement of Faith: I was required to make up my own, like everybody else, to prove what I had learned there. This experience has become in subsequent years emblematic of the “whole problem.”
As a librarian I tell people how to catch bus number 4, find them the phone number of Louie’s Diner, and tell them to get their feet off the table. It’s a living and I’m thankful for it, and yes, one can learn things doing this kind of work, just as one can learn things worth knowing by working in one’s garden or practicing the piano.
Any worthwhile theological learning I have managed to get, however, came not from “seminaries,” but faithful teachers in the apostolic faith and tradition. Some of them were actually my contemporaries and a few even taught at schools I attended, but it seemed that most of the best ones had real difficulties with their seminaries.
Mr. Hutchens, I was not implying that you were stupid, nor was I attempting to misrepresent, nor do I have a bad conscience. I believe your thinking that if you gave a forum to egalitarians, that Touchstone would gain more funding is mistaken, both because most folks who read you are complementarians, but also because there are those of us who are egalitarians who find such good things on this blog that your voice against egalitarianism, (yours is the most vocal on this issue), is not enough to put us off. Your insistence that I was accusing you of being stupid or dull is indeed assigning motives which I do not have. Just because I believe someone is mistaken does not mean I believe them stupid or dull.
Pax
Gina, I used to have to have a friend vet any emails to my ex-husband because it was so difficult for me to discern the barbs.
Allow me to act as my friend would have and reveal how your initial posting comes across:
“Yours is only one voice for Touchstone, so this orthodox egalitarian continues to read. ”
Implied barb: For whatever reason, your problematic point of view is given space among your betters, but I read anyway because of what they have to say. I can rise above you.
“As hard as it may be for you to believe, I am egalitarian because I believe it is scripturally true.”
Barb: denigrating as to ability to imagine a simple concept or exercise Christian charity.
“Most conservative Christians in America”
Barb: Conservative Christians and their point of view are just another hypenation, and parochial at that.
“are complementarians”
Nota bene: are they anymore?
“so you may have to find another reason”
Barb: go find a better excuse
“why funds are so hard to come by.”
Nota bene: From my observation, Touchstone fundraising has actually been quite successful
“Perhaps the poor economy?”
Barb: patronizing–help the little guy out
“Pax”
Barb: let us all be peacemakers like me, and since I”ve said this magical, happenin’ word, you can’t come back at me. Point, game, match. Also provides a deft link to the opening salvo in your subsequent post. Nice!
From the tone of the responses to my comment I think I am beginning to understand how my comments have been misunderstood. Sorry to have troubled you. This has been illuminating.
Pax
Meant sincerely, not as a magical happenin’ word, but as a habit I’ve gotten into for most of my correspondence as I’ve tried to teach myself and my daughters Latin.
Probably the worst is this: As it is, my study of the scriptures and church history and much prayer have led me to a more egalitarian view.
If any of us Touchstone editors tried to pull a low trick like this, his editorial brethren would come down on him like a full hod of bricks. Naturally, we believe we’re right, but to say to anyone, in a barely disguised way, “Your opinions are inferior to mine because I understand the Bible and Church history better than you do, and this knowledge, combined with ‘much prayer,’ makes it likely that God is also of my opinion–so there!” would be considered reprehensible–unmanly.
To say, “It appears to me that the scriptures, or church history, teach . . .” is argument, even more so when reasons and examples are provided. Obviously, study of the Bible and knowledge of church history are implied by statements like this, but this is as far as an honest man can go: “This is how things appear to me, God help me.” Charging the results of study with the divine imprimatur by making one’s opinion the result of ‘much prayer’ is claiming prophetic inspiration. Argument is at an end.
As Margaret indicated, Ms. Hawkins, your postings here have been jam-packed with insults and patronizations that you intended (or you wouldn’t have written them), but composed in such a way that you thought you wouldn’t have to acknowledge them, even to yourself. This is not a judgment of your motives, but simple interpretation of evidence you have freely given us.
Ms. Hawkins,
I have to echo what Steve has written here. You’re “not feeling the love” because you mistake love. Love isn’t collegiality in the face of heresy. Love isn’t (to take an example from my own field of healthcare) swabbing a wound with a topical numbing agent when what is needed is a good debridement (and THOSE are always messy and painful).
I used to be a religious feminist – full bore, all-out, loud and proud. I reacted as you have, and worse, to men like SMH. If they hadn’t spoken severely and directly to me, if they had played nice as you seem to want, I never would have crawled out of that hole. But they were direct and, though I didn’t “feel” the love, it was real and eventually their prayers bore fruit.
I hope you do stick around after all. You never know where it might lead.
Kamilla
Mr. Hutchens,
I fear I may have mispoke, and apologize for any unintended offense. My admiration for your writing remains, and is what I intended to convey.
I think the key to what I’m getting at is best expressed when you say “well versed egalitarians”. What you say about them is true, but I would submit that the majority of American Christians who you believe your writing on the topic offends are not well versed at all if they are even truly egalitarian. By this, I mean that the evangelical Christians I know give so little thought to the topic of women’s ordination, that when they hear of an argument about it, they believe that it’s opponents must object to women in the pastorate because of their qualification (for no other possible reason exists in the evangelical mindset). So not wishing to be grouped with those who oppress women, they identify themselves as egalitarian, for they believe women to be civically “equal” to men.
To convince them then, requires showing them the full scope of an issue not even adressed by most evangelical bodies (The Assemblies of God is one of the few evangelical denominations to bother to produce a well-reasoned paper on the topic, a cursory reading of which shows that the parties who produced it did not understand classical objections). The default position for most is, “why not?”. It does not say in the Bible, “Women shall not be pastors”, and patriarchy is viewed as cultural artifact much the same as concubinage and slavery. Evangelicals like their ultimatums in clear language.
Additionally, most evangelicals view being a pastor as a job, so if a woman can deliver a sermon, manage a business, and provide occasional counseling services, what else is there? No authority or additional ceremonial significance is ascribed to the pastoral office. The concerns about the sacerdotal aspects of priestly ministry are non-existent, as is any relevance to the fact that Christ chose no women as apostles, because they are not viewed as the same office. I think evangelicals simply lack a foundational understanding of the reasons why the church has never inducted women into the priesthood, and that they would be easier to convince if they believed in the reasons that have been given historically in support of that position. My own understanding of the issue is likely incomplete, but this is the impression I get whenever I try to discuss it.