Tag Archives: Calvinism

032 I Dr. Bradley Jersak: Can Your Theology Heal You or Is It Hurting You?

A promotional image for The Beautiful Kingdom Builders Podcast featuring Dr. Bradley Jersak, a theologian and principal of St. Stephen's University. The image includes a logo, a photo of Dr. Jersak, and covers of his published books.
Dr. Bradley Jersak has written multiple extraordinary books that will guide you to a more beautiful faith. Buy them here.

When I asked Dr. Bradley Jersak on my podcast, I didn’t know I was going to open up about a recent experience where my religious trauma was triggered. Our conversation was then about the theological doctrines and systems that perpetuate hierarchies and harm, and the good news of a theology of God’s love and healing.

In this episode, Jersak shares his journey through various Christian traditions, his views on theology, trauma, and justice, and how love and mercy shape his understanding of faith. He shared why certain unchristlike interpretations can contribute to personal distress and how we might move toward a more beautiful, Christlike, and trauma-informed faith. By re-evaluating these frameworks, we can find a clearer path to spiritual wholeness that aligns with the nature of God rather than fear-based systems.

From his website: “Bradley Jersak is an author and teacher based in Abbotsford, BC. He currently serves as the Principal of St. Stephen’s University (SSU.ca) in New Brunswick, where he continues as the Dean and faculty member of SSU’s School of Theology & Culture. He also teaches peace studies courses with JFI.SSU.ca and is a regular Open Table Conference crew lecturer. He is also part of the Plain Truth Ministries team, where he serves as Pastoral Scholar. He writes, edits, and does layout for CWR magazine, CWR press, and the CWRm blog. Through his books and seminars, Brad shares the good news that God is Love, perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ, and that God’s love heals wounded hearts and empowers us to heal this broken world.”

Please enjoy this episode, where we talk about:
Bradley’s journey through Baptist, Mennonite, Renewal, and Orthodox traditions,
and now the new Episcopal Church plant he is a part of.
The impact of trauma and deconstruction on faith
A critique of penal substitutionary atonement and hellfire preaching
The biblical vision of justice, mercy, and the love of God
The systemic issues in church hierarchy and patriarchy
The importance of inclusive leadership and gender equality
The role of scripture reading and interpretation in systemic change
The eschatological hope of the restoration of all things

Please visit www.bradjersak.com where you can subscribe to his Substack and find his social media links and more, and buy one of his books here or at your favorite local bookstore (as an Amazon Affiliate, I do receive a small commission for purchases from my links).

You can find this episode of The Beautiful Kingdom Builders podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more!

TRANSCRIPT:

Rev. Ruth Perry (00:16)
Today I’m pleased to welcome Brad Jersak, or I should say, Reverend Doctor. Are you a Reverend?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (00:21)
Yeah, but let’s go with Bradley, because I’m trying to be a lay person now.

Rev. Ruth Perry (00:25)
Alright, so I’m gonna start over and I’m gonna say I’m welcoming Bradley Jersak. Or should I say doctor? I just feel like

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (00:29)
That’s perfect. No.

Rev. Ruth Perry (00:31)
I should give you all the

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (00:32)
I don’t need it anymore. I’m just Bradley.

Part part of my history was was healing from the way titles become identities and measures of hierarchy that I’m not interested in at all. But okay. I did do some hard work to get there. So thanks for putting doctor in there. I am the principal of a university and I’m a professor there now. So my students call me Bradley or dear friend.

Rev. Ruth Perry (00:56)
All right.

Well now I’m gonna leave all of this in the podcast because that was beautiful.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (01:01)
Perfect.

Rev. Ruth Perry (01:01)
So I’m pleased to welcome you and I’m really excited to talk about your work today with my audience and introduce them to you. I hope that they go down a Bradley Jersak rabbit hole like I did a few years ago and really soak in your theology because it’s been really healing to me and it’s really beautiful and it has the fragrance of the Spirit of God to me. And so I couldn’t tell you how excited I am that you accepted my invitation. And I’m really excited to introduce you to the Beautiful Kingdom Builders audience. Thank you for being here today.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (01:34)
Thanks for having me and it’s good to meet you.

Rev. Ruth Perry (01:36)
Can you take us back and tell us your story? Like just as an

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (01:39)
All right.

Rev. Ruth Perry (01:40)
introduction to who you are and where you started from and how you got to where you are today.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (01:44)
Sure, so that’s that’s a loaded question because I’m 62 now. This could take a moment. Distill, distill, distill. I grew up in a conservative Baptist family and church where I have loved Jesus since I learned his name on my mother’s lap. I have loved the scriptures since I first opened my Bible. And was able to read it on my own for the first time when I was six years old.

I have loved prayer since my mom taught me to pray for everyone in the family every night. And none of that has changed. I carry that part of my Baptist heritage very seriously. And I would even say conservative in this sense. My impulse is to conserve. And what do I want to conserve? The ancient faith of Jesus Christ. And sometimes that means backtracking to double check what that was in the for the first Christians.

So I grew up 22 years there, went off to an interdenominational, even more conservative, fundamentalist Bible college, where I met my wife Eden, and she was from a Mennonite family. And some think of the Mennonites like the old Mennonites look like Amish. Her church was more like a community church. And by the time I finished my master’s degree, I was hoping to be a teacher, but no doors were opening. And her church called me and said, Would you want to come and be associate pastor of youth, young adults and outreach? And I really didn’t want to, so I made it difficult on them to hire me. But the Lord opened that door and I just fell in love with the people I was working with.

And I also was immersed then and ordained in sort of that Anabaptist heritage of where we don’t just believe in Jesus, but we believe Jesus and his call to live according to the Sermon on the Mount. And that’s why Anabaptists or Mennonites are generally peace people, because they they take seriously the Jesus way of the Sermon on the Mount, especially of radical forgiveness and enemy love.

So I did that for 10 years, and I noticed how much more Mennonites tend to stay in the gospels, and that had an impact on me. By the time I left there, we were ready to plant a church. So my wife and I partnered up with Brian and Sue West, and we planted a little church called Fresh Wind. And our idea there was to be more open to Holy Spirit renewal stuff. So we were kind of open to that world. But the focus was actually on marginalized people.

And so imagine this: let’s say 150 people, one-third of them were people with disabilities in full-time care. Rows of wheelchairs, people with autism, people with Down syndrome on the stage in the worship team serving at the altar giving the communion and dedicating the babies, you name it. It and it was a glorious mess. And those folks began drawing addicts from the community, people with drug addiction, alcoholics and so on. And some of those were from unhoused people as well.

And they would come feeling like, this is like I’m at home and I’m safe here and I’m not the noisiest person in the room because someone’s having a grand mal seizure, you know. And so I co-led it for 10 years. So after 20 years total of pastoring, I had a massive meltdown in 2008, I really crashed. It wasn’t overwork, it was just trauma after trauma after trauma in that community. You know, within a year we had had someone abducted and abused for hours. We had someone else murdered with a hammer. we had had a whole bunch of people with disabilities that died tragically sometimes because their care was neglected.

I mean it just it built and then finally I had a meltdown. I didn’t know if I could trust God anymore. And I went in I went into my own addictive behaviors to cope with that. And I realized if I don’t trust God, we’re so vulnerable with all these traumas. I need to step back. That’s where my wife Eden stepped in and she led the church, brought them through a healing period, brought me through a healing period. And it was then I realized I can’t go back to pastoring.

And so I went off and I’m like, now I think I know the questions, especially around suffering. And did my PhD work around that stuff. And by the time I got finished that in 2012, I had an offer to start teaching. And so I teach Bible and theology now. I’m at St. Stephen’s University, where I’m I’m the principal of the graduate school of and I’m Dean of Theology and Culture there.

I’ve skipped some more church stuff though. So I had the Baptist era, the Mennonite era, and then this renewal kind of church for the marginalized era. None of that was just church hopping. I was all in doing, you know, serving in these churches, and I’ve collected all the gifts and treasures from those years, and I’ve not discarded any of them. I really appreciate it. But I also during you know, probably the 2000s, I came into contact with an old monk. He looks, he literally looks like Gandalf.

And in the Orthodox tradition, and so I’d visit his monastery and he began to show me how the Eastern Church, 350 million Christians in the world. How they approach the scriptures. And there was some things that were really in alignment with that sort of Mennonite version of the nonviolent God who’s revealed perfectly in Jesus. And some of your viewers I don’t know, I know you have, if you were to Google Jersak and Gospel in Chairs and Denver.

You’ll see a 30-minute presentation of what I learned from that monk, in fact. And I began attending there and the monastery would have weekend services, and it really became part of my recovery, where we heard the word mercy or merciful 154 times in two hours every Sunday as part of the liturgy. That’s what I needed. I needed a mercy bath.

More recently now I’m helping out with another church plant, an Episcopal Church that’s led by Ama, it’s like Mama, Cherith Fee Nordling. And so and what I love about that is I am an egalitarian at heart. I picked this up from the Mennonites, and that I believe women should be in every role that a man can be. And so I’ve really, really been spiritually thriving under female mentorship through the years. Which brings me to today. And here I am. Hello, Reverend Ruth.

Rev. Ruth Perry (07:42)
Hello. That’s such a beautiful story. And I really appreciate the appreciation you have for the different traditions you’ve experienced. Because

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (07:50)
yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (07:51)
I do think that, you know, we’re all expressing our revelation of God that we have and that we understand. And there’s a lot of beauty in all the different ways that people express that revelation of God.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (08:03)
Yeah. Think about the body of Christ not just as individuals, but as these movements. And who

Rev. Ruth Perry (08:08)
Yes.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (08:08)
are we to say we don’t need them, right? So I’m quite ecumenical that way, meaning I have learned to learn from those who have seen what I haven’t seen.

Rev. Ruth Perry (08:19)
Well, I appreciate that something I see in you, which is why I think your faith is beautiful, is that your spirit does show the fruit of the spirit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control in ways that some of the spiritual authorities of my past don’t have those same fruit evident consistently. I mean I don’t know you consistently, but I get that from hearing your teachings and listening to your other podcast interviews you’ve been on. And I know I don’t know you, but I feel like I trust you and that your message has a lot of truth as my faith has grown, it does ring true to me. And I guess one of the things that I’m curious about

So this week in my context, I went to a local board meeting because we have some people in our community who want to revise our local library policies and procedures in a way that would create discrimination where we’re complying currently with non-discrimination laws and we’re receiving state funds because of that that would this would jeopardize. And there were a lot of people that came to the meeting to speak out and I came to speak out myself.

And I felt really triggered by the meeting because the chairperson who was really driving this effort reminded me so much of my upbringing in the conservative Baptist faith. And it was surprising to me how triggered I was by the meeting and by that experience and feeling really agitated and a lot of adrenaline pumping.

And something that I really appreciate about your book Out of the Embers is you talk so much about the trauma of deconstruction in a way that I haven’t heard other people speak of deconstruction and how painful the experience is. Can you speak to that just growing awareness of trauma and how it impacts us and to the experience of trauma in deconstruction.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (10:09)
Yeah. That’s a great question. So let’s start with your story. You used the word triggered and you realized the meeting was the trigger, the man chairing, I’m assuming it was a man chairing, was the trigger, but the trigger indicates a earlier trauma. And and that was related to pastoral authority in in a church you’d experience.

Well, the the bad news about that is you it makes your heart pound and probably gives you a headache, and and and so you have to become super self-aware. I don’t think the solution to triggers is getting rid of all the people who trigger us. That’s been a silly kind of move that folks have made, even those who are looking for safe space. It’s like I want spaces where no one will trigger me.

Well, what if we looked at that? What if we went back and said, what was going on back there that is coming up now that still needs healing work? And so that’s where I would start. I would also want to be super compassionate about that because having trauma triggered means that trauma’s lodged in you somewhere and you didn’t put it there. And that requires gentleness, it requires healing. You don’t get to just say, don’t be triggered, right? And we’re not gonna be able to wait until all of our triggers are gone and all of our traumas are healed in order to speak truth to power. So sometimes that’s very uncomfortable and it it’s costly to you and your nervous system. And and so I honor you for stepping up anyway.

Further, it doesn’t justify the one triggering you either. You are identifying a pattern that needs addressing. So that’s a lot on the table, isn’t it? But if we could boil it down, to say yes, continue speaking for justice and goodness and mercy. Keep speaking in ways that resist, let’s say racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever, any kind of belittling or othering of those who aren’t like us. And while you do that, you’re noting how it’s impacting you. And I would attend to it.

And so that’s what I do. I mean I my nervous system was really damaged in two thousand eight. As far as I’m aware, it’s not fully recovered and I no longer expect that. So it just means I need a healing team around me. So I attend 12-step meetings for that. I see a spiritual director for that. I ad hoc will see a counselor for that, have it for a while. But I really firmly believe that doing that inner work, I can’t do it by myself. And it’s not about sucking it up.

I am nervous when self-care becomes our highest value. It makes us unhireable, actually. We have generations we may lose over that one. But we do self-care and we do it so that we’re more effective and that the impact on your religious PTSD, which by the way is a real thing. One of our master’s students just did her her thesis on that. And that religious PTSD.

Well, since you mentioned trauma, what she identified was the similarities between religious PTSD that comes from being raised with a retributive God, a punisher god, how similar the fruit is in that to women in recovery houses from domestic violence. And she said, based on the correlation of the bad fruit, she goes, I don’t need a a biblical or theological debate to demonstrate these doctrines are wrong. Because Jesus said, look at the fruit. And as the fruit of a doctrine looks like victimization by domestic violence, then we’ve got to push back. So that’s a lot, but it’s about you, you know, in terms of trauma. Does that kind of ring true or how how’s that landing for you?

Rev. Ruth Perry (13:45)
Yeah, absolutely. I have done some therapy and some EMDR therapy for religious trauma. It wasn’t something I was really aware that I had religious trauma until I had a similar kind of breakdown when I was 40. I’m 46 now.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (14:01)
Mm-hmm.

Rev. Ruth Perry (14:02)
And my daughter watched the video of the meeting at the library and she told me, You were so nice to that man. I wish you hadn’t been so nice. And I could feel myself fawning, like having a traumatic response where I did, I fawned.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (14:15)
Wow.

Rev. Ruth Perry (14:15)
I said it, I gave him a compliment before I made my peace.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (14:18)
Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (14:19)
And I wish I had said things more strongly. So it was kind of a jarring experience. We’re looking back where I feel like I’ve done a lot of healing work, but I guess I’m not there yet.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (14:28)
That’s profound though, cause to distinguish Christ-like mercy from fawning when they can look alike, right? Look at the fruit of the Spirit you exhibited. And you know what? Maybe you did. But the shadow side of that is a traumatic fawning response. That’s quite a insight. I’m glad that you noticed, you know.

Rev. Ruth Perry (14:48)
Yeah, I didn’t mean to bring it up today, but I just feel like I’m in good hands. And so thank you for listening to that and giving some advice.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (14:55)
Yeah, for sure.

Rev. Ruth Perry (14:57)
So what are the things about religious fundamentalism that do cause religious trauma?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (15:02)
Okay, so I think some of it is doctrinal and some of it is around practice and and structures, systems, right? What do you want to cover first?

Rev. Ruth Perry (15:12)
Anything. Everything.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (15:13)
Okay. So it could be a chicken and egg thing anyway, but I do think they correlate, as the great band ACDC once asked, who made who? So is it a nurture or nature thing and is it a doctrine or practice thing? And what I mean by that is sometimes we will generate God in our own image. And if that image arises from a culture that is punitive, that is exclusive, you just begin building in that image of God, and it’s absolutely an idol. Or, if you have a God you believe is retributive, the punisher God, the one who needs his wrath satisfied, all of that stuff, then that God will then have a trickle-down effect, you begin to emulate that God, and it’s a feedback loop.

I generate this violent God, this violent God shapes me. And so I’ll start with doctrine then. In the order I discovered things. First I began to question whether the cross was about satisfying God’s wrath through the punishment of his son. We called that penal substitutionary atonement. Penal as in punishment. Substitute is God has to punish somebody. He actually is not free to forgive. And he can either punish you or he can punish Jesus. Take your pick.

And so Jesus takes your punishment. And I defended that. I grew up with that. We call that an atonement theory now. I thought it was the gospel. And I did my Master of Arts thesis, a hundred and eighty page defense of that doctrine. So I promise you I’m not just making a caricature. But it’s about this satisfaction of wrath through violence. And it doesn’t take too much figuring out to see how that turns into retribution in our penal system. So instead of being a justice system, you end up with a penal system where wrath is satisfied through punishment.

But not just our penal system. It ends up in how we treat people, how we treat the other, even how we treat our children. I can’t just forgive. That’s not good parenting. I have to punish. And what we find out is how often that that is connected in both spousal cases and parental cases, that there is an abuse that happens because there’s anger attached to it. And they’re going, of course there is. It’s the wrath of God.

So that penal substitutionary atonement, people need to know that is not the only way to see the cross. In fact, that way is 500 years old. I’m a conservative. I want to conserve the gospel that we see in, let’s say, the book of Acts, where that never ever comes up once in any evangelistic sermon to Jews or Gentiles, individuals or groups. Never.

What is it about? The cross is a revelation that God is radically forgiving, self-giving, co-suffering love, and that He has poured that out into this world in a way that overcomes Satan’s sin and death. It is the love of God revealed on the cross, not his wrath. In fact, on the cross, God makes a specific no to wrath and yes to forgiveness.

So I start with the cross, and then that begins to trickle out. If God doesn’t have to punish, if God is free to forgive, based on the work of Christ, not in my faith, but by the grace of God, then we should double check this doctrine of eternal conscious torment. The idea of what I call infernalism, it’s about that hell is the never ending punishment of the sinners who didn’t say the right prayer because they didn’t grow up in the right community.

Something’s off about that. And what we found out is even in the evangelical world now, that’s not the only way to see it because we double checked the Bible. I wrote a book about it called Her Gates Will Never Be Shut. And yes, there’s judgment. Yes, we need a willing faith to response, but it’s restorative judgment, it’s restorative justice. So Jesus says, if I’m lifted up, and then John clarifies he was talking about the cross. I will draw all people to myself.

I think he’s right. I don’t believe Jesus was mistaken or lying, and he gives us as that as a promise. Well, then where does judgment fit in? It’s the means to that end, cleansing judgment. I wish I had heard less hellfire preaching and more soap preaching. But Malachi says he will come with a refiner’s fire that purifies the gold. And with launderer’s soap, which washes out the stains, right?

So, that’s where I went from there. Because a lot of the revivalists who traumatized me as a little boy, they held a smoking gun to our heads called hell and said, unless you pray this prayer, you’re going to hell forever. So I’d pray the prayer. Does that sound like a willing faith response, or is that a hostage situation, right?

And then the third one was then we began to look at the Old Testament texts and seeing all the even the call to genocide without mercy, which we have now somehow employed at times, the book of Joshua, book of Judges, First Samuel, and said, See, we can go and kill others in the name of God, our crusades, our crusades against the Muslim nations. They’re the enemy and we’re God’s servants and He’s on our side, all of that.

And Jesus comes along and he says, You’ve heard it said, but I’m telling you. And for me, then Jesus gets the final word. And he teaches us that the Old Testament was pointing to him. And when it points to him, he comes along and he says, I’m telling you. You don’t retaliate. You love your enemies. You pray for your enemies. You bless your enemies. You forgive your enemies, even if they crucify you.

And then he lives by what he says. So those are all doctrinal elements that I think have created horrendous religious trauma. And yet these other the major movements in the body of Christ have already seen that. So we don’t have to believe any of that stuff as if we’re being unfaithful.

I want to talk to structures and systems, but I want to pause first, see if you have any questions or comments about the doctrine.

Rev. Ruth Perry (21:04)
I was thinking about when I was growing up and praying for my grandparents who are United Methodists and now I’m serving in a United Methodist denomination. But I used to pray for their salvation ’cause I was so afraid that they were going to hell because they weren’t Baptists like me.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (21:15)
Yeah. Yeah. Been there. And all you, you as a little child, you’re looking at all these people who are going to hell and you know it and you love them and you wonder, doesn’t God love them? Yes, God loves them and He doesn’t want them to go to hell. So you have to convince them or they will. And if you don’t, their blood’s on your hands. I mean it was it was pretty rank. And yeah, that’ll traumatize you.

Rev. Ruth Perry (21:38)
With religious fundamentalism there’s so much emphasis on, you know, don’t spare the rod or you’ll spoil the child and even like don’t hold your crying baby because you’ll spoil your baby and there’s so much of that the baby’s trying to manipulate you and I do see

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (21:52)
Good Lord.

Rev. Ruth Perry (21:52)
so much trauma from kids who have grown up with religious parents who I believe were well meaning and they were misled through authorities who had really tragic beliefs.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (22:04)
Yeah. That is connected to doctrine as well. So in the Latin, there’s a Latin doctrine of original sin says that every baby is born inheriting the guilt of Adam, and therefore they’re born damned. And so you gotta make sure they get saved quickly, right? And that doctrine only began in about four hundred AD.

Up until then, they’re like, no, we’re all gifts from God. We bear his image. And yes, we’re thrown into a situation where stumbling will be inevitable. But because it’s inevitable and we’re moral toddlers bound to trip, God’s only just response is mercy, and that’s exactly what he gives us. But if you believe that every child is born damned, well, that’s terrifying. We did have a age of accountability thing. Well, they kinda God gives them a you know

Rev. Ruth Perry (22:50)
Little wiggle room there.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (22:51)
A little, a little wiggle room. Back in our day, it’s like the first time they’re defiant. Okay, now so they’re two. now with Gen Z, you gotta make the age of accountability about 30, but that’s a joke.

Rev. Ruth Perry (23:03)
Can you explain more about justice and holiness in regards to God doctrinally then, if God is not punitive when we’re not just or holy?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (23:14)
Yeah, very good. So we’ll hear that a lot, right? God is love, but he’s also holy. God is love, but he’s also just. God is love, but he’s also righteous. God is love, but but but. And we have to have a but removal surgery here. Here’s the nature of God according to First John. God is love. So think about nature, and I will say essence.

So essence would be who God is from all eternity, and that can’t change. That’s the core of who God is. That’s God’s essence. And then is God’s nature is then, in terms of good-natured person, right? Nature is how we interact, how we come into the world, how we’re experienced. So God’s essence and nature is love. Period. No, no buts. Think of that like let’s say a diamond.

And there’s no impurities in that diamond. That’s all the way down. So now if you take righteousness, justice, and holiness as something other than, but right, as over against love, well, the righteousness and holiness and justice that is not God’s love, that is not God’s nature, that’s the Pharisees who killed Jesus. That’s the fundamentalists who string up Black people in the lynching trees.

So then what is it? Well, so the righteousness, justice, and holiness of God are facets of that love, and that limits what they can look like. There can only be just love, righteous love, holy love. And if the nature of love is to restore, then restorative justice and a kind of holiness that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, both Matthew and Luke, he actually says that be holy or be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect, and then he describes it: invite everybody to the banquet. He because he is he is generous and kind to the righteous and to the wicked. So that’s holiness. We turned holiness, that is not love, into exclusion, the very opposite of Jesus’ own definition.

So I don’t have any problem with holiness, righteousness, and justice as long as they are always, ever, only facets of his divine nature. And that’s pretty simple from the scriptures. I can give you, I tell you, because I know Calvinism really well. I wore it for a while. The pushback on that is here’s what they do with it. They’re like, and I’ve heard Baptists say, God is not love. I’m like, okay, what? They’re like, God is only love to the elect.

I won’t even argue with that. The theological term for that is cuckoo. I know I’m enough of a biblicist to know when we’re violating scripture to say something like that. That is twisting scripture to fit some system that is a reflection of our own exclusion and prejudice. And it’s demonic, frankly. So whoo, I said that. But yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (25:56)
Yeah. Well, my experience growing up with that Calvinist worldview was that I was elect and I was in, I was a golden child of my church, of my family.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (26:04)
Mm. Yep. Yep.

Rev. Ruth Perry (26:06)
And I received so much affirmation and love and support. But then when I hit that wall of deconstruction because of a church split and my family having issues going on and I was just really overwhelmed, that perfect image of my faith and my family was crumbling. I watched some Brennan Manning videos and I realized he was teaching that God loves me unconditionally.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (26:29)
Wow, hey.

Rev. Ruth Perry (26:30)
And that was a brand new concept. I had never felt unconditionally loved. I had been striving and fearful and felt like I was a sinner in the hand of an angry God.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (26:38)
Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (26:39)
And it was such a tenuous situation for even someone who was just really killing it being a Christian.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (26:44)
Yeah. Isn’t that interesting too that here this was our big critique as Protestants of the Catholics, that they believed in salvation by works. But here you were dying of striving, and then a Catholic comes along, Brennan,

Rev. Ruth Perry (26:59)
Yes.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (26:59)
and says his love is unconditional. What a, how the, how that boat flipped over, I don’t know, but we’re grateful for his life in ministry and he really demonstrated that even a very broken man with his own addictions had come to the end of himself and he knew it’s the grace of God even in my relapses or it’s nothing at all. And now that’s a grace message, right?

Rev. Ruth Perry (27:21)
Yeah.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (27:21)
We should talk about systems a little bit ’cause that’s the other side of your trauma and it’s coming up now.

Rev. Ruth Perry (27:24)
Yeah, that would be helpful.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (27:26)
So what are some of the ways that religious systems perpetuate trauma? So there’s a kind of reading of scripture that is not like the early church read the Bible. I’ve written a I’ve written a book called A More Christlike Word, the Emmaus Way of Reading Scripture, where Jesus tells us how to read scripture, and the early church has left us documents that I share in my book, about here’s how you read the Bible.

We went into a weird kind of literalism, probably as a result of modernism, where we thought we could just have rules of interpretation where we’ll be certain what it means. And those are often very unchristlike and wooden literalism. That kind of way of reading scripture s seems then to generate hierarchies. So a hierarchy of who’s important, who’s unimportant, who can lead, who can’t lead. Who’s in and who’s out, and so those literalistic readings have created systems of well, first of all, domination style leadership that is a reflection of empire.

So domination taking over, and that can happen by when a pastor thinks they’re the king of the church, or even like if a power group gets control of the votes, right? But it’s about domination then. And that is the opposite of Philippians 2, where he says, have this mind in you that it was in Christ Jesus, that even though he, or even because he was equal with God, he didn’t think that equality with God was a thing you grasp and cling to but he humbled himself. He emptied himself.

Well that’s not hierarchy, that’s kenarchy, we call it. So kenarchy is the word there for emptied himself, kenosis. So it is servant leadership, basically, by laying your life down and washing the feet of your disciples. So the whole domination thing, it’s like, you know what? If that’s going on, probably you should flee that system because it will put its boot on your throat at some point.

Specific then to that, hierarchy tends to default into patriarchy, and that is male-only leadership through horrendous literalistic interpretations and translations of obscure scriptures compared to the very clear gospel texts that should be at the center in Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, all of that. But anytime you have a hierarchy, so you will find a way to put women lower, you will find a way to put children lower, you will find a way to put the poor lower, you will find a way to put other races lower, the immigrant lower, everything but and of course who’s on the top? I am. I’m a straightish white guy. I say straightish because you know I’m very straight, but kind of have a crush on Brad Pitt, okay?

Rev. Ruth Perry (30:10)
Ha ha

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (30:11)
That was a joke. Okay, so anyway. But the like, so the straight white guys get the power and they hang on to it. And I just don’t believe in that. And so part of the reason that I’m part of this Episcopal Church plant, I’ve not left the Orthodox Church, but I don’t believe in all male leadership. I don’t believe in patriarchy. I don’t believe in hierarchy. That’s not the Jesus way. And so I’m very pleased that my priest is Cherith Fee Nordling, a wonderful woman mentor. And I’m very pleased that when she serves the Eucharist, even she says, We are here to express the radical hospitality of Jesus to his table, where everyone, without exception, is welcome. I mean, it’s a gospel moment, right?

And so, it would be sort of like, but what if they’re not Christians? Well, we’re serving his body and blood. If they want and need the body and blood of Christ, I guess that’s how some of them become Christians. So I do remember back in the day we had this Satanist guy, Ken. This Satanist started coming to our church Fresh Wind, right? And one day he shows up at the communion table and the people serving communion run over to me. It’s like, the Satanist wants communion.

And so I said, Say this to him. This is his body for your healing. Do you need it? Yes. This is his blood that washes away your sins, shame, and guilt. Do you need it? Yes. And then Ken received the healing, the cleansing, the forgiveness that is present in the Eucharist. And my goodness, we’d be in trouble with so many people. So then Ken became a Christian Satanist, I guess. And at the next Easter service, he was on our stage performing a rap that sounded like a prophetic utterance, right?

And yeah, it was risky, but my point is there’s this kind of that’s the kind of leveling of the playing field out of the hierarchy, even of the elect and non-elect, or Jesus saying in the Sermon on the Mount. Not everyone who says Lord Lord is in fellowship with me. So let’s be a little slow on our claims here. But those who do the will of my father. And that’s not about performing.

It’s just like someone calling themselves a Christian means almost nothing to me now. That brand is tainted. I want to see who’s following Jesus, you know, and not by performance, but by the fruit in their lives. All of that then undermines those systems of power and exclusion. Does that make sense?

Rev. Ruth Perry (32:41)
Yeah, I’m kind of curious what you would say about Genesis when God gave dominion. How do you explain what dominion looks like? Because I know some think that that means we have authority to conquer and conquest.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (32:54)
Geez, How we got from dominion to conquest is quite a leap, isn’t it?

Rev. Ruth Perry (32:59)
Yeah.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (32:59)
But I do really see it as stewardship. So dominion is being a gardener, after the pattern of the gardener. And what I love about it is in John, when John’s talking about Jesus’ arrest, he’s playing with that. He’s like starts the story: there was a garden. You’re like, yeah, there was a garden, wasn’t there? And then in a little while Jesus comes to Mary Magdalene and she thinks he’s a gardener. And I say she’s not mistaken.

And what does a gardener do, right? I’ve got some garlic and and some lavender that and some echinacea I planted outside. Whatever I’m doing to try to keep those flourishing and fruitful, doesn’t look like conquest. it looks like nurturing, it looks like watering, it looks it, it looks like tilling and all of the good things. So I I think, but you can see how that imperial mindset invades a scripture like that and then we end up dumping toxic waste into Lake Ontario

Rev. Ruth Perry (33:56)
Yes!

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (33:57)
and because the Lord’s gonna return in twenty years anyway. I mean it’s so awful. And then just one other thing then that reminds me then also we do have a dominant version of evangelical end times preaching that is looking to bring back Jesus by causing Armageddon. And we need to repent. Blessed are the peacemakers, they will be called children of God.

Well, guess what we did? We actually named handguns and missiles peacemakers. We stole that word from Jesus and turned it into destruction. I can’t think of many worse blasphemies. But we know what he means: that James tells us those who sow in peace will reap a harvest of justice or righteousness. You don’t sow violence to get peace. You sow peace to get justice. And that’s the Jesus way that I’m very interested in, but it seems now to be a minority report.

Troubling.

I do want to share a there I saw I have a friend, he’s a church growth and health consultant and he does a survey wherever he goes. Liberal churches, progressive churches, conservative churches, fundamentalist churches. He goes to all of them, right? And he goes to these things on weekends. So it’s not sort of your Sunday church goers or marginal attendees. It’s like people really invested in helping the church grow and be healthy.

So we’re talking about active members. He presents the Sermon on the Mount, the section on love your enemies, bless your enemies, pray for your enemies, invite everybody to your table. He presents that paragraph, and in his survey, 74%, and we’re talking thousands of people have done the poll. 74% considered that paragraph, if they were conservatives, as a compromise with unrighteousness. 72% of progressives. So even on the left, 72% complicity with injustice. So right and left, almost three-quarters of those who claim to be Christians reject the very words of Jesus when they’re presented like that.

But I believe Christ is bringing us all along, but I do wanna say it feels like following Jesus in what he actually said and called us to is a minority report and always has been. So I’m not too worried about that. It’s not we’re not having a vote if Jesus was right or not. But I do wanna be faithful and that’s kind of where I go back to to test it.

Rev. Ruth Perry (36:18)
So can you tell us what your end time view is?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (36:22)
I used to know everything. You need to know this. I was 21 at the time, and I had all the graphs charted out. Probably the third or fourth time we got the dates wrong, I gave that up. And in moving toward a more Eastern theology, and I would say scripture focused, how can I summarize?

Well, first of all, the Nicene Creed, I’m a creedal Christian. That means, you know, all Catholics, all Orthodox, Anglican, and so on. Those who aren’t making up their own faith statement would cite the Nicene Creed. Here’s what it says about the end, and then I’ll tell you two opinions I’d have. So this would be dogma. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. And we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Period. Amen. Period. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

And as I said before, that judgment will be restorative. But they didn’t put that in there because they also said, you know, if you don’t believe that, you could still affirm this. They were quite inclusive that way. I think messing with that dogma, adding stuff that you have to believe, is probably a formal heresy. ‘Cause we’ve got the dogma, you don’t toy with that.

That said, two things I see in the New Testament. One is if you want a picture of the end times, of the end, you look at the Mount of Transfiguration. That’s it right there. Christ transfigured, and you can already see Moses and Elijah are able to stand in the light and glory of his transfiguration. The disciples can’t yet, but I believe that the end game is the transfiguration of all things and all people.

That leads me to my other text. In Acts 3, Peter’s preaching about heaven is holding Jesus until. The restoration of all things and all people. I mean it just says the restoration of all. And he’s talking specifically of people, but I think it’s the whole cosmos. So if it’s the transfiguration and the restoration of all, I don’t know how we get there. So I won’t pretend I do. But it’s a glorious vision, and it’s a vision that I can sew into now.

So if I think that the end game is the restoration of all things, because that’s what he says, if I think that Jesus was right when he says he’ll draw all people to himself, how will I live today? I will treat everybody as somebody on that path. And I will sew whatever I can that will nourish their restoration. That’s why I’m a big fan of 12-step recovery, for example. They’ve done much more good, probably, than any other religious movement in the world in terms of seeing the power of restoration through surrender to the care of a loving God. Sign me up. And so I did. I’ve been hanging out with them since two thousand eight.

And even before actually a little bit, but I just feel like they’re on to something there. That God is a loving, caring, forgiving, healing, responsive, relational God, and what they don’t insist on is that you figure it out right away that that was revealed in Jesus. But I do, and I’m allowed to say that there. I think he revealed this in Jesus. So yeah. So there, there you’ve got my eschatology in a minute. It would it used to take hours.

Rev. Ruth Perry (39:28)
Well, that’s just a sign that you’ve done a lot of work.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (39:31)
Distill and no less. Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (39:33)
I’m going to ask you one more selfish question because I’m a local church pastor and in the lectionary, the gospel passage this week is the parable of the vineyard laborers who started at different times of the day.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (39:45)
Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (39:46)
And so I’ve been contemplating on that this week. And then just this morning, I saw a reflection of someone talking about reading that text through the lens of the five o’clock labors and comparing them to our Latino immigrants in America that we’re currently, you know, putting in for-profit detention centers and holding without due process and ripping families apart and sending people back to countries that they were never in before and back to violence and danger and the way we’re treating our Latino neighbors, by the vote of Christians largely, that these policies are in place.

And so today I’ve been reflecting on how do I, as a local church pastor who wants to preach the word of God as good news, also talk about justice for my Christian Latino, I mean not even just Christian, but I think we forget that we’re talking about largely Christian siblings in the faith and we’re allowing this to happen to them

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (40:42)
Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (40:43)
in a context of a conservative culture that probably voted for it too.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (40:48)
Yeah.

Rev. Ruth Perry (40:48)
What is your pastor to pastor advice?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (40:51)
I would just say what you just said. That’s amazing. I love that. Preach. You know, and you can always get food stamps next week.

Rev. Ruth Perry (40:59)
Yeah.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (41:00)
But, I will so first of all, I could not agree more strongly with everything you just said. So let’s start there. What I think you’re uncovering there is that a parable about unconditional grace actually brings about the justice we’re looking for, right? Because the complainers are the ones who are saying it’s an injustice. What’s the injustice? And he’s like, are you going to complain to me? This is my money here. I can pay whoever I want whatever I want. And if I give them the same at the end of the day as I gave you for that’s my call, not yours.

And so they’re complaining this isn’t fair. And maybe the way he’s coming at that complaint is that this is grace. Do you want to live by grace or do you want to live by fair? Because we could do that, couldn’t we? Are you sure you want to do that? Because if you’re sure you want to do that, then we’re going to talk about complicity and we’re going to talk about privilege and we’re going to talk about reparations and we’re going to talk. That’s what you so I don’t know. I think I would go with the grace. And so you’re just causing these thoughts in me now to sow the scandalous the scandalous grace that I would even call Indiscriminate.

Doesn’t feel fair. But it’s the only way you get to justice. And if instead you withhold to get to justice, so it will be done to you. The measure with which you judge, you will be judged. So you don’t get to live in the land of grace and keep someone else in the land of the law. That’s not how it works. But if you want to, it’s not even a threat from God. It’s just a natural spiritual law

You will be judged, even in this life by other people. Never mind God. Right? So that’s kind of some first thoughts I have about it. I’ll probably have to go do some journaling now because of you, thank you. Yeah, it’s a grace message that brings about justice. Hmm. Indiscriminate. That’s so scandalous. How could he? Glad he did. Glad he did.

Rev. Ruth Perry (42:58)
Amen.

Well, thank you so much for coming on my little podcast and being such a blessing to me and to my audience, I hope. And I’m gonna put lots of links in the show notes to send people to watch some of my favorite teachings you’ve done. And I wanna give you the last word. What would you want to say as the final message?

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (43:18)
Well, I do wanna give a invitation. Part of my deal is if people go to SSU.ca, there may be folks who would like to learn more. You could come study with me online or in person and we talk about the intersection of theology and culture and how we can transcend the r right left culture wars without exiting the world, still engaging with the work of justice. And we have peace and justice degrees, we have reconciliation studies degrees, and now we have a transformative leadership degree with a lot of voices from the global south helping us decolonize our theology. So if people want to look at su.ca, CA is for Canada, but we’re an international school with the travel modules to South Africa. Check in there. So that’s my pitch.

But my last message maybe for today would be like, mercy triumphs over judgment.

Rev. Ruth Perry (44:11)
Amen. Thank you so much, Bradley.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (44:13)
Welcome,

Rev. Ruth Perry (44:13)
God bless.

Dr. Bradley Jersak – SSU.ca (44:14)
You too.


Did you enjoy this episode? Please subscribe, rate or review us on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more! Your support means the world. God bless!

On being a bad feminist who tolerates all kinds of nonsense, but also having no patience for bad depictions of God’s love

bad feminist

Before I confess to being a bad feminist, I do watch feminist-approved shows as well. I’m a big Handmaid’s Tale fan, I watched Unorthodox early on in quarantine, and I’ve been watching Mrs. America on Wednesdays since that began.

But I can’t help how effective a ridiculous Hallmark movie can be at helping me unwind after a busy shift at work. I watch Hallmark Christmas movies year round.

And why wouldn’t I watch a show that repeatedly, time after time, manages to produce “the most dramatic season ever”? My husband will not watch The Bachelor with me. He is a better person than I am. In my experience, The Bachelor is people-watching at it’s most fascinating, a train-wreck that I just can’t look away from.

Has my feminist card been revoked yet?

It would seem, with my terrible taste in entertainment, that I would enjoy the Christian equivalent in written romance. Right? I thought so. But I thought wrong.

Last week, I woke up one day with my introvert battery completely toasted. So I picked up a novel, Francine River’s immensely popular Redeeming Love that had been handed down to me a few years ago; I neglected my housework and children (honestly, they’re old enough to feed and bathe themselves so I’m almost obsolete) and spent the entire day reading.

Aside from successfully recharging my introvert battery, I didn’t finish this book feeling good. It gnawed at me for the next several days. I kept mulling over and over how terrible the book actually was. As much as I can overlook in secular garbage TV, I could not forgive Francine Rivers for Redeeming Love.

I finally figured it out. Redeeming Love is supposed to be a metaphor for God’s love for us, by telling a “love” story about Christian patriarchy, presenting abusive coercion and control as godly male headship.

God’s love is so much better than the love described in Redeeming Love.  

I won’t summarize the plot, as I found that Samantha Fields did an excellent review series already, analyzing River’s disappointing writing chapter by chapter. I encourage you to read her reviews, especially if you have already read Redeeming Love. 

I will simply say, the main characters, Michael and Angel’s relationship dynamic resembles Power & Control rather than Equality, and it makes me so upset that Christians confuse abusive behavior with “spiritual headship”:


I was reminded this past week of another book, A God I’d Like to Meet: Separating the Love of God from Harmful Traditional Beliefs, by Bob Edwards. In his first chapter, Edwards introduces himself and why he’s writing this book:

I’ve been a Social Worker and Psychotherapist for nearly twenty years now. During this time, I’ve provided individual, family and group counseling for thousands of people. Many of them have told me that they have difficulty believing in God. Most of them have experienced horrific forms of abuse: physical, sexual, psychological, emotional and spiritual. Many of them were told, at one time or another–often by well-meaning Christians, that the terrible things done to them or to their loved ones were either allowed or caused by the “Sovereign Will of God.”

I understand the human tendency to want to come to grips with or understand life’s tragedies. This particular explanation for horror and suffering, however, evokes a crisis of faith for many. If God is good, why would he cause or allow such terrible things to happen to good people? One common answer to this question only serves to compound the problem. Some are told that God isn’t really allowing “bad” things to happen to “good” people, because deep down we are all truly “bad,” by nature.

Another common answer to the question of evil is also problematic. We’re told that God predetermines that people will do bad things to one another so that his good purposes can be accomplished on earth. At best, this second explanation is a classic case of thinking that the end justifies the means. As mentioned earlier, some of those “means” can be truly horrific (e.g. rape, child-abuse, ethnic cleansing). (pgs. 6-8)

This is exactly how Angel’s horrifying childhood abuse and trauma is treated in Redeeming Love, and Rivers over and over again describes Angel’s trauma-informed behavior as weakness, selfishness, and pride.

Bob Edwards’ book explains how Christian theologians, specifically Calvinists, have been influenced by ancient Greet philosophy, which has warped the way they view God. You probably could not find a Christian who would disagree with the statement that “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but how many Christians live as though they are a bug under the thumb of God?

Dualism, a hierarchy of spirit over body, denial of the free will of humanity and the doctrine of self-mortification; these are some of the philosophical principals that eventually led to formulation of the Gnostic heresy. Shockingly, they are also some of the alleged “principle matters of Christian philosophy” through which John Calvin encouraged all believers to make sense of the Bible. He derived them from Augustine, and Augustine derived them from the “books of the Platonists.” Rather than being a benchmark for Christian orthodoxy, St. Augustine’s theology appears more like a “union of Christian and pagan doctrines.”  (Edwards, pgs. 108-109)

Seen through the lenses of Platonic philosophy, the God of the Bible can appear to be an all-controlling entity that frowns on emotion and insists that men must exercise control over women. The implications of this theological perspective are significant. Evil, including human sin, is portrayed as “the will of God.” Salvation is irresistibly extended to a select few, while the majority of the human race is abandoned to inevitable damnation. Human emotion is confused with sin and must be “put to death.” Women, viewed as stimulating sinful feelings, must be strictly controlled by men. (pgs. 96-97).

This controlling, abusive, and sexist portrait of God reviles rather than attracts people to him. I would encourage you, if you’ve been taught a Calvinist theology, to examine your understanding of God.

All my life, I have known that God is love, and I have loved God deeply. Unlike Angel, I experienced very little trauma or abuse as a child. But I absorbed this Calvinistic portrait of God anyway, through doctrine. When I was thirty, I was going through a very painful time with a church split, parents divorcing, and husband unemployed, and in my brokenness, I was grasping to understand the problem of evil and the suffering of this world. I happened upon Brennan Manning’s sermons on YouTube, and wept as I learned of God’s UNCONDITIONAL, no-strings attached love for me.

I learned that I am Beloved, just as I am, and not as I should be, because nobody is as they should be. It sparked a faith shift that gave me the courage to unpack everything I had grown up believing about God and the Bible, and then to start reconstructing a faith that is informed by Jesus’ love, sacrifice, and grace.

Brennan Manning

As Manning says, “You will trust God to the degree that you know you are loved by him.” Knowing I was loved unconditionally gave me the freedom to ask God the “big questions,” to walk away from traditions that were harmful, and to embrace Egalitarian theology that placed women in their rightful place alongside their brothers in the Kingdom.

It is my constant prayer that Calvinists will come to know the unconditional, incomparable love of God, who sees each one of us in our brokenness and mess and calls us “Beloved.”


Thanks for visiting The Beautiful Kingdom Warriors! We’d be so honored if you shared this post with a friend. We’re on Facebook too, posting articles and images every day from around the web. Let us know what kinds of garbage TV you tolerate in the comments! 😉

R.C. Sproul on The Role of Man and Woman

I often say that we need to listen to others who are not like us, and in that spirit, I read complementarian articles and I tune in to complementarian sermons on marriage and gender roles.  Having been raised in a comp church tradition, I know the point of view intimately, yet am still surprised every time I hear comp teaching.  The idea of gender roles was once so clear to me, but now I feel as though scales have fallen off my eyes.  I can see how my socialization in patriarchy led me to read the Bible through that lens and to accept these kinds of sermons as being Good News.

rc sproulLast week, I listened to a sermon on gender roles by Dr. R.C. Sproul, a Calvinist pastor and Reformed theologian, author of more than 60 books, and the founder of Ligonier Ministries, which broadcasts his sermons around the world. This is a theologian with a lot of influence within Christianity, so I believe it is worthwhile to test his teachings.  The Apostle Paul told us to follow Jesus and not this preacher or that preacher, because it is human nature to adopt a favorite minister and tune into their voice religiously and not balance their influence with diverse voices.  It takes diligence to wrestle with differing perspectives, panning for the nuggets of truth.  There is no perfect teacher besides Jesus – we are all prone to error.  And ideas have consequences. Compelementarian theology has consequences that often endanger women. 

For example, Dr. Sproul’s son, R.C. Sproul, Jr., was a Calvinist minister and advocate of Christian patriarchy, even rumored to have practiced “wife spanking”.  He was found to be subscribed to Ashley Madison when that scandal broke several years ago.  Their motto was, “Life is short.  Have an affair.”  There is a slippery slope between “purity culture” and the sex industry.  Patriarchy objectifies women.  Period.  I am not sure if there is an official connection between the Sprouls and the puritanical Head Covering Movement, but there is obvious respect for their voices in that community, as these memes suggest.

Below, I am offering egalitarian rebuttals to Dr. Sproul’s sermon, point by point.  I am doing this to explain the egalitarian point of view that Dr. Sproul misrepresents for those who may be in the midst of a shift away from complementarianism.  It is when we are in a period of transition that we are most open to new ideas, which is a truly humble stance. Otherwise, we respond to new ideas by becoming defensive, even more locked into our ideology.  This is the power of confirmation bias – we dismiss information that contradicts what we already believe, and give extra weight to information that supports our ideas. Let’s bear this in mind as we pan for God’s Good News on the topic of gender roles.


Here is the sermon description from the “Renewing Your Mind” website:

In an age when the women’s liberation movement has reached all corners of society, the concept of a woman submitting to the authority of a man finds disdain. Now, more often than not, there is misunderstanding of the roles men and women have in marriage. Dr. Sproul looks at the issue in this message entitled “The Role of Man and Woman.”

Formerly, I would have read this statement and pictured  a sinister darkness spreading across a map.  In actuality, the women’s liberation movement was initiated by Christians who were offended by the marginalization and abuse of women and children by patriarchal society.  (I once responded to the assertion that feminism is devoid of God here.)  Going even further back, women flocked to the early Church because they were treated as equals there.  I challenge you to reread the New Testament, being attentive to the stories of women prophesying, preaching, teaching, and there was even a female Apostle, named Junia. “Celsus, a 2nd-century detractor of the faith, once taunted that the church attracted only ‘the silly and the mean and the stupid, with women and children.’ His contemporary, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, acknowledged in his Testimonia that ‘Christian maidens were very numerous’ and that it was difficult to find Christian husbands for all of them. These comments give us a picture of a church disproportionately populated by women.” [source]

The sermon was broadcast on February 20th, 2017 on the Renewing Your Mind program:
The Role of Man and Woman – Dr. R. C. Sproul

I thought this was a current sermon, but I found a video which places it decades ago:

http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/p/1916491/sp/191649100/embedIframeJs/uiconf_id/29017082/partner_id/1916491?iframeembed=true&playerId=kaltura-player1&entry_id=1_arw4a6jd&flashvars%5BstreamerType%5D=auto

Dr. Sproul is preaching on Paul’s household codes of Ephesians 5.  I was happy to hear Dr. Sproul begin in verse 21, as most complementarian teachings on this passage begin in verse 22 after the heading. In the original letter, there were no chapters, verse numbers or headings separating topics.  Paul had been talking about how Christians are to walk out their faith in their day to day life, and in verse 21 tells everyone to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, then continues the sentence to say, “wives, to your husbands” like this, and husbands, like this.  “Wives, submit to your husbands” does not exist in the original Greek.  “Submit” occurs in verse 21 and applies to both the husband and the wife. I recommend reading Rachel Held Evans’ post, “Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco-Roman Household Codes.”

Dr. Sproul calls the idea of mutual submission an “exegesis of despair” without any explanation of what he means.  I have searched and cannot find this term anywhere.  Who despairs under mutual submission?  If you start Googling, you will find many women despairing under legalistic, authoritarian gender roles. Start at A Cry for Justice and Spiritual Sounding Board or this post from Diary of an Autodidact on why complementarians cannot actually condemn spousal abuse.

Dr. Sproul goes on to say that you would have to apply the idea of mutual submission across the entire passage, causing confusion and disorder.  You would have to say that parents must submit to children, and that Christ is the head of the Church just as the Church is the head of Christ.  My response to these assertions:

brene brown parenting

I love Brene Brown’s Wholehearted Parenting Manifesto

First, I believe that reading the Bible with an authoritarian view (complementarianism is all about a hierarchy of authority) leads parents to, mostly unintentionally, teach their children conditional, strings-attached love.  This does not resemble God’s love for us.  It has also led to abusive treatment of children. Physical abuse is certainly rampant, but coercive control of others is abusive and might never be physical. Obedient, docile children are trophies in authoritarian comp cultures, objectified for their behavior. If you teach your children to recite Scripture and play an instrument and never talk back, you will be given honor in your complementarian church. Brene Brown would describe parenting like this as coming from a mentality of scarcity and shame rather than from worthiness and wholeheartedness.  Brennan Manning tells us that God loves us just as we are and not as we should be, because nobody is as they should be.  In this way, egalitarian theology honors children’s individuality, gifts and callings. Egalitarians do not clip their children’s wings by forcing them into prescribed roles that may frustrate them if they are not naturally inclined to fit into those boxes.  We watch our children to see their natural inclinations, we understand that their behavior is tied to their developmental stage and reveals real needs that we can meet.  Yes, correction is needed on a daily basis, but it should be about developing character, honesty, generosity, and kindness, not perfect behavior.  No parent is doing a perfect job (we need grace too!), but our theology deeply impacts how we respond to and guide our children. Young people are fleeing churches nowadays, and I don’t believe that would be the case if the ethos of the culture is worthiness and grace rather than power and control.

Second, Dr. Sproul brings us to the topic of headship.  In our modern context, we read “head” and infer “boss,” “CEO,” “authority.”  This was not the understanding of “head” in ancient times.  We now understand that our brains are in our heads, but then they thought the function of the head was as the place that food entered to nourish the body; it was the source of the fuel to run the machine while the gut was believed to be the seat of knowledge, etc.  In a patriarchal society, the father was the source of financial security for the family except in some cases where a single woman of means ran her own household. Men had nearly all of the privilege, education, financial control, and social power, and Paul is instructing men to care for their disenfranchised wives, to use their privilege for the betterment of his family, just as Jesus gave up his position in heaven to give his life for us. In this way, egalitarians understand “head” to mean “source.” Marg Mowzcko’s blog is full of insightful egalitarian exegesis, and her post on Paul’s use of “headship” is excellent.

“Rather, I think, as the consensus historically of Biblical interpreters has been…”

Yeah, let’s talk about the consensus of Biblical interpreters.  Bob Edwards provides a fascinating overview of the roots of male authority in the church here.  It is no coincidence that patriarchal theologians infused their translations and commentaries with patriarchal thought.  Edwards’ talk includes translation errors by patriarchalists that have influenced complementarian teaching.  In our post, “Quoting the Founding Fathers of Complementarian Theology,” we list some examples of sexist quotes by Augustine, Calvin, and others.  For example:

“It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…. This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.” (St. Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153)

Next, Dr. Sproul says that he sees women raging about Paul’s teaching as being chauvinistic and arrogant.  He says that all authority was given to Christ, then Christ gives that authority to his apostles.  This is the law of God.  What is so controversial, Dr. Sproul asks?  Women are willing to submit to the authority of Christ, so why not to their husbands in the same way?  Dr. Sproul says that God has given a significant level of authority to husbands as the heads of the home.  If a woman resists her husband’s authority, he says she is resisting God.

Again, this comes down to different interpretations on the meaning of headship. Complementarians believe headship means “authority” and egalitarians believe headship means “source.”  Yes, Christ has all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) and he gives authority to his followers, but that includes Christian women as well as men (Galatians 3:28).  And Jesus is still the ultimate authority.  There is no human that has authority equal to Christ.  In an egalitarian marriage, the husband and the wife submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and Christ alone is the final authority.  Both are always seeking to honor Christ and follow Christ faithfully as the true leader of the family.

Dr. Sproul goes on to clarify that women do not have to submit if their husband is asking them to disobey the final authority of God on a subject.  If a husband tells his wife to prostitute herself, she doesn’t have to obey.  If a husband tells her to stop going to church, she should disobey him on Sundays because God commanded us to keep the Sabbath holy, but she doesn’t need to go to the Wednesday night service.  I would say that a Christian husband should not be controlling the freedom of his wife. Living in the mystery of oneness does not necessitate losing any aspect of your God-given identity.  I do appreciate Dr. Sproul’s distinction here though, as I’ve read other complementarians who say women should never disobey their husbands.

6538832-M

Run away from this book!!

For instance, Elizabeth Rice Handford has said a woman should never voice her opinion to her husband unless he asks for it, and she should have an abortion, participate in sexual activities that she does not want to do and tolerate physical abuse even to the point of death if that is how her “head” directs her (in her book, “Me? Obey Him?“).

Dr. Sproul tries to lighten the burden of his teaching to women by pointing out God’s sense of humor in the translation of “submit to your own husband,” the Greek word idion being the root of “idiosyncrasy” and also “idiot.”  He offers this loose translation: “Wives, submit yourselves to your idiot husbands.”  Again, I say submit is absent from verse 22, so the Bible never says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands.”  Second, I understand his point is to say that men are not superior to women, but I don’t believe it is ever appropriate to make gendered jokes, period.  It is not OK to make fun of men or women from the pulpit, not to mention that this is not a true translation of Paul’s meaning.  Egalitarianism avoids stereotyping of men and women, leaving space for both to become their best selves apart from socialized gender expectations.  Many men do not feel freedom to live emotionally healthy, sensitive lives because complementarian culture rewards toxic masculinity and machismo.

Next, Dr. Sproul decries the 50/50 myth of marriage, saying “I can’t think of anything worse.”

umbrella-graphic-by-amber-dann-picottaEgalitarians do not teach that marriage requires 50/50 from each spouse.  In fact, we teach 100/100.  Bring your whole self to the marriage–there is room for two callings and two perspectives.  Decisions can be made together in loving, mutual submission.  It isn’t necessary to demote one half of a marriage to assistant status in order to function.  In every other context, we understand that “two heads are better than one” and that iron sharpens iron.  I personally have never witnessed an egalitarian marriage that seemed to be stuck in a “perpetual power struggle to get control,” even though Dr. Sproul believes this is inevitable.  Authoritarians worry about control, not egalitarians.  Egalitarians seek mutual submission to each other and ultimate submission to Christ.  Disagreeing with Dr. Sproul’s interpretation of marriage roles does not equal “vilifying” a teaching of the Bible.

Dr. Sproul says God settles the “perpetual power struggle” by vesting all authority and leadership in the man, and he doesn’t see this as a privilege as much as it is a “weighty, weighty responsibility.”  Women have been “bleeting” about this interpretation, but they need to understand that subordination never equals inferiority.  The Son is subordinate to the Father, the Spirit to the Son, but none are inferior.

Complementarians see subordination within the Trinity while egalitarians see mutuality. In Marg Mowzcko’s “Seperate Spheres & Distinct Roles in the Trinity and Marriage,” she says,

When Jesus came to earth as a human being, he voluntarily laid aside his divine privileges (Phil. 2:6-8) and became completely dependent on the Father’s and the Holy Spirit’s guidance and power. Jesus submitted to, and obeyed, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Some Christians believe that wives are to display this level of dependency, submission, and obedience towards their husbands. However Jesus, in taking human form, had become ontologically inferior and thus, subordinate, to the Father and the Spirit. He was even “a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9a). Jesus had temporarily lowered and limited himself by taking human form for a very particular purpose and a vitally important reason: to save the world!

Wives, however, are not ontologically inferior to their husbands. That is, women are not lesser creatures than men. So it is unhealthy for wives to emulate the same degree of dependence and submission towards their husbands that Jesus had towards the Father and Spirit while he was on earth.

After describing women as raging and bleeting about wifely submission/male headship, Dr. Sproul says we should listen to women’s cries and men should not tyrannize their wives. Great.  “But we also need to hear the cries of men” who have five times more nightmares than women and feel tremendous pressure in their role of provider.

I believe egalitarianism does in fact listen to the cries of men.  We see how patriarchy harms men too, how hierarchy privileges a few at the top and tramples on women, children, and most men.  We believe a husband and wife are a team, sharing equally the yoke of responsibility of caring for their family, trusting ultimately in our Great Provider who cares even for the sparrow and the lily in the valley.  Rather than pressuring men to be Providers, Protectors and Priests, churches should encourage us all to surrender our lives and our money to Jesus.  A couple excellent books came out in the last two years addressing the very real plight of men under patriarchy: Man Enough by Nate Pyle and Malestrom by Carolyn Custis James.

Dr. Sproul correctly blames culture for imposing these pressures on men, but does not recognize that it is the culture of patriarchy that he is in fact advancing.  He goes on to explain that it has been like this since the beginning, when woman was created as man’s helpmate.  In the original Hebrew language, Eve is describes as ezer kenegdo, which has been translated (by patriarchalists) as “suitable helper” (Genesis 2:18).  In the other instances when ezer appears in the O.T., it is referring to God as a helper to Israel, often in war.  For instance,

“There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides across the heavens to help you and on the clouds in his majesty…Blessed are you, Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword. Your enemies will cower before you, and you will tread on their heights.” (Deuteronomy 33:26, 29; NIV).

I recommend reading God’s Word to Women’s word study on ezer kenegdo,  in which they begin,

Usages of ‘ezer in the Old Testament show that in most cases God is an ‘ezer to human beings, which calls to question if the word “helper” is a valid interpretation of ‘ezer in any instance it is used. “Evidence indicates that the word ‘ezer originally had two roots, each beginning with different guttural sounds. One meant “power” and the other “strength.”

And conclude,

The woman was never meant to be an assistant or “helpmate” to the man. The word “mate” slipped into English since it was so close to the Old English word “meet,” which means “fit to” or “corresponding to” the man which comes from the phrase that likely means “equal to.”

What God had intended, then, was to make a “power” or “strength” for the man who would in every way “correspond to him” or even “be his equal.”

The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial. In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a “helper against him.” The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: “If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer]. If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife.” This Jewish study also described man and woman facing each other with arms raised holding an arch between them, giving a beautiful picture of equal responsibility

Dr. Sproul says he believes women have the easy role within this complementarian doctrine.  He wishes that “all he had to do was submit.”  At the same time, he recognizes his leadership ability and chooses “precious few” others to follow.

e4c2e61dc0186b4ebe317ab0bcc67f33We are socialized to associate stereotypical masculine characteristics as leadership qualities, i.e. decisiveness, assertiveness, even lower vocal registers; whereas, the same qualities in a female are not recognized as leadership identifiers.  Girls are in fact socialized away from these qualities.  Again, egalitarians avoid stereotyping.  Each person is an Image bearer imbued with authority since the beginning in the Garden, when God gave both Adam and Eve the command to rule creation (Genesis 1:28).  Singling a few out as leaders and ignoring the gifts and voices of the majority is the common practice of churches but this does not best advance the Kingdom.  Throughout the New Testament, the message is to submit to one another, to consider others greater than yourself, to avoid lording authority over others but to become a servant of all. Serving others involves giving others opportunities to use their gifts and to follow God’s calling on their life, and having the humility to follow others.  We are all called to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

Dr. Sproul says that having a husband that loves his wife as Christ loves the Church, who is willing to give his life for his wife, liberates women.  Jesus never exploits, tyrannizes, abuses or batters his Bride.  Amen to that, but would Dr. Sproul feel liberated if he was never given opportunities to follow his call to ministry?  He then says that in living out “your own part” of the passage, things naturally work out – if husbands love their wives, wives submit; if wives submit, husbands love their wives.  Then he says something I find particularly dangerous and offensive: “I think if she dedicated herself to being a helpmate, that would be returned with sacrificial love and she would never be tyrannized.”

Patriarchy fuels abuse, and our churches are steeped in a silent epidemic of hurting, hopeless women.  I believe awareness is growing, through the work of Leslie Vernick and Boz Tchividjian and many others, but pastors have been remarkably ignorant of the plight of many women in their congregations.  Dr. Sproul is placing a millstone around the necks of victims of abuse, blaming them for their own victimization.

Divorce is the ultimate evil in many churches, and when women seek advice about controlling and abusive husbands in complementarian churches, pastors frequently direct them to stop complaining about their husbands and start submitting more, essentially silencing them so that they do not ask for help again until they are in real danger.  Gary Thomas posted a powerful article about this, “Enough is Enough” that has gone viral.  We shared a Facebook post from Naghmeh Abedini exhorting the Church to face the epidemic of domestic abuse, along with several resources for victims here.

One way for a woman’s voice to find a platform in complementarianism is for that woman to tell other women to make themselves small.  Dr. Sproul gives a shout out to a “woman who understands men,” Marabel Morgan who wrote “The Total Woman.”  In this book, which is written with advice to wives on how to keep their husbands happy and faithful (as though that is a wife’s responsibility), she says, “Women, here’s a secret. Your husbands don’t want your advice.  They want your admiration.”  Dr. Sproul points out that men have fragile egos, and that may very well be true for a man who is saddled with dangerous messages about masculinity and manhood, not only from our sexist, patriarchal society at large but also from his spiritual leaders in churches touting complementarian theology of gender roles.

Dr. Sproul wraps up by saying that “this isn’t a battle, this isn’t a competition for authority.  This is that place God created where the two become one flesh.  Paul goes on, this is the mystery.  My job is to nourish her.  In that, Christ is honored and marriages are made whole.”

safe_imageAs an egalitarian, I believe that Christ is honored when we love one another and submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  I disagree that God has given husbands alone authority over their families and men alone authority over the Church, not because I rage or bleet against teachings on submission but because following Jesus with integrity means obeying him, and he has never told me to not use my God-given authority for the sake of the Kingdom.  In fact, I believe I would dishonor Christ by living in the box that complementarians give to women, and I do not want my husband to live in the box that complementarians give to men.


Sheesh, that was long!  Thanks for hanging in there to the end!  Kate Wallace wrote a beautiful poem, They gave me a box, that you will love.  If you belong to a tradition that teaches gender roles, I pray that you find freedom in Christ to live out your true identity and calling.  You are a gift to the world and God has prepared good works for you to do.  God bless!

Oh, and you can find us on Facebook if you’d like to read all the links we find from around the web concerning gender equality in the Church.