CHRISTIANITY 101: YOUR GUIDE TO EIGHT BASIC CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
BY GILBERT BILEZIKIAN
FOREWORD BY BILL HYBELS
1993 Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 287 pages
NORTH YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 230 B
A Book Review by Joseph Ng
November 2003
Little did I realise how quickly the weather would change when I came to Canada a year and a half ago. At my candidacy interview, I was pointedly asked my position on women’s ordination, which I gave at length to the satisfaction of the church committee, based on the biblical prerequisites of 1 Timothy 3. A year later, the denomination ordains its first women! This year has set me on an involuntary study of something that hadn’t caught my fascination hitherto, a curiosity on the source of this new impetus for feminism, since it was not evident in the seminary readings of the great Protestant systematic theologies of the Hodges, Louis Berkhof, A.A. Strong, or even Millard J. Erickson. As I peeled through successive layers of feminist arguments, the name of one Gilbert Bilezikian kept turning up, who taught and mentored one Bill Hybels, whose ministry has attained cult following among evangelicals seeking to emulate his megachurch-growth techniques.
“Dr. B” Bilezikian, described as an unlikely old professor with a European flavour, continues to be part of the leadership at Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church. As lauded by Bill Hybels in the Foreword:
For over twenty years Dr. B. has mentored me, both in my personal spiritual journey and as a pastor. I cannot overstate the role he has played at Willow Creek Community Church. It is ironic that behind Willow Creek’s laser-age persona, with its high-tech methods, its youthful energy, and its sometimes controversial creativity, beats the heart of an aging Bible professor who carries himself with quiet, European dignity. (p. vii)
Christians today ignore Dr. B’s influence at their own peril. The impact is great. Whole churches and denominations extol the “seeker sensitive” techniques and male/female egalitarianism that “work” at Willow Creek, as much as they laud Rick Warren’s “purpose-driven” solutions at Saddleback. Seminaries, too, while claiming to be evangelical, hire professors that systematically undermine biblical inerrancy and authority, alleging that Paul was either operating under the weight of his Jewish rabbinic baggage or else couching his teaching to fit an imagined Ephesian Artemisian cult. The churchgoer is eventually cut from his or her dependence on Scriptural authority and trustworthiness and entranced by the “praise and worship” celebrations and subjective, if charismatic, spiritual experiences, all garnished with flattering words of personal empowerment. No longer is the pastor a shepherd accountable for the sheep, but a hired servant reporting to and consulting with them. Male and female roles are erased in what appears to be a new emancipation order. But is this really emancipation, and where did this new subculture and mindset come about?
Christianity 101, as its catchy title shows, purports to be a textbook of basic theology, and in all fairness there are some doctrines in there that are evangelical and orthodox. However, it soon becomes clear that is more a vehicle to convey the new feminist, charismatic hermeneutic to the masses. In an ironic way, therefore, I agree with Bill Hybels’ verdict:
Beware of the content of these pages. Two decades ago it changed my life. Today it may well change yours. (p. vii)
DESCRIPTION
Christianity 101 is organized according to eight chapters reflecting, innocuously enough, the author’s “eight basic Christian beliefs”:
1. The Bible as God’s Revelation
2. The Doctrine of God
3. The Doctrine of Christ
4. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
5. The Doctrine of Human Beings
6. The Doctrine of Salvation
7. The Doctrine of the Church
8. The Doctrine of the End Times
Within its pages, however, three areas of contention stand out, to which Christians should be alert: Feminism, Charismatism, and Church Government.
FEMINISM
Not wasting much time in getting to his real agenda, Bilezikian delivers his opening salvo 20 pages into the book. He takes the opportunity, when dealing with “The Principle of Hapax Identification,” to question the applicability of Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12, having applied the “principle” to the visit of the Magi (Matthew 2) and baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29):
A hapax may also be a single word never used again in Scripture. For example, while Timothy was pastoring the church in Ephesus, Paul wrote him a letter that dealt with problems within the Ephesian congregation because untrained women went from house to house, “saying what they should not say” (1 Tim. 5:13 NRSV). To resolve the crisis, Paul lays down rules for the proper conduct of the Ephesian women. In particular, he tells them not “to have authority” over men, as rendered in several translations (1 Tim. 2:12). The Greek word for “authority” in this text is a hapax. Thus, there is no control text to determine its meaning; no one knows for sure what the word means and what exactly Paul forbids. (p. 20)
Because the word authentein for “to have authority” is a hapax, i.e. it appears only once in the Bible, Bilezikian takes the liberty to throw it out, despairing that it has “no control text to determine its meaning.” Douglas Moo is more circumspect, casting his net beyond the biblical corpus to ascertain how authentein was used in other writings, given that it is only mentioned once in the New Testament. He notes that in nonbiblical contemporaneous usage:
the occurrences of this word---the verb---that are closest in time and nature to 1 Timothy mean "have authority over" or "dominate" (in the neutral sense of "have dominion over," not in the negative sense "lord it over").[1]
Despite Bilezikian’s claim otherwise, the meaning of the word is not beyond recovery. Do a little corpus-based research, and it will be found to have been correctly translated by the majority of English Bibles as “having authority over.” But Bilezikian’s aversion to divinely appointed authority and leadership structure is already evident. It comes out at other places, such as his view of the Fall (in Genesis 2 – 3):
For Eve, the breakdown of the relationship with God meant that she became dependent on Adam, from whom she had been made. Her desire would be for the intimacy and oneness they had known before the Fall, but now he would rule over her (3:16). Before the Fall, she was one with Adam. Now he would have dominion over her. (p. 133)
This, of course, is an interpretation that goes counter to Paul’s point, that the divinely given leadership structure in the home and church derives from the order of creation, of Adam first then Eve (1 Corinthians 11:8-12; 1 Timothy 2:11-13). This leadership pattern predates the Fall and carries on through biblical times till today. It is also a template for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5). What happened after the Fall is that the leadership structure is resented and resisted, as one Bible translation conveys well in a footnote: “And though your desire will be for your husband [Footnote: “And though you may desire to control your husband”], he will be your master” (Genesis 3:16b, NLT). Instead of joyful acceptance and interaction within the God-given roles for husbands and wives, a beautiful relationship reflecting the functional hierarchy among the coequal Persons of the Trinity, we now find bitterness and discord because of creeping rebellion within the spousal relationship.
Bilezikian’s rejection of Paul’s argument from the creative order prompts him to caricature it as making two forms of spirituality (one for me, the other for women), alleging that “no such thing is taught in Scripture.” He attributes its motive to “institutionalized misreading of isolated New Testament verses.” The irony is that he then reveals his feminist crux interpretum: Galatians 3:28, the verse that is misread and then misapplied to attack Paul’s teaching on the male-female roles in church:
The goal of spiritual transformation applies equally to all believers without exception and distinction. … Institutionalized misreading of isolated New Testament verses has caused some teachers to advocate one form of spirituality for men and a different one for women, under the guise of biblical manhood and womanhood. However, no such thing is taught in Scripture. The biblical sanctification ideal transcends the particularities of manhood and womanhood just as it does of Jew or Greek, slave or free (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). … The attempt to draw a distinction between biblical manhood and biblical womanhood creates a false dichotomy, for both manhood and womanhood find their full expression in servanthood (Gal. 5:13) and in the cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit, which is exactly the same for both men and women (vv. 22-23). It is true that within the biblical definition of personhood exists a rich diversity of roles, functions, and ministries. But these are always predicated on spiritual gifts and competencies—never on gender, social status, or racial distinctions (italics mine, 1 Cor. 12:6-7, 11, except in the NIV which, singularly and unaccountably, inserts “men” in v. 6). (pp. 161-62)
To handle the apparent Paul-versus-Paul situation, Bilezikian affirms one Paul (who teaches Galatians 3:28) and simply denies the existence of the other (who teaches Bilezikian’s less favoured passages, such as 1 Timothy 2 – 3, 1 Corinthians 11). The result of his solution is that roles “are always predicated on spiritual gifts and competencies—never on gender” (italics mine). Under one fell swoop of Galatians 3:28, those less-favoured passages are merely institutionalized misreadings that simply never existed! He repeats himself:
As we shall see below, the only differences among Christians that are relevant to the functioning and structure of the church are those that pertain to ministry, differences based on individual gifting. The Holy Spirit distributes the spiritual gifts not on the basis of the old racial, class, and sex discriminations, but as he wills (1 Cor. 12:11). (italics mine, p. 188)
To cement his claim on Galatians 3:28, Bilezikian denies that one’s worth before God can be distinct from one’s role and function. He calls the distinction of male-female roles as “the denial of the oneness of the church”:
[attacking distinctions in roles, B claims that Paul is made to say:] “When you become a believer, there is neither male nor female; but after you enter into the life of the church, there is a distinction made between male and female. In other words, when you become believers you were all one in Christ Jesus. But after you enter into the life of the church, you are no longer one in Christ.” The inconsistency of such a position is obvious. It results in the denial of the oneness of the church.
To get around this pitfall, other defenders of the male/female hierarchy offer a slightly different interpretation of Galatians 3:28. … It is claimed that there can be spiritual equality between men and women in worth without equality in function. On such premises the biblical texts would be stating: “Whether you are Jew or Gentile, slave or free, you are equal in worth and, therefore, you are equally worthy to function as one body. However, if you are a woman, you have equal worth, but not equal enough for you to participate equally in the functional oneness of the church.” The scriptural text does not seem to make such discriminatory exceptions.
According to the New Testament, the spiritual oneness of the church necessarily results in functional oneness, since a foremost sign of the oneness of the church is the inclusive availability of spiritual gifts distributed on the basis of divine grace—never in consideration of race, social status, or gender. … [quotes or alludes to Rom. 12:5-6; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11-15; 1 Cor. 12:4-26; Eph. 4:4-7] … The biblical equation of worth and oneness and the analogous equation of function and oneness render worth and function inseparable. Oneness requires the free and total functional participation of each member by reason of the supreme worth of each person for God and for the community. (p. 189)
The fruit of Bilezikianist interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is readily seen in the logical extension of the feminist movement: the gay advance. On November 2, 2003, V. Gene Robinson became Bishop Co-adjutor, the first openly gay person to be ordained and consecrated in the Episcopal Church. Many conservative Anglican churches protested, but it was too late. They had allowed the Trojan Horse feminist reading of Galatians 3:28 into their churches a decade ago, and, riding on that very hermeneutical capitulation, the pro-gay faction had little trouble achieving their agenda in 2003. One of the bishops voting in favour of Robinson’s ordination, Bishop Paul V. Marshall of the Bethlehem Diocese, would have done Bilezikian proud in explaining how Galatians 3:28 erases gender distinctions in the church:
St. Paul, who is self-contradictory on the relationship between the sexes, uttered the famous words that in Christ the differences between people disappear. To the Galatians (3:28) he wrote that there is "no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." To the Colossians he wrote that there is "no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!"
In today's context, I have no doubt that Paul's list would have included at least the following: male or female, black or white, gay or straight, old or young, traditionalist or liberal, powerful or powerless, rich or poor.[2]
Moses, Jesus, and Paul, of course, are no Bilezikians. Moses had no trouble conveying Yahweh’s requirement for no testicular damage in priests (Leviticus 21:20). Jesus had no trouble valuing, loving, esteeming, and commending His mother, sisters, and other Marys in the highest possible terms, while omitting them from leadership appointment and apostleship. Paul insisted that a church leader should be a husband of one wife who fathers children that are obedient (1 Timothy 3). None of the three were misogynists or hypocrites—they genuinely raised the estate of women above that of the surrounding cultures and affirmed their spiritual worth, even at the risk of personal reputation, especially in the case of our Lord. Yet they saw, taught, defended, and celebrated the distinction of male-female roles.
CHARISMATISM
After praising charismatism for challenging “the deadness of theological indifference,” discovering “the Bible and its importance for personal faith,” and contributing to “the recovery of personal evangelism,” Bilezikian criticizes “some segments of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement” for their “disposition to go beyond Scripture.” Yet this assessment means nothing as he goes on to affirm the very root of the modern charismatic phenomenon, the false notion of glossolalia. He begins by falsely claiming that the word is in the New Testament:
Most conspicuous among such expressions is the practice of speaking in tongues (the New Testament Greek word for it is glossolalia). ... In the early church, the practice of glossolalia had caused questions to be raised in the lively congregation at Corinth. (p. 111)
The truth of the matter is that there is no such Greek word in the New Testament. Any Greek lexicon (Thayers, BAGD, etc.) can be consulted to verify this. The word glossolalia is a term recently coined from two separate Greek words meaning “tongue/language” and “to speak.” Bilezikian simply declares the word “biblical” and endorses the notion that the modern charismatic practice is what happened in first-century Corinth! From this false declaration, the entire fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is coloured with an anachronistic presupposition:
Against this background, Paul then discusses the relative value and the practice of glossolalia ([1 Corinthians] chap. 14). He begins with a definition of this practice. Glossolalia is not speaking foreign languages; no one understands what is said by one who speaks in a tongue because it is unintelligible speech (vv. 2, 9). Note that the communication phenomenon on Pentecost was different; it consisted of specific foreign languages, not unintelligible sounds.
Furthermore, glossolalia is not an exclusively Christian practice. Indeed speaking in tongues was a sign for pagan unbelievers, not for Christians (v. 22). Several pagan religions of Paul’s day used glossolalia as a sign of the activity of their gods among their worshipers. Today as well, glossolalia is widely used among ecstatic and illuminist non-Christian religions. ...
The Holy Spirit can use glossolalia in the life of believers, but primarily as a private devotional practice. ... Paul reveals, under some duress, that he practices glossolalia in his private worship but never in public (vv. 18-19). If tongues are not interpreted for public edification in corporate worship, they should be exclusively relegated to private use (v. 28). ...
Paul admits that all believers may speak in tongues, but only in the context of private devotional practices (1 Cor. 14:5). (p. 112)
Building on the neologism glossolalia, Bilezikian concludes that the “Holy Spirit can use glossolalia in the life of believers, but primarily as a private devotional practice.” He then tries to marry the grotesque picture of a first-century glossolalia with Paul’s rules on interpreting:
Paul establishes this equation (vv. 29 – 31):
public glossolalia + interpretation = prophecy.
... Rule 5 An interpretation should follow after a person speaks in a tongue (v. 27). This is not a process of translation from one language to another, since Paul already stated that tongues were not languages (v. 2). Interpretation is the rendering, under the guidance of the Spirit and for the benefit of the congregation, of the experience of the person who spoke in tongues. (p. 113)
Having begun by endorsing the notion of a gibberish glossolalia, Bilezikian is now forced to redefine interpretation as “the rendering ... of the experience of” the gibberish-sounding person! Again, as was done before, the Holy Spirit is now dragged into this false construction as He was into glossolalia. That’s what happens when creative interpretation is applied: if tongues do not refer to languages, then interpretation cannot either, and so the creative spiral goes on. What hermeneutical gymnastics were choreographed for headship and authority in feminist arguments on women’s roles are now conveniently applied to Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts, with similar disastrous results. Probably realising the confusion of all this, Bilezikian immediately appeals to the gift of discernment from elsewhere in the New Testament. It may be worth noting at this point that authentic tongues and interpretation, as rightly interpreted, do not require this 7th rule of Bilezikian’s:
Rule 7 Once the speaking in tongues has been interpreted, it become intelligible prophecy that must be evaluated (v. 29). Individual presentations of the word of God are subject to review by the congregation (1 Thess. 5:20-21), among whom are those especially qualified for this ministry with the spiritual gift of discernment (1 Cor. 12:10). (p. 114)
Needless to say, of his 10 Rules, Bilezikian completely ignores “Rule 11” in 1 Corinthians 14: concerning women speaking in tongues! Perhaps it doesn’t even exist for him under the shadow of Galatians 3:28 and nonfeminist “institutionalized misreading”! Having evaluated the counterfeit view of glossolalia, there is, of course, a biblical position that is tenable based on a historically and grammatical reading of the text. Although outside the scope of the present review, these good references are readily available.[3]
CHURCH GOVERNMENT
Typically, the area of church government has found advocates of each of its three major forms:
1. Episcopalian: a single pastor or bishop presides and makes the decisions
2. Presbyterian: elected representatives (elders, deacons) make the decisions
3. Congregational: decisions by plenary vote at congregational business meetings
Bilezikian’s distaste for hierarchical structure really shows when he sheds his gentle Frenchman aura and proverbially flies off the handle against the Episcopalian form of government. Fact is, few churches are governed in a “pure” form of any of the three systems of government, and much depends on the maturity of the people and the gravity of the decision at the moment. Even in Episcopal churches, such as those in the Anglican Communion, bishops are routinely in constant communion with and regularly solicit the support of their flock. In approaching the subject of how churches are to be run, Bilezikian is again consistent in making a single prooftext the exclusive authority on the entire subject:
Jesus absolutely forbade one individual to hold authority over others in Christian communities. … Upon learning this [that his disciples were jostling over who should be the greatest], Jesus rebuked them and told them that anyone who wants to be the top man in a Christian community should instead make himself servant of all. A servant does not exercise authority over others but places himself or herself under the authority of the group. (p. 198)
The argument sounds rather egalitarian until his last line—what is termed “the authority of the group.” The term servanthood is used to describe relations between the “top man” and “the group.” However, while Jesus’ point about servanthood applies to all the disciples serving one another, Bilezikian’s servanthood is the leader serving “the group,” a one-way service. In fact, it appears that Jesus was teaching an attitude of servanthood rather than advocating one particular structure of church government over another. Bilezikian’s broad stroke results not only in theological problems, but also practical ones as well, which he tries to resolve, falling back on Presbyterianism or Congregationalism:
Jesus knew that without supervision and without the exercise of authority the work of the church cannot go on. … The call to servanthood does not absolve the church from the responsibility of making decisions and seeing to it that they were put into effect. However, in Christian communities the slogan “Somebody’s got to be in charge,” does not apply because the whole body is mobilized by the Spirit to be in charge. Out in the world, one person may make the decisions for the whole group. But in the church, it is the group that decides for itself. In Christian communities, authority is not vested in one dominant individual but in the body as a whole or in a representative plurality of leaders. (pp. 199-200)
Not content with merely stating his preference, he goes on (as usual) to construct in absolute terms a false universe, where “no church mentioned or described in the New Testament that was governed by a single leader.” Each form of church government, of course, has some evidence in the Scriptures—including the Episcopalian.[4] It is, therefore, disingenuous for anyone to suggest that any of the three forms has “no” mention or description whatsoever.[5] Furthermore, if a single “bishop” were democratically elected, how is he less representative or accountable than a Presbyterian oligarchy? But he goes on, giving his minimalist definition of ordination:
As a result of this teaching by the Lord, there is no church mentioned or described in the New Testament that was governed by a single leader, and there is no discussion of a practice called ordination whereby selected persons are designated as “ministers” or “priests”—except for the formal recognition of spiritual gifts among believers (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). The New Testament recognizes all believers as “ministers” and “priests” (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-7; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). Because these churches were in different stages of development … their particular methods of self-governance were not the same. But in every case, leadership was a shared responsibility. (p. 200)
The picture of ordination, however, is more complete if we include the sending forth of apostles and missionaries to new fields and the installation of pastors and elders in various church locations. Bilezikian, though, would have us believe that the priesthood of the believer demands the removal of all church offices. He can only claim “a shared responsibility” “in every case” if he omits the telling exceptions. But more of his either-or mindset:
Moreover, the New Testament shows that this pattern of church governance is best illustrated by turning the shortened [sawed-off] pyramid upside-down on its small base, with the leaders caring for the people from the bottom as their servants, not lording it over them but being examples to the flock and empowering them for ministry (1 Pet. 5:2-3). (p. 201)
Bilezikian’s implication is that his sawed-off pyramid is the only solution to leadership abuse. Somehow, if someone (singular) is in charge, he must be lording it over the flock. But how is having more people making the decision a guarantee against abuse? The Corinthian church was pretty carnal all the way through and might have done better with a responsible bishop at the helm. Yes, he claims to allow “particular methods of self-governance” for churches “in various stages of development”—all except the Episcopalian. Peter’s teaching, of course, had nothing to do with advocacy of one form of church government over another, as Bilezikian again exhibits his strange hermeneutic. It has everything to do with a heart of humility, no matter who is in leadership—one bishop, one session, or one congregation. How is it more moral for a congregation or church board to “lord it over” some of their own, as opposed to one bishop?
In our day, much emphasis is given to church structure, with a tendency to make it rigidly uniform for different churches on the basis of the one pattern derived from 1 Timothy 3. However, we must remember that this pattern reflected the governance model of only one church in New Testament times and that other churches had other forms of governance. (p. 201)
Here, Bilezikian inadvertantly admits that there is New Testament basis for the church polity he dislikes. I suspect that there’s more that he dislikes in 1 Timothy 3 (e.g. regarding the leader’s nonfeminist prerequisites). Also, it doesn’t take much insight to notice that Bilezikian himself is no less than rigid in compelling those persuaded of other church governments to his sawn-off pyramid.
Other Christians claim that in New Testament churches, women had access to the highest levels of ministry, including that of prophecy (Acts 2:17-18; 21:9), a gift that was equivalent to preaching as defined in 1 Corinthians 14:3. They believe that since the ministry of prophecy was the second highest divine appointment in the church, just below the apostles and just above the teaching function (12:28), women could lead in worship and prophesy on the same basis as men, provided they had the spiritual gift for doing so (11:4-5; 12:7; 14:31).
According to this view, the only condition for participation was that such gifted people be properly trained (2 Tim. 2:2 NRSV) and that they first receive instruction quietly prior to becoming teachers (1 Tim. 2:11). Owing to the lack of adequate training, some Ephesian women were apparently straying after Satan (5:15) and leading others into error (v. 13). According to Paul, they acted like Eve, who took it upon herself to dialogue with Satan about matters that lay outside her competence, since they had been explained to Adam prior to her existence and she had obtained them only secondhand (2:13-14). Accordingly, Paul’s prohibition for women to teach (v. 12) would have applied specifically to the untrained women in Ephesus, and universally to any untrained or incompetent could-be teacher (see also James 3:1). (p. 205)
This is probably Bilezikian’s most consummate statement of his position. While there are discrete elements of truth in it, the statement (as his other ones) ignores some Scriptures for others in order to present the New Testament as giving a simplistic argument for the feminist, “egalitarian” church. While it is certainly true that there were prophetesses in the church, nowhere was the gift of prophecy equated with church leadership and office. Specifically, no woman was an overseer or invited to that role of one required of a husband of one wife, having children under subjection, and a whole schedule of other prerequisites. Of course, if one threw out the biblical guidance, “the only condition of participation” would be as Bilezikian puts it. However, he goes on to put Paul through a hermeneutical hopper by acknowledging certain of the conditions in Ephesus and limiting his teaching to that reconstructed situation. What is eliminated? Paul’s first line of reasoning wasn’t the society or lack of coed education; he returns to the Word of God in the Old Testament, to the creative order: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). It may be unpalatable to the modern and postmodern ear; it may be hard to understand, admittedly; but it is God’s Word through Paul, first and foremost, and no amount of crafty argumentation and political accreditation can change that. Bilezikian’s forced reading of Paul is tantamount to a rejection of what Paul did say.
The book rounds out with an attack on biblical fundamentalism and separatism, what it calls “The Antithetical Church,” as opposed to the Syncretistic and Transformational Churches, the last of which he advocates. He criticises this “Antithetical Church” as follows:
According to this view, the church is not only apart from society but also stands against it or in opposition to it. … In actual practice, this view of the church is expressed in either of two attitudes towards society, both of them falling generally within the camp of “fundamentalism.” The “separatist” church flees the sinful world and protects itself from a culture it considers degenerate by segregating itself within the closed fellowship of the saved. The “triumphalist” [Reconstructionist] church is also against a culture that it regards as corrupt, but a culture that it also considers as redeemable. Instead of abandoning the world to its doom, this church views itself as the agent of its reconciliation according to the laws of the old covenant. Whenever possible, the triumphalist church attempts to gain control of the vital nerve centers of pagan society in order to bring it in subjection to God’s agenda.
His confusion about churches that stand with God against the world is multiple. First, he confuses fundamentalist or separatist churches with isolationist churches. The first aspires to obey the Scriptures at whatever cost, and this includes going into all the world to preach the Good News. The fact that they do not agree with and withdraw from practices that are deemed not beneficial to the Christian life does not mean that they withdraw themselves from the people of the world or reserve their fellowship to themselves alone—there are many fundamentalist teachers, accountants, doctors, and missionaries who cast salt and light in this world today. But these fundamentalists will want to discern the difference between the blatantly disobedient brothers and the unsaved who don’t know better, and act accordingly (1 Corinthians 5:9 – 11). Another point of confusion is that of lumping in what he calls the “triumphalist” church, by which he describes those of a Reconstructionist agenda, who tend to try and set up a theocracy (or “theonomy”) in the United States through political means. By creating this confusion, Bilezikian leaves the reader with the sole alternative of his “transformational” church. My concern is that that church may be more transformed to the world than transformational, for what is transformational must first be antithetical and confrontational to “all that is in the world” and its “lusts” (1 John 2:15 – 17). It must be aroused with holy jealousy and loyalty to God’s truth. It must inform the world and not be informed by it.
CRITIQUE
The task of unmasking false teaching is as necessary as it is tedious and unpleasant (Jude 3). The fruit of the feminist approach to biblical interpretation is obvious in mainline denominations that have not only pioneered women’s ordination but are also considering gay ordination today (after all, why bother about gender distinctions, if Bilezikian’s use of Galatians 3:28 holds?). The real danger in this book is not its novelty but the evangelical sheepskin it wears. Sold to the promise of megachurch growth, plus Bilezikian’s ostensible reliance on Scripture (despite his really undercutting it), many pastors and churches have rushed to adopt the theology and implications of this book.
Those who suppose the current review as an adolescent overreaction may wish to take a closer look at the feminist camp’s appearance of “community building” and welcoming embrace. They may discover that it is no less militant a movement than any of the “Antithetical Church” fundamentalists or separatists it pillories. The famous Willow Creek has been requiring its members:
• that they can joyfully sit under the teaching of women teachers at Willow Creek
• that they can joyfully submit to the leadership of women in various leadership positions at Willow Creek
• that they will refrain from promoting personal views in ways that would be divisive or disruptive.[6]
Such strong-arm tactics of feminism are designed to eliminate dissenting consciences who might not “joyfully submit” to an unbiblical leadership. Not only that, its list of resources for “further study” is completely one-sided, and nonfeminist books cannot be sold from the Willow Creek bookstore, which is reminiscent of recent the theological developments in the ACEM denomination. It may be only a matter of time when the denomination follow Willow Creek’s militancy to the exclusion of nonfeminists from its leadership in order to achieve “a certain level of consensus.” [7]
Doctrinally, Bilezikian has been exposed elsewhere for his deviance on the Trinity, denying in effect the eternal subordination of the Son.[8] It seems, in their urgency to win at all costs, the feminists are willing to make extreme statements and sacrifice doctrinal purity at the altar of cultural and political correctness.
Clever or not, I believe it is safer to take Paul at his word, to accept even difficult Scripture as God’s Word no less. I may not ever figure out every nuance of Paul’s argument in my lifetime, but that reflects less on his wisdom than on mine, that is my lack thereof. Let me embrace it and not twist it; let me submit to it and not explain it away. For as Apostle Peter concludes in his Second Epistle, the alternative is irresponsible and destructive:
2 Peter 3 (The Message; emphasis mine)
14So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. 15Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, 16refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it.
17But you, friends, are well-warned. Be on guard lest you lose your footing and get swept off your feet by these lawless and loose-talking teachers. 18Grow in grace and understanding of our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Glory to the Master, now and forever! Yes!
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God. (reviewed on this site)
Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.cbmw.org
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Book House; 2nd edition (July 1998) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021820/kjb1611biblevsmo
Grudem, Wayne, and John Piper. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 1997: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/preface.html
International Testimony to an Infallible Bible. http://www.itib.org/articles/articles.html
Kaczorowski, Laura M. “Willow Creek: Conversion Without Commitment.” Distinguished Majors Honors Thesis Paper, University of Virginia, 1997. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/superch.html
Riddlebarger, Kim. The Church of the Highest Common Denominator: Some Thoughts on Church Growth from a Reformed Perspective. Christian Renewal, Sep. 25, 2000. http://spindleworks.com/library/riddlebarger/denom.htm
The User-friendly Church: Good or Bad? http://www.goforgod.com/seeker/
Tillin, Tricia. Chapter 8 of The Transforming Church. http://www.banner.org.uk/apostasy/cell-church8.htm
Winner, Lauren F. The Man Behind the Megachurch, Christianity Today, Nov. 13, 2000: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/4.56.html