Practical Theology

An Advent Reflection: “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”

Brad MasonLeave a comment

Clouds

[This article was first published in somewhat different form as “Hastening the Day”]

When Christ first came to His own, what caused the majority of His own to reject Him while others received Him gladly and with joy?  What was it that differentiated a Mary, an Elizabeth, a Simeon, or an Anna from the masses that would in thirty plus years cry, “crucify him, crucify him!”?  All were children of Abraham, all had the same Law, read the same prophets, and even believed that a Messiah would indeed come.  So, what differentiated the saints from the serpents at His arrival?

Luke, I believe, gives us the answer in his Gospel account.  When the Christ child, but eight days old, was brought to the Temple for circumcision, we are presented with two saints, each receiving Him joyfully as the expected Messiah. First Simeon:

And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. (Luke 2:25-26)

Continue reading →

Former Benedictine Monk Reflects Upon Rod Dreher’s “The Benedict Option”

Brad Mason3 Comments
Entrance Ganagobie Abbey Benedictine Portal
Entrance Ganagobie Abbey Benedictine Portal

“As someone whom God has graciously lifted out of the prison that is the Catholic sacramental system, I do not greatly appreciate this attempt to sell my bondage back to me as an uplifting spiritual experience.”

 

[The following is a guest post by David Bancz, a Welshman and former Benedictine monk. The post, while quite self-explanatory, is primarily a reflection on Rod Dreher’s book The Benedict Option, but is also a beautiful contrast to the series of posts by Paul Liberati earlier this year, “Reformed Seminarian Converts to Roman Catholicism”. Lord willing, Paul will have his own forthcoming reflections on this wonderful example of God’s grace on behalf of His Children.]

What should repentance look like? In particular, what should repentance from a system of false belief look like? I ask because for roughly 20 years I was not only an enthusiastic Roman Catholic, but one who was convinced that he had a vocation in the Church. In 2006 I joined a Benedictine monastery in the UK and progressed through the various levels of formation and vows. Purely by the gracious action of God, I was liberated from the cloister in 2014 and was consequently freed from the Roman sacramental system. I currently worship in a church that is part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales.

Continue reading →

Reset: Some Questions on Gender and “Authority”

Brad Mason15 Comments

Questions

Since posting “Complementarity Without Subordination” and “’And he shall rule over you’: A Collaborative Response to Aimee Byrd and Barbara Roberts”, I have been told by one side that my proposals are anti-authority, feminist, and egalitarian and by the other side that they suggest misogyny and endorse ungodly authority (I should note the all-around good will and kindness of the latter respondents).  Given the polarity of these responses, I believe much of this must be due to misunderstanding and my own lack of clarity. But since I have from the beginning intended these posts to be collaborative contributions and not primarily polemics against those I most appreciate and learn from, I believe the best course of action is to reset the table.  Rather than continue to iterate and push down paths that have already been potentially misleading, and therefore not conducive to framing clear and common consent, I propose a fresh start. I am in no wise abandoning the proposals set forth in the previous two posts, but rather believe that there are unresolved tensions, potential inconsistencies, and even some cake eating and having in the critiques I’ve received thus far.

Continue reading →

“And he shall rule over you”: A Collaborative Response to Aimee Byrd and Barbara Roberts

Brad Mason29 Comments

Adam and Eve 2

A couple weeks back I posted “ESS, Slavery, and the Metaphysic of Oppression”. After push back from various folks, it became clear that I needed to defend my claim that I am not an egalitarian while also demonstrating that Complementarianism can and should be divorced from the blasphemy of ESS. So I posted “Complementarity Without Subordination”. Aimee Byrd and Barbara Roberts were kind enough to read and even post fantastic and instructive responses: “Hierarchy and Subordination vs. Headship and Household Mission” and “Complementarity Without Subordination: What Does it Look Like?”  I also received very helpful and constructive comments from Rev. Sam Powell and Rachel Miller. I am more than honored to have received feedback from those that I have learned so much from. I’m even more honored to be considered part of the process of ironing out these important issues.

Along with many very generous and gracious words about the piece, the common critique from them all was of my insistence that the phrase “and he shall rule over you” in Genesis 3:16 is to be understood as the delegation of rightful authority rather than a description of oppressive authority. (Both Sam Powell and Rachel Miller had also written great pieces on different aspects of this subject: “Headship Is Not Hierarchy” and “The Desire of the Woman: A Response to Susan Foh’s Interpretation”.) So against my better judgement, I thought I ought to further defend/explain my position.  Yes, that’s right, take the one narrow band that all of them disagreed with and make it my whole next post; proof that I am not very intelligent.

Continue reading →

Complementarity Without Subordination

Brad Mason12 Comments
o-ADAM-AND-EVE-facebook
Adam and Eve Gustav Klimt (Austrian, 1862–1918) 1917-1918 Oil on canvas *Belvedere, Vienna * © Belvedere, Vienna *Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Some Background and Statement of the Question

In my previous post, “ESS, Slavery, and the Metaphysic of Oppression,” I first rejected the simple metaphysic of “unequal in nature, therefore unequal in authority” as Biblically inapplicable to human relations.  I next noted that with the failure of the simple metaphysic, defenders of slavery within the Church turned to a metaphysic of “equal in nature, yet subordinate in subsistence”, or a metaphysic of the inequality of equals.  I next noted that Complementarians in modern evangelicalism have also turned to the metaphysic of “equal in nature, yet subordinate in subsistence” to rescue male headship from the feminist onslaught, but with a much more robust footing supplied by the supposed Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) teaching.  I rejected this position as well as a metaphysic of oppression, grounded as it is in Trinitarian error and the subordination of persons as to their very subsistence.

Of course the questions/push back from evangelicals has been to question how one could still believe in male headship in the home, as I do, yet reject both of the above metaphysical principles.  It is a good question and warrants more than a brief answer. If the metaphysic grounded in the ESS view of the Trinity is a metaphysic of oppression, then one must believe in the inequality of nature to maintain male headship, right?  And if one rejects both, then aren’t we left with egalitarianism as the only remaining option? I, of course, have no newfangled answer, nor my own special way of treating the subject; it has been treated better and more extensively by others.  Rather, I believe that the very asking of this question just shows how much subordinationist thought has infiltrated evangelicalism, so I hope only to point the reader in a different direction and perspective to continue studying the issue.

Continue reading →

ESS, Slavery, and the Metaphysic of Oppression

Brad Mason10 Comments
George WHitfield

George Whitfield believed that “Africans” were human but subordinate creatures and as such could rightfully be enslaved. He saw this as an act of beneficence on behalf of the white Christian slave holder. In like manner, Robert Lewis Dabney, while discussing “natural equality” states the following:

[…]if the low grade of intelligence, virtue and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare (taking the “general run” of cases) and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom; then the law decided correctly, that the African here has no natural right to his self-control, as to his own labour and locomotion. Hence, his natural liberty is only that which remains after that privilege is retrenched.[1]

While hideous, the metaphysic of such a position was simple: those unequal in nature, being, dignity, and attributes are also unequal in relations, including authority and submission, right to command and duty to obey. “Equality” only extends to the individuals as a requirement for equal duty before God—one to care for his subordinate and the other to obey his superior. Equity was simply the Golden Rule practiced according to one’s natural lot.

Continue reading →

Hastening the Day

Brad Mason2 Comments

15778035110_eff2562060_b

I recently ordered a copy of Nicaea and its Legacy, by Lewis Ayres, as a bit of a Christmas present for myself during the recent Advent season.  Having been exercised by all things Trinitarian since the summer’s public, but rather niche, subordination debate, I was assured by reviewers and experts alike that this book was sure to scratch my growing itch to understand the third and fourth century Nicene controversy better.  While I would certainly love to discuss, over the next (hopefully under-eighteen hundred) words, the complexities of Pro-Nicene theology, what is more pertinent to my present task (and much more within my ken) is rather the shipping method of this order. It, unfortunately, was not an Amazon Prime order.  In other words, who knows when this book would actually arrive!

I received a shipping confirmation within only hours; yes, exciting, off to a good start.  The range for expected delivery was something like three to twenty one days, so naturally, it being a Saturday, I expected it by Wednesday.  Well, no book come Wednesday.  I rapidly became agitated checking my account over and over, looking for shipping updates, to no avail—I mean, come on, at least throw a guy a tracking number!  Of course I emailed the seller asking for delivery information, but only to receive a worthless cookie cutter email in return.  Eventually I did find that it was at a mail distribution center, but it seemed to be sitting there for days as I meticulously kept tabs.  How could they allow this gem to just languish in a pile in some warehouse in Maryland?  This near obsessive behavior of mine went on for days (just ask my wife!), but I will kindly spare you the rest of the details of this harrowing first world drama. There is, Lord willing, a point to it.

Continue reading →