Egalitarianism treats men and women not just as equals but as persons who are equally fitfor various roles. This is a radical departure from the wisdom of our God, who made men and women different from each other and different for each other. And to speak or act in any way that ignores, diminishes, or denies God’s good design is to ignore, diminish, or deny the gender-specific blessings that God intends. 

If the state of Christianity today is disconcerting, the state of Christianity Today (CT) is more so. The magazine that was founded by Billy Graham with Carl F. H. Henry as its first editor-in-chief has  drifted from its historically evangelical roots toward theological and political progressivism. To be sure, CT isn’t alone in this regard. As one theologian lamented,
“You see the collapse of evangelicalism all around us. Pick up Christianity Today: Christianity Today is written by mainline Episcopalians. Go to Wheaton College: Wheaton College faculty is a mainline Episcopalian faculty. Look at Fuller Seminary: It is easier to find a creationist on the faculty at Berkeley than at Fuller Seminary. We [evangelicals] have turned into the culture because we want to be like them.”
Those are the words of Russell Moore in 2006. (Start at the 41:44 mark and stick around until 44:06.) It is more than a little ironic that Moore is now the editor-in-chief of CT. It would seem that not only have the times changed—his convictions have, too. Yet the Scriptures do not change. That is why I am saddened (though not surprised) to see an egalitarian view of the sexes all but cemented at CT these days.
For those who haven’t kept up with the gender debates over the last forty years: egalitarianism is the modern, mixed-up notion that because men and women are equally made in the image of God (which is true) they are therefore interchangeable in various roles within God’s world (which is false). Such an approach entails a quasi-gnostic view of gender that treats God’s design for men and women as arbitrary or superfluous. This contradicts the longstanding consensus of the church across Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant lines, who, for over 1900 years, stood together in affirming that God’s differing directives to men and women in the Scriptures are rooted in God’s complementary design of men and women in creation. (This view goes by many names such as “biblical patriarchy” or “complementarianism,” a term that has picked up further qualification due to divergent trends within the movement.)
CT’s egalitarian trajectory has long been apparent to anyone who was paying attention. But over the last several years, CT has ramped up its promotion of egalitarianism in various forms. They’ve run articles decrying “toxic masculinity” (see here and here) but never toxic femininity. They have published articles discouraging men from asserting traditionally masculine traits and tendencies (see here and here). And they have interviewed Kristin Du Mez on evangelicalism’s alleged obsession with John Wayne.
CT has also run several articles exhorting us to transcend gender roles (see here, here, and here), which is a quintessentially egalitarian way of framing the discussion. Similarly, CT’s editor-in-chief (Moore) recently issued the call to rethink the evangelical “gender wars”, citing his frustration over the “ever-narrowing definition of complementarian [sic]” and his sense of the need for “rethinking who we once classified as ‘enemy’ and ‘ally.’” Meanwhile, other CT articles employ a strategy of dismissing theological discussion about God’s design for men and women as “a political battle that distracts from the gospel.”
CT has also hosted several I’m-not-that-kind-of-complementarian authors who wrote pieces like this one, which affirms the Danvers Statement while decrying attempts to faithfully apply it, or this one, which argues that those who hold to the church’s traditional view of the sexes are paternalistic. And in a move reminiscent of Screwtape’s strategy to entice Christians to bring a fire-extinguisher to a flood, CT ran an article worrying about a “narrowing” complementarianism in the SBC at a time when over a thousand SBC churches have women serving as pastors in open violation of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
In addition to all this, CT ran an article about using “preferred pronouns” with no substantive consideration of how lying to others is neither loving nor helpful (Eph. 4:15, 25) or interaction with Scripture’s clear “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27; cf. Matt. 19:4). Instead, the article calls for us to “give each other grace” as people who are “figuring it out together.” (Which, in truth, is how people tend to talk when they’ve already figured out what they think and are just waiting for a sufficiently large sociological shift before announcing their stunning and brave conclusions.)
Comes now the latest barrage of egalitarian articles from CT, forming the central theme of their April 2024 issue: The Division of Labor. All the usual suspects are there: an article openly endorsing egalitarianism, an interview that calls the church to learn from the world’s diversity of viewpoints on gender roles, an article that attempts to carve a chimerical middle way between complementarianism and egalitarianism, and an article from a reluctant complementarian woman (Have men ever been permitted to write about complementarianism for CT?) who blames conservative Christians—not the gale force winds of the progressive zeitgeist—for the church’s setbacks. In addition to these cover stories, the issue also features an article on Mary Magdalene, which—following the work of Jennifer Powell McNutt, a Wheaton College professor and pastrix in the PC(USA)—equivocates the meaning of “apostle” in order to claim Mary for the egalitarian side of the debate.
Each of these articles probably deserves a rebuttal that roundly criticizes their methods and conclusions, but life is short and I’ve only got time for one. So here’s lookin’ at you, Gordon P. Hugenberger. Arguing that “the biggest New Testament passages on gender roles may have more to do with marriage than with ministry,” Hugenberger’s article is titled, “Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Paul Would Approve.”
But actually, he wouldn’t.
Why Paul Isn’t an Egalitarian (And We Shouldn’t Be Either)
In the first place, Paul calls the church the household (oikos) of God (1 Tim. 3:15), that is, the family of God (cf. Matt. 10:6; 1 Tim. 3:4; 5:4). However, positing that God wants his children to live as complementarians in their own households but as egalitarians in God’s household (i.e., the church) would make God schizophrenic. For if men and women are differently directed in view of God’s differing design, then what is good and right in one realm would be good and right in the other.
Hugenberger seems to be unaware of the tension created by his view, as he devotes his arguments to affirming male headship in marriage (with a heavy dose of caveats and condemnations of “meanness, abuse, or even violence against women”) while denying male headship in the church. As I will show below, such a view is internally incoherent.
To advocate for egalitarianism in the church, Hugenberger marshals boilerplate egalitarian arguments, like the argument that ministry is a matter of spiritual gifts, which women possess as well as men (1 Cor. 12:7), or the argument that all Christians are called to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16) with “nothing in the context suggest[ing] that Paul has only men in view.” Next comes Abigail’s rebuke of David (1 Sam. 25), followed by Priscilla’s instruction of Apollos (Acts 18:26).
The next stop for Hugenberger is 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:3, where women prophesy as well as men. This naturally leads him to highlight women like Deborah the prophetess (Judges 4 and 5), Hannah the mother of Samuel, (1 Sam. 2) and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1), all of whom “were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various portions of Holy Scripture.” In this way, Hugenberger says, “Through their writings, these women have taught both men and women with inerrant authority down through the ages.”
There are two problems here. To begin with, Hugenberger is equivocating what it means to “teach.” The apostle Paul knows what he wrote in Col. 3:16, and he knows what he wrote in 1 Tim. 2:12. Thus, unless we were to conclude that Paul is too stupid to realize he has contradicted himself, he clearly refers to a certain kind of teaching (or perhaps to teaching in a certain context) in one verse that he does not refer to in the other. It is not difficult to make this distinction. The second issue is that Deborah’s and Hannah’s and Mary’s words—as wonderful as they are—were not actually written into Scripture by these holy women. Instead, they were incorporated into Scripture by men named Samuel and Luke. This is not a throwaway detail, for the Scriptures sometimes quote pagans (Acts 17:28) and Apocrypha (Jude 14), so the mere presence of words in holy writ does not convey special teaching status or authority on the person who first uttered them.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes, “there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent” (WCF 15.4), no matter the sin, Christians can always approach God with confidence in His compassion. When we confess our transgressions, we can trust that in God’s compassion He will forgive us.
Throughout the four Gospels, readers are flooded with examples of the compassion of Christ. In His miracles, Christ shows His compassion by giving sight to the blind, making the lame walk, and curing people with extreme sickness. In His parables, He consistently shows that God’s heart is geared toward compassion and His desire is for His followers to be similarly compassionate.
However, the greatest example of the compassion of the Messiah came at the end of His earthly ministry. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross for sinners is the culmination of His compassion, an action that allows Christians to be confident in their standing before God.
Contributing to Christ’s Death
Isaiah 53 provides a picture of the greatness of Christ’s compassion. The first half of verse 3 says, “He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” God came to the earth as man, and men rejected Him.
At first reading, this verse appears to speak of the men that were physically present during the crucifixion, or possibly more broadly this verse appears to apply to the Jews of the day. However, Isaiah, writing at least 600 years before the life of Christ, says at the end of the verse, “He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” Why would Isaiah include himself with those who offended Christ?
Isaiah included himself as an offender of Christ because he, just like the rest of mankind, had sinned against God throughout his life. In chapter 6, he makes this claim: “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5)
We cannot read Isaiah 53:3 and claim that the context exempts us from including ourselves. While Isaiah was not present during the crucifixion, he included himself as an offender of the Holy God. Similarly, when we read Isaiah 53 ought to include ourselves as offenders. We participated in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Observe carefully that Paul says nothing at all about the Lord removing his Church to Heaven. The apostle leaves her—and us—in the air. What, then, will take place after this happy reunion? Here, Paul does not say. However, what he does say suggests an interpretation far richer than that of the dispensationalists. Paul writes, “And as a result of these things, we shall always be with the Lord.” Note the finality—the ultimacy—of that phrase. When the Lord returns, we shall always be together: together with him and together with one other. Thus, Paul’s exact wording strongly suggests that he has in mind the ultimate goal of Salvation History: life together with Christ in the new heavens and the new earth. Admittedly, he makes no explicit mention of where the saints will be with the Lord. But that is simply because his present focus is elsewhere: the reunion of separated loved ones at the Parousia. We have already seen, however, that in his other eschatological writings Paul uniformly associates the Resurrection with the final renewal of all creation (Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 50-57; Phil. 3:20-21).

The Apostle Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonian Christians contain some of the Bible’s richest veins of eschatological gold. Written from Corinth around AD 50-51, they reveal that the apostle’s early ministry to the European Gentiles was charged with a lively expectation of the Lord’s soon return (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:11-13; 2 Thess. 1-2; cf. Acts 17:16-21; 1 Cor. 15:1-58). However, they also reveal a problem: Paul’s Jewish opponents had forced him to flee the city quickly, with the result that some of his converts were left confused (or ignorant) about his teaching on the afterlife and the Consummation (Acts 17:1-9). These two letters give us his efforts to clear up the misunderstanding. Not surprisingly, they speak often and in great detail about the last things: the signs of Christ’s Parousia, the nature and purpose of the Parousia, the Resurrection, the Judgment, and the World to Come. Notably, they never speak of a future millennium (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:1-10; 2 Thess. 1:3-12; 2:1-12).
Let’s take a close look at two major (and very closely related) texts found in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Of the three NT passages cited by dispensationalists in support of a pre-tribulation rapture, this is by far the most important (cf. John 14:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52). Accordingly, I will first offer an amillennial exegesis of the text itself, and then carefully consider both the dispensational interpretation and the case made for it.
Our text begins in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, where Paul states his purpose for the remarks to follow. His goal is to give hope to Christians whose (believing) loved ones have recently “fallen asleep” (i.e., died in the Lord). He knows that some of the brethren are troubled about this. Perhaps they fear that their departed loved ones will not be included in Christ’s Kingdom when he comes again. Certainly they fear they will never see them again. Therefore, Paul takes up this subject once again, so that they will no longer grieve as unbelievers do, but instead enjoy a lively hope of being reunited with their Christian family and friends—soon.
In verse 14 he succinctly states the healing truth; in the verses that follow he carefully explains. It is this: “When Jesus comes again he will bring your departed loved one(s) with him and back to you.” Observe how Paul, in declaring this truth, builds on the Thessalonians’ pre-existing faith. They already believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead. But if they can believe that, surely they can also believe that he will raise their loved one(s). And, says Paul, that’s exactly what he will do: At the Parousia God will bring with Jesus the souls of all who have fallen asleep in him, so that they, just like their Lord, may rise from the dead and be reunited with the saints who are living on the earth at that time.
Importantly, Paul has already touched on this subject in 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13, where he prayed that God would establish their hearts “ . . . blameless in holiness in the presence of our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his holy ones.” Note the comprehensiveness of that final phrase. When Christ returns he will empty Heaven, bringing with him all the holy angels and the spirits of all the departed saints whom he has redemptively separated to himself. Thus will he set the stage for the Momentous Event: the Consummation of all things and the recreation of the world.
In verses 15-17 the apostle delves into the aspect of the Consummation that lies uppermost in the minds of his flock: the reunion of the departed saints with the living saints. In verse 15 he declares that the instruction he is about give is “the word of the Lord.” That is, it comes, at least in part, from the earthly teaching of Christ himself (Matt. 13:37-43; 24:29-31). Possibly, it also includes further revelation specially vouchsafed to the apostle (1 Cor. 15:51-52). In any case, the Thessalonians can trust what he has to say, for it is the very Word of God.
Next, he affirms that “ . . . we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep.” He means that the living saints will not receive their glorified bodies before those who have died in the Lord. There is, then, a definite chronological sequence in the glorification of the Church: First, Christ will join the souls of the departed saints to their new resurrected and glorified bodies; then—and only then—he will transform and glorify the bodies of the living saints. In days ahead, Paul will say much the same thing to the Corinthians: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we [who are alive and remain] will be changed” (1 Cor. 15:50-53).
Observe that all of this happens at “the Parousia of the Lord” (v. 15). There is only one of them. And according to every other Pauline text touching on this event, it has nothing to do with Christ secretly removing his Church to Heaven for seven years. Rather, it has everything to do with his raising (all) the dead, judging the world in righteousness, and bringing in the completed Kingdom of God.
In verses 16-17, which closely parallel Jesus’ own descriptions of the Consummation, Paul elaborates on what he has just said about the events surrounding the Parousia (Matt. 13:37-43; 24:29-31). He begins with this: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven.” This is Christ’s definitive descent to the earth, the descent that results in the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, where he will live forever with his beloved Bride. In this descent the Lord is not leaving Heaven behind; rather, he is bringing it with him. In this descent he and the holy angels are coming home once and for all (Rev. 21:1-4)!
The cosmic homecoming will be accompanied by three great sounds: A shout (or “cry of command”), the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God. I take it that the shout emanates from the lips of Christ himself. If this is indeed a shout, then it is a shout of (final) victory (Num. 23:21; Josh. 6:5; Ps. 47:5; Is. 42:13; Jer. 25:30; 1 Cor. 15:54). If, as seems more likely, it is a cry of command, it is the voice of Christ summoning the dead from their graves (John 5:25; 11:43) and/or sending the holy angels to their appointed tasks (Mark 13:27). Perhaps it is both.
Concerning the archangel, he is almost certainly Michael (Dan. 12:1; Jude v. 9) or Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26). In either case, this angel, by definition, is a ruler over all the rest. His presence on the scene therefore implies what the NT explicitly unveils elsewhere: the presence of all the holy angels (Matt. 25:31). When the archangel raises his voice, it will likely be for the purpose of sending all the angels to their work of judicial and redemptive ingathering (Matt. 13:41; 24:31; Rev. 14:18).
Finally, there is the trumpet of God. Its blast signals not only the final destruction of the evil world-system (Josh. 6:15-21; Rev. 18:2), but also the summoning of God’s people to their full inheritance: to the enjoyment of eternal life upon the glorious “holy mountain” that is the new heavens and the new earth (Ex. 19:16-17; Is. 11:9; Matt. 24:31; Rev. 14:1). This interpretation accords well with the teaching of 1 Cor. 15:52: The trumpet that raises the dead will be the last trumpet, the trumpet that signals the consummation of the purposes of God and the advent of the World to Come.
Considering the character of these two verses, it is marvelous indeed that anyone could find here a “secret” eschatological event devolving exclusively upon a small band of saints who alone can see and hear it. Quite to the contrary, the actual data cry out, over and again, that this is a hugely public event, precisely because it devolves, not simply upon the Church, but also upon the entire created universe. Just as every eye will see, so too every ear will hear: whether Christ’s shout, the archangel’s voice, or the final blast of the trumpet of God (Matt. 26:64; John 5:28; Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 1:7).
In verse 16b Paul reiterates the basic message of verse 15: When the Lord returns, the dead in Christ will rise first. In verse 17 he explains what will happen afterwards, such that separated loved ones are reunited once and for all. To understand his thought here we must keep 1 Cor. 15:50-58 in mind. When we do, a clear picture emerges: Immediately following the Resurrection of the Dead, the living saints (i.e., “we who are alive and remain”) will be changed—glorified (1 Cor. 15:51-52). Then the entire company of the saints “. . . will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” The Greek word for “caught up” (arpazo) denotes taking (or being taken) suddenly and with great force, whether urgently to obtain (Matt. 11:12), maliciously to abduct (Matt. 13:19; John 6:15; 10:12), or benevolently to help or rescue (Acts 8:39; 2 Cor. 12:2; Jude v. 23). Here it is used in the latter sense, since at his return the Lord Jesus—with great zeal and power to match—will swiftly gather his Bride to himself, even as he rescues her from her human enemies and the fiery judgment that will consume the earth below (2 Peter 3:8-13; Rev. 11:11-13).
How exactly will Christ catch up his Church? As we have seen, it will be at the hands of the holy angels (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27; Rev. 14:14-16). Carrying the saints into (and perhaps through) the spiritual “clouds” by which God and Christ are visibly manifesting their divine presence, power, and glory, the angels will bring them to meet the Lord in the air (Luke 9:34; Acts 1:9). This detail is important, signaling that when Christ comes again he will draw very near to the earth, which, according to Scripture, is the center of the physical universe, the apple of God’s eye, and the future home of Christ and his Bride (Matt. 17:5; 24:30; Luke 9:34-35; 21:27; Rev. 21:1-4).
Observe carefully that Paul says nothing at all about the Lord removing his Church to Heaven. The apostle leaves her—and us—in the air. What, then, will take place after this happy reunion? Here, Paul does not say. However, what he does say suggests an interpretation far richer than that of the dispensationalists.
Read More
Related Posts: