Author/Speaker: Tom Buck

Article 11 — Complementarianism: Explanation by Tom Buck

WE AFFIRM that God created mankind both male and female with inherent biological and personal distinctions between them and that these created differences are good, proper, and beautiful. Though there is no difference between men and women before God’s law or as recipients of his saving grace, we affirm that God has designed men and women with distinct traits and to fulfill distinct roles. These differences are most clearly defined in marriage and the church, but are not irrelevant in other spheres of life. In marriage the husband is to lead, love, and safeguard his wife and the wife is to respect and be submissive to her husband in all things lawful. In the church, qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation. We further affirm that the image of God is expressed most fully and beautifully in human society when men and women walk in obedience to their God-ordained roles and serve according to their God-given gifts.

WE DENY that the God-ordained differences in men’s and women’s roles disparage the inherent spiritual worth or value of one over the other, nor do those differences in any way inhibit either men or women from flourishing for the glory of God.

As a child, one of my favorite segments on Sesame Street was called, “One of These Things.” Several objects would be displayed as the song would play, “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things doesn’t belong.” At first glance, Article XI of the Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel might seem like “one of the things that is not like the others.” What does complementarianism have to do with social justice?

Some have claimed the SJ&G statement was fundamentally about race. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The statement was written to address a variety of issues (e.g. race, homosexuality, complementarianism) that are being defined and discussed not solely by the clear and simple teaching of Scripture, but by the inclusion of worldly concepts of social justice.

The same social justice language and concepts are driving the conversation about the role of women in the church. Consider the words of two different leaders of a prominent evangelical denomination.

“We desperately need a resurgence of women’s voices and women’s leadership and women’s empowerment again. It is way past time.”

“Hoping that we are entering a new era where we in the complementarian world take all the Word of God seriously – not just the parts about distinction of roles but also regarding the tearing down of all hierarchy and his gracious distribution of gifts to all his children!”

The rhetoric about “empowerment” and “tearing down of all hierarchy” is consistent with that of critical race theory, but completely inconsistent with a biblical worldview. What is needed is an argument for the roles of men and women that proceeds from a careful analysis of Scripture.

The Impetus Behind the Movement

This conversation surfaced in light of the sad revelation of the mistreatment many women have experienced both in the culture and the church (i.e. what has come to be known as the #metoo and #churchtoo movements). To be clear, there is no justification for the abuse of women and we must take a strong stand against all its forms. In addition, when such abuses come to light, we should look to Scripture to guide both our reactions and proposed solutions. However, emotional reactions and worldly pragmatic solutions have been controlling the conversation rather than ideas rooted in Scripture.

For example, in a panel discussion at the 2018 annual meeting of Southern Baptists in Dallas, solutions were discussed for how to respond to the accusations of mistreatment and marginalization of women. Repeatedly, the call to empower women and give them roles of leadership in the church were echoed. One panelist commented that when situations arise where women have been mistreated in the church, the wisest answer is to “empower women” in leadership to bring about a peaceful solution. At face value, that answer might appear logical, but the issue we must address is whether it is biblical.

The NT Model of Leadership

In Acts 6, the church encounters its first crisis that created a division in the church. Luke writes, “a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution” (6:1). The text does not ascribe the motives behind the marginalization of one group of widows over the other as deliberately sinful. Nevertheless, the unequal distribution among these women was serious and needed to be confronted.

This matter was of such importance that the apostles summoned the entire church to address the problem (6:2). Although it was necessary for the apostles to not be distracted from leading the church in the preaching of the Word, the needs of the widows must not be overlooked. Therefore, the apostles called upon the church to choose individuals from among the body to lead in this important task to assure that these women were cared for and no longer marginalized.

The first recorded problem in the church directly involved the mistreatment of women. The apostles identified the need for individuals to lead in the task of bringing about a peaceful resolution that would result in godly care for these women. If there is any task that it would seem appropriate to place women in positions of authority, surely this would be a perfect case. Yet, the apostles directed the church to “pick out from among you seven men” (6:3).

Considering the arguments being made about empowering women, it should be striking that the apostles did not recommend for even one woman to be enlisted in the oversight of this ministry to the widows. It cannot be that the apostles lacked wisdom, failed to be sensitive, or merely acquiesced to the cultural norms of the day. When the apostles saw the need for oversight of this critical ministry in the church, they set a clear example of God’s design for authoritative leadership to be men.

The argument I am making is not that no women could have assisted these men chosen to lead. If they were wise leaders, they would have sought women to assist them in this task. However, the empowerment to lead in resolving this ministry crisis was given exclusively to men. Apparently, male authority in the church is not exclusively resigned to the teaching role of a pastor as some suggest.

It seems unreasonable to believe that the apostles did not deem it appropriate to enlist women to exercise authority in resolving the crisis of the widows, but the SBC should elect a woman as SBC president to address its problems. Perhaps the reason that individuals have not given biblical examples for their argument to “empower” women in the church is because none exist. The apostles were all men; the planting of churches was led by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and leadership in the churches was given to men.

My ultimate point is not that women should not exercise leadership in the church. They most certainly should. In fact, I contend this push to empower women in unbiblical ways will only serve to minimalize and discourage women from valuing the very leadership God has called upon them to exercise.

Article XI of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel affirms that men and women are equal before God’s law and as recipients of his saving grace. Any distinction is not due to the superiority of the one and the inferiority of the other. The differences are part of God’s created design, and both men and women flourish when they live out those good, proper, and beautiful distinctions. Furthermore, God has given a fulfilling and deeply meaningful role for women to serve in the church.

We Need Women to Biblically Lead

While trying to defend against the onslaught of promoting unbiblical roles for women, it is easy to get entangled in only addressing what women cannot do. Women are wonderful gifts from God and their leadership is needed both in the home and the church.

My experience as a pastor is that we need more women, not less, leading as God calls for in Titus 2:3-5: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior… and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” In other words, God calls women in the church to lead other women in fulfilling the vital role that he has given them. Only in Scripture can God’s intended design for women be found.

Paul respected women and worked side by side with them in the work of the gospel (Rom 16). However, the only ministry in which he called upon them to lead was the discipling of children and other women. Mothers in the home should take great joy in the privilege to raise their children in godliness. Women in the church should devote themselves to the crucial role of discipling other women. Women have the unique privilege and responsibility of leading in these significant ways. It is sad and tragic that so many women feel unfulfilled in the beautiful design for which God created them. It is an even greater tragedy when the church cultivates that emotion.

Rather than enticing women with empowerment and cultivating a dissatisfaction towards their God given design, we should call upon churches to equip women to serve in their Titus 2 role. I believe in the radical equality of men and women as image bearers of God. I also know that women have suffered greatly in this world at the hands of sexism. But it is the sin in this world that truly oppresses women, not the role God designed for them or the biblical authority structure of the church. Ever since Satan deceived Eve in the garden, the world has been selling “liberation” for the price of rebelling against God’s design. We must reject that idea and start equipping women to lead in their biblical role.

Article 5—Sin: Explanation by Tom Buck

WE AFFIRM that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

Recognition and repentance of sin are both central to the proclamation of the gospel. When Peter preached to the Jews at Pentecost, he confronted their sin by declaring, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23).

When the crowd recognized their guilt, their hearts were pierced, and they cried out to ask what they must do. Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). If they were to be saved, the message was clear: they must recognize and repent of their sins and identify with Christ. The ones who received and acted on Peter’s words were saved that day (Acts 2:41).

Recognition and repentance of sin are both central to the practice of the gospel, It is the pattern of the Christian life as we continue to walk in the light. Consider the familiar words of the Apostle John that were written to believers: “If we say we have not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn 1:8-9).

These words are both sobering and encouraging. If we ignore or deny our sin, we demonstrate that the truth of God does not indwell us. In other words, failing to recognize our sin is serious business; it evidences we are not saved. However, the wonderful news is when we confess our sins, God forgives us and cleanses us. He is faithful and just to do so because he is keeping his promise that our sins have been punished through the cross on the basis of Christ’s blood.

The Bible is replete with warnings about the danger of concealing our sins as well as the blessings of confessing them. Therefore, it is critical that we are able to know the sins for which we truly bear guilt so that we may confess them. Our salvation and blessed life as a Christian depend upon this. Simply put, if we have sinned, we must recognize our guilt and confess that before God in order to receive forgiveness.

This truth becomes crucial in the ongoing debate about social justice among evangelicals. Some argue that people today not only bear the guilt for their own sins, but also for the sins of past generations – particularly those of racism. For example, even though none of us were alive during the practice of American slavery, and many were not yet born at the time of Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder, some argue that whites should both confess and repent of the sins of their ancestors in these matters.

Article 6 of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel addresses this critical error. Scripture is clear that although we are all sinners, by nature and practice, no one is morally culpable and called to repent for someone else’s sin (Rom 5:12).

Nevertheless, some reference Exodus 20:5 where God says he will “visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.” Therefore, it is argued, future generations can be complicit in the sins of their ancestors.

However, the text actually assigns this guilt to “those who hate me.” The warning places guilt upon those who continue to walk in the wicked ways of their ancestors. The children share in their father’s guilt because they share in their father’s sins. This is further clarified by the prophet Ezekiel’s words:, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father for the iniquity of the son” (Ezk 18:20).

This continues to be the case in the New Testament. Nowhere do we find guilt assigned to individuals for the sins of others. Each person is called upon to confess their personal sins in order to receive forgiveness. Hence, John declares, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…” (1 Jn 1:9).

But what about Peter’s sermon at Pentecost as was referenced earlier? Is that not an example of guilt being assigned to a group of people for the sins of others? Peter said to the entire crowd, “you crucified and killed Jesus.” Everyone knows that it was the Jewish leadership who handed Jesus over, Pilate who sent him to the cross, and Roman soldiers who nailed him to that tree. Yet, Peter declares to every person within the sound of his voice that it was they who are guilty of this vile sin.

We must remember Peter is preaching this sermon in the heart of Jerusalem – the very place where Jesus had been unjustly tried and crucified mere weeks prior. It was the Jewish leaders who handed Jesus over to the Roman government and called for his execution (Jn 18:28-31). When Pilate gave the Jewish crowds the opportunity to set Jesus free, they demanded that he be crucified, and they vowed, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Mt 27:15-26).

Furthermore, this was no sin of ignorance. Peter declared that Jesus was “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). There was ample evidence that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but essentially the entire nation had rejected him and insisted he be crucified. Virtually everyone in the nation of Israel was active in the crucifixion and murder of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Peter’s pronouncement of guilt upon this Jewish crowd in the heart of Jerusalem was certainly justified.

However, before we rush to embrace the idea of corporate guilt, we must consider some vital facts.

First, neither Peter nor any of the other apostles include themselves in the guilt of killing Jesus. They also were Jews, in Jerusalem when he was crucified, and most of them abandoned him in that very hour. Yet, they seem to bear no guilt.

Second, no Jews are told throughout the rest of the New Testament that they are guilty for the crucifixion of Jesus. When Paul preached to the Jews in Antioch, he declared, “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers” condemned Jesus (Acts 13:27). This continues to be the pattern throughout the rest of Acts.

Surely the crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest act of injustice in the history of the world, yet his death was not laid at the feet of future Jewish generations. There could be no greater evidence that one’s ethnicity does not establish any necessary connection to any particular sin. Clearly, we are called upon to confess our own sins, not the sins of others.

The Scripture must be our only guide in matters of guilt and repentance. We do not have the right to burden people with guilt that God’s Law does not clearly lay upon them, and we certainly should not call upon people to repent for sins in which they bear no legitimate guilt. To do such a thing is to go beyond the line of Scripture and is nothing less than “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk 7:7).

The truth is there is real hatred towards others that dwells in our own hearts that calls for confession and repentance. The gospel demands that we do the harder task of confronting the real guilt of sin that we indeed bear, and the humble repentance God requires. This is the task to which we must be fully committed. As important as brotherly reconciliation is, there is more at stake when we assign guilt for sin and call for repentance. What is at risk is our personal standing before God (1 Jn 1:8-9).

C.S. Lewis addressed this issue in his time. At the beginning of WWII, young Christians were calling upon England to repent of her past sins they believed contributed to the evils of the war. They claimed England was reaping what it had sown from the nation’s prior actions.

Lewis wrote an article entitled “Dangers of National Repentance,” where he declared, “Young Christians are turning to it in large numbers.” But what harm is there, Lewis reasoned, in having a heart that is willing to repent of any sin – even if it is not directly your own? He saw it as a grave danger with no sign of spiritual health at all. Scripture calls us to is the harder work of repenting of our own sin.

Therefore, I believe C. S. Lewis’ warning then is as relevant to the discussion among evangelicals now: “The first and fatal charm of national repentance is the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting of our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing the conduct of others.”

The Danger of Mission Drift in the Church

It has become common for leaders in the current social justice movement to claim that their mission is consistent with the ministry and teaching of Jesus. One such preacher quoted Luke 4:18 where Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach liberty to the captive, to set free those who are oppressed.” The pastor then proclaimed, “If that ain’t social justice, I don’t know what is.”

A careful examination of Luke 4:18 demonstrates the pastor’s interpretation to be exegetically unsound – as explained by Dr. Josh Buice. Furthermore, the interpretation is not consistent with the ministry of Jesus in the greater context of Luke’s Gospel. The mission for which Jesus came was not to deliver people from unjust earthly oppression, but from spiritual poverty, blindness and bondage. His mission was to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). There is no better example of this than the story in Luke 12:13-21 about a man who wanted Jesus to execute justice between him and his brother.

A Demand for Earthly Justice

As Jesus was teaching, a man stood and said, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Apparently a father had died, and his two sons were fighting over what he had left behind. While the situation of family members fighting over money is nothing astounding, the timing of this man’s interruption is astonishing.

Jesus had been warning the crowds about the dangers of being unprepared for the coming judgment of God. He declared if you do not rightly fear God, your fate is to be cast into hell (12:4-7); if you do not rightly confess the Son, you will find yourself to be denied by him on judgment day (12:8-9); and if you reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit, you will be left in an unforgiven state (12:10).

At the moment Jesus announced that he would be the final judge of everyone’s eternal state, this man rose to demand that Jesus play the role of Judge Judy to adjudicate his family’s earthly estate. Jesus refused to involve himself in this civil dispute and answered, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

Jesus’ response did not indicate an inability to execute justice in this matter. No one would have had better insight or been more competent to render true justice in this matter. However, Jesus had not been sent by God to resolve such judicial issues. There were judges appointed by God to fulfill that vital role, but the mission of Jesus was to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, his response was not an indifference to the man’s desire for legal justice, but a concern for him to realize the potential loss of something far greater than an earthly inheritance.

A Warning of Coming Judgment

Often, what we want and what we really need are two different things. Therefore, Jesus issued a sober warning: “Take care, and be on our guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).

The man believed his greatest problem was obtaining his rightful inheritance. That would make life complete. However, he desperately needed to see that his sinful condition, left unresolved, would rob him of eternal life. His real poverty was not reflected in his bank balance. Rather, he suffered from a far greater spiritual impoverishment that was revealed by his covetous heart.

Jesus knew that giving this man his inheritance would not satisfy him. So he tells the story of a man who had an abundance of possessions – enough to last him the rest of his life. He had failed to realize that his life was on loan from God, and that very night it was being called. The moment he gained it all, he ended up losing it all, including his own soul.

Exposing the Root of the Problem

In this encounter, Jesus went after the root of the problem not the fruit of the problem. The battle between these two brothers appeared to be about justly dividing an inheritance. The one man was certain he had been shortchanged by his brother. But this conflict revealed a much deeper spiritual problem, which all conflicts do (James 4:1-3).

Jesus could have easily resolved the legal side of this matter between these two brothers and justice would have been served. However, the root of the problem would have been left unsolved. If their covetous hearts remained untransformed, it would not be long until more bad fruit surfaced between these brothers.

The fruit of coveting expresses itself in many forms. This is why God commanded in Exodus 20:17 not to covet your neighbor’s house, wife, servants, animal, or “anything that is your neighbor’s.” Money is not the only thing that reveals our covetous hearts. We covet all types of things that belong to our neighbor: age, looks, brains, talents, social status, or situation in life. The list is endless. For those two brothers in the story, it just happened to be a fight on that day over who received the larger inheritance. On another day it could have been which one got the bigger matzo ball in their Passover soup.

Jesus exposed the root of the man’s problem so that he could see his need for real spiritual transformation. The man was viewing life in all the wrong ways, which would lead to a far greater and eternal loss.

The Mission of the Church

The mission that the church has been given is to take the message of the Gospel to a lost world. Therefore, Jesus commissioned his disciples in Luke 24:46-47 with these words:

Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The gospel addresses the root of our problem, which is our need for heart transformation through the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ’s church is the only institution in this world entrusted with this message. Its mission has never been to fix the world’s social problems. Jesus gave the church “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” not the keys to City Hall.

That is not to say that the bad fruit of injustice around us does not need to be confronted. If we as Christians witness sexual abuse or the evils of racism within the church or denominational structures, we must confront that sin and seek to care for those who are entangled in the web of injustice. Our calling to be faithful gospel ambassadors does not prevent us from confronting sin, in fact, it would demand us to do so.

However, when the Church raises social reform and political methods above the gospel we will find ourselves drifting from our mission. The greatest means by which to change this world is for the church to carry out its God-given task of confronting the root of our problem and offering the only real solution – authentic gospel transformation.

History has exposed the serious danger of the church allowing social reform to interrupt its calling. Churches drifting from the mission of addressing the root of the problem in this world to the fruit of the problem have always led to spiritual disaster. Over time, they began to view the fruit of the problem as the root of the problem and the biblical gospel was replaced with a social gospel – which is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7).

If the church wants to follow the example of Jesus and fulfill its mission, it must use every opportunity to faithfully preach the gospel to all nations. This only happens as the church remains faithful to preach Christ crucified and call all people to repentance and faith in him. Anything else is simply mission drift.