A friend of mine clued me in on this recent article by David Murrow. He’s an author whose titles include “Why Men Hate Going to Church” and “How Women Help Men Find God.”

Before I describe the article, let’s lay out our theology as Lutherans: the Bible is the sole source and norm for faith and life. The Bible describes and prescribes male headship, reflecting the redemption of Christ (a man). From Adam to Peter, this headship has been abused and neglected. That does not mean God’s model is wrong (Jesus is still a man), just that men are sinners (except Jesus). Based on Christ’s presence, this headship is to be self-sacrificial (Eph. 5); think “women and children first” when the ship goes down. We are, to put a label on it, “complementarians.” Men and women are equal in dignity and in the image of God (Gal. 3:28). Yet, men and women have different roles and vocations. It’s not rocket science. Put blithely, I recall a dinner-table question where one of my kids asked, “Why can’t women be pastors?” I said, without blinking, looking up, or setting down my fork, “Because men can’t have babies.” There’s more to it, but not much. Kids get this better than adults. Christ (a man, the second Adam, also a man) ordained his church so that a man stands in his stead and by his command to pronounce the forgiveness of sins (cf. all three pastoral epistles). God ordained that women are the source of human life itself, and the keepers of compassion and love. Frankly, that’s why when we skinned our knees as kids we ran straight to Mom; Dad just rubs dirt on the wound and tells us to stop crying. Again, start-to-finish the Bible’s pretty obvious about this stuff. So is real life (go figure).

Anyway, the article is basically an indictment of the greater American church’s inclusion of women in pastoral and elder roles. Murrow uses that historical observation as a foil for the church’s present and frantic death throes.

Here’s the scene: over the last sixty years or so the role of women in church leadership positions has shifted dramatically away from what some consider to be an unhealthy patriarchal misogyny. In other words, in opposition to the biblical-complementarian view, liberal Christian denominations took an egalitarian posture and decided that since men and women are equal, they are also interchangeable. They’ve basically mimicked the culture: women are encouraged to compete both professionally and personally for leadership roles often at the expense of their families, birth control (including abortion) gave women the sexual freedom of a lecherous man, the inherent laziness of men is justified by their apparent irrelevance as men, and (voila!) purple-haired lesbians complain that nobody watches women’s soccer but they should still get paid millions of dollars. God bless America.

Meanwhile, the church is dying. And everyone is looking for the solution anywhere but internally. Might it be that the church has followed an unhealthy model that projects egalitarianism as a cardinal virtue, all the while relegating vocation and sexual roles to so many outdated fifties sitcoms?

Duh. Let those who have ears to hear, listen.

Back to the article, Murrow’s argument follows nine slippery-slope steps that track the history of the last sixty years (my summaries are in the subsets):

1. Churches open governance to female elders.
   1. We don’t want to upset anyone. Men and women are in fact equal.
2. Boards become mostly female.
   1. Men are hesitant to push back against a strong women for fear of being sexist.
3. Boards become “Grandmacracies.”
   1. Grandma’s house is grandma’s house. Who’s psychotic enough to question the way her house runs?
4. There is a failure to innovate.
   1. I loved my grandma, but let’s face it she wasn’t exactly known for her innovation. She worked in a library and put butter on my corned beef sandwich (true story—I ate the whole thing to be polite, but never asked her for a sandwich again).
5. Leadership is sacrificed to preserve relationships.
   1. Women are better at relationships. They have this weird thing called “compassion,” and tend to consider other peoples’ “feelings.” I don’t understand it, I just benefit from it. But sometimes, especially in upper leadership situations, skulls need to be cracked in order to do the right thing for the organization. Most women find that unseemly (because they actually care about other people). Most men find that second nature—this is what we’re doing, and if you don’t like it there’s the door. Now where’s the TV Guide?
6. The church drifts towards progressive theology.
   1. This includes the exclusion of men in every facet of life—especially sexually. Men don’t care. I repeat: Men. Don’t. Care. They just want sex and a good night’s sleep.
7. Liberalism rears its ugly head in other places.
   1. The church models life. If church is liberal, so is life. If life is liberal, church is pressured towards an identity change. It never changes for the better. Ever.
8. Younger people avoid church.
   1. Ambiguous moral standards drawn from preserving relationships at all costs leaves the church with little to offer. Why go to the moldy relic of colonialism when all they do is give me stale coffee and self-help tips? The other parents at my kids’ travel league do that better.
9. Young men avoid church. Eventually it dies.
   1. Men need hard lines and clear missions. Grandmas need hugs and chocolate-chip cookies. Again, I loved my grandma, but after a few days I needed to play pickup basketball. A friend of mine was once a missionary in Central America, and he noticed immediately that the liberal church was full of women and children, but all the men were at the pagan temple with extremely strict and sacrificial ritualism. Not a coincidence.

The article is a good read, and Murrow’s a good writer, so check it out. Again, all of his arguments are based on mere observations of the last sixty years of the American church. And frankly, he’s right.

Life is hard, and relationships are messy. But Christ came as the leader par excellence. He led with reckless love, yet not with an acceptance of sin and mistakes. He led with strength, but only by becoming weak so that others would be saved. His preservation of relationships means we conform to him, not the other way around. He leads even now in his church through sinful men who (hopefully) nevertheless wouldn’t think twice to throw themselves on a grenade if it meant protecting the people they serve. Because that’s what Christ did. And that’s what he equips men to do.

Men and women are equal in dignity and salvation as the image of God. But when men and women are interchangeable, all hell eventually breaks loose. All I have to do is point at our society with raised eyebrows and you’ll see I’m right.

It’s also not lost on me that Father’s Day is smack dab in the middle of Pride Month. Why bother with it at all if fathers are no more than sperm-donating bumps on the log of “progressive” society’s plod towards an indefinable, individualistic, existential limbo? Instead of a mere celebration of sexual deviance, I’d encourage you to see the rainbow flag as a demonic attack on the very fabric of healthy relationships, civilized society, strong families, and human flesh as God designed it. Satan played the long con on this one, and men were just too horny to notice.

By all means, be polite to the egalitarians, and do good to all in the name of the Lord. But for crying out loud, don’t move an inch from God’s design, or you can kiss your church goodbye a generation from now.