August 7, 2020

S.M. Hutchens’ Journey: Worth Noting

journey.jpgMy admiration for Touchstone Magazine grows daily, and among Touchstone’s writers, no one comes close to S.M. Hutchens for speaking to my own journey into, around, and sometimes out of evangelicalism.

I don’t agree with Hutchens all the time. We would differ seriously on complimentarianism, I’m sure. But he’s one of those people who understands the power of the “Great Tradition,” and the failure of the contemporary scene to value- or often approximate- it.

Now Hutchens has written a biographical note that I am sure many readers of this blog will find satisfying and familiar. The Hutchens archive at Touchstone is also worth your time.

Avoid some of the internet’s spiritual dead ends and enjoy someone articulating what “Mere Christianity” is all about.

Comments

  1. Michael, I read some of Hutchens and appreciate his passionate, articulate voice.

    Since you said you differ from his complimentarian views, I’d like to ask you a question that I would be a bit timid to ask a complimentarian. It’s a question I haven’t seen raised anywhere, and I’m asking you because I deeply respect you.

    Does it follow that if the created order before the fall was for men to be in authority and women in submission (as complimentarians assert), that women would be required eternally to submit to men even after Jesus returns, creation is restored to its former perfection, and we receive our glorified bodies? This “conclusion” is drawn from the assumption that pre-fall creation was perfect (I realize there’s disagreement about the definition of that perfection) and that our glorified bodies will be retain gender even if we aren’t sexual creatures anymore (based on Christ’s resurrected body).

    BTW, I’m not asking you to answer based on agreement or disagreement with these statements, just wondering if the logic follows from the assumptions and hoping to generate discussion.

    I am a member of a strictly complimentarian congregation, and my pastors say they would rather be “safe” in interpreting scripture than risk apostasy. I appreciate their integrity, but I get so confused about what the resurrection and salvation actually mean for me as a woman.

    If we will not be gendered in eternity, then why would we as post-resurrection believers be training and equipping ourselves for roles that don’t have “eternal value?”

    If we are gendered for eternity and must follow the “created order,” is the rich inheritance and “sonship” in Christ the same for women as it is for men?

    I hope this isn’t too far off topic. But when we talk about “Mere Christianity,” these issues resonate on a deep, cellular level for all of us mind-body-spirit creatures.