An elegy for my dear father, Roger Nicole...
For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. -1 Kings 11:4, 5
The rebels are dying. First, a few months back, it was our dear friend Dr. Roger Nicole. Then more recently, Catherine Kroeger and Nancy Hardesty. Both Nicole and Kroeger taught at our alma mater, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, although Nicole finished his career at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando).
Back in the early eighties, Dr. Nicole's rebellion seemed fairly innocuous. He advocated women's ordination but held the line on the husband's authority in marriage and family life. Someone suggested Dr. Nicole's failure was the result of his Baptistic polity; that he had no doctrine of ordination, so the ordination of women was no big deal. It seemed about right as part of the explanation.
But I was more convinced Dr. Nicole's innate irenicism made it difficult for him to teach on a campus where the feminist rebellion was institutionally enshrined and his lectures were attended by many women preparing for the ministry. It was my gut feeling...
that Dr. Nicole couldn't bring himself to oppose these women, so he justified them. It was a sad day when, in Systematics III, Dr. Nicole's main argument in defense of women pastors was how much good they had done in the church.Normally Dr. Nicole's authority was Sacred Scripture, but not that day. Scripture wasn't mentioned--only experience.
Authority is of a fabric, so as time rolled on Dr. Nicole's rebellion grew.
Back in the late nineties, my work as Executive Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood required my holding membership in the Evangelical Theological Society, so I saw Dr. Nicole regularly and we talked. I was horrified to hear him say he no longer believed the husband was the head of the wife.
I had deep affection for Dr. Nicole, so the last time we were together I asked Dr. Nicole about a statement I'd heard he'd made--that the economic subordination of the Son to the Father was "heresy." Did he really believe our Lord did not submit to His Father? Nicole answered that Jesus only submitted to His Father "in His incarnate state."
Since I was orthodox in my theology, holding to Jesus' economic subordination; and since Dr. Nicole had led the charge to remove several men from the Evangelical Theological Society in years past for their doctrinal errors; I asked Dr. Nicole if he was going to seek my removal for holding to this doctine he now called "heresy?"
Dr. Nicole said, "No, I would not think you should be removed."
"But why not? If you believe I'm a heretic, you should seek my removal."
"Well, maybe you're not yet a full heretic; you're only flirting with heresy," he responded, smiling.
Authority is of a fabric. Pull on the thread here and the center dissolves. What started out as gentlemanly kindess to pretty young coeds preparing to be pastors ended with Dr. Nicole opposing the father's authority over his household, then denying the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
That day as I left Dr. Nicole, I was very, very sad. What a tragic ending to the life of the most influential and gifted professor I'd ever had--the man above all men (save one) who had taught me to trust the Word of God!
Why write this in his memory? Many others have mourned Dr. Nicole's death without calling attention to this tragic failure. Why not Baylyblog?
Two reasons. First, read those other mourners of Dr. Nicole's passing and you'll note none of them have any commitment to tear down the high places of feminism. Some of them may not worship there, themselves, but as far as they're concerned, those high places are no big deal. "Live and let live," they say.
But second, if we were to write summaries of our leaders' today that were similar to the summaries of lives recorded in Scripture by holy men of old, it's clear Dr. Nicole's rebellion would be recorded, as would my own. Knowing him as I did, if he were placed among the kings of Israel and his leadership summed up as theirs was, it would be said that he worshipped the true God as well as the Baals, and that he brought the prophets of Baal into Jerusalem.
So also Dr. Nicole's colleague, Catherine Clark Kroeger. So also Nancy Hardesty. So also David Scholer and Gordon Fee, both of whom were profs at Gordon-Conwell during our time studying there.
It's so very hard to end well. No one has ever done it save by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God.
What would it be like to stand before the Living God and give an account for defying His authority by promoting sodomy in His Name and among His sheep--His little ones?
It would be much like standing before Him and giving an account for defying His authority by promoting rebellion in His Name and among His sheep--His little ones.
Let us honor Dr. Nicole by remembering his rebellion against the Living God and His Word, noting the destruction of souls his rebellion caused and praying the Holy Spirit will keep us, also, from falling.
Shortly before her death, Nancy Hardesty demonstrated the fruit of this rebellion she shared with Drs. Nicole and Kroeger in this excerpt from an essay she wrote about her approaching death titled, "Some Thoughts on Living and Dying:"
Forty years ago a psychic told me that I would live to be 85. I was counting on that. I didn’t expect to hear this news when I was going on 69! ...
Some might have asked, “Why me, God?” but I did not. I pretty much subscribe to the unofficial A.A. mantra, to put it frankly: “Shit happens.” While I have had my share of disappointments, slings, and arrows, I often say I’ve lived a charmed life. Certainly I have not suffered in ways so many have. God has been good. Through my writing and teaching, I have touched many lives. So many people have shared with Letha and me how our book, All We’re Meant to Be, changed their lives. Within the Evangelical & Ecumenical Women’s Caucus I have left a legacy.
This Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus spoken of with pride has long promoted both feminine rebellion and sodomy in the Name of Jesus Christ. And now, Nancy Hardesty stands before the Judgment Seat of God. This is the faith of Evangelicalism, today.
From love for his brothers, the Apostle Paul writes:
Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load. The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. -Galatians 6:1-10
(TB)
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Roger Keane on Why is there no ADHD in France...
- Denver Todd on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Denver Todd on Why move to Bloomington?
- Alex Costa on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Anavar on Prayer letters, truth-telling and missionary accountability...
Comments
Did you just say that Roger Nicole denined the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
Read Contra Arianos by Athanasius...based on what's contained in this post...Dr. Nicole denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. By limiting Christ's submission merely to His incarnate state, Dr. Nicole was also an implicit Nestorian.
>>Did you just say that Roger Nicole denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
Pete Shemm claims "There is room in trinitarian orthodoxy for both views. Those who argue for the eternal functional subordination of the Son do not claim that those rejecting it are outside of the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy."
Such magnanimity is not reciprocal. Kevin Giles claims those holding to the economic subordination of the Son are outside the bounds of orthodoxy and Roger Nicole claimed economic subordination is "heresy."
Giles and Nicole are right--the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is at stake. Sadly, they deny the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38).
"When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all" (1Corinthians 15:28).
Love,
It is interesting to see how a man can be, in the words of his employer, a champion of the doctrine of inerrancy, and yet promote women to the pastorate, while maintaining the doctrine that a man ought to be head of the household. If there is any doubt about either doctrine, I would have had to guess that the text and context of the NT could be more easily used to deny the latter (male headship of the house) than the former.
Interestingly, regarding economic subordination, I've also seen claims (from evangelical feminists of course) that John Piper denies the Trinity because of about the same reason you point out--just in reverse, as Piper affirms economic subordination, I believe. They draw the connection, as if they were KJV-only advocates, to Origen, of course.
And am I dense, or is "economic subordination" really one of the simpler things to root out of the Scriptures? As our gracious host notes, it's not exactly hard to find examples of the Son doing the will of the Father in Scripture!
I was acquainted with David Scholer as well as Cathie and Dick Kroeger and found them each to be delightful in conversation and was later torn between feelings of affection and disappointment when I came to realize how far astray they had led me and were still leading others. On my last visit to Cape Cod when I stayed not too far from Kroeger's home, I couldn't help recalling with a smile Cathie's penchant for donning a wet suit and swimming in the waters off the Cape, often in fundraising events much as many people run in fundraising 5k events. She swam those waters until well into her 70s.
It is hard, sometimes, to retain that affection for such people in our lives when we realize how much damage they did. But this discussion of the Trinity reminds us why it is important to name Egalitarianism as a heresy - they deny the possibility of paradox, that equality can co-exist with hierarchy. They define each to be the contradiction of the other and admit no possibility that the two concepts can be defined in a both/and manner.
In the end, I think Cathie's death may have proven her long held beliefs about equality wrong. For a woman of such physical as well as mental vitality to decline in health so rapidly that she dies of a disease such as pneumonia may show that she was more dependant upon her husband as head than she realized.
One other of the first generation of rebels died recently - Vernon Grounds. Dr. Grounds brought Nancy Hardesty and others to Denver Seminary back in 1978 for a conference on "biblical equality" which, I believe, gave an essential push and veneer of legitimacy to the nascent movement attempting to unite Christianity with feminism. Grounds had such a genial, avuncular manner about him, I was always tempted to call him "Uncle Vernon". Hardesty, on the other hand, I never met but had a significant correspondence with for a time in the late 1990s and found her to be filled with rage.
The pioneer generation is dying and the movement they gave us has metastsized until it has captured publishing enterprises, seminaries, colleges and whole denominations as well as individual churches and leaders. It may have been proper in the early years to hold the naming, but that time has long sine passed. The cancer they planted in Evangelicalism has long since proven itself worthy of the label heresy and it is time for Complementarians to admit they played footsie with the devil and have come away missing a toe or two.
Kamilla
>>If there is any doubt about either doctrine, I would have had to guess that the text and context of the NT could be more easily used to deny the latter (male headship of the house) than the former (inerrancy).
Yes. This is the point I made in this letter sent to a group of friends that included both non-members and members of the Evangelical Theological Society. Several of the addressees had served as past presidents of ETS.
* * *
November 8, 2003
Dear Brothers,
Enclosed you will find the voluminous correspondence being circulated within ETS... concerning whether or not to sustain Roger Nicole’s charges against the open theists, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. In the next couple of weeks, you’ll hear what ETS decided in this regard.
Meanwhile, grant me a few observations as one who knows, personally, a number of men at the center of this controversy.
First, it is my judgment that ETS long ago gave up disciplining its members by allowing men such as Nicole directly to oppose the plain teaching of Scripture concerning sexuality and authority, both in the Church and home. Yes, gallons of ink could be spilled debating this matter, but I have consistently said to the leaders of ETS that action should have been taken long ago to expel those who deny the plain meaning of Scripture related to the leadership of husbands in the home, and male officers in the church—and this, whether or not such action is likely to be sustained by the house.
The point is, Paul Jewett is about the only honest egalitarian because he admitted what Paul said, and then manfully declared that Paul was, and is, wrong. It is for this reason that I’ve always respected Jewett’s position, whereas I simply don’t believe other egalitarians when they claim to hold to inerrancy.
Second, I believe this present controversy demonstrates the historic lack of will to carry out discipline within ETS by highlighting the laughably minimalistic statement of faith we members are required to sign. Look at the histrionics engaged in to argue over inerrancy in the enclosed documents when we’re dealing with men who, arguably, deny the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Now it may be that this failure within the membership standards of ETS will be addressed at this meeting, finally, but it’s late in the day.
Finally, please read my own brother, David Bayly’s, attached letter. Until recently, he was a pastor in the United Brethren denomination, and he and the other pastor and elders of his congregation worked hard for several years to have John Sanders removed from the faculty of their denomination’s, Huntington College. The results of their work can be summarized by this statement issued by these men some time after this letter was released:
This open letter was sent in the middle of the summer to John Sanders and each member of the review committee on Open Theology established by Huntington College at the urging of Springfield United Brethren Church's Board of Elders.
The letter was sent following the college’s rejection of a request by SUBC’s elders to address the review committee and recommend evangelical scholars who would be willing to provide further information about the heterodox nature of Dr. Sanders’s teaching.
No response to this letter has been received from Dr. Sanders or any member of the review committee.
The comparative simplicity of this letter, compared to all the ETS documents enclosed, shows conclusively, I believe, that the matter would have been much better dealt with years back on the same basis that David and his elders themselves dealt with it.
Since failing to get Sanders removed from Huntington, I’ve had the joy of welcoming David and his church into my own denomination, the PCA.
Warmly in Christ,
(signed, Timothy B. Bayly)
In trying to follow this thread, at least two posters have used the term "economic subordination". I have a guess but it doesn't make sense in this context. Would someone be kind enough to explain what it means?
Thanks,
Sue
A stab at it follows - see if it helps. Ontological (having to due with substance or essence) and Economic (having to do with order, arrangement, function) are commonly used categories to make distinctions when describing the relationships of the persons in the Trinity. So when the question of subjection/subordination is discussed the distinction between a subordination of substance or essence is termed Ontological subordination (which is the heresy of Subordinationism) and Economic subordination is used to describe a subordination of roles (Father, Son). The debate is extended in the discussion above to whether the Economic subordination is only properly attributed to Incarnate Christ (not eternal) or also to the eternal Son (as Second Person of the Trinity pre-incarnation).
Thanks, Dave L.
I'm still trying to sort this out but that will give me a start. Sorry that I didn't acknowledge your post earlier. I'm a returning adult college student and had 2 exams last week, with the last one on late Friday afternoon, and didn't have time for much "heavy brain lifting" till the exams were over.
Add new comment