Augustine on Appropriating Insights from Non-Christian Worldviews

Whatever has been rightly said by the heathen, we must appropriate to our uses.

Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves, were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also, that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life, we must take and turn to a Christian use.

And what else have many good and faithful men among our brethren done? Do we not see with what a quantity of gold and silver and garments Cyprian, that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, was loaded when he came out of Egypt? How much Lactantius brought with him? And Victorious, and Optatus, and Hilary, not to speak of living men! How much Greeks out of number have borrowed! And prior to all these, that most faithful servant of God, Moses, had done the same thing; for of him it is written that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. And to none of all these would heathen superstition (especially in those times when, kicking against the yoke of Christ, it was persecuting the Christians) have ever furnished branches of knowledge it held useful, if it had suspected they were about to turn them to the use of worshipping the One God, and thereby overturning the vain worship of idols. But they gave their gold and their silver and their garments to the people of God as they were going out of Egypt, not knowing how the things they gave would be turned to the service of Christ. For what was done at the time of the exodus was no doubt a type prefiguring what happens now. And this I say without prejudice to any other interpretation that may be as good, or better.

De Doctrina Christiana 2.40

Is December 25th a Pagan Holiday?

A quick Google search will find millions of articles connecting the date of Christmas to a pagan Roman festival. They come from websites on history, news, and theology, to name a few. Their claim isn’t a new one, by any stretch. One of the first assertions of this connection between a festival of the sun and Christmas came from the Syriac Orthodox Bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing from Mesopotamia in the 12th century (see Bibliotecha orientalis Clementino-Vaticanae 2:164). But does that claim stand up to historical scrutiny?

Clarifying the Question

At the outset, I want to ensure that we frame the question well. The question that I’m going to answer is not, “Was December 25th the exact day of Jesus’ birth?” That’s a muddy question to attempt to answer for a number of reasons. It raises issues of whether shepherds would be in the field on a December night and the precision of numerous points of evidence we’ll address in a bit. 

Another question that is beyond the scope of this article is whether modern Christmas traditions like the Christmas tree, Yule log, mistletoe, etc. are pagan adaptations. I’m also not going to wade into whether the adaptation or overhauling of pagan holidays or practices pose a moral problem for Christians. Instead, I will answer the question, “Did the early church adopt a pagan holiday or did they have other reasons for adopting the December 25th date for Christmas?”

I would affirm that the church had solid non-pagan reasons for adopting the December 25th date for Christmas. Some of these reasons have more validity to me than others, but I find the evidence for non-pagan origins of the December 25th date of Christmas compelling. Unlike other posts along these lines, I have tried, where possible, to link to original source material so readers who wish to check my research can do so.

The Early Christian Resistance to Paganism

Early Christians detested the thought of amalgamating their faith with Roman paganism or any other sort of non-Christian faith. Owing to its Jewish origin and the writings of the New Testament, early Christians held a strong position against syncretistic efforts, choosing rather to suffer persecution than to add Christ to the Roman pantheon or adapt Christian teaching or practice to that of the pagan culture. Some early examples of this trend are worth noting.

In the Epistle to Diognetus, a writer who merely designates himself as a “disciple” writes one of the early examples of Christian apologetics (probably mid- to late-second century). In his second chapter, the writer explains why Christians hold pagan practices in “contempt.” Justin Martyr is another early example of Christian apologists (early- to late-second century). Time-and-again, Justin excoriates pagan practices, leaving no room for any sort of amalgamation with pagan practices (see particularly his “First Apology” chapters 9 and 24). A third early exemplar of this anti-pagan tradition in the early church is Irenaeus (mid second to early third century). In his second book of “Against Heresies,” one of his arguments that he deploys to attack the Gnostic teachings of Valentinus is that they have been derived from pagan mythology. Irenaeus expects his readers to detest any sort of substitution of Christian nomenclature, theology, or practice with that of paganism.

But while the early Christians resisted syncretistic practices, the cults of the day exercised little discretion in borrowing from Christian traditions. In fact, one of the early offenders in this regard was the cult of Mithras. Mithras was a cult that gained popularity in the Roman empire during the first century alongside Christianity. Details of the cult remain sparse, leading to many scholarly conjectures about its origins and practices. While scholars debate whether the early Christian apologists had an accurate understanding of Mithraism, we do have two indications of a syncretistic effort within the Mithras cult. For example, during the second century, Justin Martyr accuses Mithraism of borrowing the Christian elements of the Eucharist. And later Tertullian (late second to early third century) suggests that Mithraism and other pagan traditions, as servants of Satan, are attempting to borrow Christian practices as their own

Academics in the field of history of religions frequently argue that because Mithraism pre-dated Christianity (Mithras was the Persian sun god, with extant references before the time of Christ), Christians must have adopted and adapted elements of the cult in their own worship and theology. But all of the scholarly work on Mithraism admits several important elements:

  1. Mithraism was not static, but evolved rapidly as it encountered Roman culture and religions. Even the amalgamation with Sol Invictus was part of this evolution. To posit that Mithraism, favored by the emperors of the era, incorporated Christian elements to draw Roman citizens away from Christianity makes more sense than the persecuted church adapting Christianity to Mithraism (or the early generation of Jewish disciples adapting Judaism to Mithraism).
  2. Mithraism lacks robust extant primary sources for study. We do have some extant references and know that some writers in the ancient world provided far more detail on the cult. Because many of the details are lacking, academics are left to interpret history, to fill in the blanks.
  3. Because of the evolving nature and because we don’t have many sources to research, later summaries of the practices and beliefs surrounding Mithras and Sol Invictus have been interpolated into the historic practices of the cult. The best way to unravel the connection is to examine the trail of historical evidence surrounding specific elements where overlap is alleged to find their source. This article attempts to do this with the most notable of alleged Mithras/Christianity overlaps.

In short, early in Christian tradition we find deep-seated resistance to any sort of syncretistic amalgamations of Christian worship and practice (particularly of Mithraism). Instead, we find that Roman paganism (particularly Mithraism) was well positioned to absorb unique Christian practices for their own.

Which Came First?

We’ve thus far established that it seems plausible that the Mithras cult borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around. So what does this have to do with the date of Christmas? The legend of “pagan Christmas” suggests that Christians borrowed the December 25th date from Natalis Invicti, the birth of Sol Invictus–a sister cult to that of Mithras. In order for this legend to be true, we need evidence that supports (a) prior pagan celebrations on December 25 and (b) later Christian celebrations on December 25. Instead, here’s what we find when we examine the source material:

  1. A pagan holiday on December 25th is is poorly attested.
    • Many sources (see this one in the Washington Post, for a more popular example) point to the Roman Emperor Aurelian as “the Father of Christmas”, alleging that he launched the holiday of Natalis Invicti in AD 274. This late third century date for Natalis Invicti, however, is unsubstantiated. We know that Aurelian returned to Rome in triumph and dedicated a temple to the Sun (for extensive research on this temple and related imagery, see Roger Pearse’s articles). Beyond those facts, we find nothing about December 25th in the three key primary sources on Aurelian (Historia Augusta, “The Deified Aurelian”, XXV.6;  Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus XXXV; Eutropius, Abridgement of Roman History IX.13–15). As best I can tell by chasing the primary sources, historians who posit the AD 274 origin of the December 25th celebration are reading more recent practices back into what may have happened in 274.
    • So what is that more recent source that is read back into Aurelian’s temple dedication? The first indication of the Natalis Invicti celebration on December 25th comes from a mid 4th century calendar that features key dates celebrated by the Roman government in the year 354. There it notes “N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.” Even here, we should note that the description here is not incredibly specific, lacking the word “SOL”, which appears elsewhere in the calendar. “CM·XXX” indicates an event that involved 30 races in the Roman circus. It should also be noted that later in the same document, when listing Christian observances, the same date is listed as the “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.” In summary, the “Chronography of 354” is by no means a straightforward document. While the dates included in the chronography surely began at an earlier time, this is the first possible historical instance of a pagan December 25th celebration; however, this is not the first historical instance of December 25th being noted as the birthday of Jesus.
  2. A Christian tradition supporting December 25th as the birthdate of Jesus Christ has much earlier attestation in ancient literature. 
  3. Questionable sources are often cited as evidence for a “pagan Christmas” background.
    • One such example is the quotation alleged to be from Augustine: “We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.” It would be possible to read this statement either as an admission that December 25th was initially adopted to subvert earlier pagan tradition or as a defense of Christian tradition’s non-pagan foundations. But even here, I can’t find any primary source for this quotation.
    • Another category in question is the iconography surrounding Sol Invictus. While some sources on the topic draw on coinage or inscriptions for primary information on Sol Invictus and how it may integrate with Christianity, many of the alleged icons are questionable, at best
    • A variety of claims about Christian/Mithraic parallels that work well on memes or in rapid-fire YouTube comments don’t stand up to careful analysis. This list of four alleged parallels with some helpful documentation will help kickstart some helpful research.
    • I’ve seen a number of sources pointing to more ancient Juvenalia or Saturnalia celebrations as the source for the December 25th date of Christmas; however, the dates for these festivals occurred earlier in December.

In summary: While Christians in the fifth century and beyond showed gradually greater degrees of syncretism, careful historians will be hard-pressed to make the case that even in the second and early third centuries–before the legalization of Christianity–that Christians were already adopting and adapting the pagan religions of Rome. Further, the earliest sources that specifically refer to the Christian celebration of Christ’s birth and not to any pagan festival.

So if December 25th wasn’t a pagan holiday, where else could it have come from? Let’s look at three intriguing possibilities.

Possible Source #1: The Early Church Understood the Jewish Priestly Calendar

This argument runs as follows:

  1. The course of priests on duty when the temple was destroyed can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy (see Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312). This starting point may have been more commonly understood in Jewish families in the first and second centuries.
  2. There were 24 courses of priests (Neh. 12:12–21), of which Abijah is 8th. Working back from the course of Joarib serving on the 9th of Av (August 4th) in AD 70, you can determine when each course of priests served.
  3. Zacharias was from the course of Abijah (Luke 1:5), the eighth course of priests (Neh. 12:17), meaning that he would have served both during the 3rd week of Nisan (including the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread) and the 2nd week of Tishri (including the Day of Atonement) in 5 BC. 
  4. If the latter week is correct, then we can add 280 days (give or take a little) and arrive at the end of June for the birth of John the Baptist. Catholic tradition places the date of John’s birth on June 24.
  5. Now we just have to add 6 months to June 24 to find out when Jesus was born, because John was 6 months older than Jesus (Luke 1:24). This puts us at December 24–25.

There are some challenges with this schema:

  1. The entire argument, from our perspective, depends on the accuracy of Friedlieb’s claim regarding the priestly course of Joarib serving on the 9th of Av in AD 70.
  2. Because there were 24 courses of priests and 50 weeks in the year, the year we select for the birth of Christ could make a big difference in how this schema works.
  3. There is a 50/50 chance that Zacharias would have served either in Nisan or Tishri on the given year. Tishri backs up the chronology for the traditional dates, but it isn’t the only possibility. Proponents of this view may point to the “Infancy Gospel of James”, which has Zacharias entering the most holy place (see section 8), an act associated with the Day of Atonement. I don’t find the argument from the infancy gospel convincing.

Those challenges stated, if our understanding of the priestly rotation is correct and if the early church understood Zacharias as serving in the temple at or around the Day of Atonement, then it would be relatively easy to date Christmas on December 25th without any other influence.

Possible Source #2: The Early Church Counted Back from Easter

Somewhere along the line, the idea came about that Jesus was conceived on the day that he died. The origins of this thinking bear more investigation than I can trace out, but it’s a line of reasoning adopted by Augustine:

For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before nor since. But He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.

In other words, they worked back from what they were most certain (Jesus’s death on March 25th), assumed his conception was on the same day, and calculated his birth on December 25th. And there’s a long line of interpreters who argued for the March 25th crucifixion of Christ (a substantially earlier tradition than December 25th for Christmas). See, for example, Tertullian (mid second to early third century). 

While the argument for Jesus dying on the day of his conception seems incredibly forced to modern interpreters, it seems to have been a commonplace expectation of ancient interpreters. And it was reasonable enough for them to accordingly set the date of Christmas on December 25th. And the same argument seems to be in play in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where April 6th was argued as Christ’s death and conception and January 6th for his birth.

In summary, there is good reason to believe that the early church was not determining Easter based on Sol Invictus, but rather determining Christmas based on Easter.

Possible Source #3: The Early Church Understood the Historical Events Surrounding Christmas

Based on what we know of the eclipse around the time of Herod’s final illness, placing it in April of 4 BC, we can work backwards a few weeks for the disease to run its course, three to four weeks for the flight to Egypt, one week for Herod’s wait for the magi, and 6 weeks of purification before Jesus was presented. This gives a November or December date for Christmas (see Maier pages 124 and 127). 

The results here are a little more speculative, but the arguments are plausible because they rely on a known historical event as recorded by Josephus. They also don’t arrive exactly at the specific date of December 25th, but a little flexibility in the weeks could make it work.


Without making an appeal to history (i.e., that the early church had better access to historical records and sources), we can chart three possible routes for the early church to arrive at the December 25th date of Christmas via known and extant sources. We can also make a compelling case that pagan alternatives would have been rejected by Christians at this time and that the Christian mentions of the December 25th date predate the mentions of a pagan celebration. So I feel confident in arguing that December 25th was not a pagan holiday converted into a Christian one, but a date arrived at by one of many possible lines of evidence.

Additional Reading

The following sites provide some excellent jumping-off points and additional arguments related to the issue of the “pagan Christmas” festival:


Luther on Suffering

In his commentary on Galatians 6:14, Martin Luther talks about bearing Christ’s cross as one of his followers:

“God forbid,” says the Apostle, “that I should glory in anything as dangerous as the false apostles glory in because what they glory in is a poison that destroys many souls, and I wish it were buried in hell. Let them glory in the flesh if they wish and let them perish in their glory. As for me I glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He expresses the same sentiment in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where he says: “We glory in tribulations”; and in the twelfth chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “Most gladly, therefore, will l rather glory in my infirmities.” According to these expressions the glory of a Christian consists in tribulations, reproaches, and infirmities.

And this is our glory today with the Pope and the whole world persecuting us and trying to kill us. We know that we suffer these things not because we are thieves and murderers, but for Christ’s sake whose Gospel we proclaim. We have no reason to complain. The world, of course, looks upon us as unhappy and accursed creatures, but Christ for whose sake we suffer pronounces us blessed and bids us to rejoice. “Blessed are ye,” says He, “when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad.” (Matt. 5:11, 12.)

By the Cross of Christ is not to be understood here the two pieces of wood to which He was nailed, but all the afflictions of the believers whose sufferings are Christ’s sufferings. Elsewhere Paul writes: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” (Col. 1:24.)

It is good for us to know this lest we sink into despair when our opponents persecute us. Let us bear the cross for Christ’s sake. It will ease our sufferings and make them light as Christ says, Matthew 11:30, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Wilberforce on Faith and Work

William Wilberforce, a politician, saw the importance of integrating one’s faith with their work. Instead of reserving faith for ministerial work or for Sunday meetings, he saw the importance of Christianity in the mundane:

But in fact, so far is it from being true that the prevalence of real Religion would produce a stagnation in life; that a man, whatever might be his employment or pursuit, would be furnished with a new motive to prosecute it with alacrity, a motive far more constant and vigorous than any human prospects can supply: at the same time, his solicitude being not so much to succeed in whatever he might be engaged in, as to act from a pure principle and leave the event to God; he would not be liable to the same disappointments, as men who are active and laborious from a desire of worldly gain or of human estimation. Thus he would possess the true secret of a life at the same time useful and happy.

Following peace also with all men, and looking upon them as members of the same family, entitled not only to the debts of justice, but to the less definite and more liberal claims of fraternal kindness; he would naturally be respected and beloved by others, and be in himself free from the annoyance of those bad passions, by which those who are actuated by worldly principles are so commonly corroded. If any country were indeed filled with men, each thus diligently discharging the duties of his own station without breaking in upon the rights of others, but on the contrary endeavouring, so far as he might be able, to forward their views and promote their happiness; all would be active and harmonious in the goodly frame of human society. There would be no jarrings, no discord. The whole machine of civil life would work without obstruction or disorder, and the course of its movements would be like the harmony of the spheres.

William Wilberforce on How Christians Defend Their Reputations

Wilberforce has much to teach us in our social media age:

Acting therefore on these principles, he will studiously and diligently use any degree of worldly credit he may enjoy, in removing or lessening prejudices; in conciliating good-will, and thereby making way for the less obstructed progress of truth; and in providing for its being entertained with candour, or even with favour, by those who would bar all access against it in any rougher or more homely form. He will make it his business to set on foot and forward benevolent and useful schemes; and where they require united efforts, to obtain and preserve for them this co-operation. He will endeavour to discountenance vice, to bring modest merit into notice; to lend as it were his light to men of real worth, but of less creditable name, and perhaps of less conciliating qualities and manners; that they may thus shine with a reflected lustre, and be useful in their turn, when invested with their just estimation. But while by these and various other means he strives to render his reputation, so long as he possesses it, subservient to the great ends of advancing the cause of Religion and Virtue, and of promoting the happiness and comfort of mankind, he will not transgress the rule of the Scripture precepts in order to obtain, to cultivate, or to preserve it, resolutely disclaiming that dangerous sophistry of “doing evil that good may come.” Ready however to relinquish his reputation when required so to do, he will not throw it away; and so far as he allowably may, he will cautiously avoid occasions of diminishing it, instead of studiously seeking, or needlessly multiplying them, as seems sometimes to have been the practice of worthy but imprudent men.

There will be no capricious humours, no selfish tempers, no moroseness, no discourtesy, no affected severity of deportment, no peculiarity of language, no indolent neglect, or wanton breach, of the ordinary forms or fashions of society. His reputation is a possession capable of uses too important to be thus sported away; if sacrificed at all, it shall be sacrificed at the call of duty. The world shall be constrained to allow him to be amiable, as well as respectable in other parts of his character; though in what regards Religion, they may account him unreasonably precise and strict. In this no less than in other particulars, he will endeavour to reduce the enemies of Religion to adopt the confession of the accusers of the Jewish ruler, “we shall not find any fault or occasion against this Daniel — except concerning the law of his God:” and even there, if he give offence, it will only be where he dares not do otherwise; and if he fall into dis-esteem or disgrace it shall not be chargeable to any conduct which is justly dishonourable, or even to any unnecessary singularities on his part, but to the false standard of estimation of a misjudging world.

When his character is thus mistaken, or his conduct thus misconstrued, he will not wrap himself up in a mysterious sullenness; but will be ready, where he thinks any one will listen to him with patience and candour, to clear up what has been dubious, to explain what has been imperfectly known, and “speaking the truth in love” to correct, if it may be, the erroneous impressions which have been conceived of him.

He may sometimes feel it his duty publicly to vindicate his character from unjust reproach, and to repel the false charges of his enemies; but he will carefully however watch against being led away by pride, or being betrayed into some breach of truth or of Christian charity, when he is treading in a path so dangerous. At such a time he will also guard, with more than ordinary circumspection, against any undue solicitude about his worldly reputation for its own sake; and when he has done what duty requires for its vindication, he will sit down with a peaceable and quiet mind, and it will be matter of no very deep concern to him if his endeavours should have been ineffectual.

Luther on Vainglory

Commenting on Galatians 5:26, Martin Luther wrote:

The Gospel is not there for us to aggrandize ourselves. The Gospel is to aggrandize Christ and the mercy of God. It holds out to men eternal gifts that are not gifts of our own manufacture. What right have we to receive praise and glory for gifts that are not of our own making?

No wonder that God in His special grace subjects the ministers of the Gospel to all kinds of afflictions, otherwise they could not cope with this ugly beast called vainglory. If no persecution, no cross, or reproach trailed the doctrine of the Gospel, but only praise and reputation, the ministers of the Gospel would choke with pride. Paul had the Spirit of Christ. Nevertheless there was given unto him the messenger of Satan to buffet him in order that he should not come to exalt himself, because of the grandeur of his revelations. St. Augustine’s opinion is well taken: “If a minister of the Gospel is praised, he is in danger; if he is despised, he is also in danger.”

The ministers of the Gospel should be men who are not too easily affected by praise or criticism, but simply speak out the benefit and the glory of Christ and seek the salvation of souls.

Whenever you are being praised, remember it is not you who is being praised but Christ, to whom all praise belongs. When you preach the Word of God in its purity and also live accordingly, it is not your own doing, but God’s doing. And when people praise you, they really mean to praise God in you. When you understand this—and you should because “what hast thou that thou didst not receive?”—you will not flatter yourself on the one hand and on the other hand you will not carry yourself with the thought of resigning from the ministry when you are insulted, reproached, or persecuted.

It is really kind of God to send so much infamy, reproach, hatred, and cursing our way to keep us from getting proud of the gifts of God in us. We need a millstone around our neck to keep us humble. There are a few on our side who love and revere us for the ministry of the Word, but for every one of these there are a hundred on the other side who hate and persecute us.

The Lord is our glory. Such gifts as we possess we acknowledge to be the gifts of God, given to us for the good of the Church of Christ. Therefore we are not proud because of them. We know that more is required of them to whom much is given, than of such to whom little is given. We also know that God is no respecter of persons. A plain factory hand who does his work faithfully pleases God just as much as a minister of the Word.

To desire vainglory is to desire lies, because when one person praises another he tells lies. What is there in anybody to praise? But it is different when the ministry is praised. We should not only desire people to praise the ministry of the Gospel but also do our utmost to make the ministry worthy of praise because this will make the ministry more effective. Paul warns the Romans not to bring Christianity into disrepute. “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” (Rom. 14:16.) He also begged the Corinthians to “give no offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed.” (I Cor. 6:3.) When people praise our ministry they are not praising our persons, but God.

Such is the ill effect of vainglory. Those who teach errors provoke others. When others disapprove and reject the doctrine the teachers of errors get angry in turn, and then you have strife and trouble. The sectarians hate us furiously because we will not approve their errors. We did not attack them directly. We merely called attention to certain abuses in the Church. They did not like it and became sore at us, because it hurt their pride. They wish to be the lone rulers of the church.

10 Resolutions for Raising Daughters in the “Go Home” Era of Evangelicalism

Christian Twitter blew up last week as John MacArthur, a prominent Bible teacher, said that Beth Moore, another prominent Bible teacher, should “go home” primarily because he disagrees with her regarding whether an unordained woman can teach the Bible during a Sunday service. Hardliners on both extremes have caricatured the other side or claimed misunderstandings of both parties. More middling voices have entered the fray, trying to argue for nuance or liberty. But most of the dialogue/monologue I’ve seen speaks in regard to Evangelicalism-wide issues that are beyond my control. My hope is to speak to an issue that is within the scope of my influence: how I, as a father of three daughters, should raise them in light of this “go home” mentality that’s present in some sectors of Evangelical life. To that end, I offer these 10 personal resolutions:

Resolved, to give the benefit of the doubt to women who minister in public. In order to create a healthy environment for my daughters to serve and minister, I want to lead by avoiding caricatures of women who minister and write and serve the church. This would involve more than avoiding slander but also avoiding quick sound-byte caricatures and denigration-by-meme behavior. Instead, I will treat my sisters as innocent until proven guilty of heresy (by confessional standards, not the whims of Twitter). Benefit of the doubt is an aspect of Christian love (1 Cor. 13:7), but it also mitigates against the reality that a large swath of Evangelicalism assumes that women doing public ministry are guilty of false teaching until proven otherwise, and the slightest amount of information that confirms such suspicion will be cited as gospel-truth.

Resolved, to avoid supporting ministers who demean orthodox women. Not every strong complementarian has spoken harshly or dismissively of orthodox sisters in Christ, but those who do will not be quoted favorably by me or given any honor in my household or teaching. While there is space for confronting heretics with boldness and with tears, women who differ with us on secondary matters should never be rebuked as if they have violated primary doctrines of the faith. In order to avoid sending mixed signals to my daughters, men who use positions of power to make these sorts of attacks will be marked and avoided.

Resolved, to support and promote women who minister well. I want my daughters to hear the names of well-aligned women in ministry such as Nancy Guthrie, Jen Wilkin, Jackie Hill-Perry, Trillia Newbell, and many more frequently mentioned in our household. I want them to see orthodox women who aren’t fully aligned with us on secondary and tertiary matters treated with respect and welcomed into the dialogue and bookshelves of our home.

Resolved, to use the Bible and doctrinal statements more than labels such as “complementarian.” While the label “complementarian” has been hijacked by those who see no role for women leading outside the home and church and those who see no vocal ministry for women where men might be able to listen (albeit inconsistent in that practice themselves), I find more stable teaching in the Bible and more helpful systematization in doctrinal statements. Instead of a complementarianism that only portioned off “some teaching” in the Danvers Statement and reserved gender distinctions in the home and for pastoral office in the BFM2000, we find a more restrictive version from its most vocal proponents. Instead of a sort of complementarianism that welcomed an R. C. Sproul who advocated women teachers in many aspects of church life, we find a more sectarian ideology that has calcified an array of male-only avenues of service in the church.* Instead of the Paul who found room for women who prophesied and prayed publicly (1 Cor. 11), encouraged them to participate in mutual teaching in the gathered local assembly (Col. 3:16, cf. v. 18), wanted them to “teach what is good” (Titus 2:3), and relied on them for critical and vocal ministry roles in local churches (e.g., Rom. 16:1–2, 7; Col. 4:15), we find a small window of women’s ministry that primarily relies on a singular interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 in exclusion from the rest of the Pauline canon. Instead of a Jesus who included women in his ministry in important ways and extended a call for all his disciples to make disciples, baptize, and teach, we find a truncated Great Commission that allows women to only participate in ⅓ of its activities. If the latter is the new meaning of “complementarianism,” then I will not publicly use that label to define my theology even though I assent to the Danvers Statement.

Resolved, to show unequivocal support for the abused and disenfranchised. As women young and old are frequent targets for abuse and inequality, I want to live in such a way that demonstrates that no quarter will be given to injustice or abuse. My words and actions must convey that my daughters can turn to me for support first upon the occasion that they might receive harassment or abuse.

Resolved, to encourage my daughters to use their gifts to the utmost in the home, the church, and in society. Outside of the case that can be made for the male-only pastorate and a unique kind of authority and teaching that comes with that office, I see no biblical restrictions that would restrict my daughters from selflessly exercising their gifts in every sphere of life. To that end, I will do whatever is in my power to help them walk in the Spirit and serve the church in a variety of ways in a variety of spheres.

Resolved, to coach and disciple my daughters to be meaningful disciple-makers and thoughtful theologians. Although never yet having been ordained, I have been blessed with opportunities to pursue doctoral studies in theology, to teach on the mission field, to contribute to published theological works, and even to speak as a lay leader in mixed audiences. Speaking as a dad, these are all opportunities that I hope and would be honored if one or more of my daughters may aspire to in order to serve their brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether they function as disciple-makers and theologians from the home, in the workplace, in the academy, or in the church, I intend to impart whatever training I can in order to make them successful at those tasks.

Resolved, to defend my daughters from misuse of Scripture. I’ve heard 1 Peter used to support requiring a woman to remain with an abusive husband. I’ve heard adult women (but not men) told that they need to submit to their dads until they marry. I’ve heard pastors extend gender roles into the workplace, arguing that women shouldn’t have leadership roles in business and government. As a father, I must proactively dismantle those misapplications of the Bible and help my daughters develop a strong heremeneutical toolkit necessary for them to apply the meaning of Scripture properly.

Resolved, to leave a legacy of healthy, biblical masculinity that neither caves to present culture nor idolizes stereotypes from other eras. I can finish a basement, hit a target, and split wood with the best of them, but I never want my daughters to associate these behaviors with masculinity. I want them to know see in their father a masculinity that restrains power and serves the powerless. I want them to see a dad who loves their mom and loves Jesus. In these ways, I want to counter cultural assumptions (old and new) about how men should behave and live according to the supra-cultural norms of Scripture.

Resolved, to never give the impression that the domestic sphere is the best place for a woman or of lesser significance than other spheres. Complementarians frequently claim or imply that the domestic sphere is the best place for women to minister (“go home”); egalitarians frequently claim or imply that the domestic sphere is a lesser calling (“why would a woman have to give up a career to raise children”). Instead, I want my daughters to know that all spheres belong to God and, as such, are good places to serve others. Should God lead them to use their gifts primarily in the home, that’s a wonderful calling. Should God lead them to use their gifts in the business world, in the church, in the academy, in government, etc., this would be an equally wonderful calling. In no way should women exclusively feel the responsibility of domestic ministry.

Note: I’m fully aware that I have and will fall short of these ideals. I want my friends to know that they may call me out when I do. I’m also fully aware that a group of evangelicals will take issue with being “too soft” on 1 Timothy 2, and I suspect that another group will be upset that I’ve made mention of any gender distinctions in the home or in the church. To both parties, I welcome respectful dialogue on your differences and welcome the opportunity to refine my views on this issue. Grace to you.

*Update (1/30/2020): The teaching video by R. C. Sproul that I initially referenced in this article has unfortunately been removed by Ligonier and the following statement has been posted in its place: “This content has been removed at the request of the Sproul family. Ligonier Ministries cannot account for the date or occasion of the comments, which makes providing a context difficult. The original content was a lecture that was likely delivered in the 1970’s or 1980’s expressing views that do not accurately represent Dr. R.C. Sproul’s later views on the subject.”

Following this statement, they include four links to sources related to the subject of the role of women in the church. I would just like to point out several observations about the suggested resources and this retraction:

  1. Of the two alternate resources written or spoken directly by Sproul:
    • Neither retracts what Sproul taught in the original video regarding the ability of women to teach/preach the gathered church in a Sunday service less the “juridical authority” in back of such spoken ministry.
    • Both underscore what Sproul taught in the original video regarding the particular kind of authority Sproul understood to be off limits to women, namely “juridical authority.”
    • Both deal more with issues of ordination to pastoral office, which has not been the focus of the intra-complementarian debates. But even here, Sproul clearly treats the ordination of women as a secondary issue–one that doesn’t demand separation.
  2. Of the two alternate resources written by others:
    • The first (published while Sproul was still editing Tabletalk) is certainly tighter than Sproul’s original video position, noting that “women are barred from preaching and teaching in worship.” The author then goes on to cite one of the key claims of Sproul in the original video, namely that the authority in the passage is “juridical” or “governing” in nature. We are left to wonder whether Sproul left the devotional note by the contributor (obviously not Sproul) unedited while disagreeing with it, or whether he let it stand because he had changed his position over time.
    • The second (published this year and after the death of Sproul) represents the current orthodoxy of the more restrictive camp of complementarians.
  3. The date of the teaching is hinted at as diminishing the accuracy of Sproul’s beliefs. While we want to give space for peoples’ theology to shift somewhat over time, we should note that (a) the 1980s were the breakout years for Sproul’s ministry, the decade in which he published The Holiness of God, and (b) as indicated related to the previous sources, Sproul never clearly or publicly indicated a retraction or even a modification of his position.
  4. The allegations of “the Sproul family” is intriguing. While they certainly can appeal to private conversation that R. C. Sproul never published regarding his “later views on the subject,” I tend to question the source for several reasons. First, in the 2016 Q&A video that is referenced, Sproul had a late-in-life opportunity teed up to set the record straight on whether a women could speak, teach, or preach in a church. Instead he dealt only with ordination and “juridical authority.” Second, if “the Sproul family” is indicative of self-identified “Christian patriarchalist” R. C. Sproul Jr., I wouldn’t put too much stock in this allegation.
  5. Lastly, and most importantly, this retraction is case-and-point of what I originally claimed in this article, namely that a movement is currently afoot to purge the ranks and create a monolith of “complementarianism” that never existed. Until any further evidence comes to light to the contrary, we should see this move as a bit of 1984 historical revisionism and an unfortunate move to censor modern theologians’ access to the progress of Sproul’s theologizing.