Has the Gender Gospel Begotten ‘Nones’?

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."  Genesis 1:27 (NASB)

http://www.wpclipart.com/signs_symbol/assorted/bathroom_signs/restrooms_dark.png.html

wpclipart.com

As we have been discussing, TIME Magazine just came out with its list of 10 Ideas That Are Changing Your Life, and The Rise of the Nones came in at Number 4.  According to that article, the number of people claiming no religious affiliation is on the rise (about 16% of the population).  Surveys seem to indicate that more and more people are foregoing "organized religion" but not necessarily giving up on God. 

Here at TWW we are not at all surprised by this growing trend because we have been hearing from "Nones" for the past three years.  Some (not all) who comment have left their church but not their faith.  As we attempt to understand the factors contributing to this growing trend, we have found a number of reasons.  Dee wrote about the push for young earth creationism, and I focused on an emphasis on 'masculine ministry'.  As a follow-up to our previous post, here is MACHO MAN Mark Driscoll doing what he does best…

As we consider other reasons why people leave the organized church, we have to put the Gender Gospel near the top of our list. It is incredible that God created both men and women in His image; yet some want to relegate women, especially with regard to marriage and church.  How did the Gender Gospel (complementarianism) become a salvific issue for so many conservative Christian leaders?  I wanted to know the history behind the emphasis on complementarianism, so decided to do some research.  Please indulge me as I report my findings here. 

Wayne Grudem has provided a comprehensive summary of what occurred in his “Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate”. Here are the highlights.

Grudem explains that in October 1979 he was a third-year professor at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota. A married couple who also worked at Bethel and lived down the street from him wrote an article that was published in Christianity Today entitled: "Does male dominance tarnish our translations?" They argued in the article that the Greek word kephalē means “source” and never “authority”.

Although Grudem believed their argument was wrong, he didn’t have either the time or the resources to address it. Six years later (1985) Grudem's article entitled "Does kephalē Mean ‘Source' or ‘Authority Over'? An Examination of 2,336 Examples" was published in the Trinity Journal. Given the fact that John Piper began his pastorate at Bethlehem Baptist Church in 1980, I wonder how much input he had in Grudem’s article. After all, they co-wrote Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

In response to his "correction", egalitarians took Grudem to task over the meaning of kephalē, and he responded with lengthy defenses of his position that the word must be interpreted as “authority”. “Why did I do this?” Grudem queries. Here is his response:

“Because it was a crucial word in a crucial verse in a crucial issue. Destroying the meaning "authority over" for kephalē is crucial to the egalitarian argument. If in fact the Bible says in Eph 5:23 that "the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church," and if head means, as I am convinced it does, "person in position of authority," then the egalitarian cause is lost. That is because that verse anchors the husband's headship in the headship of Christ over the church, which is not something culturally variable (and 1 Cor 11:3 makes it parallel to the eternal headship of the Father with respect to the Son in the Trinity). So the egalitarians cannot lose this argument, because if they lose on the meaning of that word, then they have lost their fundamental argument with regard to manhood and womanhood in marriage.

Why did I do this? So that commentaries, Greek lexicons, and Bible translations in future generations will accurately teach and translate a crucial verse in the word of God. If head equals "authority over" as has been shown now in over sixty examples, then the ballgame is over. And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called "head" of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero. That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.

But this is not an ordinary verse. Because the evangelical feminists cannot lose this verse, they continue to ignore or deny the evidence. I think that is very significant.”

Next Wayne Grudem explains the early history of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

After his first article on kephalē was published in 1985, he received an invitation be a plenary session speaker at the 1986 Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) meeting in Atlanta. The theme was "Manhood and Womanhood in Biblical and Theological Perspectives." He then notes that he was the “token complementarian” among the speakers who had been invited. According to Grudem, there was an imbalance with the plenary speakers that did not accurately reflect the membership in the ETS. He and Wayne House, along with several others, met “secretly” to discuss this.

Grudem then reveals: “We all were saying that we had to do something because egalitarians were taking over the ETS in a way contrary to the convictions of the vast majority of the members of ETS. So I made an announcement at the end of the ETS meeting that if any others would want to join us in a new organization dedicated to upholding both equality and differences between men and women in marriage and the church, they should please talk to Wayne House or me. (Gleason Archer was still president at that last session, and he gladly let me make the announcement.)”

A month later Grudem and House met in Dallas along with John Piper, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, Ken Sarles, and "perhaps some others" (Grudem's exact words).  Hmmm….. During the meeting they drafted a statement on principles for manhood and womanhood, which included:

– Adam and Eve are equal in God’s image

– Adam’s headship in the family and the human race was established by God before the fall, not as a result of sin

– The fall created strained relationships (sin) between men and women with men having a tendency to rule harshly and selfishly and women having a tendency to usurp authority over men, etc.

Grudem explains that these concepts were the basis for the Danvers Statement and that John Piper supplied “substantial wording” for what would become the Danvers Statement. As Grudem reflected on that meeting, he writes: “We left Dallas encouraged that God was guiding our work.”

I believe this next portion of Grudem's summary is extremely important!

"We next met at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers, Massachusetts, on December 2-3, 1987, just prior to the 1987 ETS meeting at Gordon- Conwell Seminary. We finalized our statement, called it the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and voted to incorporate as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. CBMW was off and running.

But we were still meeting secretly in 1987, not posting the meeting anywhere, not letting anyone know what we were doing. We just didn't want to get involved in controversy and argument while we were still getting organized and deciding what exactly we would stand for."

The President of Crossway Books, Dr. Lane Dennis, attended the meeting and while at the Sheraton he discussed with John Piper and Wayne Grudem the possibility of editing a book of essays on manhood and womanhood. That idea eventually became Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism

Next Grudem shares the strategy they implemented to "take over" the Evangelical Theological Society, which included attending ALL future ETS meetings as well as ETS business meetings in order to vote for candidates for the nominating committee who shared their principles.  Where have we heard this strategy before?  (SBC) 

Grudem then summarizes the results of their efforts, by writing:  "When I reflect on the fact that the incorporation of CBMW, the finalizing of the Danvers Statement, and the agreement to produce Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, all came out of that one meeting at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort, I think it is one of the Lord's pleasant acts of providence that twelve years later, on November 17, 1999, I had the honor of giving the ETS presidential address in that very same hotel. Those were the only two occasions in the sixty-year history of the ETS that the Sheraton Ferncroft was the primary hotel for the conference.)"

Finally, Grudem explains how they went public with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), by writing:.

"For those first two years we were still a very secret, by-invitation-only group. But by December, 1988, at the ETS meeting at Wheaton College, we were ready to go public. We announced the formation of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and handed out brochures. We even had a press conference (Christianity Today showed up, but nobody else). We coined the term "complementarian" as a one-word representation of our viewpoint. So we were now known to the ETS, but not yet in the general evangelical world."

They proudly announced the formation of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the January 13, 1989, issue of Christianity Today.  Then Crossway Books (CBMW's ally from day one) released Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991.  The following year it was chosen as Christianity Today's "Book of the Year". 

So now you know how the word "COMPLEMENTARIAN" came into existence.

There is more to the story, which you can read at the link provided.  Here is how Grudem concludes his "personal reflections" (which he penned around 2009):

"I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years. By force of argument, by use of facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear word of God, by the truth, I expected the entire church would be persuaded, the battle for the purity of the church would be won, and egalitarian advocates would be marginalized and have no significant influence. But it has not completely happened yet!

I still believe it will happen. Jesus Christ is building and purifying his church that he might present it to himself without spot or wrinkle. But on this issue Christ's purification process is taking much longer than I expected!

The issue of manhood and womanhood has become one of the focal points of a much larger controversy over whether the Bible will reign supreme over cultural pressures in the church, the home, and the academy. In fact, I think it is now the largest of several issues and it has implications for all of them. In the near future, I expect that this controversy increasingly will become the focal point of the larger realignment in the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not.

Finally, my testimony after nearly thirty years in this controversy is that faithfulness to the Lord always carries a price, but it's always worth the price. Whatever you spend, God will richly repay with his presence, his favor, his blessing on you and those you love, and in the end he will say, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matt 25:21)."

Here is the Danvers Statement on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website.  The 10th and final item caught my attention:  "We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large."

Since God's hand has purportedly been on CBMW (at least according to complementarian leaders like Wayne Grudem), the financial backing for this "godly" organization must be quite substantial.  Let's take a look at some recent numbers on the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) website.

You don't need an MBA (like Dee and I have) to see that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has suffered a significant financial setback over the last few years.  It's kinda humorous that at first glance it appears revenues have shot up during this three-year period; however, the years at the bottom of the graph reveal just the opposite.  If God were really blessing this organization, the revenue stream should be reflecting it.  Thank goodness it is "housed" at Southern Seminary; otherwise, CBMW might just have to close up shop…

While some will obviously disagree (die-hard complementarians and patriarchs), I strongly believe that the Gender Gospel has been detrimental to the cause of Christ because it has driven some faithful Christians out of the organized church.  We need to move beyond this archaic religious system and allow both men and women to serve Almighty God according to their gifting.  Only then will God be truly glorified here on earth.

jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

We conclude with an excellent comment by Bridget2, who wrote (in response to yesterday's post):

"The only reason I can think of that these men keep insisting on a masculine feel in the Church is because they are not secure in Christ themselves.  God created man in his image, male and female he created them . . .

Where does God show partiality to the male? The natural outcome of their masculine doctrine is that God would be divided within himself. It never seems to occur to these men that Jesus came to restore us from the outcome of the Fall, not perpetuate it. The veil was torn – ALL can now enter – not just the male priest. I guess it never occurs to them that a large amount of scripture was written before the veil was torn, by men under the rule of the law who were keeping with that law. Even writers of the NT would and DID have difficulties leading a different life after living so long under the law – look at Galations. Paul had to correct Peter on this issue.

The Church should have a masculine/feminine feel!

WHERE does scripture say that God has ordained (strong word Mr. Piper) to the Church a masculine ministry? BTW I think Piper uses specific words in specific places to make his argument seem Godly. This especially sways those who don’t search out scripture for themselves.

Piper’s main argument of the “masculine feel” is based on an assumption that God allowed the “male” form to be used in referring to him because he IS only male and not female. God was called many things in OT. He calls himself “I Am.” (No male or female undertones there.) Maybe God new that fallen “men” would not respond to a “female feel.” Could Jesus have come into the world a female and been received by the men and culture of Israel? Jesus came AND tore the veil that had separated “all mankind” from God since the Fall. I don’t think that this restoration was meant as only “partial” for women; as in women still need a covering, or a headship. This seems to infer that Jesus did an “INCOMPLETE” work on the cross! The female/male issue was a result of the Fall, not an issue before the Fall. Before the Fall they both stood before God naked and unashamed (no one covering anyone for anyone).

Mutual submission for all!"

 

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Wayne Grudem has established quite a following over the years, as evidenced by some inspired Christians who are singing his praises with a catchy little tune called "Go Wayne Grudem!" 

Here are the opening lyrics:

Why this man is thematic, he’s charismatic, he’s systematic,
Why he’s Wayne Grudem! (Wayne Grudem)
He did not author Scripture but provides a clearer picture – Oh Yeah!

ENJOY!

 

Lydia's Corner:  Jeremiah 31:27-32:44   1 Timothy 3:1-16   Psalm 88:1-18   Proverbs 25:20-22

Comments

Has the Gender Gospel Begotten ‘Nones’? — 158 Comments

  1. A previous pastor actually thought I would be encouraged by this “Uncovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” book. I read most of it — I was deeply depressed to the point of tears for over a year.

  2. Elastigirl –

    I have the book sitting on a shelf but never read it. At this point I am thankful. I’m sorry it led to depression for you.

    I am amazed that the book is so large. How can it have so much to say about a subject that isn’t central in scripture, nor are gender issues often discussed in scripture. I guess they had to write a lot to make their arguments. I also don’t see why they feel this issue is so central to the Christian life.

    Being complementarian will not cause me to love my husband more or less. The complementarian teaching itself cannot effect the way I live before God. The love of God as seen in Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit at work in me as I follow Christ is what changes me. Grudem and friends give too much weight to their teaching. I hope this wasn’t done as a reaction to feminism, although from this article I gather that it was.

  3. Did anyone notice the small logo in the bottom left corner of the MACHO MAN Mark Driscoll video? It’s the desiringGod logo.

    Apparently, John Piper has been on this macho kick for quite a while…

  4. Deb,

    Great info. Thanks for researching the history of CBMW. Financially, it looks like it’s going down the tubes. We can hope!

    Thanks for giving me credit for the comment, but it was actually Bridget2. I can see how you’d assign it to me – I was burning up the blog post with comments yesterday! 🙂

  5. OOPS! I will give credit where credit is due. It was challenging writing this post and keeping up with all the comments!

    Thanks so much for your input in this important dialogue which we conduct OPENLY for everyone to read – not in SECRET like these complementarian characters.

    What a bunch of cowards!!!

  6. Deb
    Great article. I used to think this was simply a matter of theological differences in a secondary issue. No longer. Just as Ken Ham has raised YEC to salvific proportions (doctrine of the atonement), these guys are doing the same. Driscoll defines masculinity from his street bully perspective- a beat em up mentality. I truly believe that this must stem from some issues in his early life.

    He seems appalled that the church is 60/40 female/male. Why? In fact, could it be that women are more responsive to a gospel that does not emphasize gender, class, strength, money, etc? The faith flourished amongst the poor and disenfranchised in the early church. Could it be that the gospel appeals to those who have been let down by society?Those who couldn’t “beat up” the Romans?

    Driscoll seems to want to build a faith based on power and physical might, perhaps mistaking Jesus for a physical kingdom builder. Just like the Pharisees were looking for a guy who could amass an army and beat up the Romans. Well, how did that work out? Jesus said they had it wrong and that his kingdom was not of this world. And about 40 years later, the Romans destroyed the Temple and killed lots of people.

    Driscoll seems to want the same sort of guy that the Pharisees wanted. Jesus talked about turning the other cheek-not getting in their face and threatening to punch them out”Driscoll-style.” This is a faith that I don’t read about in the Bible. As for Piper and his masculine feel-I’m afraid he does not come across as some macho guy who can beat up his neighbor. He seems almost feminine in his demeanor. Where is his Mickey Mouse shirt, btw? This whole thing is whacked it you ask me. It is another gospel and I’m not buying it.

  7. I still crack up when I think of Mark Driscoll in a “masculine” light. I have a necklace just like his. If he TRULY believes in rigid gender roles, why oh why does he wear those necklaces and silly tight t-shirts?

  8. One of the first to embrace this philosophy was Mahaney and PDI soon to morph into SGM.

    I have yet to see good fruit and the last thing most of these men need is permission to be selfish, arrogant, and piggish in the name of God-given masculinity when the real challenge to them is to be more Christ-like. They have given themselves a huge pass from this greater challenge by mocking the self-sacrificial Christ of the Bible as a “sissy-girl.”

    In the meantime, I have challenged complementarians to cite one, just one example of where the woman is advantaged by this philosophy and the only response I have received is a lame-assed, (paraphrased,)”It is good enough for her to be obedient to God.”

    Please pass the barf bag.

  9. Wendy
    Driscoll is a product of his culture. If he believes that tight t-shirts and necklaces are macho, then they are. However, I can assure you that in some parts of the country (and perhaps within certain groups in Seattle), such attire could be interpreted in an entirely different manner. That may be the reason for some of those who find Driscoll’s statements on gender not terribly convincing.

  10. Deb

    Let’s see… I have some money to donate to the faith. What would be a better choice? – giving it to a bunch of men who are meeting in secret at a posh country club resort (I know that Sheraton resort – it ain’t the Hampton Inn – gorgeous golf course, etc). In fact, why are they spending money staying there? Who paid for it?

    So, there are people who have never heard the Gospel, people dying of malarial diseases, people who have no access to good water, children being sold into sex slavery, etc. Then these guys want us to fund their “secondary issue vacation” at a nice resort? They then get to tell women to shut up and give them money? They seem to be blind guides to me. They should be ashamed. They could have done a “go to meeting” conference and saved all sorts of dough and given the money to missions. At the least, they could have gone to a decent Hampton inn with a conference room and eaten at Chili’s. Nope. These guys like the lifestyle on the hard earned dollars of others.

  11. BTW,

    I LOVED the mention of Dorothy Patterson at that Dallas meeting.

    Grudem’s description of additional attendees was priceless, as he wrote perhaps some others. Obviously, Dorothy’s hubby participated but didn’t want to be outed.

  12. Deb
    That Sheraton is now called the Sheraton Ferncroft, complete with major golfing, an indoor water park and a few restaurants. Just remember, the Son of Man had not place to lay his head. This is what they are spending the bucks on. PS, my dad bought a golfing membership for a few years at that facility.

  13. Think about it – a small group of strange people can meet a few times and come up with a false gospel. They get their false gospel “incorporated”, write some books about it, start preaching it, and people buy into it. That’s freaky. And that’s why scripture tells us to stay on guard against false teachers and prophets.

  14. “Mahaney is still listed as Vice-Chairman of CBMW’s Board of Directors. I thought he said he stepped down from that position.”

    They have had to cut back on expenses I would gather from the state of their financial report. These guys are far too busy to change anything, and they don’t have enough money to pay for someone to update their site would be my guess.

  15. Hey all…

    Speaking about Grudem… He is sharing his wisdom today, Sat., via Justin Taylor at TGC.

    “Complementarian Decision-Making as a Couple”
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/

    “…. Even though there will often be much discussion and there should be mutual respect and consideration of each other, ultimately the responsibility to make the decision rests with the husband. And so, in our marriage the responsibility to make the decision rests with me.

    This is not because I am a wiser or more gifted leader. It is because I am the husband. God has given me that responsibility. It is very good. It brings peace and joy to our marriage, and both Margaret and I are thankful for it.”

    …”The biblical ideal is loving, humble headship and joyful, intelligent submission.”

    Wow! Now promoting -.”Joyful, Intelligent Submission.” Sounds irresistible…

    Thought some folks might like to reply. And advance the conversation. 😉

  16. Dee,

    How Driscoll thinks his necklace and tight Mickey Mouse t-shirt is macho is beyond me.

    I live in a progressive city. I see men and women dressed in *interesting* attire every day. However, when the nonsense and lies you’re spewing from your mouth don’t match the necklace and silly t-shirt on your body, it’s humorous. I agree that this is probably why some don’t take him seriously.

  17. We’ve got the Mickey Mouse, necklace-wearing Mark Driscoll and the effeminate John Piper as the poster boys for the “masculine” gospel. Their followers must have serious cognitive dissonance.

  18. Wendy/Mara
    Driscoll is a weenie. As soon as someone disagrees with him, he gets his feeling really hurt and won’t let those meanies anywhere near him. You know, just like Jesus?

    Here is an example. is Mark afraid of this guy’s wife? Link

  19. A. Amos –

    Do you think another voice with a different perspective would be allowed? It’s been my observation that they don’t allow discussion on the RBD blogs but only affirmation. They seem to like to do things in secret so no one knows their plans.

    Maybe someone with a manly name would be allowed. The Spirit of God has been restricted by Mr. Grudem, or he thinks as much any way. Mr. Grudem does receive the gifts of God when they are given through a woman. CJ Mahaney has also restricted the Holy Spirit’s movement. I don’t think they see the connection.

    Maybe Wade would kindly speak to Mr. Grudem on the behalf of all women. He would be following in Christ’s footsteps by continuing to support us. Thank you for how you already do this Wade!

  20. Driscoll — “If you get the young men you win the war. If you don’t get the young men, you got nothing.”

    Millions of us have been deemed as “nothing” by Mr. Driscoll. The old men, all women and all children are counted as “nothing.”

    No thank you Mr. Driscoll! That statement does NOT reflect what Jesus came to say and do. You need to read your Bible and pray for the Spirit of God to open your eyes and write God’s laws on your heart.

  21. Bridget2
    That is a sick comment. Once again, I believe that there is something desperately wrong with Driscoll.

  22. A Amos Love,

    Thanks for alerting us about Justin Taylor’s post on Wayne Grudem. Great timing! It must have been providential…

    Here are some very recent comments that have been posted. All the prior comments give glowing remarks about the Grudems. I am including these three comments here in case they disappear. 😛

    3rd Cent Prof
    March 17, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Any thoughts for how this would be practically any different for an Egalitarian couple who want to honor each other? It would be interesting to have an egalitarian share some stories from their own life about how they worked through situations. My thought is that it would be much the same.

    I think one of the biggest problems with Grudem’s advocating of Complementarianism, is that simply put, most complementarians that I know are not like Grudem. Grudem practically in this decision making process seems much moe like an egalitarian. Many well known complementarians seem to take a micro-management approach to their wife and family schedule. I believe Driscoll has publicly mentioned several times that he reads his wife’s email to keep her out of trouble. I think it is unfortunate that extreme patriarchy and a true complementarian position have become theological allies in the manhood/womanhood discussion.

    John
    March 17, 2012 at 11:28 am

    I’m just curious – where specifically does the male headship thing entail final decision making in the Bible?

    Bridget
    March 17, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Why does Mr. Grudem purchase all the books? That seems odd and a strange oddity to point out. Do books have some high importance placed upon them?

  23. I hate to be crass and “follow the money” on this issue, but I have to think it may really be all about the money.

    Theologically, my faith family would be Baptist.

    I love studying Baptist history.

    So while what you hear today is all about how the men are to be in charge, from the family to the church, it wasn’t always so.

    When the northern great plains was settled, it needed evangelizing badly. Not many men were willing to leave settled pastorates and go there, but “Bible women” as they were called were commissioned and sent, and functioned as pastors.

    I believe historically women were also commissioned and sent out to be foreign missionaries, functioning much as a pastor to the churches they established.

    Apparently it has always been all right in my faith family for women to go to places that were very dangerous, for very low pay, and to be “in authority” over other women, poor men, and men of color.

    Only when it started being more common for the male pastors to have higher education, more status, and especially when the trend went from bivo to full time pastors did it start being not all right for the women to serve.

    In other words, when being a pastor became not a hard calling but a good job, and women were moving into more and more fields in the secular world, did the guys need to circle the wagons and protect their livelihoods from the uppity women.

    Today we have denominations that produce fewer pastors than they need, and readily accept women. And we have a few notable denominations that are churning out more seminary graduates than they have positions open, and they are adamant that a woman cannot be “senior pastor.”

    To prop up protecting the jobs we have to have tons of seminars and books and famous people speaking up to put the little women back in their place.

    LET THEM, GALS, BECAUSE OUR PLACE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CUTTING EDGE OF EVANGELISM.

    Yes, the gender gospel is generating “nones.”

    I’m sure in the eyes of some in leadership in the Roman Catholic church of the time the Reformation generated “nones.” Today those of us who are Protestant think that was a GOOD thing.

    The organized church is mightily used of God and can reach many people.

    But in today’s post Christendom era, there are so many people the organized church can and will never be able to reach.

    Perhaps some of the “nones” are nothing less than God calling out His missionaries to this culture. In fact, can a woman use a military term and say maybe some of the “nones” are His special ops forces?

    That is the good side of this issue.

    The other side is that many of the “nones” have been so incredibly injured by this false gospel that they may never recover in this life. Families have been torn apart over this. Women have been taught to accept abuse, and another generation of children is being taught that is fine and dandy. The church of Jesus Christ limps along with one leg deliberately disabled.

    I would agree with Grudem and Piper this is a watershed issue.

    But I think they may be surprised to find themselves dealt with as the money changers and animal sellers were when Christ cleansed the temple.

    He seems to take a dim view of anyone hindering the free access of another human being to Himself.

  24. Deb –

    There was another comment before these that was excellent! Is it gone? It was by someone ____ Taylor. I wondered if they used Justin’s wife’s name. It was silly if they did, because the comment was great.

  25. Hey all,

    I just came across an entertaining video that I added at the end of the post. Why has the Mahaney Love Fest suddenly come to mind?! 😉

  26. Bridget2,

    Here is that comment on Justin Taylor’s post to which you referred.

    shirley taylor
    March 17, 2012 at 11:14 am

    I, too, like this post. It describes perfectly what a complementarian marriage is, and brother, it is not biblical. Tyrants, doormats, wimps and usurpers. Awful words. Paul did not use those words to describe the men and women in a marriage. He told men not to beat their wives because they wouldn’t beat themselves. In the middle of this often used discourse about the relationship in marriage, Paul has to stop and tell the men not to beat their wives.

    Does Grudem mean biblical marriage where the Apostle Paul tells the Corinthian women not to divorce their husbands when they become Christians because they might have an influence on the man so that he becomes a Christian? That appears to be the wife in a leadership role. Then again in Corinthians, he tells the men not to divorce the wife if he becomes a Christian because he might lead her to become a Christian.

    That is the only leadership that the Bible teaches about marriage, and it is directed at both men and women. Spelled out in fact.

    God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Trinity, but when you add husbands, you make it a quartet. That is not biblical. Men and women are both leaders in the marriage and in the home. That is what true complementarianism is all about. Not this male headstuff that has been fostered on men and women.

    There is only one way that women can have a male as a head over her, and that is Jesus Christ, our Lord. To give man headship over another human being is to make earthly gods of men.

    You claim “the biblical ideal is loving, humble headship and joyful, intelligent submission,” but those are your words, and are not found anywhere in the Bible.

    I whizzed right past it…

  27. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Wayne Grudem has established quite a following over the years, as evidenced by some inspired Christians who are singing his praises with a catchy little tune called “Go Wayne Grudem!”

    Here are the opening lyrics:

    Why this man is thematic, he’s charismatic, he’s systematic,
    Why he’s Wayne Grudem! (Wayne Grudem)
    He did not author Scripture but provides a clearer picture – Oh Yeah!

    I remember when jingles like that were used on TV and radio to sell toothpaste, beer, and cigarettes…

  28. Driscoll — “If you get the young men you win the war. If you don’t get the young men, you got nothing.”

    Adolf Hitler (Hitlerjugend) and Josef Stalin (Young Pioneers) are in complete agreement.

  29. How Driscoll thinks his necklace and tight Mickey Mouse t-shirt is macho is beyond me.

    But if you don’t tell him how Macho and Manly it is, He’s Going To Beat You Up. (Or order his Shieldbearers to Beat You Up.)

  30. Bridget2,

    Here’s another great comment that was just left on Justin Taylor’s blog. (link)

    And yes, Justin Taylor is employed by CBMW’s loyal publisher – Crossway Books.

    tiro
    March 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    ”In almost every case, each of us has some wisdom and insight that the other does not have. Usually, we reach agreement on the decisions that we make. ……”
    This is commendable. Some men who believe in male ‘headship’ believe quite literally that all decisions in their family are their responsibility. And they do have a point because I know of no place where Scripture explains the boundaries of male ‘headship’.

    ”but in every decision, whether it large or small and whether we have reached agreement or not, the responsibility to make the decision still rests with me.” …………”But in every decision that we make that affects us together or affects our family, the responsibility to make the decision rests with me. If there is genuine male headship, I believe there is a quiet acknowledgement that the focus of the decision making process is the husband, not the wife.”

    So, of course, this means that men hold supreme veto power in their homes. Husbands can overrule any decision made by anyone. Husbands are supreme rulers. Interesting. I’m wondering what Biblical Scriptures Grudem uses to support this position. Are there any teachings by Jesus that promote this view?

    While it is commendable that Grudem personally has some degree of conviction of serving the needs of the family, the doctrine he promotes does not. Supreme responsibility over others allows a man to do with it whatever he chooses. It is also excellent that Grudem notes that in Ephesians 5 Paul instructs husbands to sacrificially minister to and treat their wives as if she were their own body. However, Ephesians is not discussing male ‘headship’. In fact, I am at a loss in finding any Scriptures at all that tell husbands to take authority over their wives or to take a position of ‘headship’ over their wives or to instruct husbands to be the decision makers.

  31. HUG,

    I could never tell Driscoll he is macho and manly. The bible says not to bear false witness.

  32. I was a lip-service Complementarian in the mid-90’s when I picked up a copy of Grudem and Piper’s book in order to better articulate my point of view. When I read their book, complementarianism fell apart for me. (I mean, really. You have to be careful about how you give a man directions lest you speak too authoritatively and wound their masculine sensibilities and offend God?) Their arguments were poor and contrived. Plus, when we became more vigilant about applying complementarian principles to our marriage, it quickly became clear that it was simply unworkable. I guess you could say Grudem and Piper led me into egalitarianism. We’ve been happily married over 25 years and still going strong. It’s all that mutual submission, I guess.

  33. Two things. Long before Grudem or CBMW there was Katharine Bushnell. She was a medical doctor in the late 19th cent. as well as a Hebrew and Greek scholar (self taught) par excellence. She published a book entitled “God’s Word to Women” in 1921. In it (in my opinion) she deconstructs Grudem long before there was Grudem (so to speak).

    You can read what a present day Greek scholar has to say in deconstructing Grudem here:

    http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/search/label/response%20to%20Grudem

    She (Suzanne McCarthy) has been banned from more than one site that promotes patriarchy as ordained by the Almighty & not to be contended with.

  34. “Although Grudem believed their argument was wrong, he didn’t have either the time or the resources to address it. Six years later (1985) Grudem’s article entitled “Does kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’? An Examination of 2,336 Examples” was published in the Trinity Journal”

    Let me stop reading right here and point out something very important to know about Grudem and Piper. They ALSO wrote that Junia was a man. And guess who they used as their source for such error? Epiphanius (315-403). But here is the problem. Epiphanius also wrote, in the same exact resource they quoted about Junia, that Priscia was a man, too!

    And even worse, other comp scholars like Douglas Moo disagreed with them….publicly.

    Of course as the great scholars they are, Grudem and Piper ignored the writings of Chrysostom, a “patriarchal” church father, who wrote that Junia was not only a woman but “great AMONG the apostles. They ignored Chrysostom but believe Epiphanius.

    Do not trust their “scholarship”, folks.

  35. “A month later Grudem and House met in Dallas along with John Piper, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, Ken Sarles, and “perhaps some others” (Grudem’s exact words). Hmmm….”

    Do you know who he purposely left out? The Bayly Brothers! They ran CBMW in the early years. They are patriarchal dominionists. They make Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips of Vision Forum look like egals.

  36. “Did anyone notice the small logo in the bottom left corner of the MACHO MAN Mark Driscoll video? It’s the desiringGod logo.”

    Deb, This might be the same DG conference I watched where Driscoll declared from stage that every word out of his mouth when preaching comes from the Holy Spirit.

    Why people could listen to that uttered and then everything else he says when preaching and not see he is a false teacher, I will never know.

  37. Oh yes, the Bayly Brothers. They are the ones who wrote the post where Russell Moore said he HATES the word complementarian. Moore far prefers patriarchy to the glee of the Baylys.

    From their post:

    Mark Dever: So then, why is it you don’t like the word complementarianism?

    Russell Moore: Because complemnetarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles? So an egalitarian would say, “Yeah, I’m a complementarian too, it’s on the basis of gifts.” I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…

    Mark Dever: So, Randy (Stinson of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), are you rewriting the CBMW materials to take out the term complementarianism?

  38. You guys can stop talking about the necklace and Tshirt on Driscoll. That is old. He has been rebranding himself and spiffed himself up. He is now wearing polo shirts, tweed jackets, etc. No necklaces. It is part of the new brand. One cannot go around in Mickey Mouse t-shirts on stages when one is in their mid 40’s. His “brand image” consultant probably gave him some tips. I have been noticing his new image for a while now.

  39. I have to say that I HATE Gender doctrine. It skips so much of scripture and takes scripture to a point it was never supposed to go. Then they have it tied up so neatly that if women who know and study scripture such as Susan McCarthy or any of us, challenge it with scripture and disagree with their interpretation we are called feminists (which I think is a compliment and a label I own too) or feminazis and this is in 2012! Instead of discussing rationally with scripture and intelligence, it becomes a name calling fest because they cannot find an argument that will hold water. IOW they are flat out wrong and can’t admit it.

  40. BTW: I will always sing love songs to Jesus. A man to me is one who will join me in singing those songs. My husband is a man’s man. 🙂

  41. I also think that Mark Driscoll flat out hates women. The proof is in that video and in other things he has said. He’s really going to hate women now that this blog is making a difference. 🙂

  42. Muff, Thank you for mentioning Bushnell!!! She is a huge danger to these CBMW types.

    Katherine Bushnell did her homework! She exegeted every passage pertaining to women within the entire pericope. And she did this long before the internet. She taught herself Greek and Hebrew and submitted her writings (in lesson form) to scholars all over to critique. Can you imagine the time it took to do this? Then she put their critiques (even the big disagreements) in the footnotes. Can you imagine Grudem doing this?

    I think it is by Divine providence her old book was found and republished. It is the deepest study I have ever seen on this issue. Bushnell lived it as a doctor and missionary in China. Her life was ministering to others.

    I advise everyone reading here to buy this book and study it. Critique it. Be a Berean. Check the Greek, the Hebrew. God wants us to dive in deeply.

    http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Women-Katharine-Bushnell/dp/0974303100

  43. Debbie K,

    Me too! And I’m also married to a man’s man. He is such a blessing in my life. 🙂

  44. “If God were really blessing this organization, the revenue stream should be reflecting it.”

    It seems Judas Iscariot thought the same thing…

  45. “If God were really blessing this organization, the revenue stream should be reflecting it.”

    I am not so sure I agree with this statement. There are plenty of poor places/groups/churches God is blessing but does not look like it to worldly eyes. I would not equate money flowing in with godly success in anything. Some are swimming in funds like Mars Hill and other ministries. How about George Soros, is God blessing him?

    Truth is that CBMW mission is really pretty much completed. The comp doctrine is everywhere. Most evangelical churches practice some variation of it. Some have women deacons and some won’t allow women to read scripture in church. Mission accomplished.

    Except with the advent of the internet more and more people are studying on their own and figuring out it is not really biblical at all. But a cult of sorts that is meant to elevate men.

    Comp is really patriarchy as it was all along. They just knew that would not fly. So they made up a nice sounding term and hijacked the issue. Not unlike the coining of the phrase “servant-leader”. It is meaningless and has nothing to do with their practices. To them saying the right words is the same as living them.

    If you read Grudem’s “history”, what is the REAL reason for CBMW? Authority and power. They felt marginalized by others in power at ETS and wanted control over everything. Now they are going into different streams for that. New Calvinism is one of them. The irony is that CBMW pretty much coincides with the fight for control of the SBC. The SBC was very open to women ministering before the CR. It was always about power and authority. One group had it and the other group wanted it. The rallying cry was inerrancy of the bible. The rally cry for CBMW was femininism and now for power and authority in the SBC for the megas and YRR, it is New Calvinism/Reformed.

    The real problem is the rise of the Nicolatians. They will use any issue to get power. It is getting worse and worse. And they are a deceptive lot. Gotta watch them close.

  46. Christ being “head” of the church can easily be treated as the “source” not the “authority”, because He created the church!

    And the idea that man is the source of woman — of course, the scripture says that a part of man was taken to make a woman.

    And the word translated “helpmeet” to describe the woman’s relationship to the man is also used to describe God’s relationship to the Psalmist. Taken to an extreme, it would put the woman in authority over the man.

  47. That whole kephale thing just aggravates me. Dr. Sarah Sumner pointed out that the most common meaning (by far!) of the word kephale in ancient Greek is…drumroll please…..”head.” As in, a literal human head. The physical round thing that sits atop your shoulders.

    So the whole head/body metaphor of marriage suddenly makes a lot more sense…..and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “source,” and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “authority.” It’s talking about unity.

    Sadly, the CBMW causes a sort of division between spouses that I think goes against that unity, by claiming that spouses should work to consciously keep in mind how they are distinct from one another.

  48. All of you may wish to check out Christians for Biblical Equality and get the back issues, available on CD, of their academic journal, “The Priscilla Papers’ wherein there is excellent scriptural exposition to support an egalitarian theology within an evangelical context.

  49. Listened to that Mark Driscoll clip again. Did anyone else catch his implication that women can’t be innovative?

    DOES THIS GUY KNOW ANY WOMEN OTHER THAN HIS WIFE? I’M SERIOUSLY STARTING TO WONDER.

    Okay I’m done now.

  50. Deb,

    I think Driscoll has a point about churches not being attractive to men. But rather than the carpet color, I’m wondering if the male entrepreneurial spirit in spiritual things isn’t being held back by the top-down, micro-managed ministries by authoritarian leadership. After all, the only male decision makers in those types of churches are the male leadership. Just a thought.

  51. I don’t understand how complementarianism has to drive people from Christianity at all. Since the term only originated in the late 80’s, and the idea in the late 70’s, isn’t it true that there has been no shortage of egalitarian churches from long since before then? Why not just become an Episcopalian or something?

  52. Anon 1,

    Bushnell was also a fighter against sex-slavery and human trafficking in the logging country of Northern Wisconsin during our first gilded age.

  53. A. Amos Love —

    …”The biblical ideal is loving, humble headship and joyful, intelligent submission.”

    Wow! Now promoting -.”Joyful, Intelligent Submission.” Sounds irresistible…

    Sigh… marketing. Just like “No High Fructose Corn Syrup!” showing up on food labels, to make people feel good. To make people feel that something NOT good from them is actually good for them because it doesn’t contain the thing that’s not good for them anymore, when in actual fact the something was never good for them to begin with.

    New and improved headship and submission!

  54. *Sigh.* Perhaps if I just read Grudem’s darned book for myself I could evaluate his position more clearly (along with, of course, an equally qualified book of opposing persuasion…). But as one kinda on the fence about much of these issues, I’ve gotta say, this post is not the strongest of arguments I’ve seen y’all make. Good for you for quoting Grudem’s words with so much context! That is totally playing fair. I’d really like to make some time to read his 2,336 examples and some counter-arguments against them. But appealing to financial the decline of CBMW as evidence that God is not behind his cause? Doesn’t this possibly imply that God blesses his causes with financial success? …Therefore the rich are the blessed of God? It just seems like an appeal to prosperity. I’ve seen much more compelling rhetoric from y’all. Alas, it looks like I shall be consigned to delving bottomless tomes if I intend to arrive at some firm convictions.

    On an interesting side note, my wife is a pretty firm complementarian. She won’t go to a church with a woman as a pastor. She doesn’t trust them to make good ecclesial leadership decisions. (Probably much influenced by some bad experiences in our past). But when I tell her to submit and go make me a sandwich, she just laughs at me! The gaul! 😛

    Oh, and the Grudem video is just beyond creepy. Theologians have really become idols in the reformed camp. There’s worse idols, I suppose (like sex. ahem… reformed “theologians”…)

  55. “That whole kephale thing just aggravates me. Dr. Sarah Sumner pointed out that the most common meaning (by far!) of the word kephale in ancient Greek is…drumroll please…..”head.” As in, a literal human head. The physical round thing that sits atop your shoulders.

    So the whole head/body metaphor of marriage suddenly makes a lot more sense…..and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “source,” and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “authority.” It’s talking about unity.”

    Good words! You are exactly right. Kephale means a “literal head on your shoulder”. The understanding comes from when we look at how they understood that metaphor in the 1st century. They considered the head the “source” for the body as in eating, smelling, hearing, etc. IN fact, if you read all the passages using the word “heart” in the NT, substitute “mind” and you will see how it works. The 1st Century person thought the heart was where “thinking” and “emotions” came from. It was not until at least a hundred years after Paul they understood the head contained “thinking” discovered by Galen a Physcian. they simply thought it was a source for the body to operate.

    So, “source” is an appropriate interpretative understanding. But “headship” is not. It would be like saying “armship”. There is no such thing.

    The husband is the “source” for the wife in not only creation (formed from Adam) but is her “source” in the NT for feeding and care as she was considered chattel according to civil law and Jewish tradition. Paul is reminding them of their duty and not only that giving the women more equality by saying “submit” as believers and not “obey” your husbands.

  56. “I don’t understand how complementarianism has to drive people from Christianity at all. Since the term only originated in the late 80′s, and the idea in the late 70′s, isn’t it true that there has been no shortage of egalitarian churches from long since before then? Why not just become an Episcopalian or something?”

    Miguel, It has more to do with the evangelicals taking on the culture war. Not sure how old you are but this was big stuff back in the 70’s. Most people do not realize that even into the late 60’s widow’s bank accounts were frozen as it was not “her” money until the husband’s will was read. There were a ton of things changed like that that most people today do not realize.

    This new found freedom with more women going to college and working, scared the powers to be and they wanted to make sure it did not infiltrate the church. Women were becoming managers, lawyers, etc. There were more and more women getting M.Divs, too. They did not want these women thinking they could become preachers. So a big campaign was launched about women staying home. (They have even softened that a bit since the 90’s) in some evangelical circles. But not in dominionist circles.

    This has culminated in things like the Homemaker’s degree at SWBTS. Everyone is calling it the MRS degree. :o)

    The reason for the rise was that women were starting to look like a threat. And if you are Dorothy Patterson and your rise to fame was because of your husband’s power and position, she would feel threatened, too, by a self-made woman.

  57. Miguel, to complete the thought, few had even heard of an “egal” church in the 70’s. Most women such as those I knew in the SBc were simply following a call to serve others. They did not know it was a sin until someone told them it was. I think most denominations were going through some sort of process with this issue, anyway. Some came out full egal like some Methodists Episcopalians. But for the average SBC woman who did not believe in the sacraments as a means of grace or infant baptism would not be attracted to that model.

  58. Debbie K,

    Please understand if this man has a hard time singing romantic love songs to another man. Loving Jesus and all is kool, but if you can sub the word “Baby” in for “Jesus” and the song still makes sense… I’m just staying, we’re not so hurting that we can’t find better options. When even South Park is ridiculing us for this, I think its time to diversify our repertoire a tad.

  59. Anon 1,

    I agree with your comments, but I don’t care how much “rebranding” Driscoll does. You can dress a pig in a suit, but it still snorts. 🙂

  60. Miguel & elastigirl,

    You both have excellent points on the pitfalls of inconsistency when it comes to ideological rhetoric!

  61. the Shield
    I still think it is far more important to reach out to a dying world, actually bringing the gospel instead of sitting around and figuring out new meanings of the word “gospel” (gospel gender roles, etc) while enjoying a golf resort.

  62. Miguel
    It is very difficult to find churches that are both egalitarian as well as conservative in other areas of theology.

  63. 1st- why did they have have to have “secret” meetings about this stuff? That makes no sense to me.

    2nd- Why do these men’s followers always do skits about them and post them on YouTube? I find that to be really stupid and it makes these men look like some cult leader when I don’t think they actually are trying to be one. If I were these guys, I would ask that they take them down.

    3rd- I can agree that in the beginning Adam had “authority” but since male and female coexisted and Eve was his helpmate and clearly God didn’t think it was good for him to be alone, they must have really enjoyed each others company. I doubt Adam ran around telling her what to do non stop. Grudem suggests that sin causes the relational problems i.e. women are sinning. But, I would say that both men and women sin in these relationships so men are guilty of lording authority over the women and women are guilty of either allowing someone to abuse them or on the other end they are nags/defiant for no good reason. In any case, you are dealing with TWO sinful people. Grudem et al. come from the view point that you are primarily dealing with one sinful person (the woman) unless of course the husband doesn’t make her submit then you have two sinful people. Complementarians might not be so hated if they didn’t approach all situations as ‘redeemed men should get their sinful wives in line.’

  64. Since the men make all the decision, when my husband asked me to decide Papa John’s or Pizza Hut for dinner tonight was he sinning by not making me submit to his favorite pizza?

  65. I wonder if one of the secret others was JI Packer… Again, not to beat a dead horse, but Packer had this to say about Piper/Grudem’s book:

    “Thorough and careful scholarship here blend beautifully with reverent and realistic wisdom about church, home, and personal life. Future explorations of Bible teaching on sexual identity, vocation, and roles will have to come to terms with the powerful argumentation that the Piper-Grudem team has mounted in support of the old paths. A pastoral and academic landmark.” – J.I. Packer

  66. Miguel,

    You’re right, I didn’t make a very strong argument against complementarianism in this post. That’s because so much of what we have posted over the last three years has critiqued complementarianism. Those who have been around for a while knew exactly what I meant, but I apologize to our newer readers like yourself.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the significant decline in revenue for CBMW over the last three years, but I do believe it shows their support is waning.

  67. Deb
    I support you in reporting the revenue decline. As you know, it is important to follow the money. And the money ain’t coming to CBMW.

  68. “I wonder if one of the secret others was JI Packer… Again, not to beat a dead horse, but Packer had this to say about Piper/Grudem’s book:”

    Packer’s wife is an egal and even went to another church. (Not sure if that is still the case but it was a few years back)

  69. Dee,

    CBMW is probably blaming the revenue decline on the economy. It can’t possibly be because they are WRONG!

  70. Miguel,

    I loved this comment:

    “But when I tell her to submit and go make me a sandwich, she just laughs at me! The gaul” 😛

  71. Do you know who he purposely left out? The Bayly Brothers! They ran CBMW in the early years. They are patriarchal dominionists. They make Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips of Vision Forum look like egals.

    I assume this means they are Male Supremacists who *********** (ed.) at the thought of The Handmaid’s Tale made Real?

  72. Of course as the great scholars they are, Grudem and Piper ignored the writings of Chrysostom, a “patriarchal” church father, who wrote that Junia was not only a woman but “great AMONG the apostles. — Anon1

    Coming from Chrystosom, THAT’s saying something. From some quotes of Chrystosom I’ve heard, the guy had a low opinion of women. And here he speaks of a woman as Great Among the Apostles. Junia must have been something impressive for someone like him to speak so highly of her.

  73. Randall
    I promise I am telling the truth. i taught, with 2 others Grudem’s ENTIRE Systematic Theology (the big book).

  74. Robin,

    On pizza & submission: In the interest of salvation and where you and your husband will spend eternity, it’s best to wait until Piper or Mohler come out with a Calvinista Mishna on what the proper 100% Biblical course of action should be. Remember, Paul sez they are put there in those positions to keep watch for your souls.

  75. I hate to be a nitpick, but ‘gaul’ in the context it was used is spelled ‘gall’. ‘Gaul’ was the Roman name for France.

  76. Anne,

    You are not a nitpick. We Yanks would do well to resurrect the diction and elocution of our generations past (both written and spoken).

  77. Muff: It’s not limited to America, believe me. You should see the spelling mistakes over here. It can make my immigrant friends pretty annoyed – they learn English extensively yet we get sloppy with our own mother tongue.

  78. on the other hand, my brit husband tends to make up his own words — they do have an intelligent ring to them (like you would expect to hear from a sci-fi narrator), but they are actually nonsense.

  79. Its when reading the statements of people like Grudem, I miss my old pentecostal denomination the most. For all its faults, it absolutely held that women could be ordained, could teach, could lead in the church. I wonder how Grudem and his ilk get around all the church history involving women. I wonder how they sleep at night.

  80. Sad observer said: So the whole head/body metaphor of marriage suddenly makes a lot more sense…..and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “source,” and you don’t have to find ways for it to mean “authority.” It’s talking about unity.
    Totally!
    The word “metaphor” also reminds me- how do all these brilliant scholars not see that they are totally MIXING THEIR METAPHORS when they come up with (and repeat ad nauseium) the UNBIBLICAL mantra of “headship and submission”? Heads and bodies always go together in perfect unity. Love and submission always go together in perfect unity. Head/body are NOUNS descriptive metaphorically of church and marriage. Love/submit are VERBS describing healthy relationships in each (and not gender-exclusive in many other scriptures), But with CMW, “headship” gets substituted for love, and then redefined as “leadership”. Piper goes so far as to revise the scripture from “as Christ LOVED the church and gave himself for her” to the heretical “as Christ LED the church and gave himself for her.” (Desiring God ch 8 — marriage)

  81. Anne, Muff (and all) – I think that a *lot* of the problem with spelling and grammar is that we tend to rely on spellcheck rather than looking things up to make sure that we’re using the correct words (or correct spellings).

    One of the things that drives me crazy: “tenants” when it should be “tenets.” That particular error is all over the xtian blogosphere, and I’ve seen it on the sites of major newspapers as well.

    🙁

    *

    HUG: agreed on Chrysostom’s general misogyny; he is someone I would *not* have wanted to meet irl. He was also extremely anti-semitic.

  82. Numo
    I keep meaning to tell Wade that my spell corrector on my IPad keeps trying to change his name from Burleson to Burlesque!

  83. Hee hee hee! ; )

    One of my other pet peeves: “based off of” and “based out of” rather than “based on” and “based in.”

    I see it all the time and it drives me nuts!

  84. numo,

    Technology (spellcheck or Dell’s latest laptop) can be a boon or a boondoggle. It can be a fantastic tool to achieve good ends or become an end in itself, which in my opinion is happening all too often nowadays. When it becomes an end in itself, it benefits nobody but its purveyors.

  85. Speaking of the gender gospel, did you guys see this concerning Voddie Bauchmans Men of God conference in Bellfountain Ohio at Calvary Baptist church:

    “Since there were no women in attendance, the women’s restroom was opened for use by the men. In an article describing his experience at the conference, Paul Dohse, editor of “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” at WordPress.com, wrote that while using the women’s restroom, he found the toilets and floor in every stall sprayed with urine. He wrote that this was the case throughout the entirety of the conference. In an email interview, Dohse’ would not go so far as to say that he believed men at the conference were demonstrating hatred and contempt for women by symbolically urinating on them, but he did say that, “it’s hard for me to believe what I saw wasn’t deliberate.”

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Complementarian men symbolically urinate on women – Orlando Women’s Issues | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/women-s-issues-in-orlando/complementarian-men-symbolically-urinate-on-women#ixzz1pVqeKnVG

    And here from Andersens own blog

    He (Dohse) blamed the condition of the women’s restroom at, in part, on the anti-woman messages preached at the conference by Dr. Voddie Baucham. Baucham, who will be coming to the Orlando area this fall to speak at a conference with Dr. R. C. Sproul, is a prominent leader within the complementarian movement. He presented three keynote messages at the Bellefontaine conference, all of which were saturated with anti-feminist rhetoric and an “us” against “them” attitude. In part two of his three part “Culture War” presentation, he even labeled women as being just a notch above the serpent on the “food chain,” of which males were at the top of course

    http://freecwc.blogspot.com/

  86. Continuing the tangent of talking about spelling…
    numo: Teehee, ‘tenants.’ The tenants of Christianity are Joe, Emily, Bob, and anyone else who is a believer. As for The Spellcheck Issue, spellcheck throws me off sometimes but luckily I grew up with very strong spelling skills (I was the ultimate bookworm) so I can usually tell if the program is lying to me.

  87. Anon1,

    Dee actually called the pastor at the church when it was brought to our attention last week. She may be addressing it in either a comment or a post.

  88. Anon 1 — Voddie Baucham was the keynote speaker for our state’s Christian homeschool association’s conference the year I cancelled my membership. 😉

  89. I’m late to the party and haven’t read all the way through the comments, but couldn’t resist adding that an Australian writer (from memory it was Muriel Porter, but I may have that wrong) said that in her opinion, “joyful intelligent submission” sounded kinky! Hard to disagree.

    I could write screeds on the gender gospel. I live in a place where it is very hard to find theologically conservative churches that are not also strongly complementarian. It is like living in a state of constant heart-breaking oppression. Here we are constantly told that men are to be spiritual leaders in their homes, but nobody has ever been able to show me where the Bible says that. It gets even vaguer when you ask what a spiritual leader does or why as an adult Christian I am supposed to need one. Even back in my comp days, I used to find that profoundly puzzling, since there wasn’t a single activity suggested for “spiritual leaders” that I wasn’t perfectly capable of doing for myself. All terribly confusing. Nor could I ever figure out what goals for ones family were supposed to be. What sort of goals can you have for other people? But you can feel the condescension behind these claims.

    Part of my personal healing was in my academic results in Bible college. Part of God’s gift to me in that season was to do better than the guys to silence once and for all that voice that had been constantly telling me that I had to be taught by men all my life because, being female, I could never understand theology as clearly.

  90. Re: the men urinating in the women’s bathroom… If it is true…

    Whether they were urinating on the idea of women or not, they must be pigs. Who goes into someone’s home and acts like that? Have they no respect for the church and its congregation? Have they no respect for janitor in the church (most likely a fellow male)? And if it was going on all weekend, wouldn’t the leadership of the conference remind the men to act like polite guests instead of pigs?

    I would seriously like to hear the Voddie talk on women being just a step above serpents on the food chain. Does anyone have a link?

  91. My language bugaboo is the use of the wrong their when one means there. My HS senior English teacher had a list of 25 errors that if you made one, you flunked the assignment, which was also the standard in Freshman English at Ohio State at that time. Wrong one of to, too, two; its, it’s; we’re, weir; subject-verb agreement; etc. Great training. Made me a better editor than writer.

  92. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Wayne Grudem has established quite a following over the years, as evidenced by some inspired Christians who are singing his praises with a catchy little tune called “Go Wayne Grudem!”

    Here are the opening lyrics:

    Why this man is thematic, he’s charismatic, he’s systematic,
    Why he’s Wayne Grudem! (Wayne Grudem)
    He did not author Scripture but provides a clearer picture – Oh Yeah!

    They left out “dogmatic.”

  93. “Anon 1 — Voddie Baucham was the keynote speaker for our state’s Christian homeschool association’s conference the year I cancelled my membership. ”

    You go, girl. I would not want him teaching my daughter she was born to give attention to her daddy because as men grow older they “yearn” for attention from younger women and that is why God gave them daughters.

    Yes, he really did say that….the pervert.

  94. Lynne said:

    “[H]ere we are constantly told that men are to be spiritual leaders in their homes, but nobody has ever been able to show me where the bible says that. It gets even vaguer when you ask what a spiritual leader does, or why as an adult Christian I am supposed to need one.”

    In my neck of the woods they’re even teaching the young unmarried men that God expects them to be the spiritual leaders of the women they’re dating. Oh, excuse me – I meant the women they’re courting.

  95. Thanks, Anonymous.

    I’m not aware if Baucham is a member of the Shave Your Daddy Club, but since he’s associated with Vision Forum I wouldn’t be surprised. Now he’s been a keynote speaker at the 2012 Shepherds’ Conference. The cross pollinization between the Calvinistas and the patriarchists is disturbing.

  96. That’s pollination, not pollinization. I typed that little cutie after the spelling tangent, too. Yikes.

    Diane, thank you for the links. Yes, that’s Baucham and his daughter on the VFM Father-Daughter Retreat page.

    There on the page is this:

    “God’s Word speaks volumes to the relationship between fathers and daughters: His most sacred duty is her protection and preservation from childhood to virtuous womanhood. He leads her, woos her, and wins her with a tenderness and affection unique to the bonds of father and daughter. Success in his life mission is directly related to the seriousness and compassion with which he seeks to raise her as an industrious, family-affirming, children-loving woman of God.”

    Woos her? Wins her? Ee-ew.

    Can someone please show me where in the scriptures God says these things about fathers and daughters? I don’t remember reading them.

  97. I’m not aware if Baucham is a member of the Shave Your Daddy Club… — Jenny

    Let me tell you of the memories that the phrase “Shave Your Daddy Club” brings up, from the first time I heard of that Godly (TM) phenomenon on this blog. Here’s the flashback (keep some brain-bleach handy):

    1984. Just got my first cable TV hookup. Got sick of MTV in the first two hours (six Twisted Sister videos an hour will do that to you). Now there was this other music video show called Night Flight (midnight Friday to sunrise Saturday on USA) which was the underground FM counterpart to MTV’s AM Top 40 format. All the obscure or weird videos MTV didn’t show. From Shriekback to Firesign Theater.

    This was when “Relax!” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood was in the Top 40. Remember that one? MTV screened a basic performance video, but Night Flight showed a marathon of the OTHER official videos for the song — turned out there were three or four others made before they did the one that MTV accepted.

    The other official videos were set in a BDSM gay bathhouse in Soho(?). (Need I say more? Gives new meaning to the chorus of “When you wanna come?”) USA Night Flight showed it around 2 ayem, and I think you can find it on YouTube as “banned version”. One scene remains burned in my mind: A fat guy in the foreground (we’re talking Baron Harkonnen fat) being erotically shaved by a skinny buff leather boy as the above chorus pounds in your eardrums.

    THAT is what the “Shave Your Daddy Club” paged up in my mind, in a flashback worthy of a Nam Vet.

  98. These were the original CBMW council members and “board of reference,” signers of the Danvers Statement. Note that in spite of their educational achievements how Dorothy Patterson and Joyce Rogers are listed simply as “homemaker.” I lost a lot of respect for Adrian and Joyce Rogers when I discovered they were in on the ground floor of this thing, but knowing that now it puts a lot of things into perspective.

    Council Members

    Gary Almy, M.D. Prof. of Psychiatry and Assoc. Dean Chicago Medical School

    Gleason Archer, Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    Donald Balasa, J.D. Attorney, Wildwood, Illinois

    James Borland, Th.D. Prof. of New Testament and Theology Liberty University

    Waldemar Degner, Ph.D. Professor of Exegetical Theology Concordia Seminary (Ft. Wayne, Ind.)

    Lane T. Dennis, Ph.D. President, Crossway Books

    Thomas R. Edgar, Th.D. Professor of New Testament, Capital Bible Seminary

    John M. Frame, M.Phil. Professor of Systematic Theology Westminster Theological Seminary

    W. Robert Godfrey, Ph.D. Professor of Church History Westminster Theological Seminary

    Wayne A. Grudem, Ph.D.* Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    H. Wayne House, Th.D., J.D.* Vice-president and Professor of Theology Western Baptist College

    R. Kent Hughes, D.Min.* Senior Pastor College Church in Wheaton (Illinois)

    James B. Hurley, Ph.D. Professor of Counseling Reformed Theological Seminary

    Elliot Johnson Professor of Bible Expostion Dallas Theological Seminary

    S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Th.D.* Minister, Believers Chapel, Dallas

    Mary A. Kassian Author, Women’s Ministry Consultant Calvary Baptist Church, Edmonton

    Rhonda H. Kelley, Ph.D. Associate Director, Innovative Evangelism New Orleans, Louisiana

    George W. Knight, III, Th.D. Administrator, Dean and Professor of New Testament Knox Theological Seminary

    Beverly LaHaye President Concerned Women for America

    Betty Jo Lewis Homemaker Atlanta, Georgia

    Connie Marshner Editor Child Family Protection Inst.

    Richard Mayhew, Th.D. Vice-Pres., Dean of Grad. Studies The Master’s Seminary

    Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D. Chairman, Dept. of New Testament Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Ph.D. Asst. Prof. of Old Testament Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

    Dorothy Patterson, D.Min. Homemaker Dallas, Texas

    John Piper, Dr. Theol.* Senior Pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

    Joyce Rogers Homemaker Memphis, Tennessee

    Ken Sarles, Th.M. Asst. Prof. of Systematic Theology Dallas Theological Seminary

    Siegfried Schatzmann, Ph.D. Professor of New Testament Oral Roberts University

    Larry Walker, Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament Mid-America Seminary

    William Weinrich, Ph.D. Professor of Church History Concordia Seminary (Ft. Wayne, Ind.)

    *Currently serving on the Council’s Executive Committee

    Board of Reference

    Hudson T. Armerding

    Harold O.J. Brown

    D.A. Carson

    Edmund Clowney

    Jerry Falwell

    Carl F.H. Henry

    Paul Karleen

    D. James Kennedy

    Gordon R. Lewis

    Erwin Lutzer

    John MacArthur, Jr.

    Marty Minton

    Thomas McComiskey

    J.I. Packer

    Paige and Dorothy Patterson

    Pat Robertson

    Adrian and Joyce Rogers

    Bob Slosser

    R.C. Sproul

    James A. Stahr

    Joseph M. Stowell III

    John F. Walvoord

    Luder Whitlock

    Peter Williamson

  99. Talk about God blessing things by evidence of increased revenue, how about acknowledging God’s blessing upon a blog by evidence of its increased traffic and comments!

    It seems not long ago TWW had a lot fewer comments under each post. Now look at it go!

    Just wanted to say that I’m so glad to see God blessing this blog, and I love the fact you ladies aren’t shy about tackling the egal/comp debate head on. So refreshing and encouraging for those of us who have been damaged by complementarianism and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that its a scourge upon the which needs to be steadfastly resisted! More power to you!

  100. Evie,

    Thanks for your encouraging comment! We’re just getting started…

    There was a time when I believed complementarianiam was Biblical. No longer!!!

    Much, much more to come on the scourge of complementarianism!

  101. I’m wondering if these patrists don’t want women to be represented on their boards or in egaliterian healthy relationships, if they insist upon using terms like helpmeet, we are under no obligation to pay 10% of our income since we’re second class citizens and are not being represented on any decision-making board.

    Right?

  102. Taxation without represenation, so to speak.

    I was just reading about the “Road to the Revolution” with my son in his 5th grade social studies book. I was struck with how it was told in terms of the colonists resenting and viscerally rejecting and rebelling against being controlled by a person / a powerful entity so far removed from them in experience (let alone location), and denying their voice. It struck me as so basic a thing, the rightness of their reaction towards the wrongness of the tyranny.

    And I thought, where this thing referred to as “militant feminism” is concerned, (or just plain reacting to the experience of being denied & controlled)…..duh. Of course there will be a reaction, and rightly so.

  103. Just curious…
    I really appreciated Steve’s comment about the shrinking of the male entrepreneurial spirit in churches and similarly young men. Any chances of you ladies critiquing or looking at the lack of growth among young men at some point? I don’t know but I would assume the Nones are more egalitarian and include both disenfranchised men and women.

    I have some of my own ideas including the lack of real serving work for others in most (my church experience) churches.

  104. shrekpdx
    Actually, you have a point but i do not believe that it is limited to young men. You said that it might be the lack of “real serving work.” In fact, for about the last decade, this has been a concern for many people-male, female, young, old, et. But, the Calvinistas and SBC authoritarians are focusing on secondary theological issues. Why would you think that this would only be a concern of young men?

    Also, are you saying that only egalitarians are in the disenfranchised crowd? I would suggest you read the current conversations going on over at SGM Survivors. Most of those folks are complementarian and are dropping like flies.

  105. We can laugh at the things these folks say and do, but the consequences of their teaching and activity are no laughing matter.

    Their cultural paradigm has become their god. Their security – and these days usually their paycheck – depends on the perpetuation of this paradigm. This in turn depends on the maintenance of their centralized authority in the home, in the church, in the nation. And we all know what centralized authority tends to do.

    As Dee and Deb have documented here at TWW, this phenomenon is damaging people at an increasingly alarming rate. It is crippling them with unbiblical spiritual burdens, driving them away from their families, the church and often away from the Lord Himself. It needs to be called out and it needs to stop.

  106. You think the “daddy shaving” is made up? — NotAStepfordSheep

    I never said I doubted it. (I’ve been in Furry Fandom for 20 years; I know people do weird things.) I was relating the imagery “daddy shaving” brought up, and that image was kinky and sicko. As in Frankie Goes to Hollywood uncensored with the additional whiff of Incest.

  107. Pingback: et cetera 23 | SallieBorrink.com

  108. Dee
    Certainly I’m sure the nones is wide-ranging I only meant egalitarian in the general sense of accommodating all types not specifically in the categorization of this issue. I probably should have picked a different word…

    I’m sure the lack of service is an issue to all people in the church and is beginning to be recognized as a great need. I’m interested to see if this is the/a key component to the US churches statistical lack of young men.

  109. A few things are in order: No complementarians are making this issue salvific. But ideas do exist that, while not affecting a person’s salvation, are still hurtful and damaging. Also, nobody in the complementarian movement is calling it the “Gender Gospel;” it’s a pejorative you’ve given it. Another thing- to say that God’s blessing is not on something just because financial backing seems to be waning is absolutely terrible reasoning. Finally, to say that complementarians are “relegating” females, or that they don’t want both men and women to freely use their gifts in the body of Christ utterly fails to understand their argument. Enough with the straw men.

  110. MattS
    Wow! You sure told us.
    Enough with the straw men, eh? That is a silly way to shut down discussion. When you anointed leaders state that women should not even read Scripture aloud in church because it is authoritative, is to relegate women to silence.

    When a group of churches like Acts 29 make complementarianism a make or break issue for joining these “gospel” based groups, then it is far more important than you are willing to admit. Add ESS into the argument and dress it up a patriarchal bow as some of the men at SBTS are advocating and you have far, far more than a little disagreement about women as pastors.

    As for you contention that we utterly failing to understand the argument, codswallop. We have read extensively on the issue. I guess the only ones who are smart enough for your group are the ones who utterly agree with your relegation of women to the background.Please try a bit harder.You might learn something from us.

  111. Dee,
    I never claimed a group. And the goal of pointing out straw men is to help the conversation, hopefully by returning it to proper premises. If person A says something, and opponent B argues with what he thought person A said, not what he actually said, then no true engagement of ideas is really happening. You canlil point out my straw men too; it’s okay. I do lean (not staunchly) a little complementarian, and I’m also wrestling with the issues. But let’s say I was a staunch, decided complementarian. Here’s a plausible straw man I could erect concerning the egalitarian point of view: Because egalitarians insist on the equality (btw a complementarian would also stress equality, just separate roles) of men and women, they flatten-out all distinctions between the two genders. An egalitarian would rightly be frustrated at that statement. All I’m saying is that, on this forum, I’m seeing a lot of hyperbole, exaggeration, and yes, straw men, being used to describe the complementarian point of view. A robust, helpful, forward-moving conversation requires that to be pointed out. And yes, I most certainly can learn something from you.

  112. Matt-

    Can I call your bluff? You can not say that complementarians stress equality. They do not. They teach that men have the final say and women must submit.

    When it comes to decision making within the church or marriage, complementarians teach that men are superior (in authority)and that their opinions matter most. Equality would mean if a women disagreed, that the man and woman would have to negotiate a solution before going forward on an issue. Complementarians would argue that the man’s word is to be submitted to, or else it is the fault of the woman for not submitting.

    And please save me the “equal worth” argument…they may be of equal worth, but in marriage and the church, they do not have equal power. In that sense, there is no equality until a mans opinion or vote has the same worth as a woman, and not one iota more.

    That would be equality…

  113. doubtful,
    You are, before God, of equal worth with President Obama, your local police officers, members of the Supreme Court, and any classroom teachers you might have, are you not?

  114. And to Dee and anyone else,
    Upon re-reading my first comment, I think it may have been a bit too polemical. Just wanted to admit that.

  115. Matt S-

    Your opinion is not of equal worth in terms of legislating or enforcing the law? Is this not so?

    According to complementarians, women are of equal worth before God, but they have no authority on matters concerning marriage or the church. Their opinions can be considered (like testimony before a judge), but they can never render opinions that are binding, like a judge.

    It would be the same as saying only men can be judges….

    That is not equality…to claim otherwise to ignore the fact that under complementarianism, women do not have equal authority or power as men. The men hold all the cards and always have the final say in the matter.

    You could argue that most men are benevolent and considerate in their authority over their wives and church. But it’s still just an argument in favor of benevolent dictatorship or kingly rule.

  116. Doubtful,
    I was only trying to point out that equal worth does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with equal power or authority, as you seemed to state in your first comment to me. Did I understand you correctly?

  117. MattS
    Before we go down this road, and trust me, I am not afraid of an argument, I need to ask you a question. Assuming that you are of normal intelligence, as am I, and both of us possess greater than average interest in theological issues, what makes you think that either one of us will be able to convince the other of our position? Great theologians who love the Lord are all over the place on this issue. Awesome pastors will disagree on this issue. For example, Wade Burleson who has been a good friend to TWW and my old friend, Pete Briscoe, both of who are not slouches, have written quite a bit on this subject.

    Assuming that you are a NeoCalvinist, you have some smart guys are your side.You are welcome to name names if you wish.

    So, how do we resolve this without going down the typical road of you say one thing, I say the other.Don’t the same old arguments frustrate you? I know they do me.

  118. Doubtful,
    In my last post I should have used the term “equality” instead of “equal worth” because that’s how you phrased it. Sorry. You said “…they do not have equal power. In that sense there is no equality.”

  119. Which is exactly my point-how can you say you are stressing equality?
    It seems to me the whole movement is stressing the superiority or authority of men, and the obligatory submission of women, based on gender alone.

    How can you say this is stressing equality?

    The basic argument is that Scripture commands it, that men are the shot callers and women are not. This is not equality. Even the early church understood this when it was argued that the son could not be eternally submissive to the Father without being inferior.

    By the same token, a woman is inferior to a man in terms of decision making (authority) in the home and the church (some would even argue it extends to secular society).

    I hope I am being clear….have I helped, or am I just muddying it further?

  120. Matt S
    You said “All I’m saying is that, on this forum, I’m seeing a lot of hyperbole, exaggeration, and yes, straw men, being used to describe the complementarian point of view. A robust, helpful, forward-moving conversation requires that to be pointed out” Well, thank you for pointing it out. I am not sure how we could have continued the discussion without your admonishment.

    Matt, here is a piece of advice from a gullible and easily deceived woman. You are a guest on this blog. Just like when you visit a home for the first time, you should not go about telling the owner how to decorate or conduct the business of a household. I learned an important lesson my first week of MBA school. The professor said that people tend to be egotistical when they arrive at a company. They will often criticism what they perceive to be wrong, feeling sure that they know better about how to conduct the business. He said instead, the first thing that people should do is ask the question “Why is this company succeeding.” You can learn far more with the answer to that question.

    This blog has been around for awhile. We have a healthy group of people who contribute to the discussion from all different perspectives. Perhaps you would do better to join in without telling us what to do.Then, you could lead by loving example.

  121. Or maybe Sarah Sumner (who identifies as neither egalitarian or complementarian) is more to your liking. The original article is no longer available (unless you want to pay for it), but this is a nice summary. Sumner maintains that “headship” doesn’t go with “submission”. The proper pairings of words pertaining to husbands and wives is this: head-body; submit-sacrifice; love-respect.

    Enjoy.

    http://discovertheword.org/2009/06/03/look-to-the-bible-to-find-hope-for-your-struggling-marriage/

  122. One minor point– I believe we must begin, as Gordon Fee does, with verse 18. Starting at v 22 likely misses the big idea of the whole passage.

  123. Dee,
    While I was doing some household items, I was thinking about how to respond to your two-comments-ago comment (not sure how to say that…haha), which I found to be helpful for the discussion. Before I could respond, I got your next comment, which was entirely different in tone. Why the change? I haven’t told anyone what to do…search my words for an imperative. I apologized for the polemic tone of my very first comment. Also, I never generalized my observations of this thread with an “all,” but rather carefuly used the term “a lot.” Given the fact that in this thread I’ve seen words like “complementarian cowards” thrown about, I hardly think that I’m the rude stranger barging into an otherwise healthy conversation. My perspective is only one of the many differing perspectives you reference. That said, I will run some errands and hopefully respond soon to more of the things you mentioned in your two-comments-ago comment.

  124. doubtful,
    I also hope to get back to you as well. But I do think you cleared things up more than muddy them.

  125. “Can anyone point me to a thorough, balanced, egalitarian exegesis of Ephesians 5:22-33?”

    Genesis 1

  126. Anon,
    That’s clever. Genesis 1 is not an exposition of Ephesians 5. But yes, it should come to bare on it…i believe every verse in the Bible, simultaneously. Genesis 1 (and 2) prove that God created man and woman in his image as equals. This passage doesn’t say that man is the leader. And it also doesn’t say that he isn’t. I believe other passages of scripture show that he is. Ephesians 5 is one of them (yes, Dana, I’m still going to consider the alternate views on the passage that you linked). And I guess I’m just one of those crazy people who thinks that the idea of two people being absolutely equal yet one being the leader isn’t some irresolvable contradiction.

  127. Matt-

    Try applying the golden rule and see if that’s the way you’d want to be treated if you were a woman.

    Imagine you married a Christian man who was very polite in public, but harsh and dismissive of your opinion in private. But you submit, because that’s your role

    Imagine you are 2 years into your marriage and you feel empty and marginalized as a human, because very major decisions that affect you as a couple-he reminds you that you need to submit to him, because he is the leader and God appointed leader of the home. he always gets his way…he seldom listens to your side or feelings of things….

    Imagine you bear this man 3 children, and he wants first time obedience from the children. Against your better judgement, he follows a Christian parenting regimen that includes “the rod” for any infraction he deems as disobedience.

    Imagine any time you dare to say something contrary to his views, he shouts you down in front of your children and demands your obedience…after all, you’re the woman and it’s your job to submit.

    Imagine you risk his wrath, to confide in the pastors wife that your marriage and family life are not what they seem. You confide that you resent your husband and it tears you apart to see your husband spanking your children at things that most parents tolerate. Your oldest is starting to stutter, but that only incurs more punishment from your husband….the pastors wife tells you to endure it and submit, so that your gentle and quiet spirit will win your husband back to a gentler, kinder type of leadership in the home. You try, but after all these years, it’s taking it’s toll…

    Imagine your husband is gently confronted by the pastor after speaking to his wife. Your husband shows great concern and assures the pastor that he will consider what he has said. He says all the right things, the pastor prays with him and wishes him well in his attempt to be kinder to his wife and children. At home, your husband flies off the handle, screaming and yelling threats that you caused him public shame. He makes it clear that there will be hell to pay if you ever cross him like that again….
    you are to submit.

    The children grow older, they want to play sports….you ask about taking a job as a secretary(a well paying job that you did before college) to earn some money so the kids can play soccer and take dance lessons. Your husband doesn’t want you to…he says the children need to see their mother in the home. Besides, what would that say about him if he wasn’t able to provide…somehow the dance lessons and soccer never happen.

    Ask yourself Matt, Is that how you would want to be treated?
    Don’t think it’s happening right now, in your own church…start asking the tough questions, I but you’ll bump into it pretty quickly.

    You might think it’s the complementerian teaching misapplied-but this type of “mis-application” happen all the time and is implicit in a system where you essentially have dictatorial rule…it is ripe for abuse.

    I have seen it up close, I have seen it destroy marriages and families, while leaders committed to a “Biblical” model of manhood and womanhood stand by and do nothing of substance to help the victims of these abusers. They dare not cross the threshold of contradicting their “doctrine”, because helping the victims would first require them to acknowledge that all is not right in the land of Oz. They just tell the women to keep submitting, or worse yet…that she is the reason her husband acts so horribly. He would be a better leader if you were a better follower.

    Ask yourself if this a doctrine that you can live with?

  128. Matt-

    One last thought… I promise. I actually don’t have a problem with a couple in which one of them being the leader. I just don’t think it wise to assume that men, by nature of their sexual organs, are always the natural born leader in a marriage.

    Besides, if you ever are in a situation where you just can’t agree…the answer isn’t saying, well I (the man)have the tie breaking vote (no, you have the only vote). It probably means that it’s time to slow down and work out your differences, so that you can go forward in unity. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? It’s called love, and it means being patient and kind with one another instead of forcing your way on another human being.

  129. Don’t wanna speak for Matt here, but is it wrong to assume the responsibility that God calls a man as far as marriage is “leading” his wife as a servant/not Lording over. I take the “leading” part of the husband to mean that he lay his life down for his wife…by taking Initiative to extend grace, love, support, and further cultivate the relationship…this in turn should motivate the wife to “submit” by returning the same support, grace, and love. Not submit to any commands or rule. The husband leads by taking initiative as a servant. Makes sense to me, and seems to fit the biblical text.

    Although my wife takes the lead many times with love and grace due to my selfishness, she much rather I take the initiative and lead by example as a servant.

  130. Matt S
    There will always be people who express themselves differently on blogs. For the most part, people who visit here are wonderful. And, if you had been hurt by a church, who knows how you would react.

    As for your comment “a robust healthy discussion REQUIRES that to be pointed out” is not one of the first things you say when you visit a new blog.

    Secondly, you do not know my “tone” since we are writing, not speaking. I was most matter of fact. I have been at this blogging deal for three years. I can often tell how a person will comment on the blog by the first comments. You started off a bit on the controlling side, telling people how to discuss. That should be left up to the blog editors – not a first time commenter.

  131. MattS

    “And I guess I’m just one of those crazy people who thinks that the idea of two people being absolutely equal yet one being the leader isn’t some irresolvable contradiction.”
    There will always be leaders but what if you were told that you could never be a leader due to your gender? How did that work for those who had a different skin color?

  132. doubtful
    I really liked your comment at 1:30.In fact, I have always disagreed with the “tie breaking vote” as the definition of being a “leader.” Real leaders know how to compromise and due that without pulling the “I’m in charge” foot stomp.

  133. Seeker
    I am not so sure that this is how it works out in the vast majority of situations. Loving servanthood is not what I see as i observe these pastors with their wives. Take Driscoll for a primo example. I find that we all do a good game of talking it but very, very few walk it. We mouth the words and everybody nods along but i am not so sure that I see this lived out consistently by many. Frankly, in most instances, what i see if very mundane and not sacrificial but many pretend that is what is going on. Perhaps you are the living proof of the self-sacrificing servant, consistently laying down his life.

  134. Dee,

    I agree that this probablly doesn’t work out the vast majority for times.

    As for me being the “living proof”…No…Not really… I fail at this….a lot. However, I still do not doubt this is what God expects of me in my marriage with my wife. He wants me to selflessly love her, and as I grow closer to Him, I believe this will become more of a reality for me.

    I love my wife, don’t get me wrong. I find her to be an amazing woman, who I am thankful God placed in my life. I would never dare “lord” over her and tell her to “submit” as doubtful presented in the exmaples above. I can be quite selfish at times though, and there have been many times in our marriage where I put myself above her.

    However, God has helped me on many occasions to “lay my life down for her”….and he has helped her to selflessly love in return. We haven’t been married very long, but we are learning how to be more selfless everday, and it is quite obvious the pain that can be brought in when we are selfish.

    I do agree with what you are saying. Most of the things in scripture that God asks for us very rarely plays out the way they need to. As far as Driscoll’s marriage, I get a sick feeling when I hear him speak on any topic, especially marriage. I have no idea how his marriage is though.

    I really don’t know very much about a lot of these pastors and their relationships with thier wives…but many who hold to a complimentarian belief may not “emotionally abuse” their wife as Doubtful presented above. To think that “all” do that would be arrogant. A good example is my father and mother. They hold to this interpretation from scripture, but I have never seen him “lord” over her at all. He leads by taking the initiative to selflessly love my mom. My mom returns this love.

    Their marriage is going strong. It’s beautiful really. My father last year suffered from a terrible type of Stage 4 Esophogeal Cancer. It was a devastating thing for my family. The doctors pretty much gave him no hope early on.

    For weeks, my father’s health deteriorated. He grew weak and sick as he suffered from a double regiment of Chemo and Radiation therapy. Along the way, my mother stood by my father–supporting him in every possible way. Even as he was sick, my father continued to selflessly love my mother as well. Week after Week they would travel together an hour away to get the treatments he needed. I am so grateful to have parents who love each other like this, and their example in marriage is a shining example for me.

    There is no emotional abuse in their relationship, but they both hold to this interpretation in scripture. (by the way, I am not naive to think that abuse never happens when one holds to this interpretation…but abuse in marriage happens all the time, regardless of comp/egal viewpoints.)

  135. Seeker,

    If you remove the “lead” word from your post, what you are describing are egalitarian relationships. It should be easy to remove that word, since the Bible never uses it about husbands.

    If you are interested, google the phrase “Symbolic Traditionalism and Pragmatic Egalitarianism”. It will take you to studies that have observed that many “complementarian” marriages are worked out as egalitarian marriages, but the couples in them hold to a symbolic headship of the husband. Hoenstly, many times egalitarians are just admitting what actually plays out in their marriages.