This is a problem I’ve noticed on issue after issue with the TGC types: to disagree on one point of doctrine is tantamount to a betrayal of Christianity itself. I think the issue might stem from the fact that very little is labeled “Calvinist” or “Reformed” by them anymore, it’s all simply “Biblical theology.” And well, naturally, if you don’t like “Biblical theology,” then you must not like the Bible. And if you don’t like the Bible…

Yes, Ryan and John. Well stated. As you guys say, when their view is described as “biblical” first with no deviation, it is certainly a way of dividing the crowd fast. It is either black or white; you are either in or you are out.

“A lack of graciousness toward, and even contempt for, anyone who is different or disagrees.” This is a whole way of thinking that the leaders demonstrate which filters down to the followers. No room for reasonable discussion, my way or the highway. Yup, fear and control.

Hitler and his henchmen greatly stressed gender roles, motherhood, stay-at-home moms, and large families. Reading about these Nazi ideals sent chills down my spine. To discover some of what I learned, please check out The Role of Women in Nazi Germany.

Where the ideal woman was Winsomely Obedient and Quiverfull Fertile. Same reason behind Quiverfull you find in both Christian Reconstructionists and X-Treme Islam: Outbreed and Overwhelm the Other. “Hail Victory!” (auf Deutsch: “Sieg Heil!”)

I’ve watched most of the first video… There were a few parts I simply skimmed over. The impressions I got:

– I agree with Deb that Keller doesn’t seem to be as rigid and strict as the other two. If he was honest during his first answer then I get that he’s the kind of person that, despite his personal convictions on this issue, he would be willing to leave them aside for the sake of sharing the Gospel with other people. Then I guess that, at least for him, complementarianism is not such a central issue that it would endanger the Gospel if it isn’t followed.

– Then Piper. In a way he’s like the other side of the coin, at least within the TGC spectrum. I understand that for him this issue is written in stone and there’s no possible discussion or compromise… It’s basically Law. I think that was quite clearly expressed in the last part of the video, when he mentions an example of a group that ends up allowing women preaching to men due to pressure from the egalitarian side, and he kind of equated it to featuring “an act of disobedience” in the group.

– There are a few more Piper things that got my attention. He seems to have a fixation with egalitarians and egalitarianism… I lost the count of how many time he repeated those words. And, man, he really can speak long and use a lot of words that “flourish” his language.

– Carson. He’s the only one I had already heard speak in a conference, a few years ago. He surprised me a bit with his “but!” to Keller’s answer during the first question. It was like he didn’t want to leave any possible loose ends that could lead to potentially ambiguous answers.

– Being a bit cynical, at times I wondered what was Keller doing there. He seemed to express himself in a less focused way than the other two, and at times he changed his facial expression in such a way that made me wonder if he was comfortable. But, in any case, the whole conversation looked like a two-way Carson-Piper thing, with a bit of Keller here and there, maybe to show that they have differing opinions within the coalition. Observe that, in the end, they didn’t let pass any of the more flexible opinions given by Keller.

I do wonder, are they some kind of modern “guardians of orthodoxy”? Well, Piper says at the end that it’s not possible to have a “Gospel renewal reformation movement” allowing things like egalitarianism.

@ MM, Thanks for your kind words. I’m going through a difficult time right now for a number of reasons, and it’s really cheered me up to know that I’m on the right lines. Bless you for your encouragement.

Yeah, usually I’m reluctant to pull the “Hitler card,” but that is pretty scary.

I watched the first video. Interesting that all the audience members are men. Piper and Carson seemed quite enamoured with each other. While I disagree with Keller on his complementarianism, he seems far more reasonable. I also like that he didn’t get all misty-eyed at the thought of male headship and didn’t join in Piper and Carson’s silly cooing over its beauty. I’m completely reading into the body language, but at one point he seemed more interested in his fingernails than John Piper’s ideas on the evils of egalitarianism.

Some thoughts:

1. John Piper says that there is a need to define complementarianism, because egalitarians present the issue as if they have ‘good news’ and complementarians have ‘bad news’. In contrast, he presents the complementarian position as if it is the natural conclusion from scripture, entirely uncomplicated, entirely without baggage, and as a system which is undeniably ‘beautiful’.

Just because Piper declares that complementarianism refers to ‘when these things are being done in a beautiful way’ doesn’t make it so. How would he respond if egalitarians started saying egalitarianism is when gender relations are ‘done in a beautiful way’?

2. Piper: ‘if you leave sinful men untaught about’ complementarianism, they default to ‘passivity which flares up in moments of rage’ or ‘brutality’.

Many men manage to treat others with respect and dignity without the doctrine of complementarianism.

The video is full of straw man arguments. Piper not-too-subtly blames egalitarianism for ‘the abuse of women, the neglect of children, [and] the absent fathers’.

3. Piper: ‘there wasn’t a single thing that was said that couldn’t have been said about a woman…that’s a mistake’
‘What does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman…not just generic human virtues’
‘egalitarians can’t answer’

Piper sets up a false requirement (that parents and society need to define masculinity with qualities that cannot be applied to women) and then criticises egalitarians for not living up to this false requirement. Who said that relationships have to have a leader? Who said that parents have to be able to tell their children how a man is emotionally and relationally different to a woman in words that can’t be applied to women? Oh, right. John Piper. Shame on egalitarians for not operating within his rubric of behaviour!

4. Piper: ‘we live in a culture where, for the last thirty or forty years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society – it has produced a brutal masculine society’

Piper speaks as if the church is the whole of society. He doesn’t see that complementarianism is NOT counter-cultural to the pervasive subordination of women.

5. Piper and Carson DO make this a gospel issue and question the integrity and character of those who disagree with them.

Piper: ‘If you aren’t willing to stand against the tide on this issue, you’re probably gonna cave on some other important ones that may be closer to the gospel’
‘There is an issue of the kind of person that is willing to take the hit – to be called obscene, to be called a sexist who doesn’t give a rip about justice for women – can you stand in those, return good for evil and keep giving a positive vision to your church’

(What about the false accusations levelled at egalitarians? Do they not display courage in the face of the vitriol they receive?)

Piper: TGC ‘wants to say things that protect the gospel- put safeguards around it’, to ‘say things that display the gospel’ and to ‘say things that release the gospel for maximum human flourishing’

Since when does Jesus need safeguards?

6. Piper and Carson keep on pointing out the unambiguous nature of scripture on gender relations. They use ‘hermeneutics’ as if it’s a dirty word. But what do they do when they read scripture? They interpret it, according to the criteria that they value. They just discount that others can interpret it differently and still be faithful Christians.

I’d also be interested in the ‘hermeneutics’ they apply to Ephesians 5:21…

Deb –
I suppose the cameraman could only take so much of Piper’s schtick 😉

Martin Romero –

“I do wonder, are they some kind of modern “guardians of orthodoxy”? Well, Piper says at the end that it’s not possible to have a “Gospel renewal reformation movement” allowing things like egalitarianism.” Martin Romero

If you spend some time looking around at TGC site and T4G site I think you might find some information to back up your “guardians of orthodoxy” statement. Don’t forget that “guardians of orthodoxy” = “biblical” = “gospel centered” in THEIR language.

I just watched the first video and had a couple of observations and questions.

First, in all of that dialogue, I don’t think there was a mention even once of the Holy Spirit. While it was not the express purpose of the piece to talk about the Triune God, it is merely a piece of information that fits an overall pattern that others have noticed and noted, that the emphasis in complementarianism appears to be on the Father and Son. Where is the Holy Spirit in their practical theology?

Second, the two places specifically mentioned where gender roles apparently are *moral* issues (i.e., if we don’t do it this way, we are in disobedience to God) are (1) roles of men and women in the family and (2) roles of men and women in church leadership. I’d suggest that there is an unspoken assumption here which peeks through occasionally, that Christians should also impose complementarianism in the social domains of culture, politics, education, etc. Is complementarianism attempting to re-establish Christendom?

(A mandate of cultural complementarianism seems a logical conclusion of what they’re saying about gender roles in the family, and how an opposite view of egalitarianism leads to social corruption. I’m not saying The Gospel Coalition is officially “dominionist,” but some of the comments made seem barely a hop, a skip, and a jump away colonization of culture and imposing “moralism,” to stop social decline. Dominionism *controls* others, instead of living as “salt and light” as sojourners living within a host culture and attempting to *influence* it from the margins.)

Third, if you cannot/should not specify – as Mr. Keller suggests – every detail of how complementarianism plays out in a particular culture or marriage because of temperament or social dynamics, shouldn’t they at least be able to suggest how “godly masculinity” or “godly femininity” looks in terms of personal character? (Especially for those of us who are single and therefore are not in a nuclear family situation.) I am curious about how The Gospel Coalition develops a “genderized doctrine” of what it means to be “godly” or “Christlike” in terms of personal character. Are there some Christlike character qualities that only men can have? Others that only women can have? Or are there somewhat distinct ways in which, for instance, men can manifest love and nurturing from how women typically manifest these same attributes? These are questions I’ve been asking for at least as long as CBMW and CBE have existed …

Finally, the impression I get, especially from Mr. Piper’s comments, is that egalitarianism inherently leads to all kinds of social corruption. Does that mean complementarianism inherently leads to social utopia, or at least social preservation? Although, again, it wasn’t the purpose of this piece, I would still be most interested to hear how The Gospel Coalition works to prevent the development of “corrupt complementarianism.” They talked about wanting to get rid of the “baggage of traditionalism” such as masculine passivity in the family and social brutality. And yet, how many documented cases of spiritually abusive leaders and church/ministry systems from the past few years represent corrupt masculine control and overlording? And how many of these leaders/churches affiliate with The Gospel Coalition or Acts29 or other explicitly complementarian associations? The panelists speak of men of humility and service; how does TGC train leaders so to be?

brad/futureistguy,

Excellent observations! Especially,

“….that Christians should also impose complementarianism in the social domains of culture, politics, education, etc. Is complementarianism attempting to re-establish Christendom?”

Those spheres are a constant threat to the heirarchial position as women in those arenas are encouraged to succeed and reach their full potential. They might be viewed as a bad influence on complementarian women. Isn’t there a movement already in progress by dominionists to conquer the 7 hills?

Thinking of the Holy Spirit, and His quenching as a root cause of complementarianism’s errors and impracticality reminds me again of my favorite quote from William Law:
The necessity of a continual inspiration of the Spirit of God, both to begin the first, and continue every step of a divine life in man, is a truth to which every life in nature, as well as all scripture, bears full witness. A natural life, a bestial life, a diabolical life, can subsist no longer, than whilst they are immediately and continually under the working power of that root or source, from which they sprung. Thus it is with the divine life in man, it can never be in him, but as a growth of life in and from God. Hence it is, that resisting the Spirit, quenching the Spirit, grieving the Spirit, is that alone which gives birth and growth to every evil that reigns in the world, and leaves men, and churches, not only an easy, but a necessary prey to the devil, the world, and the flesh. And nothing but obedience to the Spirit, trusting to the Spirit, walking in the Spirit, praying with and for its continual inspiration, can possibly keep either men, or churches, from being sinners,or idolators, in all that they do. For everything in the life, or religion of man, that has not the Spirit of God for its mover, director, and end, be it what it will, is but earthly, sensual, or devilish.

Thanks for the link, Brad. I’ve bookmarked it for reading later this evening.

Brad

Much agreement when you say…
“But by the fruit we now see, sometimes it seems Calvin et al merely replaced the Roman Catholic systems of social governance with Reformed ones …”

Yup – Seems Today’s Reformed crowd is still very much like Rome.

Oh – You can change a few “Titles” – “Presidents” of Denominations – instead of “Popes.”
Change some Vestments – Suits and Ties (Tee-Shirts?) – Instead of “Robes and Pointed Hats.”
But – both – Proclaim a “Special Clergy Class” – that the new testament does NOT.
And – both – Proclaim – Un-spoken of course – “It’s our way – Or – the highway…
And – Both – Adhere to “Excommunication” – as a fear tactic – to keep the folks in fear.
And… And… And… the list goes on… and on… and on…

And – both think “ordination” is for males only – And is “Divine Law” and thus “Doctrinal.

Or, as Piper – And the TGC cabal says – It’s “Biblical.”

Here – for your enjoyment – from wikipedia…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_doctrine_on_the_ordination_of_women

“The Roman Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women, as expressed in the current canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that: “Only a baptized man (in Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”[1] Insofar as priestly and episcopal ordination are concerned, the Church teaches that this requirement is a matter of **divine law,** and thus doctrinal.”

Is it any wonder why so-many reformed – are now – ex-reformed – Joing up with Rome…

Here is just one site – With 18 former protestants – many Reformed – Now advancing Rome.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/authors/

Nope – Think I’ll stick with Jesus…
As the “ONE” Teacher – The “ONE” Leader – The “ONE” Shepherd…

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall *hear MY voice;*
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One Leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

Brad – Anyone who’s interested

Here is just one site – With 18 former protestants – many Reformed – Now advancing Rome.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/authors/

Nope – Think I’ll stick with Jesus…
As the “ONE” Teacher – The “ONE” Leader – The “ONE” Shepherd…

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall *hear MY voice;*
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One Leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

Brad: “But by the fruit we now see, sometimes it seems Calvin et al merely replaced the Roman Catholic systems of social governance with Reformed ones.”
‘Hence it is, that papists and Protestants are hating, fighting, and killing one another for the sake of their different excellent opinions, and yet, as to the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, they are in the highest union and communion with one another….
And all men or churches, not placing all in the life, light, and guidance of the Holy Spirit of Christ, but pretending to act in the name, and for the glory of God, from opinions which their logic and learning have collected from scripture words, or from what a Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, or some smaller name, has told them to be right or wrong, all such, are but where the apostles were, when “by the way there was a strife among them who should be the greatest.” ‘

Wm. Law  gives us some insight here as to why “headship and submission” is the one unalterable paradigm of complementarianism. 

First, in all of that dialogue, I don’t think there was a mention even once of the Holy Spirit. While it was not the express purpose of the piece to talk about the Triune God, it is merely a piece of information that fits an overall pattern that others have noticed and noted, that the emphasis in complementarianism appears to be on the Father and Son. Where is the Holy Spirit in their practical theology? — Brad Futurist Guy

Nowhere, Mon Frere. Having a Third Person gets in the way of the Father lording it over the Son as a Man lords it over a Woman.

(And why did saying that right now remind me of the title of this YouTube clip?)

Brad, I couldn’t agree more that “functional Gnosticism can result from ‘Bible-oriented’ teaching in churches that strongly emphasize doctrinal correctness.” My own take is that this has largely resulted from many Protestant denominations having their roots in an era when philosophy–under the influence of DesCartes– gave logical precedence to epistemology over metaphysics. It’s a fool’s errand to do philosophy this way–none of us is metaphysically neutral, are we?– and when it’s taken as a theological tack, it leads to the Gospel as soteriological gnosis, rather than encounter with the Risen Lord.

This understanding didn’t come without cost for me. I was into reconstructionism and dominionism for a significant period of time in the 1970s and ’80s. In case interested, here is my insider-to-outsider story on “dominionism” and specifically analyzing and evaluating “The Seven Mountains” movement. — Brad Futurist Guy

When I read Brad’s blog down the provided link, this paragraph snapped out at me:

To me, this all sounds like a pseudo-evangelical version of the old social gospel. But – in contrast to prior social action based in liberalism – this seems fueled by anger at the marginalization of Christians and a desire for power to reset and then control the social structures and agendas.

This is the description of a Grievance Culture — a culture whose only reason for being is Revenge on the Other. The underlying mythology of all Grievance Cultures are the same three axioms:

1) “Once WE were Lords of All Creation, and Everything Was Perfect.”

2) “Then THEY came and took it all away from us.”

3) “IT’S PAYBACK TIME! WITH INTEREST!”

These three axioms describe the myth behind National Socialism (whose contribution to Axiom 3 was to append “SIEG HEIL!” aka “Hail (our) Victory!”), the Ku Klux Klan, al-Qaeda, Afrocentrism, Raza Boys, and with a little stretching both Communism and Extreme Zionism.

And without much stretching, Christian Reconstructionism, Theonomy, and the Seven Mountains of Dominionism. Just there it’s spray-painted over with God-talk. “Praise God!” instead of “Sieg Heil!”

The references to the Nazi’s seems uncalled for.

Many bright well educated women choose to be stay at home mom’s of large families, and deserve the same respect any other group does.

Are we moving from supporting egalitarianism to a reverse Piperism?

What is reverse Piperism? It sounds good to me. 🙂

I stay home with my four young children, which is a large family by today’s standards. I also work from home as an online college instructor and have a 6-hour/week part-time church job. I volunteer at my children’s schools and sub in my son’s preschool.

I’m a stay-at-mom with a large family and a career (and a part-time job). What would that make me?

I just re-read my comment. If I were an outsider, I’d have to say that would make me crazy! Haha!

I guess what I’m asking is why is staying home, being a career woman, or both (as I am) not OK? In my position, I have a tremendous amount of respect for SAHM and women who work outside the home. We’re all working. We all have gifts and talents and abilities and desires that God wants to use and is using at home and in the workplace.

“As for the results, I’ve seen them first-hand among family members, and they are predictable: Increased insularity within an increasingly closed system. A lack of graciousness toward, and even contempt for, anyone who is different or disagrees. And a steady underlying stream of spiritual elitism and pride. Things seem fine as long as you agree with them; disagree and the gloves come off. It’s a very nasty business.”
@John:
I have experienced this first-hand in my own family (are we related??): the parents I thought I knew while growing up, embracing the Calvinista “faith” about 10 years ago and cutting off (slowly but surely) everyone who doesn’t believe like they do. Now in their 70’s, their social circle grows sadly ever smaller, even as they cling steadfastly to their cult-like beliefs. A real tragedy for all of us. 🙁

KayJay,

My heart goes out to you. Your experience is very similar to the one I/we have had with my brother and his wife. They have little to no contact with us, and his wife and young children have stopped showing up at family events (Christmas and funerals). I guess we non-Calvinista, non-elect, egalitarian, public schooling, age-segregated Sunday School folks might be a bad influence on their children. I have said for years that the Calvinistas are a cult with men like John Piper at the helm who have whisked people away from their families who love them. 🙁

That’s why I like the sound of “Reverse Piperism”.

Re: The “fear tactics” that has been mentioned in the comments describing the way jon piper, don carson, perhaps tim keller communicate…

Since when does God deal in fear??

In my efforts to connect with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with Jesus Christ / Holy Spirit, my mind and physical body have been impressed many times with his / their mutual connecting back with me (i’m simply avoiding christianese language in describing here). Never once has fear or nervous concern or some ominous threat of doom been a part of it. Even when faced with something dire.

That’s the deal — even when I’ve gone through something truly dire and great loss was imminent, there was NEVER any fear, nervous worry, or ominous doom in God’s dealings with me and those involved.

For example, a few Christian leaders have called on Christian women to produce lots of children because the Muslim population is increasing so we need to outnumber them! — dee

And several years ago, there was some Euro-Mullah who was calling upon Muslim women to do the same, and for the same reasons. “We conquer the lands of the Franks! Our wombs shall be our weapons!”

Thanks, Deb and Wendy, for your kind words. I take a lot of comfort in this blog (and commenters here) in particular because it seems like a refuge of sanity! I really love reading Wade Burleson, also. Christ really is our all in all, and His grace is sufficient. So thankful for my freedom in Him! Hoping and praying that many other women (and men) can relax and accept that gift.

Deb,

You did not offend me at all. I agree that looking at the similarities between Nazi Germany and 21st century patriarchy is very important.

“But I AM suggesting that ANY group with an extreme black-and-white mentality eventually establishes constrictive definitions for membership and severe, unbreachable barriers that keep others out.”

Is this not the essence of a religious CULT?

@ Wendy – Yes, the *extreme* versions of this mentality would match at least one of the eight classic sociological criteria for an “authoritarian cult.” And because there is a significant question of doctrinal orthodoxy going on here, it could potentially be an indicator of a religious “cult” as well. That is part of what makes this such a serious issue for all sides, and also why I appreciate what Tim Keller said about disdainful language. It may not be heeded, but it was important that he said it. That kind of language amps up the emotional volatility and makes it even more difficult to reason together.

Anyway, you may be aware already of those eight criteria developed by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, based on his interviews for former prisoners in Maoist China in the 1950s. They experienced “brainwashing” and extreme forms of social pressure for compliance to the official dogma. For readers to whom this might be new, I’ll copy and paste a few paragraphs from a series I wrote on this subject. The first post is at this link, and I’ve near the top of the post, I’ve provided a link to a PDF of the series:

http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-hunger-games-trilogy-5a/

Here’s a clip from that post, slightly edited:

These criteria for identifying a totalistic paradigm and the thought reform techniques that sustained it were published in the groundbreaking 1961 book, *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China.*

The initial phrase is the exact title Dr. Lifton uses to name the criterion, and the description that follows it is my ultra-brief summary.

1. Milieu Control – restrict what communication modes are allowed.

2. Mystical Manipulation – appeal to some higher purpose, as set by the leader or organization.

3. The Demand for Purity – require purity of thinking, that is, with a black-and-white mentality where every view our group holds is absolutely correct.

4. The Cult of Confession – use a radical level of personal confession to unburden people from their crimes (real or imagined) against the organization and realign them with its principles.

5. The “Sacred Science” – promote our moral vision as ultimate: Our way of life is the only right one.

6. Loading the Language – create code words and insider jargon that reduce complex problems to simplistic solutions, and condense categories into judgmental labels.

7. Doctrine Over Person – require people to conform to our perfect system of truth so that individuality is eradicated and sublime conformity is the sacred norm.

8. The Dispensing of Existence – exercise the “right” to decide who has the right to exist in public and who needs to be isolated or excommunicated.

[P.S. Just re-reading the list, wow! No doubt about it, the paradigm and practices in Nazi Germany really fit with these criteria.]

Brad,

Thank you so much for that info. VERY helpful. I’ve wondered at what point can we say that spiritual abuse in these movements/groups crosses the line to religious CULT? We don’t hesitate to call it what it is – spiritual abuse. But I’ve wondered if it’s more than abuse. Looking at the list, it appears that some of the movements/groups we discuss here could certainly be identified as totalistic paradigm.

Hmm….brad/futuristguy, your comments have been helpful. As I read them, I’ve seen the thread of this totalitarianism in my church experiences. Your post of the 8 criteria really got me to thinking and I’m going to take them one by one and see how my former church measures up….

—

1. Milieu Control – restrict what communication modes are allowed.
Well, not in the way that a government can control communication, but yes, in more subtle, manipulative ways – by preaching about what kinds of things Christians who were ‘really serious’ about their faith would and would not watch/read/listen to – heavy on the guilt….this included what kind of music to listen to, what kind of movies to watch, which news to watch (preferably not much at all), what people to be ‘close’ to, what preachers to listen to, etc.

2. Mystical Manipulation – appeal to some higher purpose, as set by the leader or organization.
This one in spades. Nothing less than having the weight of establishing God’s will in every area of our lives.,,and, by extension, bringing the world around us into that divine purpose and will. Lots of talk about ‘unity’ being necessary to ‘create the right atmosphere’ for God to manifest…..and when things in our lives or in the church did not line up with what was promised, it was blamed on a lack of ‘perfect’ unity and/or some secret sin that we weren’t dealing with….

3. The Demand for Purity – require purity of thinking, that is, with a black-and-white mentality where every view our group holds is absolutely correct.
This fits hand in glove with the previous one. We (who followed the teachings of a particular man) were the only ones who really understood what God was doing and what he expected of us. They actual taught that God would (actually, they changed it over time to ‘could’) do nothing unless humans asked him to. There was a lot of contempt, pity, and disdain for other Christians who did not follow this particular teaching. And it was implied that you would never have a full and ‘complete’ life unless you embraced and mastered these teachings. There was heavy emphasis on ‘watching the words that come out of your mouth’ to the point that there were people in the church who were self-appointed ‘confession police’ (confession = what you say about your life and circumstances). Nothing negative was acceptable.

4. The Cult of Confession – use a radical level of personal confession to unburden people from their crimes (real or imagined) against the organization and realign them with its principles.
This one was not as blatant as things are at say – Mars Hill. There was no direct requirement that we ‘confess’ to one another. However things did begin to go there with some of the people… But it was heavily emphasized that we need to be ‘constantly’ examining ourselves to purge any little infraction that might be inhibiting us from receiving what was ‘already ours’…..there were a few occasions when I let something slip about doing something outside the prescribed way and got ‘called into the pastor’s office.’ One particular time, I had gone to an evangelistic meeting that was not affiliated with our church (and was run by someone that had been kicked out of our church, but I didn’t know that at the time). I felt so guilty about going. The pastor found out and called me into his office and grilled me about the meeting. I am ashamed to admit that in my fear of getting in trouble and being kicked out, I confirmed his suspicion that it was ‘not godly’ (which was not true). I have actually become friends with that evangelist since then….but it was often preached that we had no business going to another church as long as there were services at our own church.

5. The “Sacred Science” – promote our moral vision as ultimate: Our way of life is the only right one.
Again, this ties in with some of the other points. Our ‘understanding of Scripture’ was superior to all others. We had knowledge most did not and we needed to guard ourselves from contamination in our thinking and understanding…

6. Loading the Language – create code words and insider jargon that reduce complex problems to simplistic solutions, and condense categories into judgmental labels.
Oh my goodness! This one is especially true. I think it is a Christian Culture problem. First, we all use ‘jargon’ that these who have no background in Sunday School/Bible study/Christendom don’t understand….then we redefine the jargon within various sects so that no one really understands what the other is saying. This has reached the point that I try really hard to say what I mean without using Christian jargon, even if it means stumbling to find alternative words to describe things.

7. Doctrine Over Person – require people to conform to our perfect system of truth so that individuality is eradicated and sublime conformity is the sacred norm.
Man, this was true. They idolized the man whose teachings they follow. And this doctrine was holy – the only person that was more important than the doctrine was the pastor….the congregation, though…back to that unity, unity, unity….”Come on, people. Get your act together. Without unity, we will never see the power of God move in here!” Guilt for every momentary distracted thought…”Oh, no! I lost focus for a second. Am I the one holding everyone else back?”

8. The Dispensing of Existence – exercise the “right” to decide who has the right to exist in public and who needs to be isolated or excommunicated.
This one was more subtle, too. They did their form of shunning, but it wasn’t blatantly preached from the pulpit. It was quietly whispered behind the scenes and passed in whispers from person to person; “Stay away from so-and-so, she has a ‘spirit of divorce'”, “Well, you know, they got upset over some small thing and now, they don’t want ANYone from here to contact the, EVER.” If you left that church, you HAD to be deceived and in confusion and maybe even (gasp) backslidden. Sigh. If they couldn’t control you enough to make you stay, then they would do their damnedest to discredit you – at least among those who remained.

—–

Now, even other people that have left this place get squeamish when I use the term cult. And I understand. The word can be easily overused. But I did not reach the opinion that they are indeed a cult out of anger or even quickly. The above list helped me refocus on why I believe them to be a cult – and a dangerous one. If you go to their website, it would be difficult to see, because they use the ‘Christian jargon’ but they don’t always mean what you think….

It is very cool the way our sharing experiences helps each of see more clearly what we have dealt with and how to proceed. Thanks, all. 🙂

@ Jeanette … totally helps to “process aloud” – even if it’s “virtual.”

Also very helpful to have a detailed set of criteria that have been well researched, like Dr. Lifton’s given us for sociological “cults” of “psychological totalism.”

I noticed you used the word “subtle” a few times, and that’s where discernment and practice come into this, I think. As I’ve studied Lifton’s descriptions, it helped put more things on my spiritual radar and rethink my experiences in spiritually abusive situations. Also interesting that one of the earliest books on this subject (first published in 1991 and still in print!) was *The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse* by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen. If everything were so blatant, who’d be trapped by these leaders, organizational systems, and cultures? But it’s subtle. There are close counterfeits.

… speaking of which, I know it’s been an illustration that’s circulated for years about how do bank tellers get trained in counterfeits? By handling the real thing. And that’s how we’re supposed to be able to tell God’s truth from the lies. But I wonder – if an American bank teller were blindfolded and handed a Canadian 10 dollar bill, would they be able to tell just by feel that it wasn’t actually an American 10 dollar bill? Because it’s made with a very similar printing process as American bills, it won’t feel like a counterfeit, and it is worth something in the right country. Same with many malignant ministries … the initial feel may be absolutely close to the real and legitimate thing, but maybe our gut tells us a little sumpin sumpin is off here or there.

What scares me about Germany in the 30s and 40s is that the mindset of Aryan superiority didn’t just suddenly pop into the German populace’s head the day they elected Hitler. The seeds of it had to already be there for him to exploit. It would be interesting to study the trajectory that led from those seeds being planted (probably, not even by Hitler) to the development of the full-blown Nazi regime.

Ian said: The main thing I’d like to add that hasn’t been mentioned so far is Lifton’s concept of the “thought-terminating cliché”. I often wonder if phrases like “that’s unbiblical” or “the Bible says that’s a sin” fit into this category. They are often means to stifle debate, and there’s little scope for questioning or disagreeing with the people in authority who have the task of deciding what the Bible actually says.

That’s a really important point. I think I heard at least a couple times in the first video phrases like, “the Bible clearly states …” Well, actually, they’ve gathered up what they think the Bible says about gender roles, and what is actually going on is “OUR THEOLOGY (in thinking about what the Bible says) CLEARLY STATES …”

So, for those who value the Scriptures, when some celebrity teacher states “the Bible CLEARLY says …” it shuts down thinking because the celebrity is misusing his authority to gain people’s compliance.

It’s ironic. They seem to be saying they want non-complementarians to think it through, but use language that closes down thinking processes by a (false) appeal to authority of Scripture but actually by using their own authority status.

Actually, it’s intellectual dishonesty, isn’t it?

Brad,

This is really important information, and I’m glad we’re discussing it here. Thank you for providing the material and links. I appreciate learning about all the research you’ve done.

I do think there is more to some churches/groups/movements than spiritual abuse. It is more of a pervasive system of abuse, mind control, conformity, isolationism, and doctrinal unorthodoxy (or semi-unorthodoxy?). The subtleties that you and Jeannette discussed complicate things. They’re *sometimes* saying and doing the right things, but the religious cults with which we’re most familiar ALSO say and do the right things *sometimes*.

I think there are men or groups who begin their ministry with a zeal for God and people, but power corrupts. Authoritarianism creeps in. I think many of the celebrity leaders we see today have become addicted to power and money and unquestioning obedience like crack. This sets up the church or group for full-blown control, isolationism, abuses, and cover-ups.

Jim Jones started out as a Methodist student pastor. When he first founded the Peoples Temple and joined Disciples of Christ, his ministry was very focused on helping the poor and hurting. He preached love and tolerance. Gradually, those messages of love were replaced by demands for obedience.

My Calvinista brother/pastor told me about three years ago that he wished his family were all Calvinists but he’d resigned himself that that would never happen. He told me that he has no further obligations to his family of origin, except to honor our mother. I literally helped raise him. He was like the little brother my husband had never had. My children adored him. When he divorced himself from his siblings, nieces, and nephews, it was like a death to me. Except that people who die usually have no choice in the matter. He and his wife have completely isolated themselves from us. They’re in their own little Calvinista church and world studying Piper and Driscoll and Jonathan Edwards and their beloved Puritans. Who tells Calvinistas (like my brother and KayJay’s parents) to do this? I just can’t believe this is completely self-imposed isolationism. My brother used to love us. Years ago, I would have never dreamed this could happen. I believe they’re being taught to isolate and disassociate with non-Calvinistas (who in their minds are the non-elect).

Anyway, it’s hard to put groups into certain categories, but I think it’s important to look at 21st Century Christianity and be able to call these groups what they are.

I am disturbed by the tendency for complementarians to focus on roles played by various players.

The word role is used to excess. — Debra Baker

As a former role-playing gamer (pencil, paper, and funny dice), I wonder if these guys are actually LARPing with themselves as the Righteous High-level Heroes and all the rest of us as NPCs — Red Shirts or Orcs?

Hitler honored mothers of large families for one reason – they helped him to take dominion. The children they produced were probably the Hitler youth. It had nothing to do with family values. — Deb

Though a documentary I watched years ago about the beginnings of the Third Reich did mention that before their 1933 coup-from-within, the NSDAP did attempt to present themselves as the Defender and Restorer of Traditional German Family Values. This was an electoral ploy to get Family Values votes (as well as other groups who didn’t like the way Weimar Germany was going). However, after their coup-from-within in 1933, the NSDAP dropped the pretense.

I think there are men or groups who begin their ministry with a zeal for God and people, but power corrupts. Authoritarianism creeps in. I think many of the celebrity leaders we see today have become addicted to power and money and unquestioning obedience like crack. — Wendy

Somewhere on Brad’s blog is an article on Frank Herbert’s SF novel series Dune. In it, he mentions Herbert’s take on the subject — not that power itself corrupts, but Power has a way of attracting the already-corrupt and the corruptible.

“But the hearts of Men are easily corrupted, and the Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.” — prologue to Peter Jackson’s interpretation of Lord of the Rings

In considering the Coalition’s complementarian conundrum, I wonder if Colleen Carol Campbell would care to comment.

I think we make a big mistake calling them cults. It only insults the people we are trying to reach who sit in the pews. I would call them controllers or show them using thought reform tactics. It IS a “cult of personality” though.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy …

I’ve found *Dune* to be perhaps the best literary sources available to explore dynamics of power and abuse. Here’s a clip from one post I have on the subject:

Frank Herbert had an amazing grasp on the complex nuances of power dynamics, as he shows by how he has them play out in their multifaceted forms in “the Duniverse.” During a number of interviews in the 1960s through ‘80s, he stated that didn’t believe that power was merely a corrupting force, as in Lord Acton’s maxim that “All power tends to corrupt; absolutely power corrupts absolutely.” Instead, according to Herbert, “Power is a magnet that draws the corruptible.” The entire Dune series shows how that principle plays out, to the max, and how generations and nations and schools of thought pass on a lust for power and the machinations thereof to those who follow them.

http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/dune-uses-abuses-power-foresight/

But what is the opposite?

I wonder if it is service. True service draws the humble, those willing to place themselves at the side of others to help them along their way. It does not attract those whose polarity aims at power. Jesus Christ came as a servant, we are bond-slaves to Him …

@ HUG & futurist guy,

I have been a fan of Herbert since the Jurassic Age (before the world moved on as Stephen King would write).

The thing that drew me to Herbert’s stuff was as you’ve both written, his emphasis on human politics, and not technology per se as with many other SF writers.

Regardless of how one feels about the rightness or wrongness of Christian Patriarchy, they believe passionately in their cause. I can’t help but see a loose sort of parallel with the Lakota war chiefs of old who were bent on preserving their way of life from encroachment.

Just as there were those among the war chiefs who saw the futility of their fight, it’s a good bet that there are Piperites who also see the futility of trying to hold back the winds of change.

@ Ian linked to the following article on Thought Reform and then said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

[[The main thing I’d like to add that hasn’t been mentioned so far is Lifton’s concept of the “thought-terminating cliché”. I often wonder if phrases like “that’s unbiblical” or “the Bible says that’s a sin” fit into this category. They are often means to stifle debate, and there’s little scope for questioning or disagreeing with the people in authority who have the task of deciding what the Bible actually says. Complementarianism must be right, because Piper says so.]]

The wikipedia article quotes Robert Jay Lifton as saying: “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

This got me thinking, so I watched the first video again to see what I could identify as vocabulary that seems to be used to preempt genuine discussion. Here’s some of what I came up with. Most are very close paraphrases to what the speakers actually said.

* Gospel, gospel causes, gospel-centered. [These terms were frequently used as labels, assuming that all Christians must surely understand what we all mean by these terms. But they are so overused or misused now that this becomes a debate-stopping label. Do they think that if I question their understanding of “the gospel,” I’m questioning their salvation?]

* Egalitarianism “loosens” the force of how you understand Scripture’s teachings. You end up with a “loose association” in the way you read Scripture. [Those came from Mr. Keller and Mr. Piper. It seems to me that here the term “loose” is used in such a vague way that it must be explained or it is meaningless. But how many people would ask a celebrity to explain what they mean about a vague term like that?]

* Men who assume their headship role humbly are the kind of leader that “most” women love. [This was a statement from Mr. Piper. It is a vague but grandiose assumption/conclusion that sounds specific, however with no support evidence given or suggested. How does he know it is “most”? Who does he include with the “women” he is talking about? It sounds definitive and researched, but is it actually just circular reasoning? For instance, “Complementarian women accept the theology of differentiated gender roles, therefore they love it when their man acts within his gender role.” Oh, okay … but if that was what he meant, it doesn’t say much. A “tautology”? That is, according to wikipedia, “a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved.” That would be one kind of thought-stopping statement. Think deeper about it, and …]

* Men are wired to lead. They either lead badly or humbly. [Another statement from Mr. Piper, with the same problems as the example above, of sounding definitive. But I’d suggest it is a conclusion based on his theological presupposition that male leadership is a God-designed difference, therefore men are wired to lead. And if this is God-wired-and-inspired, how can we explain women in leadership of any kind, in society or in the church? Must all be anti-God, sinful striving, etc. Are women “unwired” for leadership? These grandiose statements *leave out important factors* or *ignore the polar opposite point*. I would suggest those are also forms of what Lifton calls reductionism – conveniently broad statements with no real proof, but they sound reasonable.]

* They [i.e., egalitarians] are using hermeneutics to sidestep what Scripture “unambiguously, repeatedly, clearly says” by trying to locate the rationale in the alleged reconstruction of [some specific passage] instead of listening to what Scripture says on its own terms. [This came from Mr. Carson. So – the Scriptures on gender are all exacting and unambiguous. If that’s the case, then anyone and everyone should be able to see something so obvious. Apparently, if I don’t see what he does, either I am unintelligent, foolish, or have an agenda to undermine what is actually there.]

So, there are some examples. Actually, it was emotionally painful to go through that video again. I don’t know that I am exactly an egalitarian even. I’ve been working through gender issues for decades and probably am closest to some third way that isn’t explained by either of the prominent views. However, I don’t see my investigations as trying to explain away all gender roles, as the speakers say outright or indirectly suggest.

However, it seems to me that Messrs. Piper and Carson make it sound as if I am utterly subversive or stupid in asking questions or probing deeper. They said most of their objections quite “nicely” by using reductionist, vague, or assumption-laden terms instead of more inflammatory labels. However, if I’ve been slapped with a perfumed glove to throw down the gauntlet, I’ve still been slapped …

Brad, thanks for your insightful comments once again.

There was a lady commenting on the TGC website who noticed something very significant:

Piper uses a deceptive straw man argument. He effectively blames egalitarianism for the problems in society. But this is not true when considered carefully. The causes of family breakdown, etc, have quite possibly included militant feminism and rampant individualism, but these are secular movements. Christian egalitarianism has never been a dominant force in society, and so it cannot be responsible for any of its woes.

[I take absolutely no credit for the above – read the original at TGC]

@ Martin:

“I don’t remember where was that, but if I remember well there were references to some of these people (Piper or Driscoll, I think) proposing to change certain things in the historical creeds because they didn’t think they were theologically correct. Please, correct me if I’m wrong with this.”

I’ve never heard about that, but if it’s true, it’s scary. REALLY scary.

Interesting discussion.

Having grown up in what is tantamount to Chauvinism disguised as Complementarianism, I have the scars of Scripture-twisting and had to unlearn much of what I was taught…to save my marriage.

I think it’s at best a Secondary Issue and not an Essential to the Faith. Practice in Scripture is somewhat contradictory as are competing verses and principles such as Priesthood of the Believers in Hebrews and of course the Proof Text cited in this thread: Galatians 3:28.

I can tell you that Complementarianism is often misused as a Scriptural rationale to support what is not a “Servant of All” leadership model in the Church and in the Home.

I would flip Piper’s rationale a bit if he attempts to link the saving power of the Gospel to non-essentials…that of itself is dangerously close to adding to the Gospel and preaching a “different Jesus”.

Truth is, due to the somewhat Paradoxical nature of Scripture and the Duality and seemingly contradictory verses…we just can’t make an Absolute out of pet doctrines or we assume some sort of Special Revelation in adding to the simple message of the Gospel.

What must be true (or our Faith is invalid):

1. God Is.
2. We are not God.
3. Jesus Christ is Messiah.
4. Salvation is through Faith/Belief in Him.

After that, we see through a glass darkly as evidenced by the 30,000+ denominations and Main Lines disagree on many non-essentials.

Either the path is extremely narrow and there is one Group out of the many who has the lock on “correct interpretation”…or there is a lot of leeway to agree to disagree on non-essentials.

My Position is that it’s a Narrow Gate in the sense that Way unto Salvation is EXTREMELY narrow…as in One Person wide…Jesus Christ.

Underneath the umbrella of what is considered Christian orthodoxy…there is much room for disagreement on tertiary issues.

I also meant to say that I’m working on a blog post that expands on that comment you mentioned. I’ll try to put up a link here when I get it up on my blog. 🙂

Hi Sallie,

Thanks for stopping by. Hope it was OK to mention your comment – I thought it was very perceptive.

I agree that TGC is effectively making complementarianism a gospel issue. Keller says that it’s not directly related to the gospel, and he doesn’t mention it when sharing the gospel, but then he says it is indirectly related to the gospel. To me, that’s doublespeak, even cognitive dissonance, especially because the entire attitude of Keller, Piper, and Carson is that it’s non-negotiable

I just thought of an interesting point. One of the characteristics of a cult is that they don’t tell you everything that they believe when they try to recruit you. You can guess where I’m going…

Anyway, it’s 2am in the UK and I’m going back to bed. It’s really hot over here and I haven’t been able to sleep 

Great discussion! I’ll try to jump back in tomorrow, but I have online classes that start tomorrow, so I’m working on getting them ready.

Jan, thank you for explaining what happened to you when you adopted reformed theology. It did my heart good to hear from a former Calvinista about how and why there are such drastic changes in personality. It’s interesting that there is no one encouraging isolationism, but that it’s the spirit of the movement. Thank you, thank you for giving me some clarity on this.

@ John, re: my analysis of the systems of Nazi, Germany …

I hope I was clear enough that I was looking at the paradigm of Hitler’s Germany only as an example of extreme black-or-white thinking, and didn’t mean to imply anything beyond that. If you feel I did, I’d appreciate your letting me know specifically how, so I can think that through and avoid it in the future. Despite the heavy topics I write about, I actually do have a sense of humor (!), but there are some things that should not be made light of nor used to label others … Nazism being one of them.

For what it’s worth, I just happened to use Germany for my illustration in part because of Deb’s link in this post and enough familiarity to present something credible. I have studied totalitarian systems and resistance movements since the 1970s, and could have used instead my research studies on the former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, or Maoist China instead – and/or realistic dystopian fictional worlds of The Hunger Games, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Dune, Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, and others.

I made all my comments in the first place because I see the misuse of spiritual authority as an extremely vexing problem in the North American Church, a kind of corporate form of what some Puritan authors and others have called “besetting sins.” They are dominating the Church landscape here in the States. Don’t know if you’re seeing similar patterns in the UK …

I’m a survivor of several malignant ministries myself, and I hope to make a difference so that others don’t have to experience that emotional and spiritual pain that I have. I think a lot of us are here at The Wartburg Watch for that reason, and to get some help in sorting through the issues that come up.

I’ve been doing in-depth studies since 2008 into the paradigms of spiritually abusive leaders, toxic organizational design and development, and dysfunctional cultures of churches, ministries, and movements. Hopefully this will lead eventually to training curriculum for future Christian leaders to understand the devastating impact that spiritual abuse has on its victims, so they work with wisdom and compassion in designing and developing church plants, pioneer ministries, and Kingdom enterprises that are realistic and customized to challenge aspects of culture that are anti-biblical and connect with those that are pro-biblical.

So that’s the story about my comments and the framework that picture sits in …

@ Julie Anne.

Huzzah!

And hoorah!

re: brad/futuristguy on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 08:04 PM

The passage cited also makes an interesting point that many miss. In the day and time, neither slaves nor women were considered “heirs” in terms of inheritance, unless a specific act was made before death by the decedent. So neither could inherit. But we are all heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, our elder brother, adopted by love and sacrifice. Thus, God has made us all equal with each other as his children by adoption.

@ Martin:

Oh, well, that’s not so bad. I was afraid it was going to be one of the other lines of the creed. I’m pretty sure one’s views on “He descended to the dead” aren’t going to affect very much, let alone your salvation. Although…was it Piper who came up with the the “Scream of the Damned” (which I can never remember exactly what it is except that it’s wonky)? How can he think Jesus was “damned” when he doesn’t think He “descended to the dead”?

Deb,

I attend an Anglican evangelical church in the UK and, as far as I can remember, the “descended to the dead” part is said every time we read the Apostle’s creed.

Anyway, I knew I had read about some people proposing to change the traditional creed and commented about it. Didn’t remember exactly what was it they were exactly proposing so I had to check this morning, for the sake of clarifying what I had earlier written.

At the time the idea of changing something like this, which had been around for centuries, surprised me… But, from what I’m reading online, I guess this wouldn’t be the first time something like this happens. Things you learn every day. Still finding my place in some, at times, turbulent waters 🙂

Ian –

Great comment over at TGC 🙂

Muff Potter on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 02:08 PM said:
Although I don’t have any number crunching to support it, I still think it’s a good guess that these guys are not gaining very many new adherents to their ideology. The blogosphere is just too big and the pushback from TWW and others is just too great for them to overcome the inertia in their favor. Over time, the likelyhood is high that they will just retreat into their closed enclaves and die out.

I would love to believe that, but in my area I am seeing them sway many of our young people.

Patti and Dee, I think you are right to be concerned. Driscoll, for example, has attracted large numbers of young people, and created a global church planting organisation that will spread his ideas. There’s also evidence that some theological colleges (eg in the SBC) are adopting TGC’s approach and graduates are known to imposse their views on the churches they join. TGC itself is highly influential thanks to the big guns who are involved. This does all make me fear for the future if they end up dominating the evangelical mainstream.

” believe that the young are the ones who are most vulnerable to radical ideas.”

If you are a young 20 something male who wants to be a big pastor what is not to like? You get to be in authority over people and your wife must subjugate herself to you and focus entirely on your career. She must even take abuse for a season if it comes to that. And she cannot read the bible aloud in front of men so you have full control there. She cannot even give you driving instructions you do not like! You are the one with correct doctrine that must make others see it. Only you are the enlightened one to tell them. They are totally depraved and incompetent but for some reason, the Holy Spirit has chosen you to be the anointed one over others.

And we wonder why the YRR/REformed movement is churning out litte arrogant dictators.

Go Ian!! Nice work over at the GC.

@ Deb:

I went back and looked at that Scream of the Damned stuff. What a bizarre thing to fixate on. I mean, Resolved conference videos are disturbing enough with THAT written into them! I could not BELIEVE Mahaney standing there in the video saying that because Jesus “screamed” (which He didn’t, BTW), we can go to heaven. Since when was the Atonement accomplished by screaming? These are people who are allegedly Reformed and thus should be up on their Old Testament typology. Was the real type of Christ’s death not the blood, but the (unmentioned) screaming of the animal sacrifice as it was killed?

This is complete and total hooey. And creepy to boot.

“I am still a part of the PCA and Facebook “friends” with many young guys who are in seminary or just out of it. Let me tell you, these young men are the most arrogant, hot-headed, vicious people with a superiority-complex I know. The denomination is going south and in an ugly way”

And guess what? There is a big debate on the SBC going Calvinistic and guess who has been showing up on the blogs to teach us idiots and support Al Mohler and all the other Calvinists? Presbyterians!I mean what did we expdect after Mohler and his T4G and TGC associations? And yes, both the SBC and Presbyterian guys are extremely arrogant. They exhibit Lifton’s “Doctrine over People” attitude in spades.

Brad,
Thanks, I believe God has spoken clearly about Himself in scripture, black and white, you may label this. So if I teach these things about God then I am wrong? Surely it’s what we consider that’s black and white that makes a difference not that we consider some things good and some things bad. Plus you did not really answer my point about the fact that God reveals differences in scripture in males and females, is He a chauvinist when He does this?

Anon1,
Regarding salvation there is no difference is there? That is the correct interpretation of of Galatians 3, but I don’t believe in everything men and women are the same, some use gal. 3 to say. And for sanctification men and women mainly look to Christ to be changed, and his obedience and submission to the father. But I would say, that men and women in general have different besetting sins as one would expect as the curse God gave us is different in Gen 3, So the sins we generally deal with are different so the way, for example, proverbs genders sinful behaviour can be helpful to help men and women become Godly. 

Dee,
Thanks for the gracious comments, however regarding interpreting scripture, how can you possibly interperate genesis 2 and 3 to say that God treats men and women the same? 

Regarding proverbs, I just see it dealing with male and female differences throughout. I’m not referring to wisdom as female though, even though women often are wiser than men. Prov 31 is a good example of a Godly, wise, trustworthy, resourceful woman though, thankful I have one!

Grace and peace all. 

Pam, I don't think I undersdand the points you are trying to prove, I I probably won't answer your questions the way you intend. However I don't think equality has anything to do with appearance or role. Yes saying men and women suffer with generally similar sins is reductionist and everyone is unique, but to deny the specific curses that God gave men and women is in my opinion more dangerous, and denying Gods clear revealed truth is the basis of all sin from first to last. Hope you meet with Jesus powerfully in his glory at the study. God bless. John

@ Sophie – thanks. Good to see another Brit on here. I’m a bit disappointed in that the only response on TGC is from someone who appreciated my comment. I’d like to have some interaction with those who disagree with me.

@ Brad – thanks again. I probably should have said explicitly that I accept both baptismal approaches as valid and would not want to dismiss Keller’s beliefs. Bringing egalitarianism into the equation, I can understand a Baptist, especially one with more fundamentalist persuasions, treating egalitarian theology as “loose”, but not a Presbyterian. The Presbyterian position, known as covenant baptism, requires a fair amount of theological “looseness”. If truth be told, the Bible is primarily used as a tool to justify the status quo. It is only rarely that someone changes their beliefs or practices as a result of studying it.

Dee said “I am not sure I know what you mean in regards to God treating men and women differently in Genesis 2-3. We all share in the Fall and we are all responsible. God gave women the role to bear children so the curse is for the pain of childbearing. The man toils in the field and it will be difficult. This obviously does not apply just to the man unless it is a sin for women to farm or have gardens.”

I am not settled with the idea that God cursed Adam and Eve separately and therefore cursed men and women for all time continuing after them separately.

I have toiled in fields, put food on the table paid for with the sweat of my brow and bloody blisters on my hands. I have worked until my back aches and my legs are limp.

Women have been part of farming and agriculture for as long as there have been people.

As a flip to that, I have experienced giving birth. It is a labour unlike any other, and an explicitly feminine task. However, my husband did not escape unscathed. He loves me more than anything in this world, and he watched me suffer in pain, powerless to help me. Is that not a part of the curse?

The idea that “God cursed Adam to work the ground, and cursed Eve with pain in childbirth” is incomplete, in my opinion. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

Well, I was going to try and stay out of this one, but….men and women were not givien specific curses. The ground was cursed and the snake was cursed. Not Adam. Not Eve. No curses were assigned to either of them. Just sayin’.

@ John,

I would love to know what you mean, very specifically, when you say this:

“I am to lay my life down for my wife, as I serve her by leading her.”

I see that phrase “serve by leading” and I do not ever see TGC guys, who write about that a lot, define practically what they do.

You also wrote in your comment above-

“Personally, being fairly honest, I don’t really like it, I’d rather not have to bear the responsibility to lay my life down for my wife, and honestly most of the time, due to my sin, I don’t. My wife is a more mature christian than I am.”

That is confusing to me. If the laying down your life for her is serving by leading, why is that something you do not like? If you see that she is the more mature Christian why not let her lead? Thanks.

Dee,
I’m sorry to hear about your daughter. I pray she will be fully healed of her tumour. 
In your response about the fall you seemed to suggest that modern farming technique and pain relief in labour was the solution to the curse,which is why I wasn’t sure if you understood what I was saying. 
If you re-read my comment I have made ZERO assumptions about how you or anyone else here has come to your understanding of scripture, all I have said is how I have, so please don’t take offence. 
Also I have not, as far as I can recall, said that I am biblical and those who hold a different viewpoint are unbiblical.  If I have I am sorry, I had hoped to say that I have tried to understand and submit to the bible as best as I can. Thanks all. 
I don’t think it is really important what I have done and your husband may or may not have done, it’s not a competition! I’m not trying to make self look good here!
You’ve asked for an example so I shall give you one; I had to leave work several years ago due to stress and depression. I did a job that I enjoyed but was not earning enough to support us, my wife carried on in her job, so our combined income was enough. Then unexpectedly she became pregnant with our first child. So the choice I had to make was to let her continue to basically support us or would I return to a career that I has struggled with to earn enough to support us. After a time of real struggle on my part, I knew my God given responsibility to my family, returned to my career, which God has blessed with in terms of provision and strength to persevere in it. So I thank God that now with 4 children my wife has been able to stay at home with them (which is what we had wanted and discussed in pre marriage preparation) and spend time with them and she is currently really enjoying having them all at home on school holidays together. So I thank God for the grace for all this, and I dread to think what decisions I could have made if I did not believe what I believe, I just thank God. So just to clarify, I’m not saying your husband would not do the same, or I’m better than him, I’m just answering your question. 

I’m not saying you’re evil, not biblical, I’m not saying I’ve studied genesis more than anyone else. Like I said I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about your viewpoint, but as Brad said, how can we be so black and white?
I’m not trying to make any personal attacks on anyone on this page, after all this is about Christ, not us!
God bless, john

Also, John–

What do we do about the Holy Spirit? If there is the Father and the Son, and we are to reflect how the son submits to the Father in everything, then what do we do with the Holy Spirit? Who is the HS in that relationship between the father and the son, and then who is to model the HS in earthly relationships?

Patti–

You said “Patti UNITED STATES on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 04:43 PM said:

Muff Potter on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 02:08 PM said:
Although I don’t have any number crunching to support it, I still think it’s a good guess that these guys are not gaining very many new adherents to their ideology. The blogosphere is just too big and the pushback from TWW and others is just too great for them to overcome the inertia in their favor.”

Patti, I think you are right. John said above that this relationship or display of men’s and women’s roles basically display the Gospel to the world, even though he has admitted that his wife is smarter and more equipped to lead and do things that he cannot do as well as she.

What they don’t see, though, is that the world looks upon this and calls foul almost immediately. The world is not impressed by this “display of the Gospel” and actually thinks it’s ridiculous. Naturally, one would reason with the brains given them, why would God want a woman to downplay or pretend to allow her husband to lead even though she is more capable? That doesn’t fair well with the “world”. And it doesn’t fair well with many other believers who refuse to believe this type of theology.

This all occurs in a closed system where it’s adherents are also it’s own cheering section. Only the people within such churches are impressed by the “glory” and “Gospel” displayed in these relationships. Outsiders find it strange, ridiculous, and just plain stupid, and it’s NOT because they dont have the eyes to see or the ears to hear, but because they DO. Yes, it is true that living a radical lifestyle will be misunderstood by many, but I think that what Christ meant by radical was not what they are promoting.

What they fail to see is that what they are promoting is actually what Christ was teaching against–this subjugation of women to men. If they understood the culture at the time and compared it to what they believe, there is nothing radical about what they are doing. It is what was the norm then. The “radicalness” that Christ was preaching was what we would consider egalitarianism. And even within the texts as Paul is exhorting the men to respect their wives as he challenges the Roman house codes at that time.

So this was all about bringing the people into a radical situation apart from their present culture which modeled the current complimentarian agenda. There is nothing radical or “Gospel-displaying” or “Gospel-affirming” about this doctrine. Christ came to erradicate that, therefore further helping us to understand that in Him, we are neither male nor female.

Trina:
“The world is not impressed by this “display of the Gospel” and actually thinks it’s ridiculous.”

Amen!!

‘I had to smile recently when I read of a pastor who is desperately trying to find his “inner King.”’

Oh my word. It’s nonsense like this that helps people find their inner agnostic.

Excellent points, Jeff!

Jeff: I think that phrase ‘the divine right of men’ is the PERFECT summary of the underlying thinking there…

“I think it significant that God created woman out of the man’s side. He could have created her out of any part of the body, including the foot. Yet, I believe he created a woman to stand side by side with her husband.”

LOVED this point, Dee. I never heard it put that way before. It is very symbolic of side-by-side teamwork and interdependence.

I also think it interesting that the only human being EVER to come out of a man’s body was Eve, yet that is what is (I think wrongly) used to justify him ruling over her. Ever since then, every single human being has come out of a woman’s body. But that doesn’t mean we are superior. I’m not sure that the who-came-from-whom question has much relevance at all except to establish the fact that we are dependent upon each other and neither gender is superior. We cannot exist without each other.

Trina,

This is why personal testimony is of little use, I could say anything about my personal experience to make my point! So you don’t know me, so i would suggest you ignore my testimony, i only gave it as Dee asked for it. I believe the bible teaches what we think influences how we behave. No doubt, love of something motivates. Often Non Christians can shame us with the level of love they seem to show, you are correct. However as you bring up demons, satan is quite happy to let that continue if it is not done in faith in Christ. 

I think I said marriage is an image of Christ and the church, not Christ and the Father. I see the Holy Spirt glorifying Christ in everything He does, and with Him we can live a Christ like life. If I did mention Christ and the Father it may have been to show that submission, as Christ shows to the Father is no sign of lesser worth. 

Regarding people thinking that wives submitting to husbands is stupid, the example you use is me and my wife, because my wife may be equally or more competent in many areas. Did I say that she cannot use those gifts as we submit to each other? Even in a secular world people know that a team manager would not be as gifted as some team members in some areas. And you say the world thinks this is stupid. However the world thinks the gospel is foolishness, so do we change the gospel to something that is less stupid? This does not prove that my position is not stupid, but it shows that we don’t deny biblical teaching because the world can’t make sense of it. I would encourage you not to decide what is true based on what the world thinks, but in what God says, even if I don’t agree with how you interpret the Bible!   

Also it’s clear to me throughout the OT and the new that God did not choose the gifted or the wise to represent Him
and lead His people, and He said he did not choose the wise on purpose, I’m saying that to justify choosing an idiot husband or appointing a foolish elder though, that is unbiblical. But God seems to have another goal at work, displaying the glory of His grace, rather than picking some all star team.

How does this approach work out in your life? If your elder male or female is less gifted that you, do you still submit to them? Or does your greater gifting allow you to avoid submitting and honouring them? Would you not approach them with the issue and then as you submit to one and other address the issue and then ultimately you would submit to the elder? 

Dee,
Great to hear that your daughter is doing well and helping others in similar situations. I know God allows these things ultimately for our good and for the good of others and His glory. She seems an amazing testimony of this. 

I think there can be ultimately, from the outside very little difference from how an egalitarian family may live and a complimentarian, or even a non Christian, as Trina pointed out. I believe those families if living in submission to Gods word and faith in Him will bring glory to Him. I’m not saying that women should be a stay at home mum with 4 kids to be Godly, like I said I would not have chosen that for me at the time, but that is what God has gifted me with, and I chose what I did out of obedience to Jesus and what I see taught in the bible, knowing God would honour that. I don’t see submission as a difficult teaching to get from the bible, or being in submission as in anyway lessening my worth, I just find it difficult to do! 

Regarding this teaching being a power thing. In my life I have found it humbling and has deepened my need of Christ and his grace and power in my life. It’s a divine responsibility not a right! I know it is easy to mix up the true teaching with sinful applications of the teaching, which I’m sure works both ways, but men who use this for dominance and power have it wrong. I don’t think Eph 5 can allow a man to lead that way. 

One criticism I saw somewhere was that complementarianism only comes out when there is a tie break situation. I think that’s a bit of a silly way to look at it, but even if you do how is that different to egalitarian situation in a tie break, scissors paper stone time? These issues are not black and white, when it comes down to it, you are given guidance by the spirit but the way you think about things will be slightly different, and ultimate responsibility for the decision would rest on the man, supported by the woman.  

Dee,
I think I said above that husband and wife should portray Christ and the Church. 

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

I’ve honestly never heard that marriage mirrors the trinity, which text does this come from? Like I already said the principle I take about submission is that it seems Jesus is in submission to the Father on Earth and that does not diminish the Christ’s worth.

 It’s interesting you say Jesus speaks for Himself and the holy spirit, this for me is one of the clearest examples of submission in united purpose of the Godhead, where we see Jesus in John 12 say “49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment-what to say and what to speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

And Jesus is John 14 say 25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” 

So Jesus is obeying the father and showing the father and the Holy spirit comes in the name of the glorified Christ to testify to Jesus words. 

You may say that you’ve never heard anyone say that a comp marriage has left someone saying wow what an image of sacrificial love and submission in reverence to Christ, But as I said to Trina, I cannot let my experience of the world dictate what I believe. Personally I have seen few marriage faithfully follow complementarianism as I see it in scripture, but the ones I have have certainly encouraged my faith. God has said marriage is to display Christ and the Church, so that is what I believe. I do not expect the church to behave towards Christ the way I expect Jesus to behave towards his bride. This is a mystery Paul said, so of it is a mystery to Him it is certainly a mystery to me!

31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

John
Are you saying that Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, was not involved in the Creation?
No

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Do you believe that Jesus sat back and waited for his orders at that fateful time?
No

Could it be that Jesus, assuming humanity, for a time, was under the authority of the Father until that time He was back on His rightful throne?
I don’t believe Jesus was less God when He came to earth as I don’t think he could say whoever has seen me has seen the father if that were the case.

Do you believe that Jesus is eternally subordinated to the Father?
I think I do yes, 1 Cor 11 and 15 would seem to say that God is the head of Christ and and is subject to Him. Again that is not an issue for me regarding diety of Christ or worth of Christ as subordination in function has zero to do with value or equality in my understanding of the gospel.

By the grace of God and His Holy Spirit.

Referring to the pain in childbirth issue: many of us women have our own experiences of giving birth and though some of us would describe it using the word “pain”, some of us would use other descriptions – hard work, intense, etc. Some even would admit to having experienced a “birth climax”, which may just have caused some readers some consternation!

But, the word commonly translated “pain” in Gen. 3:16 is the same word which is commonly, and more correctly it seems, translated “toil” or “sorrow” or “labour” in Gen 3:17.

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/3.htm

http://concordances.org/hebrew/6093.htm

So both the blessings that God had blessed (not commanded) Adam and Eve with in Gen 1:28-29, would now be accompanied by toil. Same word, same concept, same reality for both the man and the woman. Both child bearing and farming do not happen without labour, generally. It is the reality of the fall.

Why this same word has ended up being used differently is interesting. In this article, which I have not checked against my copy of the original book, but which I believe is accurate, we see men affecting how women see themselves in God’s eyes. Perhaps they believed that using “toil” instead of “pain” “loosens the gospel”….

http://www.reocities.com/Wellesley/atrium/5148/bible.html
  
“This is a very digested version from chapter 18 in Helen Wessel’s, The Joy of Natural Childbirth 5th edition, printed by Bookmates International, Inc., Santa Rosa Beach Florida, 1994. Helen prepared considerable research, and this paraphrase in no way gives credit or does justice to that research. I would encourage those of you interested in persuing Christian birth history to purchase your own copy.
    The Bible clearly teaches that giving birth is a blessing to women. Although some women have pain in labor and birth for a variety of causes, there is nothing in either the Bible or the Jewish Talmud to indicate that such pain is either necessary or normal.
    The so-called “curse of Eve”, cannot be traced to the Scriptures or to early Judaism. It is first found in distorted Christian teachings of the third and fourth centuries A.D. Christian teachings promulgated that abstinence, even in marriage, was the way to salvation. A woman had to groan in labor to atone for her “sin” of marital sex. This teaching persisted for over a thousand years. When chloroform was discovered by Sir James Simpson in the early 19th century for use in cases of difficult childbirth, there was an outcry from the Christian church. This was construed as a blasphemous attempt to rebel against the curse that God had laid upon Eve. Even Queen Victoria in the late 19th century was criticized heavily for having used anesthesia, for having gone against the dictates of the “Christian” teachings with the birth of her 8th child.
    Pain during child birth was actually a rare occurrence in our ancient ancestry. Pain and death was not associated with childbirth until the 16th and 17th century when people began to flock to the cities. Midwives, or wise women, were burned at the stake and falsely accused of witchcraft throughout Europe, especially if they administered any form of pain relief. They were admonished to make the women suffer. The masses of people no longer lived off of the blessings of the land, but used coin to trade for food, goods and services. The decline in health and sanitation until the 1940’s, and the epidemics of child bed fever as women began delivering in the “houses of charity” (the precursor for the modern day hospital) created unhealthy conditions for our great great grandmothers to birth in.
    The Bible does not degrade womanhood. It does not label child bearing as a curse. It is the interpretation of the words in the Bible that we must look at.
   Genesis 3:16 is the passage commonly quoted by those who believe women have been “cursed to give birth in pain”. That it is Eves punishment for having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
   The word translated as “sorrow” or “pain” is the Hebrew word estev. This word is also used when God curses Adam. This word is accurately translated as sorrow. Let’s look at this Bible verse from the New Revised Standard Version. Genesis 3:16-17:

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pangs (estev) in childbearing; in pain (estev) you shall bring forth children.”
And to the man He said, “…cursed is the ground because of you; in toil (estev) shall you eat of it all the days of your life…”

   
When the Hebrew word is translated as “pain” for the woman and “toil” for the man, it is clear that the translator’s cultural beliefs have biased his judgment as a scholar of the text. The best description of giving birth is toil, or labor.
   Estev is also translated as “toil” in Proverbs 5:10, 10:22, Isaiah 68:3 and elsewhere. Again, it is translated as “toil” in Chronicles 4:9, which is the only verse in the entire bible that uses estev in connection with the actual birth of a child. To be consistent with other usage of estev in the Bible, Genesis 3:16 should be translated as toil.”

End quote

Dee,

All I did was refer to 1 Corinthians not  try to come up with a doctrine to justify anything. I’ve never heard anyone teach eternal submission of women that you mention. 

I was thinking on marriage the other night in another context and that in eternity there is no marriage. So whatever Christ did as the Second Adam is far grater than just return in to a Pre fall state. In the meantime though there is marriage. 

I agree Jesus grew In His incarnation and I did not mean to minimise Jesus sacrifice in His incarnation when I referred to 1 Corinthians. To be honest it’s not something I’ve studied, the eternal submission of Jesus as you called it, but scripture seems to me to show it. 

Heather,

What is your point that birth is hard work and not pain?

Thank you, John.

“You’re right, it is all about power, the ‘divine right of men’ as it were. It angers me to no end that they are not bothered by the fact that to do so involves oppressing half the world’s population.”

Bless you, friend.

With all this talk of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, the comps seem to overlook, brush aside, or use the following to reason away why the Holy Spirit is missing in their equation unless, and this is a huge unless, the people explain away the Holy Spirit as being under both the Father and the Son.

In other words, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity (GOD the HOly Spirit) is reduced to a child that must obey his mummy (um, Jesus, I suppose reassigned or something) and the big kahoona the Father.

This is offensive in my opinion.

With respect to childbirth, some of my births were not painful and a couple included birthgasms. I will leave the details out of this post (and everyone said, “Amen”).

@ Debra:

Yes, when they do try to explain away the inconsistency (rare), they usually say the Holy Spirit = the children of the couple. They then leave the topic as soon as possible to avoid having to face that fact that this makes absolutely no sense and has some really bad ramifications (i.e., foolishness being bound up in the heart of a child – is the Holy Spirit now foolish?).

@ Heather

I appreciated your comments, especially the in-depth study of the word “estev”. I have read something similar to what you were describing, mostly about the history of midwives and how they were demonised and burned at the stake as witches for daring to relieve some of the pain associated with childbirth. It is an interesting topic for me, although it is disturbing the level of atrocities committed by so-called ‘men of God’. Wolves. They were wolves.

@ Dana

I will have to read through Genesis again (it’s been a long time, I must confess)… I truly cannot recall whether or not Adam & Eve were cursed, or whether it was just the ground and the serpent.

The point I was trying to make, is that black & white thinking applied to Genesis (especially regarding gender roles and any and all supposedly gender specific curses) make little sense in the world we know today. Women toil to produce food as much as men, always have. Women carry the burden of childbirth, however, men must watch their wives (assuming they are married) go through a difficult, often paintful labour, being, essentially, incapable of helping them. Labour is painful (or at least, it often is) but I know from experience, it’s much more difficult to watch someone you love be in pain than it is to feel the pain yourself.

The Gospel Coalition has announced its upcoming conference, to be held in Orlando next April. Here are the speakers.

Birds of a feather…

Deb,
In amongst the speakers, there is just one husband-wife team whose bios are together, David and Sally Michael. He is a Pastor and she is a Minister at “Piper’s” church……
I grew up, long ago, in a denomination where the “the minister” was the full-time leader of preaching and vision, and some were women already. Seems it’s all about the title “pastor” as far as a man’s unique role in churches.

French seems new to TGC. I don’t know who moderates discussions with respect to authors but french may be new and that may mean there’s not much attentive moderation of comments.

It’s not like Driscoll circa 2010 where 20 comments were wiped out inside of an hour because comments that Driscoll isn’t in any way seriously Reformed got posted.

We could always wait three days and see if there are any comments by then.

Speaking of C.J.–

Lots going on today: http://www.sbts.edu/marriage-in-ministry/ All livestream. Al Mohler will speak on leading your family through ministry crisis (he has an example of how not to do that with one of the speakers there–let you all figure out who that is) and then a panel discussion with CJ included.

And then—CJ will speak on marriage and pastoral ministry.

Right of passage or forfeiture of privilege?

     Hello,

By siding with Rev. Charles Mahaney, (of Sovereign Grace Ministries) and his (now known) criminal and abusive behavior, those in TGC leadership that support him, have in essence forfeited their authority. 

Certainly they have forfeited a certain respect?

The comp. issue I see as paramount is ( one of abuse) that men in the church have so abused their authority that they essentially move themselves “offsides” and are guilty of “holding”, in their efforts to now silence women in the churches who have either encountered theses abuses and speak out on a very personal level, or those that are  attempting to give those that have, a voice.The doctrine of complementarianism has made that impossible.  The Bible is then used to further silence women, moving “them” into the penalty box for asserting themselves.  Abuse, what Abuse?

Check. 

A right they (women and the right of free speech) lawfully posses under the present American Constitution being suspended once the enter the sanctuary, or meeting hall? Do women now find themselves in chains to an ideology that demands their absolute submission regardless of the abuse, which equates, in this present day’s abusive society, to absolute tyranny, both in the church and possibly in the home as well?

Women, do these pastors represent those who have abused free speech and are no longer worthy of respect?  And you are encouraged to keep your children in these spiritually abusive churches? Will your children one day thank you, or some other? Remember: A pastor, or a husband, must earn the right of passage, authority being what it is, delegate by God Almighty; do these men really want to mess with Him? For example, will He not simply raise up a hundred where “Joan” once stood? 

Those that “bridle” the Gospel, do so at their own detriment? The Gospel is one of Good News, and you have turned it into the makings of the droppings upon the floor of a horse stall? You are offended, for Shame?  (if the shoe fits?) God’s wonderful words were given for what purpose?

Check.

HeavenBound,

IronClad

I know this topic is fading away, but I thought this was a good article:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/08/confused-by-complementarianism.php

Interesting article here: http://www.womanthegloryofman.com/pdfs/1-corinthians-14_34-35.pdf.

Deb, I read your newest post about gospel/complementarian confusion a while ago. I read the critiques of Carl Trueman and Thabiti Anyabwile. These made me think some more about this post from a week ago.

I’m wondering if some of the confusion about complementarianism and The Gospel Coalition is because the presentation of the trio of Mssrs. Carson, Keller, and Piper was on video. We watch and we cannot escape their tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, hand motions. It all “sounds” so congenial, “looks” so friendly, “seems” so reasonable – at least when we simultaneously see and hear and process what they’re saying and how they’re saying it.

But I’m wondering what if … What if first exposure to their content came via a complete transcript of only their words themselves, and who said what and when?

No overtones of “nice” from anyone speaking, just raw words.

No charming smiles to go with the verbal assurance that, no, complementarianism is not part of a gospel presentation, not an issue for salvation BUT it does affects deeply other things indirectly – and catching how a “yeah, but” acts as a verbal eraser for all that came before.

No effusive and passionate hand waving to distract from words that hold inherent disdain.

I could be totally wrong here, but I do wonder. What if any orator’s overtones were stripped away, and all we had were just plain old transcript pages covered with plain old words? I wonder if we wouldn’t be so “confused,” because the words themselves would be enough evidence to clearly perceive inherent contradictions.

This just might make an intriguing experiment for the next time elders in such a movement issue a video apologetic for their theological construct …