" I have known quite a few complementarians who seem to be such less because of the Bible and more because they apparently watched Conan the Barbarian a few too many times in their early teenage years."
Carl Trueman
"It’s ubiquitous. And it’s becoming an inflexible law. We dare not face any issue without the requisite hat tip to 'the gospel.' "
Thabiti Anyabwile
Drop of Water
Several weeks ago Don Carson wrote a thought-provoking article What's Wrong With Patriarchy, which was published on The Gospel Coalition blog. I responded to Carson's post by writing Complementarian Confusion at The Gospel Coalition and The Gospel Coalition's Complementarian Conundrum. Truly, these are confusing times in Christendom.
The Together for the Gospel (T4G) leaders have declared that complementarianism is an essential issue, while The Gospel Coalition is not willing to go that far.
Now Carl Trueman has weighed in with a post entitled: Confused by Complementarianism? You probably should be. He writes:
Given that the issue of complementarianism is raising its head over at The Gospel Coalition, it provides an opportunity to reflect on an issue that has always perplexed me: why is the complementarian/egalitarian debate such a significant bone of contention in parachurch cobelligerent organisations whose stated purpose is to set aside issues which divide at a church level but which do not seem to impact directly upon the gospel? Why, for instance, is this issue of more importance than, say, differences over baptism or understandings of the Lord's Supper? Historically and confessionally, those have been the issues that divide, so it is strange to see the adjective 'confessional' applied to movements which actually sideline the very doctrinal differences which made Protestant confessions necessary in the first place.
As Trueman has rightly pointed out, why is complementarianism such a "bone of contention" among those who are promoting the Gospel? (more on that momentarily)
It is incredible that theologians can disagree on baptism, an important ordinance in the Christian faith, and yet egalitarians are not welcome at the complementarian table? Is the Danvers Statement the foundation for such divisiveness in Christendom?
Then there's the word "gospel" that we have called attention to numerous times here at TWW. It's not only a noun, but an adjective that has been used ad nauseam, and that's the gospel truth!
Thabiti Anyabwile, who hails from N.C. State University (where my younger daughter attends), has just weighed in with his criticism of the overuse of the term "gospel" with his post I'm Tired of Hearing the Gospel (Warning: Mild Rant)
Anyabwile rants:
"…someone has sent me another note chastising me (mildly) for not concluding a post with “the gospel.”
It doesn’t matter what the topic is. Men and women struggling to get along in their marriages? ”The gospel.” Someone struggling to find work in this economy? ”Believe ‘the gospel’.” The mechanic just “fixed” your car–again–and charged you–again–for the same problem you noticed last week? Think of “the gospel.” The Russian high court sentencing a punk rock band to two years in prison for a flash mob performance in a Russian Orthodox cathedral? ”They need the gospel.” Want rock hard abs? Try “gospel” aerobics. I smashed my little toe against the dresser? All together now, “the gospel.”
It’s ubiquitous. And it’s becoming an inflexible law. We dare not face any issue without the requisite hat tip to “the gospel.”
I really liked Tom's comment in response to Anyabwile's post:
When the gospel becomes “hip” and “cool” what do you expect? You get tens of dozens of books with gospel in the title, and each one is touted (by the same voices!) as the best treatement and application of the gospel since Augustine.
You get reformed hipsters constantly trying to out gospel one another and to convince their peeps how non-legalistic they are. The Gospel™ is so ubiquitous in certain reformed circles that it has become meaningless because, as you wrote, it has come to be the answer to every question.
Enjoy the rest of your explicit gospel-centered, gospel-powered vacation, full of gospel-wakefulness.
Tom
Indeed, the overuse of such an important term as "gospel" renders it meaningless in my book. Here's what the term Gospel means:
Gospel – the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation
Folks, could we PLEASE get back to sharing the living water with those who are thirsty and stop all these shenanigans that are so confusing to a lost world. Let's stop making complementarianism a primary doctrinal issue and use the term "Gospel" (with a capital G) correctly. It means "Good News", and we have the message that a lost world is dying to hear…
Lydia's Corner: Genesis 41:17-42:17 Matthew 13:24-46 Psalm 18:1-15 Proverbs 4:1-6
And they wonder why church attendance is dropping…
Excellent article by Trueman. I especially liked this:
“Still, it is true: I have indeed come across those who argue for women’s ordination on the grounds that Paul was simply wrong; but I have also met those who think we have simply moved on from Paul’s time, that he was right then but that his teaching cannot be applied directly to the twenty-first century context. Further, I have met those who profess to hold to inerrancy and who think that the relevant texts are authoritative but that the complementarian understanding of them is wrong. The latter two classes of people seem to me to be raising primarily hermeneutical issues; and the last group in particular does not seem, on the face of it, to be advocating a necessarily low view of scripture in the typical sense of the phrase. Indeed, I see no reason why one could not be an egalitarian and an inerrantist. And if it is a hermeneutical difference, how does one decide that this particular difference among inerrantists is more egregious than, say, those between Baptists and Paedobaptists or Dispensationalists and Amillennialists?”
I’ve said before I’m on the fence between comp and egal. Before I climbed up there, I thought all egalitarians were in Trueman’s first group (just writing off the Bible as wrong). And egalitarians who do this still make me pretty uncomfortable. Even the second group (Paul’s statements about women were contextual) isn’t always to my liking. It’s the third group (accepting the Bible’s authority and merely understanding the texts in question differently) that made me get on the fence. So when prominent comps insist that egals will necessarily have a low view of the Bible, I have to scratch my head and wonder, who have they been reading?
Trueman’s point about excommunicable offenses is very good too. I thought excommunication was reserved for blatant, unrepentant sin and rank heresy. Are comps really willing to call egalitarianism either of those things? And if so, Trueman’s question remains: are a Baptist’s Presbyterian friends lost because they believe in infant baptism?
So – kudos to Carl Trueman for bringing some balance and good sense to this debate!
Val,
Agreed! These guys need to take a look at Wade Burleson's church and get a clue. Emmanuel adds new members EVERY week. Something exciting is happening there and Christians want to be a part of it.
Hester,
I concur with what you've written. Until recently, if you consulted the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood blog, you would erroneously believe that ALL egalitarians are radical feminists. Since the CBMW website is still "under construction" (since last April), those posts are no longer accessible. Scrub a dub dub…
Dee and Deb,
People are having enough. The Gospel Coalition has some good guys who unfortunately have sat by quietly for too long. Thankfully, some are speaking out. It gets hard justifying the nonsense especially when John P tells women to take a couple for the team for a night or two. Or Doug Wilson and the Bayly brothers. I think this is the beginnings of a distancing so to speak. They will have to because the patriarchs will soon turn on them and pronounce them heretics. It will be interesting.
Robin,
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe the ‘good guys’ have been silent for far too long, and it may have cost them dearly because the patriarchs came in and took over.
I am still dumbfounded that women in John Piper’s church cannot even read scripture or pray at the front of the church. Incredible!
Why don’t women read or pray in Bethlehem’s church services?
Oddly enough in the bible there are passages where women have speaking parts:)
Piper doesn’t let women read the Bible to the church? I didn’t know that. And I think that’s extinguished the last vestiges of interest in ever reading any of his books for me. There’s just too much crazy there.
Trueman makes some excellent points. How can you say that patriarchy or whatever is a gospel issue but the Lord’s supper or Baptism those aren’t gospel issues? Really?? In the bible, people got sick and some died over the misuse of the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is referred almost always when talking about the gospel. (Believe and be Baptized) and the one Lutheran’s use which I feel is quite compelling (Baptism now saves you) These sentences are actually in the bible. Taking abuse for a season is NOT in scriptures. So, why is Taking Abuse for a Season gospel but the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are debatable?? Are you kidding me? I think T4G came into existence because there are certain areas of Calvinism that tend to be quite heavy handed and I believe those aspects are what they wanted to draw from. They did not want the whole council. I am quite sympathetic to reformed doctrine and if I could find a Wade Burleson my way, I may reconsider my refusal to darken the door of anything reformed. I no longer attend the Baptist church because everywhere I turn someone is trying to sneak in the back door and pull the Calvinista bait and switch. But, on the bright side, I keep running into Reformed men and women who are dripping with grace and it makes me think maybe just maybe this is a beautiful expression of the Christian faith high jacked by some over zealous southern baptists who felt the people were getting too soft and if they could pound the obsessive compulsive Johnathan Edwards who drove some to suicide, people would act right. (By the way Edwards was nothing short of brilliant and sinners in the hands of an angry God is quite classic and wonderful law that should make the gospel even more sweeter.) Unfortunately, a lot of Calvinistas never quite make it to the Gospel part.
Pam, I think quite a bit about Piper is loony. He is the reason we know the name Mark Driscoll. And if he really was this reformed scholar why on earth would he bring Rick Warren to his church? Oh, and let’s not forget cooing over Doug Wilson.
“It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe the ‘good guys’ have been silent for far too long, and it may have cost them dearly because the patriarchs came in and took over. ”
This is why I am slowly but surely backing away from my reformed background. To let people like the Bayly brothers continue blogging their nonsense and hatred and yet no one speaks out about it? This bothers me. Those guys need to be brought out into the open and called out. They haven’t been and this turns me off.
I’d rather not go to church at all.
An article on slashdot.org that seems strangely appropriate in light of the ongoing TWW discussions about complementarianism. Caution: slashdot comments are not renowned for their polite language. (posted to TWW 2012/08/28)
Hester,
“So when prominent comps insist that egals will necessarily have a low view of the Bible, I have to scratch my head and wonder, who have they been reading?”
Sadly, denigrating anyone who interprets the Bible differently to you is a common strategy amongst conservative evangelicals. Likewise, misrepresenting your opponents is another underhand tactic. I bet they do it deliberately. Both are obviously signs of a weak argument.
Trueman is about the first complementarian I have encountered who has approached this issue in a rational manner. I hope he continues to speak out.
Funny that you bring up the overuse of the word “Gospel.” The Gospel is the story of Israel coming to fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and what that means for the reconciliation of the world.
When the word “Gospel” becomes overused, it comes to encompass entire ways of thinking and approaching problems. Of course, how we view the world and approach problems will probably flow from our understanding of the Gospel….but we need to be careful that we don’t start using “the story of Israel coming to fulfillment in Jesus Christ and what that means for reconcilation” and calling it “this is how I approach problem X” because there may be more than one Biblical way to approach problem X, and the Gospel is probably BIGGER than our approach to problem X anyway. 🙂
Ian, Hester, et al.
Misrepresenting those Christians who disagree with you as something else, or heretical, or feminists, or whatever, is a form of bearing false witness against a fellow Christian.
One can have a very high view of scripture, hold it inerrant, and still believe that a lot of it is very contextual and must be so understood and considered, before applying it to life today. We must keep in mind that there is a lot of OT scripture that has been rendered inapplicable to today due to Jesus the Christ and the changed effect of the law.
@ Deb & Ian:
I do self-describe as a conservative Christian, but the behavior and lack of intellectual rigor of many other people who claim that title disgusts me. I know I’m not alone in this. Heck, that’s half the reason this blog even exists.
This trend of women being disallowed from reading or praying aloud in church really disturbs me. No matter how you interpret Paul, it is clear that he DOES allow women to pray aloud, though perhaps only under certain conditions (1 Cor. 11). He even lets them prophesy. But as John Piper goes, so goes American Calvinism. If women can’t read the Bible publicly at Bethlehem Baptist, then it’s only a matter of time before they’re silenced in every Reformed church in the country.
And as for the prophecy thing – where is the line between prophecy and teaching in Scripture? IS there even a line? What’s the definition of prophecy anyway? If prophecy and teaching are basically the same thing, then what do we make of Paul’s statements prohibiting women from teaching, when he lets them prophesy? I also really liked Frank Viola’s point that there were women in the group that received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. I had never noticed that before in that account.
Pam and Deb –
At my last church (the church that put me off ‘church’), women weren’t allowed to read out loud or pray in front of the congregation. Nor were they asked to be ushers/greeters at the door.
And this was at a supposedly soft-complementarian church!
No wonder I never fit in there…though they did get their pound of flesh from me when I was roped into organising the music for over a year. I wasn’t allowed to announce anything, but they were okay with using me to improve the music. But the pastor never was comfortable with the fact that I was coordinating music (too close to leading) so he brought in one of his friends to interview for a full-time paid position as music pastor.
@ Deb:
“Since the CBMW website is still ‘under construction’ (since last April), those posts are no longer accessible.”
Last April?!?!? Almost half a year?! How is it even possible to have a website be “under construction” for that long? Clearly they have skilled internet people – the website hardly looked “homemade” and clunky before – so why the delay? CBMW is hardly an unpopular site in certain circles. How can they get away with that?
JJ
Some of these men will stand before God some day for playing games with marginalizing 50+% of their congregation and be embarrassed when the Almighty holds women in far higher esteem than they do.
The latest phrase is “We are soft complementarians” is a smoke screen. I have news for them. When they say a woman cannot pray out loud before the church or be an usher, etc., they are not a soft comp. They are rigid and patriarchal, better yet, Pharisaical. They are flat out lying.
Hester –
The logical conclusion of what John Piper is teaching is that there is a different Holy Spirit for women then there is for men. Paul never gave a directive to women that the Holy Spirit can only minister in women to other women, children, and boys under a certain age. The Holy Spirit is not a respector of a certain sex. Why would he be when God created man in His image – male and femal – and they stood before Him naked and unashamed?
Dee –
I believe CBMW has been down since this past April. I went over there around that time and read some of the articles by Grudem. It is strange that they are in this state of not having their information up though.
Isn’t life interesting? Trueman is one of the Reformed that exonerated Manahey before all the reporting was in. Deemed him fit for ministry. Would be nice if these guys were ever consistent.
I can be an inerranist with a high view of scripture and AND be an egalitarian! That’s me!
Bridget,
I stand corrected. It was mid-May when the CBMW website was shut down due to “re-construction”. How do I know? Because it went down a week before our blog crashed and burned. It was a rather odd ‘coincidence’.
Dee and I had dinner with Sergius on the very day that our blog went down. Here is the post that I got up right before TWW crashed: Resolved 2012 – That’s A Wrap
If you check the archives, there are no posts during the last week of May or the first week of June. Needless-to-say, we’re glad to be up and running!
Kathy Hickey,
LIKE!!!
Hester,
CBMW has been “under construction” for going on a third of a year. Kudos that they FINALLY changed the Board of Directors a year or so after the new officers were put in place and that their blog is partially functioning. It does seem like an awfully long time that they are “under construction”. I guess they are working with a shoestring budget. It will be interesting to see what happens to the archives if and when the website is fully functioning again.
Complimentarianism is Gospel – the Gospel of Oppression
-When a male turns 18 (21?) there is nothing a woman can teach him of value
-When a woman reads the Bible in church, no one believes it (or it becomes the word of Satan)
-When a woman participates in distributing the communion elements, the grace disappears from it (perhaps they are “unclean!”)
-When a woman preaches the Gospel to men, they can’t hear it
-When a woman participates in church making church decisions it leads to bad decisions
-When a woman has authority over a man in a church structure, the poor man is emasculated and his fragile ego shattered
and on, and on, and on……..
Perhaps CBMW died due to lack of interest? Could the world be so fortunate?
“Gospel – the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation”
I agree, but the problem is that comp doctrine excludes women from their inheritance of “sonship” within the Kingdom. Women are excluded from their share of the gifts because they are not allowed to practice certain ones. Galatians tells us that there is neither Jew, Greek, male female, slave or free and the reason is because we are now all “sons” and therefore get a full inheritance. This is and example of why comp doctrine is hidious. Comps say that Galatians is only about salvation when in fact it’s about our inheritance as “sons” through our salvation!
Jeff,
What is really scary about the points you have outlined is that guys, especially seminary students, believe them!
How tragic and foolish… Obviously, these leaders never consulted their sisters in Christ about their ‘trajectory’ for church growth. Who came up with this birdbrain idea anyway??? Oh, that’s right…
Deb,
It’s very frightening indeed. It seems the only way these guys can validate their own worth is to claim whole groups of others, such as women, as worthless. These guys need some serious work on the self-esteem rather than hurting others.
I think these “keep the women in their place” types need to recognize that while they use the concept of “eternal submission” in terms of the trinity and it’s relevance to marriage…there is NO marriage in heaven…NO women’s submission in heaven…no male/female in heaven. It will just be everyone praising God and not thinking about themselves. These men would do well to begin doing that on earth. I think their wives might even like them a little more if that happened!
I wonder how far these Piperettes will go? Will they start going the VF way in which taking away the right for women to vote will bring America back to its former greatness? *sarcasm*
Deb –
How is it that an organization like CBMW can’t get their site up and running (they are male driven and have financial support), yet TWW which has never asked for financial assistance and is female driven was repaired and working in a week????
I have come to the conclusion that the only reason complementarians do not outright say just what complementarianism is because when it is written out in so many words, people will notice immediately how legalistic the whole thing is. Leaving it ambiguous is a way for them to preach it without being called out for what it is.
They use the word “gospel” because they are building their own gospel. The Great Commission takes a back seat – if it is even thought of in the first place – to law, which provides them a way to control their churches.
The way these men and women are defaming the character of Christ is blasphemous. This is no gospel they are spreading but an agenda.
Bridget
Mabe it’s because they can’t find any women to do it for them? 🙂
A whole lot from the old cbmw.org site is available through the Internet Archive.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cbmw.org/journal/*
Or just do a search for “internet archive cbmw.org”
I was wondering…has anyone else here at TWW read this book offered by the Sojourn churches here in Louisville?
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Home-like-Little-Church/dp/1845505522/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
The premise seems nice enough, but I can’t help wondering if this isn’t actually patri-ganda disguised as a children’s book. Any help would be welcome.
On a (somewhat) related note, I’ve been reading C.J. Mahaney’s Twitter posts to see if any info on the new SGM plant is forthcoming. I don’t think I have ever read the words “a privilege and a joy” more times in my entire life. Not to mention “serve,” “served” and, of course, “the GOSPEL.”
Jeff –
I believe you might have the answer! Hey, since you’re a “brother,” maybe you could advise them of their misfortune. Then again, maybe they are waiting until the appropriately gifted man is revealed to them.
Craig –
CJ knows how to “serve up” that “privilege and joy” to the right folks at the right time, doesn’t he? 🙂 He knows when to lay it on thick.
Sometimes I wish they’d all just stop talking 🙂
Heather,
Thanks for the info on CBMW. I will definitely check it out!
Dee, you wrote
Some of these men will stand before God some day for playing games with marginalizing 50+% of their congregation and be embarrassed when the Almighty holds women in far higher esteem than they do.
Substitute “LGBT people” for “women” and… well, you already got it.
I find the extremists on both sides obnoxious.
I’ve run into those who would not have a woman alone attending a dying man on the side of the road ask of his relationship with Jesus. If he says he is unsaved, she might try to share the gospel and that is a no no, so better he should die and go to hell.
BLECH!
On the other extreme, I’ve seen no respect for young, nursing mothers when it comes to “church work.” The old idea that the only work worth doing at all is that traditionally considered men’s work, and that nuisance baby needs to quit howling so mama can go visiting or preaching or teaching or whatever.
BLECH again!
Let’s respect both roles, male and female, and the fact that there will be times and circumstances that call for upholding them and times and circumstances that will call for breaking them.
I don’t have a problem with comps until they insist that it is central to the gospel, even though I consider it thinly veiled misogyny. I spent a year in a comp church (SGM). The pastor actually had to explain that God really does love women and care for women and save women just like men.Complementarianism was such a heavy part of church life, he thought we needed to be reminded. I was on my way out the door.
Doug Wilson has posted his “rebuttal” to Trueman’s piece.
“Uniting around the gospel, and that’s all, is not possible.” -DW
“The true gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus) calls us to a life of repentance and faith, and it is not possible to work together with men “in the gospel” when they are refusing to call people to repent of the principal corruption of our day, which is that of sexual confusion.” -DW
The piece is entitled “Get Him Winding Some Bandages.” Really? Does this man ever say anything that is not snarky?
http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/get-him-winding-some-bandages.html
Well…this comment of mine…hmm, well you all know it is about fundamentally dismantling the “sound doctrine”, and that includes the deceptive use of terms and theologies designed to oppress in the name of “humility”. The reformed humility is generally false.
56 Years said, “One can have a very high view of scripture, hold it inerrant, and still believe that a lot of it is very contextual and must be so understood and considered, before applying it to life today.”
By definition anything inerrant can never be accountable to “context”. Context can have no bearing on anything that is perfect. This is axiomatic. We can say the Bible is true…and it is, but its truth, even by your very own statement, is derived from its application to man’s life in service to man’s goal: knowing God, which is at its very root contextual, because each man/woman is an utterly different life. Thus, you are right in saying the Bible is beholden to context, but that also means it cannot be inerrant. For the Bible’s very purpose is to be APPLIED in service to man’s justification and sanctification. But then how is it possible that an inerrant/infallible thing, when applied, will ALWAYS produce results that are fallible or errant?
By definition, only GOD is infallible and inerrant, meaning He IS TRUTH. If the Bible is inerrant, what we are saying is that the Bible is GOD, and thus, when applied, the result must always be fallible, because only God is infallible (or inerrant; the terms, in regards to reformed doctrine, are the same thing). This is simply not possible. How can an infallible thing which was designed to be applied always produce fallible results, without exception? Again, not possible.
I submit that the very fact that the Bible is true and effective and results in GOOD outcomes when applied is precisely because it IS fallible, and thus is of use to man.
Finally, think about this: There are only two things that exist. God and Creation. Therefore, any created THING cannot BE God, and therefore, cannot be infallible or inerrant, as a fundamental truth. Even the Bible.
If the Bible is truly inerrant, it can only exist in service to ITSELF, as THE greatest TRUTH, because to exist for any OTHER purpose would mean, then, it is NOT inerrant. Thus, man, to an inerrant Bible, is utterly irrelevant. Which is always the goal of reformed theology.
We must have the courage to stop accepting what are the very reformed/Calvinist premises that allow them to continue to abuse.
My theory re: the CBMW site is that they are going over it with a fine-toothed comb and weeding out the contradictions, problem articles, etc. I suspect that they realized they have stuff on there that invites problems they don’t want to deal with.
My next guess is that there is some internal squabbling over what is going to be said in particular instances. There is no way it should have been down for this long. There has to be more to it than simple updating and maintenance.
My two cents. 🙂
@ No More Perfect:
So not only are most of Wilson’s jokes, as always, astoundingly unfunny (what do bandages have to do with anything?) – he has also admitted publicly that egalitarians are lost? He REALLY needs to have his feet held to the fire on that one. And several other things (like marrying off a girl to a pedophile, saying that the Holy Spirit is just the love of the Father and the Son for each other, and getting within a hairsbreadth of saying that you’re saved by being a church member).
I will never understand why anyone listens to a word that proceeds from that man’s mouth.
Argo–
Gosh! You just brought it! I gotta copy this one and put it in my archives. Thank you, Dear Teacher ; )
Linda, I heartily agree with you. 🙂
I’ve seen this abuse of the word “Gospel” over here myself. Slapping the word “Gospel” on something as an adjective apparently somehow hallows it. In the process, I think the true glory of the Gospel is somehow diminished in people’s eyes and, worst of all, we get tired of the word, which is a tragedy. I think speakers need to stop using it all the time and be more honest if something is just a practical need, rather than calling it a “Gospel ministry/issue/work” etc.
@ Craig:
“Little church,” eh? Then they’re recycling Jonathan Edwards, and just about every other Puritan ever:
“Every Christian family ought to be, as it were, a little church, consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by His rules. And family education and order are some of the chief means of grace. If these fail, all other means are likely to prove ineffectual. If these are duly maintained, all the means of grace will be likely to prosper and be successful.” – Jonathan Edwards
This is why Reformed people yarp on family worship until both they and their audience members are blue in the face. This is also probably why the pastor of the PCA church I attended for three years, when my family had been attending less than 6 months, told my dad he needed to get a different job because his current one took him away from his family too much. Thank goodness Dad ignored him entirely.
But may God forbid that we ever get hearts hardened to the Gospel itself!
Just read Mr. Wilson’s response to Carl Trueman (I threw up in my mouth a little)
Dougie, Dougie, Dougie. In the words of that eminent theologian Buzz Lightyear, “You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
So ordaining women is like porn and fornication? But, if I read you correctly, credo- versus pedo-baptism is no big deal. How one reaches conclusions such as these must take a tremendous amount of Biblical bending, twisting, and hammering, along with a fair amount of imagination. You say:
“I am only saying that if he cannot detect a strategic moment in history like this, then he ought not to be a general. Keep him on our side, but him back in the Red Cross tent and ask him to wind some bandages.”
I’m saying, you ought to be discharged with a Section 8.
Sallie
I wish this was a site on which we could place odds and bets. If only Jimmy the Greek were alive! For example, what are the odds that women are gullible and easily deceived gets scrubbed? Howzabout women not being allowed to read Scriptures out loud in church? Driscoll’s Song of Solomon weirdness? Think Doug Wilson’s colonize and plant theology will make it? And then the infamous “women should endure abuse for a season?”
Anybody out there good at doing oddsmaking? That would totally freak them out!
NMP
Well, Dee is slowly recuperating. I think i will be ready to take him on next week.
The piece is entitled “Get Him Winding Some Bandages.” Really? Does this man ever say anything that is not snarky?
Unfortunately all the bandages are currently being used by Jack Schaap’s crisis response team.
Trina,
Thanks for your kind response. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic. 🙂
I never thought of myself as much of a teacher; but thank you. I just have a burden to help people see how the doctrine is really in service to man…in particular, the Ruling Elders, by very carefully and cohesively equating their peculiar theology as TRUTH, which makes them effectively GOD, and makes all other men and women irrelevant. They do this by creating doctrines of fear. They equate calling out their doctrine and definitions as blasphemy against God, Himself. Describing scripture as “inerrant/infallible”, defining election as God picking souls at random for heaven or hell, explaining their spiritual authority as nothing but the work of a kindly shepherd protecting you from your greatest enemy: yourself, the greatest sinner you know, nothing we can do can ever please God, so all your good deeds are just Christ doing FOR you, because He loves you etc., etc….all of this sounds so right; so humble and reverent, so in keeping with the Sovereign Power of God, all to the point we are terrified to question it. How can everything that sounds and feels so pious be anything but God? So we nod our heads, and wrack our brains trying to reconcile the inconsistencies (the Bible is infallible, and yet, people disagree on this point…well, it must then be context; yes, there is no reason the Bible can’t be both Perfect AND utterly at the mercy of contextual interpretation and differences of opinion on “disputable” matters; which of course totally squares with “inerrancy”), never able to see that the answer to the problem is to DENY the Calvinist premises because they are false. You can’t disagree with Calvinism/Reformed error unless you first stop conceding the premises. Regardless of how “holy” and “humble” their doctrine sounds, if you study it closely you’ll realize that it can only mean one inexorable thing: the irrelevancy of humans, leading to enslavement of God’s people to spiritual masters.
I know, I know. I’m crazy; I’m deluded; I’m “letting it all get to me”. It’s not the doctrine; we all know that Protestant Reformation theology IS Christianity. No…we just need better MEN to LEAD us; more moral MEN to LEAD us. Notice how the solution is in UTTER service to the whole problem. MEN are MUST LEAD as opposed to the Holy Spirit (because YOU are too depraved and wicked), is precisely what gets us where were are. MEN leading AS GOD, is reformation theology.
Argo, Simply Brill! One would think the bible was the 4th person of the Trinity. It is INspired and truth. It is not inerrant because it has been translated too many times and we do not have the originals. It is a moot point that has been sold to the masses. And it keeps them from enjoying it as a supplement best read with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I remember a few years ago hearing from some around town that donations to the CBMW were drying up. They did move it to be housed at sbts but even then someone has to work the website and they used to have a journal that I think Denny Burk (dean at Boyce which is sbts) edited when he was at Criswell college.
It might also be a money thing. Let us hope so! It was becoming positively Mormon!
Why does Doug Wilson think sexual confusion is the main sin of our day? There are so many heinous things going on in the world. And there are lots of things (like greed and gluttony) that our culture indulges in that the church is lazy about calling us to account for.
Trina,
You can tell from the length of my last post my assumption was you were not being sarcastic. 🙂
Just wanted to add that everyone of us who is a believer has the Teacher, who is the Holy Spirit, never a man or woman, never you or me or your pastor “standing in the stead”. The Holy Spirit is infallible, and is in every one of us. So, in light of this, we need to take a long hard look at just what, then, is the purpose of our “Spiritual Leaders”? This question they have made very difficult to answer…and their IS an answer, but they completely obscure it. By claiming to be sole proprietors of TRUTH in our lives, by assuming by fiat “authority” over you and your homes and your children and jobs and wealth and dreams, they usurp the Teacher, the Holy Spirit, and in doing so they commit blasphemy and heresy of a most egregious sort. And we cry “stop, stop!” on our behalf AND theirs, and yet in the next breath concede their “right” by accepting their doctrine as orthodox, and thus give them NO reason to stop. And I’m not blaming anyone…I did it too, for fifteen years. Me? Totally guilty…former YRR here, so sad to admit. But at some point we need to give them a reason to stop, and that reason is telling them that we no longer accept their “authority”, and we do THAT by dismantling their doctrine at its root. And believe me, it is utterly dismantle-able. No man can claim the right to be God, usurp the Holy Spirit, and then create a defensible doctrine. It is not possible. Dismantling the doctrine is a when, not if scenario.
Okay…this is me being done with monopolizing the blog. 🙂
Anon1
YES!!! LOVE your comment about the Spirit!
Robin, you’re right about Piper. Sad thing is, I know he’s written some things in the past that are meant to be good. But all the crazy just overwhelms anything useful he’s said.
“The true gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus) calls us to a life of repentance and faith, and it is not possible to work together with men “in the gospel” when they are refusing to call people to repent of the principal corruption of our day, which is that of sexual confusion.” -DW
The principal corruption of our day is sexual confusion? Really? I can think of any number of other contenders for that spot … like greed (the Enron folks, Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America); like usurpation of power (dirty elections, lobbyists who write our laws); like hardheartedness and self-centeredness, when so many are hungry and poor and we turn our backs, comfy in our own snug houses. Give me a few minutes and I’ll come up with a dozen more. But sexual confusion will not be among them. Sexual confusion may hurt the one confused, and perhaps the ones he loves, but it will not affect millions upon millions of people like so many other of our principal corruptions these days.
Pam said,
“Sad thing is, I know he’s written some things in the past that are meant to be good. But all the crazy just overwhelms anything useful he’s said.”
Dee said the very same thing about Piper when we talked this afternoon. What in the world happened to him?
@ No More Perfect
Doug Wilson really does consider himself God, doesn’t he?
re: Argo on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:58 PM
I think if you read the Chicago statement on the inerrancy of the Bible, you will see that it relates to the original “autographs” which they take to be the words spoken by God himself to the writer, hence inerrant. Of course we do not have those originals!!! Personally, I do not ascribe to the inerrancy thing, because we don’t have the originals and it was just a political tool. But my point is, no matter how high your view of the Bible is, you can still see that the NT was written in a certain context, and parts in different contexts, and to understand the message, you have to understand what it would have been saying to the original readers and hearers, and then, translate that to our language and culture. Hence my remark that one must consider the application to the current context and well as the historical context.
When women, children and slaves were chattel property, Paul’s writings, like the teaching of Jesus, is very liberating and advocates for the better treatment of those previously despised. Mutual submission and sacrificial love for one’s spouse is not consistent with the status of the spouse as chattel. In today’s context, an equivalent teaching is to treat one another as equals. Further, a woman who would be seen by others as the property of her husband could demean him by speaking in church, so the prohibition made some sense in that context that it does not make in ours. That is the type of analysis I was suggesting as necessary for a fuller understanding of the implications of the messages of the NT to today.
Opinion piece from Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen on why women need to submit in marriage. The usual ‘men and women are different’ with no explanation on what that means. 550+ comments so far.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/men-and-women-are-different-and-so-should-be-their-marriage-vows-20120828-24yo6.html#comments
Argo–
No sarcasm, promise! I really did copy and save that one. It’s a jewel, to say the least. I need to meditate on it until it sinks in. Yes, we do have the HS as our teacher and other gifted people such as yourself, who can word things differently that resonate with those who needed to hear it that way.
Argo–
I really am digging the points you made. Talk about defining “slope”. It’s interesting to see the correlation of such beliefs leading up to the elder posing for God in the believer’s life. When you speak about God choosing to elect some for heaven and others for hell at random, well I just can’t believe, like you, that I used to hold to these sets of beliefs. It all looks rather asinine right now as I even see it written. It’s amazing that I could not see that before. The experiences we must have to teach us wisdom….PRICELESS.
‘Anybody out there good at doing oddsmaking? That would totally freak them out”
I bet the CBMW article musing about women submitting to men in heaven is scrubbed. we dined out on that one for quite a while on the watch blogs. One wag even linked to Mormon teaching that was the same!
56 Years,
Yes, I see what you are saying. Thanks for making that point…the need to understand scripture in context is extremely important; the verses do not exist in any type of literary or historical vacuum. I could not agree more. Again, glad you clarified.
Eagle –
It’s a good thing they were all listening to God and not their earthly authorities 🙂
Don’t forget Tamar (the one from Genesis)
I found this article through a commenter at Baptist Women for Equality which I think pertinent to this post: http://www.womanthegloryofman.com/pdfs/1-corinthians-14_34-35.pdf. The author makes a point I find quite striking: ‘… Paul is saying that believers are not
to give credence to anyone who teaches that women cannot teach.’
Wow, Estelle…hard-hitting article! I must admit I always have been rather sympathetic to the quotation reading of that passage. It flows very nicely that way. Otherwise, Paul seems to be getting indignant for no reason halfway through the chapter. There’s clearly something wonky going on in chap. 14, because earlier IN THE SAME BOOK Paul stated unambiguously that women can prophesy.
Addendum: the funniest comp (non-)argument I ever saw to explain the apparent contradiction between 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14 was in the Ryrie Study Bible. Ryrie’s only explanation of 1 Cor. 11 (where Paul says women can pray/prophesy if their heads are covered) was that Paul’s “tone” indicates he didn’t really approve of women praying/prophesying at all.
Tone? Really? One of the most ambiguous, subjective parts of writing? That’s the way we’re gonna play? Seriously? …Really?
He didn’t even try.
Gordon Fee made a case that the wonky thing is someone interpolated a passage into the epistle that probably wasn’t originally there.
The first time I heard the reasoning that Paul is quoting the Corinthians’ words back to them, something inside me went ‘Yes!’ I think it significant that, considering Koine Greek doesn’t use punctuation, the only punctuation mark that is used, as far as I am aware, is in this passage and is an expression of indignation. The KJV translates it as ‘What!’ but it is not in every translation e.g. it’s not in my NIV.
Doug Wilson: Gospel Snark.
@Pam, pretty much. You know the old joke “What is the difference between a doctor and God? God doesn’t think he’s a doctor. . .”? Well, we could change that around to “What is the difference between a reformed theologian and God?”
@Dee, Take your time. You’ll need to be well-recovered to take on this guy’s ego.
SGM – “Dougie, Dougie, Dougie. In the words of that eminent theologian Buzz Lightyear, “You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.”
Buzz Lightyear definitely makes more sense than these guys. And he is a heck of a lot funnier. 😉
Hester – I wonder, too. The man is pompous. That generally makes people turn a deaf ear, except for those who are full of hot air themselves.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071123223314/http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Relationships-and-Roles-in-the-New-Creation
Anon 1, is this the article you had in mind?
I wonder if the CBMW site being down for an extended time is in any way related to Mary Kassian’s recent posts on the mutuality of complementarianism. It makes those posts seem like trial balloons to see what response that concept might draw.
I notice that Mary K. has not turned her comments back on.
Dana – I doubt she will turn her comments back on. She obviously doesn’t want to hear from the other side, or be challenged to stand up for the messier parts of her view. I don’t even think she knows where this seven part series is going; it is just taking too long for her to get through it.
August 14th, Mary wrote that they had experienced a couple of deaths – a pet, an old friend – and was understandably behind on the blog. She wrote this –
“Some people have submitted multiple comments and a few have become quite belligerent and offended that I haven’t moderated comments or responded to them. I hope you can understand why I simply haven’t had the time or the emotional fortitude to do so. To prevent more offense, I will keep comments closed until things have settled, and I’ve caught up with my work and can deal with them properly.”
So we’ll see if she turns them back on or not. I think that professional complementarians who talk to each other all the time are surprisingly unprepared for pushback and pointed questions. If they are revising the CMBW site to be a bit less embarassing, they may be trying out new ways of “explaining” things and Mary may have been caught short by the less-than-stellar response her new tactic provoked.
Heather –
I found that article very difficult to follow. I only skimmed it, to be honest, as it was all over the place. I did find this interesting (?!?) paragraph.
“Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25). They will, as never before, have the capacity to relate to those they love “in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). Consider, moreover, that in the new creation those who were wives in the former dispensation, will have the mind of Christ, “who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and . . . humbled himself” (Phil 2:6-8). They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”
It appears from this paragraph that the author believes that certain scriptures apply to men (they will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church”) and certain scriptures apply to women (gracious, selfless, submission.) However, both examples are of the actions of Christ and they are there for ALL believers. How does this man separate these examples (from Jesus) and apply some to men and others to women?
This man accuses egalitarians of bad hermeneutics and then writes this paragraph (this is only one example). And CBMW expects people to take this writing seriously?
“Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25)”
Huh? Because husbands couldn’t genuinely love their wives before??
@ Eagle,
I know you’re going through a rough time right now, but could I respectfully suggest that your comment about John Piper being demented was out of order.
I’ve long campaigned against the lack of civility that is often found on internet debate. We can’t expect complementarians to stop disparaging those of other views if we’re not willing to behave decently ourselves.
We may not share Piper’s views in some areas, but we should still treat him with love, not throw gratuitous insults at him. To use the dreaded cliché, “the gospel” counts for nothing if it doesn’t impact the way we relate to those we disagree with. Jesus said “love your enemies”, but Piper isn’t even an enemy, he’s a brother in the Lord.
My grandmother was part of the old holiness movement.
Now, if ever a movement kept to the law regarding gender roles and eliminating sexual or gender confusion, they did.
And women were called by God and then ordained by their churches.
I’m realizing more and more that yes, today we often have sexual or gender confusion and that yes, it really does wreak havoc on millions.
But the solution is neither the radical feminist one of negating and hating all things feminine, or the radical comp one of putting the little women in their respective places.
Rather, in my usually less than humble opinion, we need to embrace both masculinity and femininity AS we embrace equallity.
NMP –
That’s what I thought! Plus it sounds like an excuse to “wait until we are in heaven” to do what we are called to do here and now with the help of the Holy Spirit.
@ Bridget:
There are so many problems with that paragraph that it really deserves its own article. Yet I feel compelled to point them out here as briefly as I can. Maybe I revel in self-torture. : )
1) The context in which Jesus talks about marriage (or lack thereof) in the new creation (Matt. 22:23-33). Jesus is talking to the Sadducees, who are trying to trip Him up by asking Him a “stumper” question about Levirate marriage in the resurrection (which they don’t even believe in). If a woman has had seven husbands, whose husband will she be in heaven? Here’s Jesus’ answer:
Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
Okay, so basic takeaway: there are no husbands and wives (i.e. no institution of marriage and no sex) in heaven. At first glance the CBMW quote seems to agree with this, because it says “those who had been husbands/wives in the former dispensation.” But then we must ask the question – why does CBMW think headship/submission continue in heaven? Aren’t headship and submission marriage concepts? If so, then how they can still be going on in heaven, when the institution of marriage has been abolished? The only way they can still be going on in heaven is if 1) marriage isn’t really abolished in heaven (in which case I’m pretty sure we’re Mormon now); or 2) headship/submission aren’t exclusive to marriage and all women must submit to all men (in which case we’re patriarchs).
Those are the ONLY two options to make that paragraph work. Both of them have really nasty ramifications that I’m pretty sure CBMW would be quick to distance itself from. So pick your poison, gentlemen – Mormonism or patriarchy?
2) What does it mean to be “like the angels of God in heaven”? I assume Jesus here means genderless. But in reference to headship/submission, do angels submit to each other, or only to God? I know Catholic tradition has a “hierarchy” of angels (and I know virtually nothing about this topic), but I don’t recall actually seeing that spelled out in the Bible. All we have to work from, that I remember, are the words “angel” and “archangel.” I still think the primary idea behind Jesus’ statement here is no gender, but I still think this is worth looking into.
3) Are we as humans eternally “gendered” in spirit – i.e., are our spirits/souls inherently male or female, or only inherently human? I don’t pretend to have this answer, but CBMW seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it too. If we are eternally “gendered,” then the door to ontological subordination is thrown wide open. But CBMW insists that men and women are ontologically equal and women are only subordinate in role, while also trying to maintain that women will submit to men in heaven. Just sayin’.
Re Heather’s CBMW archived article-
Tough slugging through that one. I found it used a lot of Alcorn and Lewis and others to prove their theories.
“Given, then, that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships.”
The proof for their “given” is quoting Lewic and Alcorn.
Because Adam was created first, male headship will continue in the new creation…”Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation.”
How do they know that fundamentally the new creation is such a return?
“Second, consider that subsequent to the fall (and not as a consequence of it), the principle of headship and submission in male-female relations is clearly affirmed in the New Testament. Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is this principle replaced or rescinded.43 Surely within the context of biblical teaching on the church there would be an unambiguous repeal of the principle of male headship if, in fact, its end reflected the divine ideal. Such is simply not found. There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships.”
Maybe there is no scripture calling for its end because it was never a beginning.
“With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”
That’s right…he THINKS not. and Bridget wrote:
“NMP –
That’s what I thought! Plus it sounds like an excuse to “wait until we are in heaven” to do what we are called to do here and now with the help of the Holy Spirit.”
Not to mention the wife’s lack of proper submission is most likely causing the lack of “loving like Christ loved the church” responses in men…thus responses being either apathy or abuse…and the wife’s fault.
“How, then, are we to imagine social life in the new creation to be? C. S. Lewis suggests that “the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like.”45 He continues,
It tells us that . . . [every] one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, everyone’s work is to produce something good . . . there is to be no ‘swank’ or ‘side’, no putting on airs. . . . On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience-obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong.46”
Many more quotes from Lewis follow this one as their “picture of society in the new creation” proof for a hierarchical new creation society…however, no scriptures provided.
Nothing against Lewis but does he define the new creation?
@ Hester~
Amen to your comment.
“2) What does it mean to be “like the angels of God in heaven”?”
How will we ever know the answer to that? The CBMW presumes much.
“Aren’t headship and submission marriage concepts? If so, then how they can still be going on in heaven, when the institution of marriage has been abolished? The only way they can still be going on in heaven is if 1) marriage isn’t really abolished in heaven (in which case I’m pretty sure we’re Mormon now); or 2) headship/submission aren’t exclusive to marriage and all women must submit to all men (in which case we’re patriarchs).”
I got, from the article, that headship/submission are societal concepts necessary for an organized society or new creation. And yes that includes marriage albeit a different more fulfilling type. And yes we are now Mormons and patriarchal….no need to choose.
@ Diane:
Lewis is dead wrong here. There are NO husbands and wives in the new creation. There are NO parents and children in the new creation. It’s all spelled out quite concisely in Matthew 22. No marriage in heaven = no husbands and wives, and therefore no sex, and therefore no kids. And magistrates in the new creation?! The only “magistrate” in the new creation is Jesus!
Wow. Just wow. I always thought “no marriage in heaven” was pretty straightforward. I guess not.
@ Diane:
“I got, from the article, that headship/submission are societal concepts necessary for an organized society or new creation.”
Then riddle me this, CBMW. If headship/submission (in all its forms, even state magistrates – because y’all know there’s a state in heaven) is a necessary organizational concept for the new creation, are there elders and deacons in heaven? Heck, Jethro told Moses to delegate. Doesn’t Jesus need to delegate too?
MAN, this is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week.
I haven’t time to read the CBMW article, but as far as the creation order is concerned, Adam being created first does not imply headship. Rather, the creation story teaches equality – Genesis 1:27-28.
@ Hester~
“…because y’all know there’s a state in heaven)”
lol, yep. The scriptures clearly say so and we have every reason to believe this. 🙂
@Ian~
“I haven’t time to read the CBMW article, but as far as the creation order is concerned, Adam being created first does not imply headship. Rather, the creation story teaches equality – Genesis 1:27-28.”
You have just punctured the hole in their new creation balloon.
but as far as the creation order is concerned, Adam being created first does not imply headship.”
Well apparently you haven’t spent much time on the Bully Brothers’ Blog, Ian. Because to them, the “Creation Order”–a term they use ad nauseum on their site–explains everything. And I mean everything.
CS Lewis is hardly the person to use quotes from in trying to prove the headship/submission viewpoint. One of his reasons saying that the man must be head is from Mere Christianity in the chapter on Christian marriage. If the following logic makes sense to anyone, my hat is off to you, because it is one of the weirdest, illogical ways to look at marriage that I have ever read.
“If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?”
Oops, meant to include the link where I found said quote: http://www.merelewis.com/CSL.mc.3-06.ChristianMarriage.htm
@Sergius, just for giggles I went over to see what the Bully Brothers are up to today. This from a recent post:
“Those who oppose the egalitarian feminist heresy are often accused of believing that every woman should submit to every man. This is a straw man. God has established many authorities we submit to each day and one of them is not that every woman submit to every man.”
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/08/teach-daughters-not-be-brash-and-sons-not-be-effeminate
Well, I guess John Piper didn’t get the memo. Because as we all know, in their Playbook to Suppress Women … er, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood … Piper instructs that a woman giving directions to a man lost in the neighborhood should be sure to have an entirely submissive demeanor.
Bayly then goes on to ‘splain that women have to show deference to men and men have to show leadership. He cites the examples of Rebekah and Job acting properly. I wonder what he does, though, with Jael? Or Abigail? Or even David at times? Heck, what about Jesus, what with all that submitting and defering to the Father’s will and all that? I think “creation order” is one of those phrases to put people in their place … kinda like “double secret probation.”
@ Dana & No More Perfect:
For someone who shuts down her comment thread and will brook no critique of her views, it makes one wonder how Mary K. ever defended her dissertation.
Muff Potter @ 3:16 pm –
LOL – Didn’t ya know it was an edict not a dissertation! No need to defend anything when you’re writing is on the CBMW blog. You’re already in 🙂 by way of your complementarian belief.
Hester –
If you want a try at “extended torture” — attemp the entire article. I didn’t have time to read it word for word as I had to be somewhere — blessed relief!
I like Lewis — but not for theological proofs.
@NMP~
“CS Lewis is hardly the person to use quotes from in trying to prove the headship/submission viewpoint. One of his reasons saying that the man must be head is from Mere Christianity in the chapter on Christian marriage. If the following logic makes sense to anyone, my hat is off to you, because it is one of the weirdest, illogical ways to look at marriage that I have ever read.”
I have never read anything so ridiculous as that Lewis quote (well, except for the CBMW article). Nice view of marriage there.
“He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife.”
lol– save the community from the raving lunatic child protecting wife?
NMP,
It sounds to me like CS Lewis would define “headship” as the person in the family who interacts with the public (or as he said, manages the family’s “foreign policy”).
It sounds like Lewis is trying to make the case that women are more “small-picture” thinkers and in interacting with the wider community, their primary concern is getting needs met that pertain to herself and her own family. More self-/family-centered. Any campaigns for change she might make on the public side of things would stem from a desire to improve her own family’s life/living conditions. And that this intense desire to improve her own family’s circumstances is the exact reason why she should NOT be the head of the home.
It sounds like he would also say that men are more “big-picture” thinkers whose primary focus in interacting with the public is improving society in general, whether or not the improvements help his own family. It sounds to me like he is saying that men tend to be more caring of others, women tend to be more caring of their own families, so the more “others-centered” person should be the one to interact with others.
I can understand why he would think this – especially if the sort of society he was drawing his observations from was already a patriarchal society – but I think he is mistaken (and perhaps kind of unfair) to generalize men and women’s way of interacting with others in this way. I do not think it’s true that men care about others more than women do or are somehow more compassionate.
I find it interesting that he thinks male headship is to protect the world from their wives rather than (as modern ‘biblical patriarchs’ claim today) to protect their wives from the world…
Re: Creation Order and Headship:
Let’s see…. Da first-created has headship over da later-created.
God created da Snake BEFORE da Man (along with other creeping things, earthy beasts, and livestock).
Therefore, da Man sinned by listening to da voice of his wife, when he ought to have been submitting to da Snake, directly.
Just be clear – I do not agree with the CBMW article – I just like to find stuff… Reading it was making my head explode.
Lewis was a bachelor when he wrote that; he had not ever been married. And keep in mind that he was born during the Edwardian era, to an upper-middle-class family.
*All* of that is in play re. his ideas about families.
“Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” It boggles my mind that complementarians would advocate for living as we would in the Kingdom when it comes to turning the other cheek/being generous to those in need/etc. but not living as we would in the Kingdom when it comes to personal relationships/community structure.
Eagle says “I think John Piper should step aside and become spokesman for the Alzheimer’s Association. His teaching is making about as much sense as the person with dementia I saw in a nursing home.” This comment of Eagle is out of line, unnecessary and unkind.
I agreed with Ian who says “could I respectfully suggest that your (Eagle’s) comment about John Piper being demented was out of order.”
So, there are two people saying the same thing to Eagle. I remember “let all that you do be done in love.” (1 Cor 16:14) One can disagree with Dr. Piper but there is no need to be so extreme.
On another matter, the word “gospel” has been overused and abused; “awesome” is another word. With such casual usage, words lose its meaning.
On some blogs, I have also read comments on Dr. John McArthur, Dr. RC Sproul who have taught me many things over the years; these men are not perfect, no one is and one can disagree with them but I know they have spent their lives studying the Scriptures and the folks who criticize them may not even know even half of what these gentlemen do. The same applies to Dr. Piper, have they read all his books? I respect these men although do not agree with them on everything.
To all critics, myself included, I tremble to remember I will have to account to every idle word I say, according to Jesus and “in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same thing.” (Rom 2:1)
I very much dislike the extremes of anything; however, I know people use them and rare cases, like rape and incest, to argue for abortion, for instance. They use exceptions rather than the rule. Justin Lee is an exception, so is Ron B., from my viewpoint and they are well-meaning people.
I must say I am getting tired of the lack of civility among Christians. What would God think when He sees these things in His family? The Spirit is grieved.
“Lewis was a bachelor when he wrote that; he had not ever been married. And keep in mind that he was born during the Edwardian era, to an upper-middle-class family.
*All* of that is in play re. his ideas about families.”
Of course. I understand that. However, to use someone whose ideas were based on that era as a way to shore up complementarianism *now* is where I have a problem.
No More Perfect – agreed!
Numo – hope I didn’t sound defensive in my comment to you. I definitely didn’t mean it that way.
Hi everybody.
I just googled “Creation Order” which some of you were discussing above and came up with this 3-part series. If anyone has the time and can stomach it, I would really appreciate hearing others’ thoughts/critiques on what this man is saying. I made it to half-way through the 2nd part but found myself shrinking back from it so violently that I had to stop. He sounds so logical, so convincing, that I wondered if my shrinking back must mean that I am in rebellion to God’s word. Please help if you can…
What I found confusing was that in Part 2, he says that man, as the final part of creation, was the crown of creation and thus was to have dominion over it. And yet this idea of the later creations being highest apparently ends with man, because he later says that since the woman was created after the man, that must mean he is her superior. Is this logic not inconsistent? I would suggest that the creation order has nothing to do with authority-submission. Otherwise, to have consistent logic, you either have to say that 1) if the man is superior to the woman BECAUSE a) he was created first and b) she was formed from him, then the earth must also be superior to man since a) it was created first and b) man was formed from it; OR 2) that if being created last equals being the crown of creation and thus taking dominion over all previous things created, then WOMAN is actually superior, not man. I hope I am making sense.
Here is the link to Part 1 and you can get to parts 2 & 3 from here:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/men_and_women_and_the_creation.aspx
Claiming ‘gospel’ to a statement makes it truth. That is how we get to the ‘handbook for living’ idea. Getting ready to start a new sermon series at church and the little flier that lets you know what is coming next has a verse to show how the Bible has an answer for everything. So I read the verse, stretching there pastor. Cherry picking verses is all to common and something I am getting more leary of all the time.
From what I can gather, the comp idea is that the man is the head of woman just as Christ is the the head of the church. So what did Christ do for the church? By His death, resurrection and ascension He set us free of the old covenent. Are you sure that the Gospel is asking men to set their wives free by their death? Sorry, that is a bit crude but I think someone is mixing up ‘gospel’ with Gospel. The last couple years my wife and my relationship has been strenthened by our trying to help each become what God has intended.
Argo and company. You are stretching my little mind with some of your comments. I am going to have to ponder what you said just so I understand, we’ll about agreeing later.
bobson,
“So what did Christ do for the church? By His death, resurrection and ascension He set us free of the old covenent.”
That isn’t what Ephesians 5 makes reference to. It says that “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” It’s self sacrifice; i.e. giving up his very “self” out of love. There is no mention of authority in these verses. In fact, you will not find scripture where husbands are commanded to have authority over their wives with one exception and that is 1 Cor. 7 where each has the same authority over one another.
I must confess that I tend to agree with Eagle’s evaluation of Piper and Driscoll. I have little tolerance for the trashy teachings they call scripture nor do I feel that we should feel guilty about calling it for what it is. Paul, after all, was very concerned in each of his letters about deceivers who appear to be one of us, but are not. Any teachers who goes to such lengths to marginalize half of the body and passes it off as “honoring” them, does not deserve our respect. They are held to a stricter standard.
Paul recognized (as did Jesus) those who look like sheep outwardly, but inwardly it’s a different story because what’s in their heart comes out of their mouth.
But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. Gal 2:4
And Paul said he did not subject himself to them for even an hour.
Bob,
I truly thank you for considering. I will never demand someone agree with me. I like to think I’m not a hypocrite. I’m just glad to have such a place where I am free to ask people to question their long held assumptions in light of the serious problems within the modern reformed church.
One question: if the bible is infallible and the problem is simply man not getting it right, why does this also not include the writer? If it does, then how can any of us be sure of our interpretation? If it doesn’t, then how is it that the writers, mere men, infallibly understand scripture, but that is not given to any other believer? And given that the only men guaranteed to have an infallible interpretation of scripture are dead, and the rest of us have an equal chance if getting it wrong, how can any of us truly ever understand?
If the bible, then is inerrant, inerrancy means nothing to us. The only way to see if we get it right is to study it in context and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us…which then makes the inerrancy of the bible both useless and irrelevant, which then means, by definition, it cannot be inerrant.
Beloved, and Ian–
I see Eagle’s point. I think christian culture has defined “love” as requiring all discourse to be soft-pedaled and said with a smile. Indirect is better than direct. Or, if one must be direct, you “sandwich” it between 2 positive, affirming, and smiley statements.
It’s kind of like living in a tropical climate — your skin and blood get thin. You can only tolerate air that is like a warm bath.
I think this is a very unnecesary and faulty prerequisite for “love” in communication.
When commenting on a person’s actions or words, the more egregious they have been, the more hurtful and destructive, the more appropriate the strong response.
I agree, Jon Piper’s pronouncements have been progressively extreme. There is oddness to it. Dementia is not an out-of-bounds descriptive for someone like him, who purposely places himself in the spotlight *and waiting for the brightest moment* to make his extreme statements. It is all designed to get attention. The self-serving and party-serving nature of it along with the thoughtless & hurtful antagonism of it warrants a strong response — not a soft-pedaled one.
If a person deals in being a shock jock, it is entirely reasonable for responses to him to be equal in strength.
It’s ‘Christian’ ministers that teach subordination and exclusion of women, etc. that are among the very best at creating agnostics and atheists. Who needs Dawkins and Hitchens when you’ve got these bozos?
@ elastigirl @ 8:05 PM~
Great comment. I second it.
Sorry…Bobson. I apologize for getting that wrong.
I agree with Beloved that we ought to be careful how we express our disagreement. However I also understand that some positions give rise to anger. It’s how we express it that counts. After all, what do people think when they see [insert favourite patriarchophile’s name here] ranting and raving about some peculiar sexual notion? Their very anger and corrosive nature has undermined their argument before they’ve even closed their mouths. Perhaps the same applies to us?
Having said that, I think there are sometimes periods later in man’s career when he does appear to go off-track to the point where people wonder whether he’s lost it.
Re C S Lewis and the Christian society, I’m not sure if anyone picked up on this, but he was certainly not describing heaven in that section of “Mere Christianity”, only what an ideal (and probably non-existent in this life) Christian society on earth would (in his opinion) look like. He did a chapter on Heaven in “The Problem of Pain” which as I remember was nothing like that and spoke rather of the individual Christian’s relationship in heaven to God (but it’s a while since I read it, so someone correct me if necessary). His early family life was probably coloured somewhat by the loss of his mother at a very early age, as a university don of that period he moved largely in an all-male environment, and at least one writer suggested his behaviour, if not his beliefs concerning women, changed during his brief marriage to Joy Davidson.
Comps have reduced women’s perception of themselves while at the same time elevating men’s perception of themselves. They have, imo, systematically endeavored to reduce the freedom of women to participate in church one baby step at a time. The last prohibition to forbid the reading of scripture in church should have been the last straw.
But why are women so comfortable with and tolerant of mistreatment? Is it a learned behavior? I just can’t understand why we sit under that kind of teaching. 🙁
Hi all
I have had a tough day. My sweet pug dog, Petunia, whom we rescued after she was seriously abused for 4 years, was found to have a mass in her rectum and it is very serious. I am not in a particularly good mood ,so I have not been commenting. The Bible is very difficult when it comes to the particulars. We all agree on the big points-Cross, Resurrection, etc. but have a wide variety of opinions on the secondary points. If these points were to be taken very seriously by mankind, do you not think God would make darn tootin' sure we understood precisely what He meant? This means we are stuck with listening to very fallible human beings – Luther, Calvin, Piper, Mahaney, Dever, Mohler, who tell us that they are absolutely sure what women's roles are, the precise age of the earth, etc. If God wanted to be precise, He could have been, so why wasn't He? I think if God didn't make it clear, some of these guys better be very careful in stating that they know, beyond a shadow of any doubt, what the Almighty means.
The understanding of the false doctrine of Bible infallibility should really be welcome, in my opinion, by so many who struggle with the Calvinista doctrines. The fact that NOTHING except God can be God; that is, NOTHING except God can be infallible; that is, be utter, categorical TRUTH, should be a relief because what this means is that NO LONGER can it be demanded that you accept that every verse in the Bible can be lifted out of the page and taken at utter, ESV-translated face value. It means that men are committing great heresy when they proof-text willy, nilly in service to a man-made opinion and then tell the rest of the world that THEIR interpretation is GOD’s INERRANT will, and dismiss every objection to their premise as you simply not recognizing the obvious infallibility of the Bible. I’m sorry to keep harping on this but we must understand the kind of power a doctrine like biblical infallibility gives spiritual leaders. If it is infallible, then NO ONE can ever be sure if they are interpreting it right. I mean, we can declare the Holy Spirit told us, and even believe that with all our heart, but what if someone comes to a different conclusion (for example: the homosexual question)? So, true interpretation merely becomes an exercise in subjectivity at it’s root. And who then steps in to declare who’s right, since God or Paul or James isn’t here in person explaining to us what it REALLY means? You guessed it!: your local pastor, standing in the stead, here for this very purpose…the very purpose of wielding his gnostic spiritual superiority to declare which interpretation is right. And thus, the Holy Spirit is entirely removed from the whole Christian thing and it boils down to the happy pastor who is given special, mystic dispensation to declare TRUTH to all of us.
People think humble sounding doctrines like Bible infallibility are pet issues, but we need to start realizing that when we concede them we concede the very right of the spiritual “authorities” to FORCE us to do and believe what they want. IF the Bible is infallible then the Holy Spirit is pointless to the believer…for what “explanation” of the infallible (bible) can the infallible (Holy Spirit) arrive at except for the SAME explanation you ALREADY can’t understand? Thus, again, enter stage left: the Calvinist Spiritual Despot.
Victorious,
RE: “But why are women so comfortable with and tolerant of mistreatment?’
I can think of many reasons.
—“Taking up one’s cross” and following Jesus, no matter what the cost (even to dignity).
—Emulating Jesus in “despising the shame” of doing what is required.
—It seems presumed that if you have to sacrifice for God, it has to be godly and God has to be pleased. This is reinforced by the fact that you score god points amongst christians in church culture, and start to get ahead in the game, as well as build a positive reputation amongst your peers. If a woman has to sacrifice her dignity, her integrity, the exercise of her talents, even her safety for the cause of God,… then WOW! No pain no gain, and you’re being quite the kingdom builder.
—Faulty assumptions of what a “godly woman” looks like (meek, submissive, soft-spoken, always supportive regardless) — which are so widely broadcast that the whole world now recognizes the stereotype.
…and all these things can be played on and manipulated to promote patriarchy. So insidious. I think it can even be done ignorantly, without awareness. As soon as you bring God into the picture, you can get quite a few people to do many things. The God card is the ultimate powerplay.
Dee, I’m so sorry to hear about Petunia. Pets become like members of our familiy and it’s so sad when one is sick.
It’s true that some scripture is difficult to understand, but I’m not willing to see subordination of half of the human race as one of those that are ambiguous. If anyone has e-sword, a simple search of the words “one another” will surface at least 50 or so verses that are clear about the way believers are to treat each other. And no exceptions are noted. Even a simple reading of 1 Cor. 12 clearly speaks of the honor and care each member of the body should have for one another.
Since scripture doesn’t contradict scripture, the difficult passages should not be the ones that are used to contradict the clear ones. I’m not giving these so-called “scholars” a pass to continue to insult and marginalize the daughters of the King.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ with it….my apologies if this sounds harsh, but it’s time to say “enough.”
elastigirl, thanks for those. The question we need to ask in light of those, is “are they for females only?” Of course not. Virtue isn’t gender specific. So when they are continually applied to females only, they become a learned behavior for them. So, just for the sake of discussion, let’s apply the “take up his cross” and accepting shame to husbands. What if a sermon on Sunday about taking up one’s cross was directed solely to the men in the congregation? Would that make a difference in a wife’s perception of him? Or of his perception of himself? I can’t imagine it wouldn’t. But somehow these verses have been directed to women with the end result we see in those willing to suffer in silence. And we teach it by example to our daughters and it’s perpetuated even though it’s erroneously directed to women rather than to all believers.
So in reality, we participate in our own subordination and ill-treatment by not recognizing the agenda of the false teachings.
Dee,
I too am sorry to hear about Petunia. I know very well what it’s like to have a beloved pet down sick. They are like family. John closes his Gospel saying that there are many things about Jesus which are not written down. I’m betting that a tender heart toward animals was one of them.
Dee
Sorry about your sweet pup. 🙁
We have an old chocolate lab who is almost my best friend. He is sick a lot and just had surgery last Thursday. I know how hard it is. Our lab seems to bounce back after his sicknesses…I do hope the same for Petunia.
56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC and Victorious have brought up some of the “one another” passages here, and I seem to recall these have been brought up in other threads before.
I think they’re emphasizing an important point that reveals a critical inconsistency in the theology of complementarianism-patriarchalism. These “one another” passages are not gender specific. They don’t say things like, “Women, show hospitality just to other women” or “Men, be forgiving to all other men (but don’t relate with women such that you experience anything they have to be forgiven for).” They are general imperatives for all, not genderized imperatives for half.
So, when another whole doctrine is developed that contradicts, what, about 30 different “one-anothering” commands in the New Testament, isn’t that a strong enough indicator that something is deeply wrong with that theology? How is it that a system does not simply overlook that many everyday disciplines for the everyday disciple who follows Jesus Christ – but actually explains them away instead of openly opposes them?
And what goes in the place of these clear requirements of obedience? A set of speculative rules of burden that conflict with what is clear. Wasn’t it in Hermeneutics 101 that this is a sign of proof-texting and creating a theology of men, which cannot achieve the righteousness of God? Worth exploring more for how this exposes logical flaws in the complementarian *theological* system that cannot be justified as “being biblical.”
P.S. Dee … very saddened to hear about Petunia’s health troubles. I’ve lived with pets in the family much of my life – mostly dogs – and know what a wonderful role-model of unconditional love and affection they can be. Praying you all find grace in the midst of the multitudes of emotion …
Victorious
Actually, I was making a point in favor of not interpreting Scripture in a rigid way when it does not appear that Scripture is making a clear, definitive point that is easily elucidated. For example, we know Christ died on the Cross and was resurrected. Paul makes the point that if we do not believe this, then our faith makes no sense. It is powerless.
But when we look to the submission verses, we see a less clear presentation. Mutual submission seems possible from the text. Yet, there are those who would claim that there must be subordination of the role of women based on ill defined Bible verses. Today mandating that women must bow to the leadership of men due to birth order in the Garden makes absolutely no sense. That is reading into an event a meaning that is not defined by the text.
I believe that those strict comps and male authority buffs better be very careful. they may be putting words in God’s mouth.
Dee,
I did understand your point….forgive me if it seemed as though I didn’t. I just felt a need to rant so I did. 🙂
You said:
“Today mandating that women must bow to the leadership of men due to birth order in the Garden makes absolutely no sense.”
You’re absolutely right! Not only does it make nol sense; it’s not scriptural that first is best or entitled to some authority by virtue of birth order.
For example, God chose:
Isaac over Ishmael,
Jacob over Esau,
Ephraim over Manasseh,
the tribe of Judah over that of Reuben the eldest,
Joseph over all his older brothers,
and David over all his older brothers.
That argument is nonsense! It’s totally not supported by scripture.
@ Eagle:
“And it gets better as a brainwashed fundagelcial I gave my Mom after she deal with pancreatic cancer John Piper’s pamphlet, ‘Don’t Waste Your Cancer.'”
He has a “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” pamphlet?!?!?!?!?
FYI, our family tried to read Don’t Waste Your Life last year. We never finished because we decided not to waste our time. It was like the perfect blend of legalism and emo. Piper could also use a big dose of Strunk & White – I felt like the entire book could have been only 15 pages instead of 300+.
Yeah, I kinda noticed that “gospel” was becoming a junk drawer word a while back when I was going through my Reformed phase. I just kept hearing it too much, and it was getting to the point where its meaning was assumed. But here’s the thing; if you can’t give the gospel without using the word, chances are you’re probably using it to sell something else. If you were only selling Jesus, you’d talk about him and what he’s done for us, and not what we ought to be doing for him. Then you’d be giving the gospel without using the word. But when you want people to behave a certain way, believe certain niche doctrines, or get onboard with some program or idea, suddenly the word “gospel” gets shoved around without reference to the person or work of Christ.
I’ve been Lutheran for just over a year now, and I’ve yet to hear the word “gospel” in a sermon. Yet I’ve heard the gospel from the pulpit every week, because our pastor always talks about Jesus.
Creation order is one of those made up doctrines that gained traction and is now thought of as truth.
In Genesis 1 “the human” (Adam) was “created”. Male and FEmale in the image of God. It is all right there. God even gives this male/female commands.
In Gen 2, the female is “formed” or “fashioned” from the human (Adam)
So where is “creation” order? The male female made in the image of God start as one flesh, are seperated and then given the command to BE one flesh.
“if you can’t give the gospel without using the word, chances are you’re probably using it to sell something else.”
Have to say, Miguel, this is such an excellent statement. It’s one of those lights coming on-type lines, in that, it’s something that really should be so obvious when you think about it, but we so often don’t realise until someone says it. We get so used to christianese that we just assume anything that comes attached to the word ‘gospel’ (or biblical, grace, godly, etc) must be true. The power of those words make them dangerous – and really easy to use to hoodwink people.
Dee – I’m really sorry to hear about Petunia… and will be praying.
It’s so hard when our animal pals are ill, especially since (like very small children) they can’t verbalize their pain.
hugs,
numo
Beloved – I think there is something seriously wrong with Piper.
Even if I were to discard everything Eagle has mentioned, I could say “possible dementia” based on his horrible blog post last year, after tornadoes leveled large parts of Joplin, MO.
He stated unequivocally that God was punishing the residents of Joplin and even started sentences with the phrases “God killed” and “Jesus killed” [those who died as a result of the tornadoes].
And there was not *one* word of sympathy or comfort for those who lost family, lost their homes… something is very seriously wrong when a human being sets themselves up as God’s supposedly chosen mouthpiece in that way.
I would normally link to a post like the one I just mentioned, but I don’t know if I can stomach seeing it a 2nd time. And maybe the people who run his blog and web site took it down, but if so, it should be available via the Internet Archive. And it’s by no means the 1st time that he’s made such pronouncements after disasters… see his “wise” words on the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis, for example. (that post should still be available on his blog.) His conclusions are sickening, and again, no kind words for those who died, for their friends and relatives, etc. etc. etc.
Eagle,
I have just read your latest 2 comments. Your second comment: "I respect John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, and John Piper as much as I respect Larry Flynt. And truth be told when I see the damage that Christianity does because of the likes of Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, etc.. sometimes Larry Flynt is more respectable."
Eagle, I hope people in your life will treat you with more respect than you give to these men. There are always facts you and I do not know in this life. I have the fear of God in me and God says in His Word "with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you." I believe this principle applies to believers and unbelievers alike, with no exceptions.
Dee –
Sorry to hear about Petunia 🙁 We have a little old man mixture ourselves. The only pet our kids have known. He’s limpy and gimpy and slow – but still brings his toy to everyone who comes to the house.
Victorious,
your reply is what I meant. I didn’t mention authority, many want to take ‘Headship’ as authority, ‘gospel’ vs Gospel. (by ‘gospel’ I refer to the tendency to use the Bible to support an idea(l), for Gospel refer to the definition in the post). Just taking things to an extreme for illustration. But you hit on something many men focus on, as guys we ‘would give up our life’ (take the bullet, so to speak) for our wives; Christ lived His life in sacrifice leading to the cross as well as the cross itself. As a human, I can’t life my life in sacrifice the way Christ did but I can become more Christ-like.
Argo,
Arg, you keep challenging my little mind!! I haven’t agreed or dis-agreed with anything you have said. My initial take on your comments on inerrancy is that you are probably right, first in challenging the current popular understanding and also in the direction of your argument. I need to slow down to actually read and understand. My bride says that when the gears of my mind start turning she can hear each and every slow rotation.
Sure, the Word of God is infallible. As in ‘In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God…’; but the Bible is inspired by God, written (and read) by man. Ah, if the Bible is without error, then it is perfect, then it is God – or can become a god.
So, what you are saying is the Bible is Truth (the message) but taking one little verse on it’s own as Truth starts leading us to very scary places? (In the context of the verse, in the context of the paragraph, in the context of the chapter, in the context of the book, in the context of the testament, in the context of the Bible – the Bible is a whole, not a bunch of individual texts. The Bible is the message of Truth, not necessarily a bunch of truths.)
I think I get your point. I hope so since I am getting tired. Your explanations have helped me come to grips with context. I have always been concerned when I hear the context, usually cultural, means it does not apply to today. Well if cultural situations then mean it doesn’t apply to today, does the Bible only apply to certain cultures today? The Bible, taken in light of the Gospel, applies to each of us in our relationship with Christ. (and to the churches relationship with the world?)
Victorious, yes, God keeps on ignoring birth order.
It seems to me that those who harp on about God’s Created Order (I keep expecting to see a TM sign in a little circle tagged on) are more interested in the order than in the Creator, who is the One who says, ‘Behold, I am doing a new thing.’
Dee, I am so sorry to hear about Petunia. My heart goes out to you. Our little dog is due for surgery today for a tumour.
My thoughts as to why some things are not clear in the Bible. I believe God wants us to wrestle with those things and work them out for ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How will we mature if He spoonfeeds us all the time? The things that we struggle and persevere with and put effort into are those things which we value the most.
That CBMW article makes me want to hit my head against a wall.
The line that feminists define equality by functionality rather than ontology is just completely and utterly false. The whole point in feminism is saying that all people are of equal worth – that’s the central message of it!
And then there’s this quote: “We can be certain, however, that the new creation will be characterized, not by sameness but by incredible diversity-diversity of abilities, diversity of gifts, and diversity of rewards.”
Diversity of rewards? So there’s a heirarchy of plebaean saints, then some moderate saints, and the super dooper saints? The heresy bell’s ringing really loudly for me on that one.
@ Pam:
There may be some evidence in 1 Cor. 3:9-15 that some people will get greater rewards than others. BUT – 1) this only applies to believers; 2) it doesn’t affect their salvation (clear from v. 15); and 3) there’s not even a hint of a hierarchy based on the outcome of this judgment. And it certainly isn’t based on their gender.
@ Kolya:
That’s good to hear that Lewis wasn’t describing heaven in that passage. However, if that’s true, then why did CBMW quote him as if he were?
@ Linda:
“I’ve run into those who would not have a woman alone attending a dying man on the side of the road ask of his relationship with Jesus. If he says he is unsaved, she might try to share the gospel and that is a no no, so better he should die and go to hell.”
…Or someone will see them together at the side of the road and assume that they are having an affair and that would be the appearance of evil. Either way, they’d still pick the unsaved man going to hell.
Hester,
I looked at that passage, and then did a word search on bible gateway to see about other times ‘reward’ is used in the Bible. There are references to people being rewarded for what they have and haven’t done, yes. But there’s no specifics. There’s nothing from which to categorically argue that there’s a differentiation amongst those in heaven. And the picture Revelation provides of heaven only shows unity. But really, and most importantly, there just isn’t enough in the Bible to categorically say much at all about what heaven is like. So when that article starts going on about how things are *obviously* going to be organised in this very particular way, I just wonder – where are they pulling that from?
“It seems to me that those who harp on about God’s Created Order (I keep expecting to see a TM sign in a little circle tagged on) are more interested in the order than in the Creator, who is the One who says, ‘Behold, I am doing a new thing.’”
Exactly Estelle. I was reading something yesterday and the author was merely talking about God’s creation in a general way and used the term created order (instead of creation). I am going to have to keep my eyes open for that term. I wonder if created order is replacing creation now–God’s creation is no longer creation, but His created order. Gotta keep that word order out there and pound it into us…or something.
@ Hester~
“@ Kolya:
That’s good to hear that Lewis wasn’t describing heaven in that passage. However, if that’s true, then why did CBMW quote him as if he were?”
I wonder about that too.
I have not read Lewis and am not at all familiar with him, except for Narnia, which we love. A quick seasrch will reveal what he believed in and some of these things would surely cause TGC people to raise an eyebrow– no penal substitutionary atonement, shaky view on hell, believed in purgatory, praying for the dead, not liking the total depravity thing (which should really set TGC on edge) — all things TGC would say are not biblical. Why do they or CBMW promote him? It seems to me they would not consider those things to be secondary issues; after all, they say they come together to promote one gospel….or whatever their slogan is.
“This is what I gave my Mom after she dealt with pancreatic cancer. What I son eh?”
Eagle, I hope you can forgive yourself for doing the best you knew how at the time. I don’t know a person in the world who hasn’t said or done something they wish they hadn’t. I certainly have many of those regrets in my parenting two sons.
Eselle,
re: “My thoughts as to why some things are not clear in the Bible. I believe God wants us to wrestle with those things and work them out for ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How will we mature if He spoonfeeds us all the time?’
This comes to mind, from Acts 17:26-28:
“so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us”
I like this — my mental picture is of myself (or anyone) in a dark room where we can’t see, i’m shuffling along with my hands outstretched, using my hands to take in data & understand my surroundings (with all uneasiness) since sight with my eyes no longer is relevant. And God is just opposite me, slowly walking backwards, his arms and hands reaching out toward me to catch me if I fall, and whispering “that’s right, that’s right,…. no a little more this way….. no,….. hey — over here…” and VERY occasionally just grabbing me when necessary.
here’s the verse with others surrounding it:
26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being
@ Pam:
I do agree with you. I really don’t concern myself overmuch with what heaven is like (because frankly the Bible doesn’t seem too worried about it), let alone try to describe it and/or use it to make a point. I think it’s one of those things we’re just not supposed to know until we get there.
@ Diane:
Yeah, there are some parts of Lewis that sound pretty weird. I’ve only read Narnia, the space trilogy and about half of Mere Christianity, though, so I can’t really comment. It is amusing, though, how he gets a pass from most evangelicals, who would jump down the throat of anyone else who said some of the things he said.
Well, now this is interesting. Our church does not subscribe to a strict comp ‘theology’, but they definitely push the ‘man as spiritual leader’ ideal. Getting ready to start the fall men’s group, my wife works in the office and assists in getting things ready. She was saying how there isn’t any definite direction and things are starting up in a couple weeks. I was voicing some of my concerns, this last year was a bit scattered and would have been better served by using Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz and Suzie Orman as source material.
I said I didn’t get the purpose or direction of this mens group, it was just like Sunday sermons with some Macho Man thrown in.
Her reply is that the pastoral team is trying to get the men to be the spriritual leaders they are called to be. Turns out she has bought the idea while I haven’t.
Could we please say “Their version of Reformed Theology” instead of “Reformed Theology”? I know it might seem like a small thing, but it isn’t to those of us who are in Reformed churches that are NOTHING like what is being discussed here re: Piper, Driscoll, YRR, Mahaney, etc.
In my church we hear regularly of freedom and the love of Christ. We are constantly reaffirmed that in Christ we are not condemned. Women are actively involved in the service, as deacons and in almost every other way (not elders). Women are in NO WAY denigrated in our congregation or even our denomination which ordains women in many of the classes.
I know people here have some seriously troubled backgrounds with the Reformed faith and the way it is presented by SOME SEGMENTS of Christianity, but it really is not fair to lump all people who lean Reformed into the same camp. We’re not. And it is very frustrating and sometimes even hurtful to read some of the really negative things written that simply aren’t true about all people who find comfort and even joy in the Reformed doctrines. You don’t have to agree with them, but please at least respect your brothers and sisters in Christ who do.
Thank you.
Sallie,
Well-said. I am with you. Thank you.
Eagle,
I’m so glad you are commenting again. I recognize so much of my own struggles in what you write. Like you, a great deal of my anger towards Reformed Theology is the person I became under its spell. 🙁
The things we do when we think we have all the answers…
I’m sorry Sallie, I didn’t see your comment before I posted that. I am sorry if my words about Reformed Theology have hurt you. You are right that there are certain forms of it where faith can thrive and certain forms that are faith-killing. Everything I was taught under that system was faith-killing for me, but I have been to Reformed churches where the atmosphere was entirely different. It is very difficult for me to sort through what the difference is, and for me I have had to set ALL of it aside and step wayyyyy back. I know that there are many genuine, loving Christians who are of the Reformed persuasion – my husband is one of them.
Sallie,
I editorialized against this very thing in a previous thread here at TWW when one intrepid soul claimed with all certainty that Reformed thought is THE bogeyman for all the ills of Christendom. When we lose sensitivity for the belief systems of others it gets personal and escalates. At its worst, we get stripped of our humanity and are no better than a band of Templars hacking down a caravan of Muslim silk traders in the 12th century.
Hi, Victorious.
Thanks for the interaction (from a ways up). Regarding the discussion on why women are comfortable with and tolerant of mistreatment:
Church culture is heady. I like that word, heady. a. Intoxicating or stupefying; b. Tending to upset the mind or the balance of senses; Serving to exhilarate.
It’s hypnotic in a way. A group of people, common purpose, throbbing music, introspective music, lots of unison (clapping, singing, declaring [yuk]), the concept of God as omni in everything, championing the concept of love = sacrifice (of something, like of ego, desires, opinion, one’s feelings, time, energy, money, etc.), a charismatic speaker, what seems to be enthusiastic agreement amongst all, lots of “in one accord”-ness, happy-looking facial expressions…
With all that, a perceived leader with persuasive skills could convince many people of anything.
–re: “And we teach it by example to our daughters and it’s perpetuated even though it’s erroneously directed to women rather than to all believers.”
I think it takes a very long time to change a culture. Like turning a ship around, but greatly magnified in time. At present, with certain things in culture, it may seem like change is happening fast. But I don’t think it’s the case. If one were to really analyze history of all things societal from today backwards, I think the highly incremental aspect of change would be observable. Not sure why I’m stating these things, other than to say that the more “what is right” is equated with fairness, justice, and equality, the more each new decade (perhaps) of each generation and subsequent generations will bring a better world for the female portion.
Dee: another thing we have in common – we love our dogs. Both of mine have survived the removal of masses, one cancerous. I will be praying for little Petunia & for all who love her.
@ elastigirl and Victorious.
On the topic of social change, my take on things is that mostly it happens as incremental change, just like in our lives as individuals. I talk about taking a series of “snapshots” of what things look like. I’m sure none of us (and no culture) would want to be judged on just one historical moment captured in a snapshot. That says only what is/was at that moment, and not really anything much about trajectory, or rate of change, or anything like that. But put together a series of snapshots and zip through them and we see a “video” that gives a better idea of where things are going.
The “video version” of a series of snapshots helps us know if there’s any movement at all. Or if there’s lots of activity, but it’s basically just in orbit around a single point, and is getting all wrapped up like a tetherball around a pole. Or if there’s forward motion toward health (or decay). Or if a particular change has taken root over at least two generations and is showing up in a third, for better or for worse. (I read somewhere that an “institution” is an organization that lasts beyond two generations. Will that happen, for example, with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?)
Even then, change takes at least one to two generations to make significant progress. The quote which I’ve posted before on that comes from Helen Haste, in her book dealing with the post-feminist generations: “In the long run, what counts is how the next generation thinks. How far new ideas permeate culture is not measured just by attitude change during one generation, but by what is taken for granted in the next.”
And even then, we have to make adjustments for trends in global culture that drive significant and deep-level changes. [For instance, the onset and entrenchment of digital technologies appears to be changing the “soft wiring” for how younger generations process information. An example: Video games – which are nearly universally played by children and young adults in the US – get players used to watching for instant feedback. That has significant implications for ministry-related teamwork that’s intergenerational!] Anyway, these global changes that are beyond anyone’s control can end up adjusting people’s values and the goals they aim for, which changes their overall trajectory, and can change their speed of transition, etc.
All that ties in with the social transformation dynamics of getting rid of spiritual abuse, and breaking the generational transfer of abusive, controlling theologies, and discerning the trajectory of a particular movement or network like The Gospel Coalition, and watching for indicators of change in focus or approach that could/does lead to transition toward malignancy or health. So, it’s complex to think about systems approaches to personal and social transformation, but ultimately it helps us with very practical questions … like ones implied by your comments: Is it possible that “learned helplessness” for women in churches could reach critical mass if there are no radical interventions before it takes root in both the men and women of the next generation?
Eagle,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I guess I see it a little differently. I understand your three broad categories for Protestant Christianity, but I still think there is a fourth. (Actually a fifth because I would also include the non-mainline Wesleyan groups like the Nazarenes in their own group.) I am not able to lump conservative Baptists in with Reformed folks. Yes, there are some Reformed Baptists but the bulk of Baptists are not Reformed in the full sense of the word. This includes the fundamentalist circles. We were members of a conservative Baptist church and then ended up in a CRC church. Believe me when I say in the eyes of the Baptists, we had done the unthinkable when we moved to a Reformed church and baptized our daughter. (See here: http://aquietsimplelife.com/?p=2385 and here http://aquietsimplelife.com/?p=4442 ) So while there may be overlap in these two groups in places the TGC, I don’t think it is necessarily as wide-spread as one might think.
I was Reformed before I ever heard the word thoroughly explained. I was not brought up Reformed, but reading and studying the Bible I came to some of the same main conclusions that Reformed Theology comes to. When I learned about Reformed Theology it was like it all clicked for me. I was fortunate to go into Reformed circles that were very pro-women such as my time on staff with InterVarsity. I worked with a lot of Reformed people (men especially) and they were all totally on board with women doing everything the men did. Their view of Reformed Theology was very positive and freeing, not legalistic at all. It was a very positive experience overall. Had I come into Reformed Theology through other means where it is twisted and manipulated, I might have had a very different experience.
I have no problem with people having problems with Reformed Theology. There are things about it that I find challenging and I haven’t suffered in these areas as some people have regarding them. I just hope that people who comment here can remember that there are many fine Christian men and women who have been shaped by Reformed Theology in a positive way and we’re not all evil manipulators out to destroy the faith of others. 🙂
Warmly,
Sallie
Eagle,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I guess I see it a little differently. I understand your three broad categories for Protestant Christianity, but I still think there is a fourth. (Actually a fifth because I would also include the non-mainline Wesleyan groups like the Nazarenes in their own group.) I am not able to lump conservative Baptists in with Reformed folks. Yes, there are some Reformed Baptists but the bulk of Baptists are not Reformed in the full sense of the word. This includes the fundamentalist circles. We were members of a conservative Baptist church and then ended up in a CRC church. Believe me when I say in the eyes of the Baptists, we had done the unthinkable when we moved to a Reformed church and baptized our daughter. (See here: http: //aquietsimplelife. com/?p=2385 and here http: //aquietsimplelife.com /?p=4442 ) So while there may be overlap in these two groups in places the TGC, I don’t think it is necessarily as wide-spread as one might think.
I was Reformed before I ever heard the word thoroughly explained. I was not brought up Reformed, but reading and studying the Bible I came to some of the same main conclusions that Reformed Theology comes to. When I learned about Reformed Theology it was like it all clicked for me. I was fortunate to go into Reformed circles that were very pro-women such as my time on staff with InterVarsity. I worked with a lot of Reformed people (men especially) and they were all totally on board with women doing everything the men did. Their view of Reformed Theology was very positive and freeing, not legalistic at all. It was a very positive experience overall. Had I come into Reformed Theology through other means where it is twisted and manipulated, I might have had a very different experience.
I have no problem with people having problems with Reformed Theology. There are things about it that I find challenging and I haven’t suffered in these areas as some people have regarding them. I just hope that people who comment here can remember that there are many fine Christian men and women who have been shaped by Reformed Theology in a positive way and we’re not all evil manipulators out to destroy the faith of others. 🙂
Warmly,
Sallie
@ Eagle and Sallie, re: categories and streams in the Protestant church in North America.
It makes sense to me that the branches include a traditional spectrum that runs from very liberal to very conservative, and that there is a lot of polarization such that the moderates don’t have many places to go.
However, that seems to me to fit more the *modernist* mindset with a conventional liberal/conservative split. I’ve ended up being more associated with the *postmodern cultural* streams, generally associated with Generation X/the Busters (born 1965-1982) and thereafter than with my own Boomer generation and older. It’s getting close to 20 years now since the beginning of what started as evangelical GenX ministry and became “postmodern ministry” and then started sifting out into at least five streams. In my take on it, these are:
* emerging (experimental church/ministry methods). I’d suggest that evangelicals and conservatives who don’t want to shift their paradigm theologically will still mess around with ministry methodological models.
* Emergent (emerging plus a lot of theoretical/theological discussions).
* progressive (evangelical-ish and mainline-ish with an emphasis on social action).
* missional (paradoxical both/and paradigm that rejects a liberal/conservative split and focuses on – as postmodern Canadian Brother Maynard puts it, “Live your faith. Share your life.” which reverses the conventional evangelical motto of “Live your life” which is often separated from “Share your faith.”
* Neo-Puritan black-and-white theology and practices. Here on TWW, this stream is often called “Neo-Reformed” or “Calvinista” or “YRR” (Young, Restless, Reformed – after a 2008 book by that title, written by Collin Hansen) to distinguish it from traditional Reformed theology. (Remember that Mark Driscoll was one of the very early leaders/celebrities in the “emerging” stuff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and then went his own way relatively early on.)
There are all kinds of features by which we could come up with different groups and subcategories among these five streams. But, relating this as best I can to gender role issues, here’s what I see:
Most likely to be “extreme complementarian” (i.e., patriarchal) = Neo-Puritans.
A bit likely to be “soft complementarian” = emergings.
Very unlikely to be complementarian = Emergents and progressives.
Mixed bag = missionals. This is because, in my opinion, “missional” is a mostly positive buzzword that is sometimes used for self-labeling of a church or movement because it tends to include – dare I say? – a “pick list” of key features that almost any of the four other streams would approve of (at least some combination of them). These include evangelism, discipleship, social action/social transformation, an entrepreneurial spirit that manifests in church planting and Kingdom/social enterprises, a heart for both local and global issues and people groups, men and women functioning as co-partners/peers in ministry.
So, see if this makes sense from what you’ve seen … There probably is a “pure type” missional and that’s ALL of what they are, with a highly paradoxical worldview that’s both/and instead of either/or. And then there are others that use “missional” for some SMALLER aspects of what they do. For instance, emergings and Neo-Puritans are more likely to identify with the creativity and entrepreneurship of “missional,” and the evangelism/discipleship aspects. (Think Acts29 church-planting that Mark Driscoll used to be leader of.) Meanwhile, Emergents and progressives might identify more with the social transformation and justice for local/global groups and men/women in peership.
The bigger point is that old conventions seem to be fragmenting and new groupings coalescing. This is what happens during “paradigm shifts” and we’re still in the muddy middle of a doozy of a shift! Things are still sorting out. In my thinking, their sifting out according to their underlying paradigm. And that takes a while for people to figure out. (Think if you were at the Tower of Babel when languages got confused, and you were running around yelling out loud, trying to find someone – anyone – who got it about what you were saying! That’s a Bible-based way of looking at the realities of how subcultures form.)
Moderates may end up with one of these five streams according to their overall deep paradigm, which means they are far less likely to be drawn to Neo-Puritan, which is the most extreme/black-and-white of them all. Or who knows, it may turn out that moderates are already a subculture/stream in the making, and just don’t know it yet because they haven’t found enough others who are like them.
Hope this is helpful. Not meant to cloud the waters, but to clarify that we need to consider the shift in generations and what the major changes in ways of thinking globally are doing and may do in the near future for branches in the Church in North America.
P.S. Another way to look at how groups are fragmenting and re-attaching is through the lens of “unity” and “collaboration.” I wrote a tutorial on this a few years back, and this might give additional clues to how movements within the Church will re-format in the future. It’s kind of like a solution that’s supersaturated … like when we did those home experiments to create rock candy by mixing sugar into boiling water until it wouldn’t absorb any more. Then put in some strings, and as the solution cools, the water won’t hold that many sugar molecules, so sugar attaches to a string and voila!
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/tutorial-16/
One flaw in the tutorial as I just skimmed through it, is that it doesn’t look like I dealt with “non-unity”/”non-collaboration” (which would be associated with the Neo-Puritans. It’s about controlling-over, not working-with.
@eagle 8:58am – love your post!
Regarding the diversity of rewards – remember the parable about the workers in the vineyard? Here. Some worked all day, some half a day, some for the last hour of the day, and they all got paid the same. The ones who worked all day complained about that and were told to shut up.
…Meant to say, and this was not offered as an example of unfairness. The kingdom of Heaven was compared to this landowner.
Anonymous11, you asked our thoughts on creation order, and how Vision Forum use it?
Briefly, my opinion is this:
You see now what could happen if we conflate different meanings of the same word?
Even these articles admit “order has three meanings:
“There are three senses in which the word “order” is used: 1) a fixed or definite plan, system; law of arrangement; 2) the sequence or arrangement of events or things; 3) social position or rank in the community.”
If you ever copy this article to your word processing program, and highlight every use of “order” as “a fixed plan or system” in one color; every use of “order” as “sequence” in another color; and every use of “order” as “social position” in a third, you will see his logic is as bad as in my racket example. Evidence abound for sequences, not for any other kind of order.
“These articles” and “this article” in my writing just above this one refers to the VF articles Anonymous 11 linked to.
No more Perfect, about the 2 CS Lewis reasons you quote:
“If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? … as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. .. “ – Lewis reason 1
This is like arguing that anorexia is good because overweight is unhealthy, or that falling into the ditch on the left of the road would be good, because someone was hurt falling into the ditch on the right side.
“ The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always … usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world.” – Lewis reason 2
If that was true, and the basis for marital submission, then: Women have to make all the internal affairs decisions (where to live, what the household money is spent on, what school the children attend) and men the foreign policy decisions – how to deal with the neighbors, for example. But it would mean the wife should be boss IN the home.