TGC’s 2014 National Women’s Conference – FOR WOMEN ONLY!

"Are men allowed to attend?  No…

Are men allowed to volunteer?  Yes! [before and after]"

FAQ – 2014 TGC National Women's Conference

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=21599&picture=woman-faceWoman Face

The second National Women's Conference sponsored by The Gospel Coalition takes place June 27-29, and registration is underway.  Churches in the Neo-Cal camp are beginning to promote the conference, with some using promo material on the conference website.  Because it will be held in Orlando, we suspect some attendees will be accompanied by their families, who will likely hang out at Disney World, Universal, etc. while the matriarchs are taught biblical womanhood.  If the husbands of attendees travel to Orlando with their wives and children, they will no doubt be looking after the kiddos the entire time.  Why?  Because they are NOT ALLOWED at the women's conference.

TGC will offer a pre-conference (included in the conference fee) that covers the topic Male and Female He Created Them.  The website states:

The Pre-Conference focuses on God’s good purposes in his creation of human beings as male and female. We’ll highlight Scripture’s teachings concerning men and women in the church and in marriage, and we’ll talk about these teachings both theologically and personally.

The first frequently asked question regarding the conference is: (link)

 Are men allowed to attend?

Answer:  No. This conference is for women only. At the inaugural Women’s Conference in 2012, many families traveled together to Orlando. The men got together to watch the kids while the women attended the conference.

Another frequently asked question is:

Are men allowed to volunteer?

Answer:  Yes! We especially need men on Thursday afternoon and Sunday afternoon to help set up and tear down. Outside of volunteering, men are not permitted to attend sessions.

If you look at the list of speakers, there are three men who will be addressing the female attendees, namely:  D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, and John Piper.  Keller's wife (Kathy) will also be speaking, as will Piper's wife (Noël).  John Piper's teenage daughter will be speaking together with her mother.  For the most part, the other speakers are basically the same old, same old.  It is interesting, however, that Mary Kassian and Carolyn Mahaney are not included, although Carolyn McCulley is listed. 

It is no wonder that husbands are not allowed to decide for themselves whether to attend the Orlando conference with their wives.  Here is their fearless leader John Piper offering his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 on the Desiring God website.  The following question was asked of Piper:

Would a pastor who uses a Biblical commentary written by a woman be placing himself under the Biblical instruction of a woman?  If so, would this not go against Paul's instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12?

Here is a portion of John Piper's response:

"…the issue is one of how does manhood and womanhood work?  What is the dynamic between how men flourish and women flourish as God designed them to flourish when an act of authority is being exerted on a man from a woman.  And so I distinguish between personal, direct exercises of authority that involve manhood and womanhood because it's personal.  She's right there.  She's woman on man, and and I'm being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.  Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.  I think that's contrary to the way God made us…"

If you are so inclined, please listen Piper's entire response.  It sheds much light regarding what he believes about women.  As I listened to it, I recalled how John Piper was raised primarily by his mother because his father was an evangelist who traveled extensively and was away from his family for much of the time.

All of this brings back memories of my first experience in a conservative church.  My daughters were young, and our family belonged to a Methodist church.  It had a wonderful music program, and we enjoyed the minister's sermons, but we were concerned about how this church's more moderate stance on some issues might affect our daughters. 

We began attending a Southern Baptist church a couple of miles from our home.  After being involved for a number of months, we felt comfortable joining.  I knew at the time that Paige and Dorothy Patterson were members, although they traveled extensively on weekends.  In fact, Paige Patterson was President of the Southern Baptist Convention when we became members, and I did not have any problem with that (at the time).

Several months after joining the congregation, I received a postcard from AnGeL Ministries (Anne Graham Lotz), announcing for the first time the Just Give Me Jesus events.  I was so excited!  I took the postcard to church the next Sunday and showed it to the lady who headed up the women's ministry.  She sneered and said, "Anne Graham Lotz has no business preaching to men!" (or something like that).  I recoiled and said, "I would imagine these events are geared toward women and that not many men would attend."  I was crushed!  

That was about 14 years ago, and I am still negatively affected by condescending attitudes like that.  I don't believe I am alone…

It certainly appears that The Gospel Coalition's position is that women have NOTHING to say to men in any formal context.  Men are not even allowed to attend a mixed gathering at which the female gender will be speaking because they have to be protected from women teaching up front. TGC leaders obviously don't believe men are capable of making their own decisions as to whether or not they would choose to listen to a woman. 

Furthermore, there seems to be a cadre of people (both men and women) who are in charge at TGC and are bound and determined to protect men from women.  And, of course, they are the ones who will be speaking at the 2014 National Women's Conference. 

One has to wonder whether the complementarian tribe is increasing when it takes positions like this.  How must a watching world be viewing all of this?   We would love to hear your opinions on the barring of men from TGC's women's conference. 

Lydia's Corner:  Isaiah 48:12-50:11   Ephesians 4:17-32   Psalm 69:1-18   Proverbs 24:5-6

Comments

TGC’s 2014 National Women’s Conference – FOR WOMEN ONLY! — 363 Comments

  1. First poster!!!!! Deebs I must have a special gift of mental telepathy!! :-p Where’s Agents Mulder and Scully!

  2. Eagle,your record is unbroken! I tried to beat you to it, but couldn’t get the post to post. Mulder and Scully are still looking for the truth, which is out there.

    Anyway. Interesting that dads are to babysit. Er, “watch the kids” while the moms are at a conference, which will undoubtedly have something along the lines of motherhood being the highest calling and there is no greater privilege for a woman than to nurture and raise the children that God has blessed them with.

    I guess “watch the kids” is all right when a man tells another man to do it, and is probably sanctified when a man tells another man to “watch the kids” so his wife can go to a conference about husbands having authority over their wives.

    When my oldest child was born, if the baby was not with me at all times at a church function (interpretation: ladies’ meeting), someone was bound to say, “Oh, is Mr. Tree babysitting?” It irked me from the get-go. “No, he’s not babysitting. Babysitting is what you do for other people’s children and it’s optional. Mr. Tree is parenting, and it’s not optional.”

  3. Hmm, have always found it to be so, “the teacher learns from the student”. Wouldn’t these manly men, telling these lowly women what for at the “conference” (con implies with, not over) also have to be considered as attenders, if teachers learn from students?

  4. Sounds like a waste of money unless you want to go to Disneyworld and are using it as an excuse to go. Just go to Disneyworld. At least it works at being “the happiest place on earth” and wants visitors to be happy. Sounds like the complete opposite for this conference: attendees are to make the speakers happy by swallowing their garbage.

    I’d rather go to Disneyworld. I’d have more fun. So would just about everyone else.

  5. I can never figure Keller out. He seems more reasonable than most of this crew. But his continued association with them has me starting to think otherwise.

  6. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking?

    From the FAQ: Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking? No, they will be ushered in thru a backstage door and ushered out immediately after their speech 😉

  7. There seems to be considerable “snark” in the post and comments. But my experience has been, women LIKE to attend women’s conferences.
    *
    As for the larger issue of women teaching the elders, the Apostle Paul is firmly against it.

  8. Seriously how can anyone decide as a general principle that 50% (actually slightly more) of the world’s population has nothing worthwhile to say from the start based on their gender? That their genitalia makes their thoughts and ideas worthless. Do they walk around with their fingers in their ears all day lest they inadvertently hear a woman say something that might resonate? How do they interact in the real world? If they’re bleeding to death and a female paramedic turns up or it’s a woman doctor in the ER do they tell them to go away? Do they get off the plane if the pilot is a woman? It’s not the 1940’s anymore guys. Deal with it.

  9. What does the Scripture says about a woman being President or Prime Minister? Nothing.
    How about CEO of Bank of American? Scripture says nothing. Cardiologist? Psychiatrist? Attorney? Carpenter? Brick Layer?. Women, have at it. Be a Supreme Court Justice if you wish. Scripture is silent on these matters.

  10. @ Pacbox:

    Agreed – a complete waste of time and money!

    I can definitely think of other places I'd rather be in the sweltering summertime than Florida. 🙂

  11. Cranston wrote:

    Seriously how can anyone decide as a general principle that 50% (actually slightly more) of the world’s population has nothing worthwhile to say from the start based on their gender?

    Excellent question! Wake up people!!!

    This crowd has taken a few key Bible verses and created the Gender Gospel.

  12. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking?

    Excellent question! I wonder what they did at the first TGC Women's Conference.

  13. E.G. wrote:

    I can never figure Keller out. He seems more reasonable than most of this crew. But his continued association with them has me starting to think otherwise.

    How many women from the Big Apple will be attending? I'd love to know that!

  14. Well, to play devil’s advocate for just a moment, they probably wouldn’t let women attend a men’s conference either. If they do and I’ve forgotten something, then I’ll shut up. 🙂

    Of course I think evangelicalism makes way too many things blue and pink as it is, not just conferences, so I wouldn’t be going to either…

  15. @ Tree:

    There can be no doubt that the dads who spend a few days with their kids at the theme parks will be hailed as heroes.  Sorry you had trouble commenting earlier.

  16. @ Cranston:

    Oh, you should hear what some hyper-fundamentalists have actually said, in my presence, about specifically this. I have heard bragging (in conversation) about precisely this sort of thing. That would be bragging about getting up and walking out of one or another (secular) situation because of the role of some female in that situation, including but not limited to female physicians. What you are suggesting lies well within the range of what some people actually think, sad to say. Mix that attitude with the “teaching” that being obnoxious for Jesus is what the real heroes of the faith do, and there is the perfect opportunity for such behavior.

  17. Gender Gospel indeed…..how twisted to turn God’s creation into this. One type of salvation for men and a lower type for women.

    What kind of women’s conference has men for speakers anyway?

  18. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, according to the Met Office: There are currently no weather warnings in force across the UK. For which, we’re all thankful.

    Well, I just saw on the news that Europe is being hit with BIG WAVES. Stay off your surfboard until the ocean calms down. 🙂

  19. Why are 3 men speaking at a women’s conference anyway? These are the same old guys whose videos and free sermons are everywhere. Why should women pay to hear them? I think this is a marketing/sales push by desperate publishers.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from women about how to change the world, and give us models of doing it?

  20. Re: Dorothy Patterson

    Never trust a pastor whose wife who wears hats as a religious statement. Although those women seem so sweet and submissive, every one I’ve met personally enjoys tremendous power, and wants to strip it from all others.

    The man who removed women from leadership at a large church in our area had a wife who always wore hats.

  21. If the conference is good and people enjoy it, that’s great. This conference may not be attractive to some, but it will be to others.

    There are so many different tribes and speakers in the Christian faith.

    This is just one of many offerings out there.

    The response to speech we don’t like is – more speech.

    People who disagree with this perspective should organize their own conference. I suppose such conferences exist, but I don’t really know.

  22. What I find strange is how out of touch TGC women leaders are. Look at TCG interviews and articles. They honestly believe that (1) most Christian wives are stay-at-home mothers, and (2) those who do work would really rather not.

    They have to tell themselves this because it is an unwritten Evangelical rule (and a lot of pressure) that stay-at-home wives are more godly.

    I hate to tell them this, but they are living in an echo chamber, an isolated sub-culture that has been fading for 30 years. As of 2010 68.8% of married women with children under 18 are in the labor force. Back in 1990 it was 66%. It’s been very high for decades.

    Perhaps in the rarefied world of megachurch wives, a woman doesn’t have to (or isn’t allowed to) work. But in the real world, nearly 70% of married mothers do. AND working women are happier than non-working ones.

    TGC really don’t have a relevant en-point message for the nearly 70% of married women with kids, especially those who enjoy work.

  23. Deb
    I laughed so hard over this statement that I am still coughing over the Swiss cheese that went down the wrong way.

    “She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.”

    This has to be one of the funniest statements ever made.

  24. Tree wrote:

    No, he’s not babysitting. Babysitting is what you do for other people’s children and it’s optional. Mr. Tree is parenting, and it’s not optional.”

    Yay Mr. Tree!

  25. RB wrote:

    Perhaps because they cannot truly learn.

    How can you learn while being pressed on from a woman. It is far too distracting.

  26. @ Sergius Martin-George:
    You know, I thought the same thing. I bet they have them in a sound proof booth and will hustle them out on stage. We can’t have Piper being “pressed on” by a woman, after all.

  27. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    But my experience has been, women LIKE to attend women’s conferences. I have no trouble with this part of your statement. It should not affect women to have men sitting in at a woman’s conference. If it does, something is strange.
    *
    As for the larger issue of women teaching the elders, the Apostle Paul is firmly against it.

    Teach what? Be precise. Women teach men all the time and vice versa. Tell me when it goes over the line. It appears that Piper says the line is when a woman is pressing on a man. Now that is precision…

  28. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    What does the Scripture says about a woman being President or Prime Minister?

    Here is the conundrum that you must deal with when you make such a statement. Suppose, for a moment, the former President of the United States was a woman. Your church decided to teach a course on Christians and the government. I was in a church one time that had such an offering.

    The two people willing to teach is the former President, a woman, and some 30 year old guy who is up for elder but has never had any experience in government. The former President could not teach such a class and would have to “sit under the authority” of the 30 year old?

  29. Cranston wrote:

    Do they walk around with their fingers in their ears all day lest they inadvertently hear a woman say something that might resonate?

    This is their problem. A woman can say all they want until they enter into a church or behind a podium at a Christian conference at which men will be present. Then something supernatural must take place. She is now to be mute. Anything she says in this capacity is evil and not the will of God.

    For those who object to the word “evil,” prove to me why it is not evil in the site of those who espouse this interpretation. Anything that is against the will of God is evil.

  30. Nancy wrote:

    including but not limited to female physicians.

    I serve with a group of physicians in a ministry. One of our members had a serious eye problem which necessitated a visit to a well known university hospital. The eye doctor was struggling to fix the problem. So, they called in the female eye doctor who is a part of this ministry. Within a minute, she had the problem all taken care of.

    This nice male member relayed the following conversations. He said “It needed a woman’s touch.” She retorted “No it needed a skilled, experienced surgeon’s touch.” We all laughed and applauded.

  31. John Piper is a very odd man. He seems to have taken one line of scripture and made an idol out of it.

    There is that issue he has with biblical commentary by women. When asked if he had any problems reading books by women, he said something to the effect of that it was permissible because it was “indirect.”

    It’s the act of her being physically around, it seems. If she were to be present and reading aloud (gasp!) her commentary, that would be pushing authority on him. He couldn’t abide by that.

    Honestly, the mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion is astounding, and sad. I actually pity anyone who thinks this way.

  32. dee wrote:

    Deb
    I laughed so hard over this statement that I am still coughing over the Swiss cheese that went down the wrong way.

    “She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.”

    This has to be one of the funniest statements ever made.

    Wow, Dee and Deb, I wasn’t laughing. Honestly, I thought Deb had an inadvertent typo in the quote. Surely Piper did not say what she represented him to say in response to the woman’s question.

    I checked. He did.

    Stunning.

    The language, tone, and disposition of Piper in the comment is one of a master speaking to a slave, a superior to an inferior, one of worth to one without worth. No matter how he spins it, to say, “She’s woman on man, and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.” All that’s missing is the whip, the post to which the woman will be tied, and a few lashes on her back.

    That’s sick.

    Definitely source this quote. Unlike many who read Wartburg Watch, I have a deep appreciation for Piper and his theology of God. His view on women honestly makes me believe he has an intellectual understanding God but a huge void when it comes to intimacy with God.

    Jesus never treated the woman at the well who questioned him in such a manner. That Samaritan woman was “on Jesus,” pressed Jesus with questions, and would have been seen as “too authoritative” by the culture around them – yet Jesus treated her with dignity, value, worth and tenderness – answering every question and objection and never — not one time — making the issue the woman. BECAUSE He respected her, he answered her questions.

    Dee, I understand how you thought it hilarious, but from my side of the fence, I found it sickening.

  33. It must be super convenient to be able to automatically discount at least half the population; saves Piper and his ilk the trouble of having to actually think about whether those who call him out on his bull are right after all. No need to question himself or his teachings, because everyone who tells him any different is in the wrong just by saying so.

    ….Also, I gigglesnorted at the “woman on man” comment, too. Guess my mind is in the wrong place today. 🙂

  34. It is interesting, however, that Mary Kassian and Carolyn Mahaney are not included, although Carolyn McCulley is listed.

    What are the Mahaney women doing these days to sell themselves? The man who gave them their identities is no longer SGM’s president and consequently Carolyn and her daughters have lost the platform he provided for them. They must be content doing exactly what they have always taught other women to do: make the home their #1 priority and stay there, claiming what they taught was the biblical pattern all females should follow if they were to be true women of God.

    With husband and father not able to provide them a stage, and with traffic undoubtedly decreased at their Girltalk Blog (which has turned into a place for old, recycled Carolyn Mahaney teachings, and an attempt by Janelle Mahaney sell stuff) one has to wonder how happy and content the little starlets are at adding logs to the fire and churning out the butter.

    No, it must be a bitter pill to swallow watching women like Noel Piper and Kathy Keller take the stage at Women’s Conferences knowing they’re there solely on the basis of their husband’s merit, something that is now lost to the Mahaney girls. Their stage and their lights have gone dark because their leader’s been exposed as a fraud, and their followership of him has been too.

    But will they come to realize that their microphones have been silenced because God has acted biblically and fulfilled His Role? No. That would require humility and honest self-evaluation like Carolyn Mahaney used to be so fond of saying, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

  35. Anonymous wrote:

    People who disagree with this perspective should organize their own conference.

    The issue runs deeper than free market applications. This conference influences thought within evangelicalism. It is disturbing to me that people accept the fact that men should not hear women speak. This has implications that reverberate throughout the faith and I plan to discuss this on Friday when I look at what is happening to women professors at Cedarville University.

    Look at Piper’s machinations as he attempts to describe women speaking to men. Piper is the guru of the NeoCalvinist movement and what he says is parroted by thousands of young men who want to be the next Piper. This affects people in churches in a very real way.

  36. Dis wrote:

    Honestly, the mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion is astounding, and sad

    It is mental gymnastics.

  37. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Dee, I understand how you thought it hilarious, but from my side of the fence, I found it sickening.

    I have been listening to this nonsense all of my life. I used to get depressed thinking that male leaders actually might think about me in this way. So, I decided to look at it as a parody like Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew.

    As for Piper’s view of God, there is something wrong there if his theology leads to such conclusions. His statements about muscular women, giving directions to men, abuse. etc. lead me to believe that he views God as the creator of two types of humans: the rulers and the submissives. Then he throws in ESS to “theologize”, ‘biblically,’ his conclusions.

  38. Toffeemama wrote:

    Also, I gigglesnorted at the “woman on man” comment, too. Guess my mind is in the wrong place today.

    Nope-you are normal. I am beginning to think that Piper is the one that is strange.

  39. Most here probably remember what happened to Anne Graham Lotz some years ago.  Here is an excerpt from an article she wrote back in 2008:

    When I stood in the lectern at the convention center, many of the 800 church leaders present turned their chairs around and put their backs to me. When I concluded my message, I was shaking. I was hurt and surprised that godly men would find what I was doing so offensive that they would stage such a demonstration, especially when I was an invited guest. And I was confused. Had I stepped out of the Biblical role for a woman? While all agree that women are free to help in the kitchen, or in the nursery, or in a secretary’s chair, is it unacceptable for a woman to take a leadership or teaching position?

    What a terrible witness to those who do not know Jesus Christ. 🙁

  40. I can see a situation happening. Some Emergency Rooms are staffed largely with females, including doctors. So Piper is involved in a medical event (accident or illness) and is taken to the ER, where the only doctor available is female. Does he wait until the next shift or does he accept treatment from the qualified, capable, authoritative female doctor that can provide the treatment he needs and perhaps save a limb or life?

    BTW my doctor is a female. As a 65+ yo male, I like her b/c she is really broadly read and up to date on, it seems, everything relevant to my health, she has a slight tendency to over diagnose (much better than under!!!) and is very thorough. My spouse and I have been patients in her practice for over eight years. Having worked in health policy early in my adult years, I have a great appreciation for good interpersonal interaction with a physician as a key to great health care. And she, and her staff, have it.

  41. Cranston wrote:

    Seriously how can anyone decide as a general principle that 50% (actually slightly more) of the world’s population has nothing worthwhile to say from the start based on their gender?

    This whole male supremacy* hermeneutic is is one of the most idiotic and dangerous religious fabrications being perpetrated on people today. Moreover, this is not limited to a religious context – many male supremacists carry this over into secular society as well – denying women the right to any supervisory position in the workplace or even the right to have any job at all.

    Take a few Bible verses out of their context and ignore and/or dismiss the multitude of passages that mandate equality and you have just relegated one-half of the world’s population to oppression. To try and paint this as ‘Biblical’, ‘complementary’, or ‘good for women’ is to put lipstick on a theological pig. Piper and his fellow-travelers are no different in their twisting of the Gospel than the slave owners and slave traders who claimed a Biblical basis for slavery.

    Since when did any form of oppression become part of the love of God or love of neighbor, on which hang ALL the law and the prophets?

    To characterize this oppression as any kind of love is the most heinous of abuses of the word of God.

    *I refuse to use their term “complementarian” because it’s a fraudulent term. There’s nothing complementary about it – it’s 100% male domination of females perpetrated by men whose egos are so fragile they need to create an entire class of people who are automatically subordinate to them.

  42. @ Janey:

    They also have to ignore the entirety of human history. Most women have always had to engage in economically productive work, as in income, food, or other necessity-generating work other than simply cooking and sewing for her own family. For a few decades of the last century, women who weren't at least moderately wealthy were able to be stay at home wives and mothers in the Western world, but this is and always will be outside the norm. The reality of surviving means that half of able bodied adults can't stay out of the labor force.

  43. dee wrote:

    Anonymous wrote:

    People who disagree with this perspective should organize their own conference.

    The issue runs deeper than free market applications. This conference influences thought within evangelicalism. It is disturbing to me that people accept the fact that men should not hear women speak. This has implications that reverberate throughout the faith and I plan to discuss this on Friday when I look at what is happening to women professors at Cedarville University.

    Look at Piper’s machinations as he attempts to describe women speaking to men. Piper is the guru of the NeoCalvinist movement and what he says is parroted by thousands of young men who want to be the next Piper. This affects people in churches in a very real way.

    Good points Dee.

  44. Piper: “She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no. I think that’s contrary to the way God made us…”

    Deb: “If you are so inclined, please listen Piper’s entire response. It sheds much light regarding what he believes about women.”

    Mara: It also sheds much light regarding what he believes about authority.
    What he believes about authority has very little to do with anything Jesus (or Paul or Peter or John or ANY NT writer) teaches concerning authority.

    John Piper looks upon authority like a gentile. He does not look upon it as one who has been grafted into the Vine.

    And it is terribly troubling that he has so much influence when his understanding of something so basic and pertinent is so flawed.

    Yes, we must continue to shine a light on this demented area within Piper-think.

     

  45. @ Mara:
    Second to last sentence should read:
    …when his understanding of something SO basic and pertinent is so flawed.

    Sorry typo.

  46. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking?

    “Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny.”
    Uncle Andrew in “The Magician’s Nephew”

  47. dee wrote:

    I used to get depressed thinking that male leaders actually might think about me in this way. So, I decided to look at it as a parody like Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew.

    “I used to get disgusted. Now I’m just amused.”
    ~Elvis Costello

    It is terribly depressing. Especially when you are on the receiving end of such overwhelming distain. Whether the distain is overt or (attempted) covert, it doesn’t matter. It hurts to know someone that you might otherwise admire would have these feelings towards you. It’s devastating if you do admire the one who holds such views.

    But amusement if far less draining and less likely to kick your feet out from under you than disgust, depression, and devastation.

    Amusement helps you to face and acknowledge the problem without burying it or it burying you.

  48. “The men got together to watch the kids while the women attended the conference.”

    Oh. How now, is THAT what we should do? Should we watch our own children?

    Sorry, that just struck me as really funny. Can you imagine a men’s conference reminding families that women can watch kids while men are gone?

  49. E.G. wrote:

    I can never figure Keller out. He seems more reasonable than most of this crew.

    I am NO fan of, Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, the little I know of him. He might be a nice guy. Might even be saved.
    And doing the best he knows how. I have a problem with “The Corrupt Religious System” Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, adheres to. And then, how he operates within that system. Saying one thing, doing another. Mat 23:3.

    Saying the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Then using many terms, titles, positions, NOT found in the Bible. And “Ignoring” verses that do NOT suit him.

    Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, is another reason – A big reason…
    I NO longer trust those mere humans with the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend.

    Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, claims to be, Complimantarian. (Like his TGC friends.)
    NO females in Leadership positions. Did you know, “Redeemer” pastored by Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, has Female Deacons?

    But, Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, does NOT “ordain” them.- NO, NO, he commissions them…
    Instead he calls them – “unordained, commissioned deaconesses.” – I kid you NOT. 😉

    And here Keller uses the infamous word “Biblical ” to make it sound okay. 😉

    Keller says – “There are several good **biblical** reasons
    for having *commissioned deaconesses* in a congregation.”

    Now, can anyone find – “unordained, commissioned deaconesses” – in the Bible???
    How can *unordained, commissioned deaconesses* be “Biblical?” If it’s NOT in the Bible?

    Simple, Dr. Tim Keller calls himself Senior Pastor. Nuff said. He’s the top dog. Obey…
    And “his” people submit to “his” authority, his leadership, his celebrity. Like they are taught.

    Keller’s reasoning for “commissioned deaconesses” being “Biblical” is…
    He says deacons are servants – NOT leadership – NOT judicial authority.

    He says – “However, I believe—like the RPCNA—that biblically,
    Deacons are appointed to service, not to juridical authority.”
    ““the office of deacon as a calling to service, not rule?”

    But, In the Bible, the very words Calvinists, Comps use to disqualify women elders is “Ignored.”

    1 Tim 3:12 KJV
    Let the deacons be **the husbands of one wife,**
    ruling (managing) their children and their own houses well.

    If anyone cares – they can read about it here…
    Be warned – Lots of double talk – and triple talk – to make this sound “Biblical.” 🙁

    http://byfaithonline.com/the-case-for-commissioning-not-ordaining-deaconesses/

    E. G. – Still thinking, Dr. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, is reasonable? 😉

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

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

  50. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Rush to judgment

    Now I am getting mad at you. I have met with some of those who have been hurt in this situation. The pain is overwhelming and the long term consequences are serious.. But it is all a lie, right?

    Enjoy yourself, Seneca. You can pretend that it is all “false memories.” There are no pedophiles, no domestic abusers, etc. in the church. It is all a plot. Repeat it many times and go on tiptoeing through the tulips and trample on people as you do so.

  51. @ Mara:

    When I first started to learn about the Neo-Cals, I was so distressed by the over-emphasis on 'manhood'. Then Dee and I started blogging…

    I'm not buying the gender gospel and neither is my hubby.

  52. @ Mara:

    It’s not just John Piper. It’s probably all the leaders, men and the women that follow them (and therefore are allowed to speak) in churches that associate with TGC.

    It’s really not that odd to me to see that the enemy has chosen the one thing that Jesus was clear about (authority and leadership) to turn on its head in an attempt to thwart the Church. It is sad to see the blindness in those who claim the authority.

  53. @ Deb:

    Thanks for taking care of my typo.
    And I agree that blogging about it is one of the best applications of “Be angry but do not sin” in spite of what one misguided commenter claims. How else do we deal with Piper’s false and damaging teachings on gender?

    That misguided commenter will go unnamed but his initials are Seneca “j” Griggs!

  54. @ dee:

    Honestly, the way he slid that in here, and now, reminds me of a scorpion that crawls into a shoe for shelter and then bites you when you least expect it.

  55. Bridget wrote:

    It’s not just John Piper. It’s probably all the leaders

    Oh, I know!

    It’s just that so many hold up Piper as a true and gospelly example of their view because he’s “such a nice guy” and gets it right in so many other areas. That makes him more dangerous than, let’s say, controversy magnet Driscoll.

  56. Dee:

    I get what you are saying about how some of this stuff has an effect on churches. I understand the level of concern. I am not suggesting no one should comment about these things.

    However, I really believe the best corrective is for there to be alternatives and other voices who are as accessible and effective.

    We don’t ordain women or have women elders at our church, so I realize that many on this blog will part company with me on that point.

    But neither do we buy into the nitpicky stuff and contorted discussions around gender issues.

    Also, we don’t feel it is necessary to establish fences beyond what we believe scripture says on this issue to protect or guard against encroachment on what we believe. So we don’t have a bunch of rules about women can’t to do this or that in order to show or protect our beliefs about elders and such.

  57. dee wrote:

    Pretzels.

    Let me chew on that.

    Seems to me ALL of these TGC guys are a few Candied Cherrys short of an “Edible Fruit Cake.”
    But still Qualify, by their Commandments and Doctrines of Men, to be ”Official Fruit Cakes.”

    Tiz the season… 😉

  58. dee wrote:

    How can you learn while being pressed on from a woman. It is far too distracting.

    (Not sure if I should be reading this at work…)

  59. Wade Burleson wrote:

    The language, tone, and disposition of Piper in the comment is one of a master speaking to a slave, a superior to an inferior, one of worth to one without worth. No matter how he spins it, to say, “She’s woman on man, and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.” All that’s missing is the whip, the post to which the woman will be tied, and a few lashes on her back

    That’s sick.

    Is Gospelly Piper five-foot-nothing, 100 lbs wringing wet, and with a Woody Allen nebbish voice? This has all the vibe of someone who was always on the bottom getting lorded over by his peers finding someone even more “bottom” who he can lord it over.

  60. dee wrote:

    Enjoy yourself, Seneca. You can pretend that it is all “false memories.” There are no pedophiles, no domestic abusers, etc. in the church. It is all a plot. Repeat it many times and go on tiptoeing through the tulips and trample on people as you do so.

    Yet during the Satanic Panic in the Eighties there were a lot of false accusations on “recovered memory testimony” solicited by “recovered memory therapists” with an agenda which turned out to be false memories. This was before anyone found out how false memories can be created and safeguards against it were put in place. But everyone still remembers the Satanic Panic mess and is gun-shy. And it’s also a cultural thing of the times; a True Believer with an agenda can be scary and Baby Boomer types tend to be True Believers in their Agenda, no matter how crazy the Agenda.

  61. Deb wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I always look forward to your commentary.

    In that case, some further analysis of the news so far…

    Since yesterday and today have both been sunny in central Scotland, that means 22% of days in 2014 have been sunny. That’s not a bad return for the summer up here, never mind a January in which the UK has been hit by severe weather and widespread flooding. All of which illustrates the chaotic nature of weather patterns under the northern Polar Jetstream.

  62. Dave A A wrote:

    “Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny.”
    Uncle Andrew in “The Magician’s Nephew”

    “Occult” = Hidden, Secret.
    “Gnostic” = He who has Speshul Sekrit Knowledge. (Which coincidentally frees him from common rules.)

  63. JeffT wrote:

    Since when did any form of oppression become part of the love of God or love of neighbor, on which hang ALL the law and the prophets?

    Since those doing the oppressing started casting around for Cosmic Justification for what they were going to do anyway. “GAWD HATH SAID!”

  64. Toffeemama wrote:

    ….Also, I gigglesnorted at the “woman on man” comment, too. Guess my mind is in the wrong place today.

    Because the Man(TM) always has to be on Top and the Woman(TM) always has to be on the Bottom. “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

    (P.S. You know “COLONIZE!” includes the word “COLON”? And is full of the same.)

  65. dee wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    Rush to judgment
    Now I am getting mad at you. I have met with some of those who have been hurt in this situation. The pain is overwhelming and the long term consequences are serious.. But it is all a lie, right?
    Enjoy yourself, Seneca. You can pretend that it is all “false memories.” There are no pedophiles, no domestic abusers, etc. in the church. It is all a plot. Repeat it many times and go on tiptoeing through the tulips and trample on people as you do so.

    Nope Dee, some of it is very, seriously, ugly true. But you should always be discerning. And a lot of discernment is simply being patient for all voices to be heard. Then it is easier to discern the real from the falsely alleged. [ There are certainly times when you’ll probably NEVER know the whole truth no matter how long you wait.] But can’t we forgo the “rush to judgment?”

  66. Looking at the conference speaker line-up, I’m honestly a little puzzled. These are women with graduate and professional degrees, and careers outside of the home. Yet I suspect many TGC followers would discourage women from attending higher ed, much less having a career. So where do they think their next generation of speakers will come from?? Isn’t it a little hypocritical to preach one thing, but have leaders (I think it’s fair to call these speakers “leaders” even if they are only allowed to lead women) who follow a completely different path? Are they oblivious to this?

  67. I propose a TWW Brigade attend TGC 2014 Women’s Conference. And when John Piper starts to speak women stand up and stop the speech and ask if John Piper can give them permission to use the can! 😛 In the abscene of their husband John Piper is qualified to give guidance.

  68. I must admit, the several times I’ve seen women preach, something has seemed a little off, and even though I don’t consider myself comp, I prefer a man to preach a sermon or lead a mixed group Bible study, but only if they’re gentle, kind and universally respectful people who are depending on God for the message or teaching, not on their fleshly understanding. They should be giving God the glory as they share the truth in real love for whomever they’re teaching, not to advance their own agendas. If the group is all women, to me, it’s obvious that women should be able to teach other women, and women should be able to teach male children, and the same attitudes and goals should apply. But there are so many times when the Holy Spirit uses women to teach men, little children to teach older adults. Even nature teaches us about our Creator. “The Holy Spirit blows where it will”. I think the issue is with both extremes of comp and and egal, and sadly, people are prone to take things to extremes. I respect Paul’s advice to not have women teach men, because I think he would have been quick to put hyper-authoritarian men in their places. Jesus put hyper-authoritarians in their places, and spoke with authority, not as an authoritarian. To me, this issue has become a whole doctrine, and because of that, the whole has been left for the part, the spirit negated for the letter.

  69. Or people who attend can use Toilet Paper as streamers for symbolism. You’ve heard of sit ins, now you can have “Wipe Ins”…geared toward Neo-Cal leaders of course!

  70. Eagle wrote:

    I propose a TWW Brigade attend TGC 2014 Women’s Conference. And when John Piper starts to speak women stand up and stop the speech and ask if John Piper can give them permission to use the can! In the absence of their husband John Piper is qualified to give guidance.

    What a hoot that would be!!

  71. Eagle wrote:

    I have to ask…what makes Carolyn McCulley so great? I don’t understand that…can someone explain please?

    Is she still at Eric Simmons' church which left SGM for Acts 29?

  72. Before I retired, when going to and from work, I used to listen to a RCC radio station. There was a program on it which included a nun who taught on various subjects. She was one of the best teachers I’ve ever heard. Imo, she taught with the authority of the Holy Spirit, and in that spirit, gender was irrelevant as far as being germane to the topics at hand, yet her voice was definitely feminine. It wasn’t a power play, and also imo, most of what she taught had nothing to do with RCC doctrine.

  73. Eagle wrote:

    I propose a TWW Brigade attend TGC 2014 Women’s Conference. And when John Piper starts to speak women stand up and stop the speech and ask if John Piper can give them permission to use the can! In the absence of their husband John Piper is qualified to give guidance.

    I feel a new TGC Conference sponsorship deal coming on.

  74. First time comment, but long-time reader.

    My name is Jim. I read with interest at the exchange between Dee and Wade over Piper. There is something wrong in Piper’s doctrine of God – two things in fact. The first is the philosophical assumption of a split between God and the world, which sets the stage for a metaphysical dualism running through his entire line of thinking. Dualistic thought structures always split things into two groups – the saved and the damned, the elect and the reprobate, truth and falsehood, and men and women. Piper’s dualism then influences the second, which is a step-child of the first – the Manichean/Christian synthesis solution to the problem of evil as proposed by Augustine, which results in a deterministic conception of God that wills (however it is nuanced) that his creatures commit evil for his glory (brought to its fullest fruition in Jonathan Edwards).

    I would imagine Piper subscribes to the ESS view of the Trinity. Most of TGC folks do. If so, the incarnate Son cannot be the window to our understanding of God, for he is less in “role” though that “role” is an ontological category. All we have left is the metaphysical speculation from the preceding paragraph, and therefore Piper’s views make sense in his world.

    Jim G.

  75. just jumping in but my view on these types of conferences is that they are meant to separate groups of people for the sole purpose of propagating the propaganda of their certain agenda. There is absolutely no reason that one should segregate women from men if they choose not to. I never go to Bible studies that much without my husband – I like his take on things. He may see something that I don’t. My husband and I are a team, so I don’t care for the idea that some High Priest says I can’t have him there. I remember when a lady asked me one time to go to a retreat with my husband and told me that we would be separated into segregated groups when we got there. Yeah, well I did not go- sounds like CULT to me.

  76. lemonaidfizz wrote:

    These are women with graduate and professional degrees, and careers outside of the home.

    This is the conundrum of the TGC crowd. They claim that comp has nothing to do with homemaking or working outside of the home. The basic belief is this. When you walk into a church, deep six your training and shut up. Only men can teach men or a mixed group.

  77. The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

  78. An Attorney wrote:

    The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

    It’s highly doubtful that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles (where almost all the admonitions against women are stated). They most likely were written in the second century.

    Paul was much more egalitarian than he is portrayed by the NeoCals. Phoebe personally delivered Romans to the church in Rome and almost certainly read it aloud to the church. Can you imagine JP doing something similar. No way.

  79. @ Eagle: it’s all hype, and has been since very early days. I’ve heard her spoken of in reverent tones, but never did get a real answer regarding what made her so special.

    That was a long time ago, but somehow, I doubt things have changed much…

  80. Hmm, Orlando and not hurricane season. Even a few women all asking JP at the same time for permission to potty just might send him over the edge, and we wouldn’t want to crush his spirit, even though he seems to have no respect for the feelings and needs of women, from some of the statements he’s made which have been quoted here.

  81. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    As for the larger issue of women teaching the elders, the Apostle Paul is firmly against it.

    It depends entirely on how you view Paul. If your view of Paul is that of a new ‘Moses’ to the Gentiles with the Almighty still thundering out of Sinai through Paul, well yeah, then the old saw of no women allowed to teach has some traction.

    If on the other hand one uses reason and common sense as to what’s descriptive of then vs. prescriptive for now, it’s a whole game changer. Even E.W. Bullinger (late 19th-early 20th cent.) recognized this in his preface to the Timothy texts on page 1799 of his Companion Bible.

  82. We had JP and other Neo Cal books pushed on us at a former church. I never cracked one, but I did recycle them. (:

  83. @ Bridget:

    Correct me if I am wrong. Yes she’s Comp…but as a woman she’s also single. And in this camp that means that she is a major failure becuase she hasn’t popped out 5 children in a year. Kind of hard from her position. I looked at her blog and I see nothing about her being married, having a husband, or children. Every other Neo-Cal does that….

    Deb yes she’s at the same church I believe.

  84. You know who should inspire John Piper and Mark Dever? Benito Mussolini..look at what Mussolini created and expected of women in pre-war Italy:

    (from a historical website)

    Women in Fascist Italy

    As in Nazi Germany, women were seen as having a specific role in Fascist Italy. The task of young girls was to get married and have children – lots of them. In 1927, Mussolini launched his Battle for Births.

    Mussolini believed that his Italy had a smaller population than it should have. How could it possibly be a power to reckon with, without a substantial population and a substantial army? Women were encouraged to have children and the more children brought better tax privileges – an idea Hitler was to build on. Large families got better tax benefits but bachelors were hit by high taxation.

    Families were given a target of 5 children. Mothers who produced more were warmly received by the Fascist government. In 1933, Mussolini met 93 mothers at the Palazzo Venezia who had produced over 1300 children – an average of 13 each!

    Mussolini wanted Italy to have a population of 60 million by 1950. In 1920, it stood at 37 million so his target was a tall order. However, the Battle for Births was a failure. Though the population grew as people were living longer due to better medical care, the birth rate actually went down between 1927 and 1934.

  85. Piper talks like a high school kid attempting to write deep poetry. So many fancy words, so much imagery…

    But so entirely vaccuous.

  86. Here is the source of the website:

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/life_in_fascist_italy.htm

    So the Italians had the Battle for Births, with the goal of 5 children each. Is that what TGC National Women’s Conference all about? Is this new “beachead” going to be Orlando? Think about it ….

    Inspire the troops + Keep the husbands at the hotel + Quiverfull agenda = Bedroom evangelism..out breed the heathen and have a jump start on spring delivery in 2015! 😛

  87. @ RB:
    I think it’s just a matter of what we are used to. It used to feel real awkward for men when women became CEOs of anything. Boys are raised without gender prejudice don’t feel awkward at all.

  88. It seems like a whole doctrine has been made out of 1Tim.2:11-12. 2 verses hardly qualify to build a doctrine.

  89. This works down to local churches also. My former church had a men’s conference, at which men learned masculine manly things from local church-elders. At the women’s conference, disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

  90. Having been at CLC for so long I had gone along with the man rule thing. It always bothered me to the point that I just had to put it out of my head. I was a good cult member! Except in my heart I was never a believer in the cause (sgm). Now that I’ve been learning so much about what’s really going on I have one question, among many, how do we interpret 1Ti 2:12? And others like that.
    Someone mentioned girl talk. The other day I clicked on a link to that blog a read what it said. It was just like the feeling I used to get when I went to women’s meetings at CLC. Burdened down and discouraged. One of the girls wanted to learn to crochet, but Mon showed her how she didn’t have the time right now to take classes to learn. I taught my self at home. I’ve spent many a time enjoying crocheting and kitting while being at home all those years raising kids. Of which I have 7. I’m so glad to get that off my chest. I wanted to leave that comment on the blog.

  91. Yes, Patti, I agree with the subjectivity involved here, but I also think the whole issue is really about refuting the ideas of lust for power and disrespect of others in general, and we’re all prone to go there. I’ve seen extremes on both sides, and in both extremes, lots of hypocrisy. As Muff previously commented, reason and common sense are vital.

  92. @ Eagle:

    She is their encouragement to single women. After all, TGC wants single women to attend the conference.

    On another note, the reason for the “three” special men is to put a stamp of approval on the event. It’s ridiculous and does go contrary to older women instructing younger women. I don’t see the purpose in huge conferences like this to begin with. They cost the women who attend much money and effort in order to get there and you just sit and rehash the books that the speakers have written. It’s mainly about gaining notoriety to the sponsor, TGC.

  93. Dave A A wrote:

    This works down to local churches also. My former church had a men’s conference, at which men learned masculine manly things from local church-elders. At the women’s conference, disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

    Are you serious, Dave? The women had to listen to Piper videos!?! Talk about brainwashing . . .

  94. Outside of one verse in Ephesians about wives submitting to husbands, which comes right after (paraphrase), ‘everyone submit to each other,’
    And perhaps with the exception of Paul addressing specific local church problems he was asked about (where women at some church were flaunting their wealth, so he told them not to adorn themselves with jewelry)….

    The Bible itself does not go into a lot of detail about male – female relations.

    The Bible actually says in Galatians there is no male or female in Christ Jesus.
    (Which is funny, because complementarians are very staunch in the view that “men and women are different!!” – the Bible says, eh, not so much, no.)

    The complementarians are trying to construct an entire handbook of male-female relations that even the Bible doesn’t get into. Their views are extra – biblical.

    Not only is there little to no room for unmarried and childless women in complementarianism (note the their concern is usually how wives shall related to their husbands, or how mother should raise their children), but some of them do try to extend this male control past marital couples.

    Some of these complementarians (and patriarchalists) want to see any and all women limited, whether single or married.

    I’ve seen commentary online quoting some of these guys as saying they don’t think a male should have a female boss, or if a man does, she should not be too “authoritative” over the employee, etc.

    In garden variety complementarianism, single and childless women are non-existant (women just don’t count and aren’t human unless they wear a wedding band and pop out babies), but in the more nutso versions, they want to apply the “wives submit to husbands” phrase and apply it to all women. I’m not sure which view I find more insulting.

  95. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    But my experience has been, women LIKE to attend women’s conferences.

    And some women don’t.

    The only women who would likely want to attend this thing are Stepford Wives who are still mistaking codependency for “biblical womanhood.”

    They haven’t realized yet that gender complementarianism is church-sanctioned sexism under a thin Christian veneer.

    Seneca said,

    As for the larger issue of women teaching the elders, the Apostle Paul is firmly against it.

    Perhaps for a specific church from approximately 2,000 years ago that was having issues with goddess worship that taught women were more awesome than men, but not for all women for all eternity.

    Some churches want to run past your interpretation to say no female ever can ever do anything at church not even teach little boys in Sunday School classes.

    Gender complementarism is ridiculous and a man-made tradition, it’s not biblical.

    (Sorry, I know the word “biblical” makes some here bristle, but it’s a word I use at times.)

  96. John Piper: “…the issue is one of how does manhood and womanhood work? What is the dynamic between how men flourish and women flourish as God designed them to flourish when an act of authority is being exerted on a man from a woman.”

    I just love how he believes that he truly speaks for God and believes that he has a true and real grasp on God’s ‘design’. It is also amazing on how much he reverences and bows down to his understanding of this ‘dynamic’ and “how manhood and womanhood work”.
    The problem is that he really only understands how to cause an ungodly arrogance in men to ‘flourish’ and an ungodly learned-helplessness to ‘flourish’ in women trapped by his Piper-think.
    And as far as men and women having authority ‘exerted’ on them… What is that about?
    It’s another pure example of Piper’s ChristLESS view of spiritual authority.
    Piper is caught up in the gentile view of authority and trying to exert that authority dynamic on the Kingdom of God.

    Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you,”

  97. @ Patti:
    It’s awkward to listen to a male preachers that are ‘off ‘ whether they are off because they really are not called to that position or they are just into hierarchy. I feel the same way listening to female preachers. Any preacher that is on stage because of ego feels awkward to the audience.

  98. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

    As I was just saying in a post above, there different breeds of gender complementarians. Some would agree with you, but there are some who would not.

    There are some whose sexism carries over from their views on marriage to include all women (not just how wives should related to their spouses), where they believe unmarried woman must submit to any and all male authority.

    There are some who believe women, Christian and Non, must not or should not be in the military, or work as police, judges, whatever.

    Even for the ones who are fine with women being in control/ leadership in politics (they would feel fine with a female being POTUS, for example) that view counter-acts their views on wifely submission… they feel women are too easily deceived or too flawed to co-rule in a marriage, but not an entire nation?

  99. We really don’t need any more conferences of any kind. The easiest thing in the world is to pack up and go to a “Christian” conference. Somewhat unrelated, Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one. We keep straining gnats and swallowing camels.

  100. Dave A A wrote:

    disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

    Yep! And what about Paul’s suggestion that ALL younger widows get married?

    Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach…1Tim. 5:14

    And look what the word “keep house” means in the Greek!

    From G3617; to be the head of (that is, rule) a family: – guide the house.

    Young married women should be the head of a family and rule! Bet he’s not teaching that verse.

  101. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    But can’t we forgo the “rush to judgment?”

    Doesn’t this then include you Jimmy? You seem to pre-judge all church situations involving the cover up of child abuse as the abuse being questionable & the reputation of the church more important than the welfare of the children, all investigations here at TWW as biased & judgemental, & all commenters here as those who don’t seem to realise that they are just as in need of grace as any of those who get put under the spotlight…Your posts are always pointed & full of snark & judgement (so are mine, I own it). So as Dee said: pot, kettle, black.

    Plus I snorted out loud at the quote from Piper…I had authority over a man just today & felt no need to press on him. Poor lad, that would have been most inappropriate, I’m his Manager, not a cougar.

  102. Bridget wrote:

    Honestly, the way he slid that in here, and now, reminds me of a scorpion that crawls into a shoe for shelter and then bites you when you least expect it.

    I think Seneca hangs around here because deep down inside he knows we have a point and he is fighting it because he is afraid. he has been sucked into a heavy authoritarian viewpoint and he knowns it isn’t working for him and for many others.

  103. Steven wrote:

    We really don’t need any more conferences of any kind. The easiest thing in the world is to pack up and go to a “Christian” conference. Somewhat unrelated, Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one. We keep straining gnats and swallowing camels.

    ……………..
    For sure…….Amen.

  104. @ Jim G.:
    Jim

    Welcome to TWW. I read your comment through a few times since i am not the brightest bulb on the block. You are correct. Piper does support ESS. He will not let a woman even read the Scripture in the pulpit since he has such a significant

    Jim G. wrote:

    the Manichean/Christian synthesis solution to the problem of evil as proposed by Augustine, which results in a deterministic conception of God that wills (however it is nuanced) that his creatures commit evil for his glory (brought to its fullest fruition in Jonathan Edwards).

    You are correct. It is my understanding that people who take the extreme position in Piper’s world believe that God created Adam and Eve so that they would sin. That sin, of course, brings glory to God in their POV.

    Unfortunately, this thinking only makes sense to those sucked fully into the system. To everyone else, it spells out a malicious God.. But, their retort is God is good and therefore whatever He does is perfect therefore, we are the ones with the problem. If one does not accept this premise, then that person is unregenerate and highly likely to go to hell.

    I have tried and tried to wrap my head around this. Contrary to Piper and gang’s most probable opinion, I love the Lord and know that i follow Him, however imperfectly. But, in their system, I am deceived. Go figure.

  105. Totally irrelevent to the discussion but I read an article on CNN that is fascinating. And given how the Neo-Cals are about sovereingty I wonder what this would mean to them. The article is about lone survivors or airline disasters.

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/01/world/sole-survivor/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    This caught my eye its about Galexy Airlines Flight 203 and its lone survivor of a plane crash in Reno, NV in 1985.

    George Lamson Jr. is on a quest. The only survivor of a 1985 airline crash that killed his father and 69 others in Reno, Nevada, Lamson has been seeking out sole survivors like himself, to learn from them but also to help them. Moments before the doomed takeoff, Lamson and his father changed seats. Lamson will never know whether that decision saved his life. As the plane was about to crash, Lamson made a pact with God that if he survived, he would work to do good and help others. He desperately wishes to honor that promise.

    —-

    I find it interesting how theology plays and affects people’s lives in disasters, etc… Not long ago (this will interest those of you who are Catholic) I watched a documentary on the Donner Party disaster in the High Sierras in 1846. Its infamous and known for its brutality and how some people resorted to human canibalism to survive. In the disaster there is a story of people were starving to death and stuck in the high Sierras, and how one female (I forget her name…you can research it and find out) made a deal with God that if she survived the ill fated Donner party crossing she would become Catholic. When she survived..she covnerted to Catholicism.

  106. Patti wrote:

    Boys are raised without gender prejudice don’t feel awkward at all.

    My son has had female physicians, female teachers and professors, and a mother who is somewhat opinionated. 🙂 He has no problem with women in positions of authority but he was raised to be comfortable.

  107. Bridget wrote:

    Are you serious, Dave? The women had to listen to Piper videos!?! Talk about brainwashing . . .

    Serious! Months later, Mrs A A was at a wedding shower, and after several women quoted Piper, Mrs A A said, “My HUSBAND asked me to share something from the BIBLE about LOVE. I Cor 13 says Love is etc etc.”
    Immediately, the Pastor’s young wife said, “I’m sorry, Mrs A A, but I just HAVE to share this. Piper says…blah blah blah.”

  108. Joy H wrote:

    Burdened down and discouraged. One of the girls wanted to learn to crochet, but Mon showed her how she didn’t have the time right now to take classes to learn. I taught my self at home. I’ve spent many a time enjoying crocheting and kitting while being at home all those years raising kids. Of which I have 7. I’m so glad to get that off my chest. I wanted to leave that comment on the blog.

    I, too, read that. And she does have time to take the course but her mom has so many things that she should be doing: rules like getting up at 5 AM, listening and contemplating her father’s sermons (!) perfect discipline and , I am sure, clean counters. What a trap!

    Do you know that I make it a point to leave something on my kitchen counter each day in defiance of legalistic groups like SGM? Her mother claimed that everything had to be in its place and every countertop bare because it must be in the Bible, right?

    It would be so good for those grownup little girls to rebel, give their kids Cocoa Puffs instead of 5 homemade toppings and crockpot oatmeal each day, have a cluttered countertop and take the dang course to learn to crochet. Rebel, Mahaney girls, rebel!

  109. Dave A A wrote:

    he women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

    Egads! Piper teaching womanly values? I will not pound the computer….

  110. I forgot to add that when I heard Anne Graham, she said she was “speaking” (AKA preaching?) under the “cover” of her husband. The pastor introducing her said the same thing. I didn’t get it. Sounded weird. Just preach/speak or sit down. I’ve seen some of the strangest things in church. I’m really starting to wonder about us Christians.

  111. Mara wrote:

    Off-topic, but not too far off.
    For those who haven’t seen it yet:

    Not at all off-topic Mara and thanks for the link! I loved the pic of the old typewriter at their site. Manufactured long before the world had moved on, it even had slot-head screws, and not those gawd-awful-phillips-head-easy-to-screw-up (pun intended) fasteners.

  112. Beakerj wrote:

    Plus I snorted out loud at the quote from Piper…I had authority over a man just today & felt no need to press on him. Poor lad, that would have been most inappropriate, I’m his Manager, not a cougar.

    Press on, beaker, press on!

  113. Victorious wrote:

    Yep! And what about Paul’s suggestion that ALL younger widows get married?

    I recently read some guy using this as one reason women don’t need an education.

  114. @ Janey:

    I think it was the last thread I also quoted this information, something else many of them remain oblivious to:

    (source: census.gov)

    Single Life

    102 million
    Number of unmarried people in America 18 and older in 2011. This group comprised 44.1 percent of all U.S. residents 18 and older.

    53%
    Percentage of unmarried U.S. residents 18 and older who were women in 2011; 47 percent were men.

    62%
    Percentage of unmarried U.S. residents 18 and older in 2011 who had never been married.
    Another 24 percent were divorced, and 14 percent were widowed.

  115. dee wrote:

    A woman can say all they want until they enter into a church or behind a podium at a Christian conference at which men will be present

    Someone else here may be able to provide a link (I can’t remember where I saw this), but some young Christian lady wrote a blog mentioning something like this.

    She used to be a gender complementarian. She said the church (or was it a Christian university?) she attended was gender comp. They didn’t believe in women preaching or leading.

    One day, her (let’s say church, it may have been university) invited a well-known Christian woman speaker to speak during their church service.

    Her church merely took the big, wooden podium thing her male preacher normally spoke from behind and replaced it with some other table/podium for the woman speaker to use.

    She said it struck her watching that woman speaker that day that there was something wrong with gender complementarian views that maintain it’s not okay for women to preach during church services, but here, her church made an exception.

    All that allowing a woman to speak during the church service involved was
    1. switching out the big podium for a small table, and
    2. that the woman speaking was famous in Christian circles.

    IIRC, the lady who wrote the blog page said that was the day she began her slide into rejecting complementarianism, seeing how sloppy and inconsistently it is applied in real life, that there are exceptions granted to the rule, etc.

  116. Steven, it angers me to hear that Anne Graham, or any non-celebrity woman, for that matter, would have been introduced before speaking, as being under the cover of her husband. And if it was only being said to appease a very comp audience, there’s something wrong with that picture, too. Why couldn’t the intro simply have included appreciation and respect for her and her teaching skills by Mr. Graham or someone else? Why have to bring comp vs egal into it, just for her to speak? grr.

  117. An Attorney wrote:

    And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

    Interesting comment. I wonder what Paul would say about Mother Ann Lee (founder of the American Shaker movement)or about Rev. Mary Baker Eddy (Founder and Discoverer of Christian Science)and her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Would he use them as examples of why women should not teach, would he praise them as great teachers or would he just be silent about their ministries?

  118. RB wrote:

    Steven, it angers me to hear that Anne Graham, or any non-celebrity woman, for that matter, would have been introduced before speaking, as being under the cover of her husband. And if it was only being said to appease a very comp audience, there’s something wrong with that picture, too. Why couldn’t the intro simply have included appreciation and respect for her and her teaching skills by Mr. Graham or someone else? Why have to bring comp vs egal into it, just for her to speak? grr.

    RB,
    This was in the mid ’90’s and at the time my thought was…. this church doesn’t allow women to preach…. Anne is preaching…. they’re invoking some kind of weird technicality… it’s still preaching…. who’s fooling who? For me it seemed like the pastor/church had an integrity issue. Why call it anything….just preach/speak. It was good though.

    I’m not even sure what complementarian is. I haven’t kept up with current theological junk/issues. I do know this: men have so messed up the church in America it might be worth considering turning the whole thing over to women.

    Also gender is not front and center in the creation account. Ridiculous.

  119. Dave A A wrote:

    Victorious wrote:

    Yep! And what about Paul’s suggestion that ALL younger widows get married?

    I recently read some guy using this as one reason women don’t need an education.

    I believe this is called “grasping at straws” to justify “I WANNA”.

  120. Dave A A wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Are you serious, Dave? The women had to listen to Piper videos!?! Talk about brainwashing . . .

    Serious! Months later, Mrs A A was at a wedding shower, and after several women quoted Piper, Mrs A A said, “My HUSBAND asked me to share something from the BIBLE about LOVE. I Cor 13 says Love is etc etc.”
    Immediately, the Pastor’s young wife said, “I’m sorry, Mrs A A, but I just HAVE to share this. Piper says…blah blah blah.”

    “Pastor’s young wife” was reciting the Word of HER God.

  121. Joe wrote:

    An Attorney wrote:
    And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!
    Interesting comment. I wonder what Paul would say about Mother Ann Lee (founder of the American Shaker movement)or about Rev. Mary Baker Eddy (Founder and Discoverer of Christian Science)and her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Would he use them as examples of why women should not teach, would he praise them as great teachers or would he just be silent about their ministries?

    He’d probably call them false teachers and say they taught a different gospel. I doubt he would connect their falsehood to the fact they are women, just like he didn’t connect the men who taught falsely to their maleness.

  122. Good words from: Wade Burleson wrote:

    Jesus never treated the woman at the well who questioned him in such a manner. That Samaritan woman was “on Jesus,” pressed Jesus with questions, and would have been seen as “too authoritative” by the culture around them – yet Jesus treated her with dignity, value, worth and tenderness – answering every question and objection and never — not one time — making the issue the woman. BECAUSE He respected her, he answered her questions.

    Also, the rest of the John 4 story tells us about the woman TEACHING and CONVERTING men:

    28 Then the woman left her water jar, went into town, and told the *men*, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did! Could this be the Messiah?” … 39 Now many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of what the *woman* said when she *testified*, “He told me everything I ever did.” … 42 And they told the woman, “We no longer believe because of what *you said*, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this really is the Savior of the world.”

  123. Bridget wrote:

    On another note, the reason for the “three” special men is to put a stamp of approval on the event.

    Three? Which one’s the Father, which one’s the Son, and which one’s the Spirit?

  124. I’m going out on a limb, and this could be taken as a blanket assumption, but it seems that the extreme side of comp from the male supporters’ view of it, contains serious misunderstandings of, at the least, and possible downright bigotry bordering on hatred toward females, at the worst. I think its another reason I get that hair on the back of my neck, doo-wee-ooo, feeling when I read or hear statements from either extreme.

  125. Joe wrote:

    I wonder what Paul would say about Mother Ann Lee (founder of the American Shaker movement)or about Rev. Mary Baker Eddy (Founder and Discoverer of Christian Science)and her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Would he use them as examples of why women should not teach,

    i have no idea what in the world that you are getting at in this comment. I could do the same thing. Would Paul commend Benny Hinn, Jim Jones, and L Ron Hubbard as examples of why men should be allowed to teach?

  126. Daisy wrote:

    One day, her (let’s say church, it may have been university) invited a well-known Christian woman speaker to speak during their church service.
    Her church merely took the big, wooden podium thing her male preacher normally spoke from behind and replaced it with some other table/podium for the woman speaker to use.

    Bingo!!! You are well expressing the problems that I have with this whole subject. A different table, a different room and it is OK.The words are exactly the same.

    Try this one. Most churches let women sing up front. So, what is the difference between singing Psalm 23 which is allowed and speaking Psalm 23 which Piper does not allow? This stuff is driving me nuts.

  127. Bridget wrote:

    Thanks for that link, Mara. It was great. I went to the original article by Strachen (Sp?) and also found this:
    “Don’t miss the point here: gender is front and center in creation, the fall, and the curse.[6]”
    abysmal is all I can say . . .

    Nuts-its nuts.

  128. @ Toffeemama:

    “I gigglesnorted at the “woman on man” comment, too. Guess my mind is in the wrong place today”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    well, the immediate imagery is sexual positions, right? considering the speaker & those deliberate word choices all strung together, I’d say the gigglesnort reflex is on the gracious side.

  129. Don’t forget Catherine Boothe, co-founder of the Salvation Army along with her husband William. Catherine was known to be the better preacher of the two and became the family breadwinner with her preaching. Together they founded a movement for homeless people which continues to this day.

    And this was the mid 1800s. How things have progressed since then. NOT.

  130. @ Steven:

    “Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one.”
    ++++++++++

    I’d say it was a skill and expertise issue.

  131. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Steven:
    “Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one.”
    ++++++++++
    I’d say it was a skill and expertise issue.

    Good point. Excellent actually.

  132. @ RB:

    “I must admit, the several times I’ve seen women preach, something has seemed a little off, and even though I don’t consider myself comp, I prefer a man to preach a sermon or lead a mixed group Bible study”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    RB, it’s hard not to come away with the impression that you tend to think that “a little off”-ness is an inherently feminine trait. Barring that exceptional nun, of course.

    I suspect it’s due to the fact that you, like most churchgoers, have heard almost exclusively nothing but the male voice communicating the male mindset and perspective through the sound system in a church setting.

    now, on the other hand, imagine what it might be like for a woman to never, ever hear a woman’s voice in the practice of corporate worship.

  133. @ Seneca “j” Griggs:

    I asked you on another thread a couple of days ago, when you watch movies:

    Do you root for Neo and Bat Man, or do you find yourself rooting for Agent Jones and the Joker? Do you root for Superman or Lex Luthor?

    When you watch Darth Vader in Star Wars force choke his officers for failing, do you empathize with the officers, or think Darth Vader is justified in his actions?

  134. An Attorney wrote:

    The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

    Thank you! I was hoping someone would bring this up. I believe that Paul’s reasoning might have been a result of having to step very carefully through the minefield of Roman culture, so as not to unnecessarily bring the nascent Christian movement into disrepute, as a fully formed egalitarian Christianity most certainly would have done. But heaven forbid that we should speak of cultural context in interpreting scripture! So much easier to have a magical view of the text which allows us to make it neatly fit all our prejudices.

  135. elastigirl wrote:

    now, on the other hand, imagine what it might be like for a woman to never, ever hear a woman’s voice in the practice of corporate worship.

    Years ago, I was blessed to hear the teaching of Joanne Hummel who is a pastor at Bent Tree Bible Church-Pete Briscoe’s church. Her theology was sound. She was spellbinding when she spoke and I thought “Wow-this is why a woman can be a pastor.” 90% of those who heard her agreed. The other 10% merely refused to listen to her so they don’t know.

    Since that time, I know there are awesome women out there who love the Lord and who can preach. The only thing preventing them from doing so is men like Piper who freak out when they see lipstick and heels because he is afraid they will “press on him.”

  136. RB wrote:

    I must admit, the several times I’ve seen women preach, something has seemed a little off, and even though I don’t consider myself comp, I prefer a man to preach a sermon or lead a mixed group Bible study

    I used to be that way, but only because I was conditioned by my mother (who did not believe in women leading or teaching, not even outside the church). It’s social conditioning, not based on Scripture.

  137. hmmm. Gender gospel was brought up at the first by Lin, I think. Don’t the TGC groupies recognize the similarity in thinking to LDS doctrine; godly women (the sealed ones) hope that one day, they can bear children to their husbands forever on a distant planet, one which their husbands have worked their way to godhood in order to claim as their own.? This is not as much about sex, as it is about power and glory.

  138. Hippimama wrote:

    An Attorney wrote:
    The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

    Thank you! I was hoping someone would bring this up. I believe that Paul’s reasoning might have been a result of having to step very carefully through the minefield of Roman culture, so as not to unnecessarily bring the nascent Christian movement into disrepute, as a fully formed egalitarian Christianity most certainly would have done. But heaven forbid that we should speak of cultural context in interpreting scripture! So much easier to have a magical view of the text which allows us to make it neatly fit all our prejudices.

    However, in the following two verse Paul refers to Adam and Eve taking his statement back to creation. If this goes back to creation, you really can’t claim it was just a current cultural issue.

  139. Dave A A wrote:

    At the women’s conference, disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

    Yes, I’ve noticed that sometimes gender complementarians do that. It’s a double standard.

    They won’t let women teach/lead men, but although the Bible talks about older ladies leading the younger, they will bring a male on stage/ video/ blog sometimes to instruct women of all ages how to be a woman. 🙄

    I think I already have the knack of “how to be a woman” down just fine on my own.

  140. “And so I distinguish between personal, direct exercises of authority that involve manhood and womanhood because it’s personal. She’s right there. She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no. I think that’s contrary to the way God made us…”

    This sounds about as intelligent as his treatise on how a woman should give a man driving instructions if asked. Did you know there is a way of doing it that does not sound authoritarian or “teaching” him?

    I agree with HUG. This is a man that was never able to get in touch with his maleness. He has serious issues and they play out in public. I cannot for the life of me figure out why more folks don’t see through it. Is it the flowery verbosity? The Passionate delivery that has them spellbound?

  141. dee wrote:

    Try this one. Most churches let women sing up front. So, what is the difference between singing Psalm 23 which is allowed and speaking Psalm 23 which Piper does not allow? This stuff is driving me nuts.

    My husband asked an elder of his church (used to be my church) if women would ever be allowed to read scripture in the service. Elder said: “No – the Bible says women can’t teach men.” Husband then asked: “But you let women sing scripture front and center. What’s the difference?”

    Elder’s response: crickets

  142. Anon 1 wrote:

    I cannot for the life of me figure out why more folks don’t see through it. Is it the flowery verbosity? The Passionate delivery that has them spellbound?

    A lot of Christians from non-liturgical churches (where preaching is the main event) mistake flowery verbosity and passionate delivery for the Holy Spirit. Whip up the audience’s emotions high enough and they mistake it for God moving among them.

  143. Steven wrote:

    We really don’t need any more conferences of any kind. The easiest thing in the world is to pack up and go to a “Christian” conference. Somewhat unrelated, Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one. We keep straining gnats and swallowing camels.

    Excellent comment!  I have tremendous respect for Anne.  We were members of the same congregation almost a decade ago.  We left that church at the same time she and her husband did.  A long story…

    Anne's son-in-law taught Bible class at a Christian school to both of Dee's daughters and my older daughter.   He was such an inspiration!

  144. @ RB:
    Rather than LDS women hoping to one day bear kids on a distant planet forever with their loving husband, they are just hoping that they will live forever, period, but this is their only choice of the ever after, and that will only happen if they are associated with a mormon male, and hopefully he won’t be a jerk forever. What a hope.
    I think I heard that a few TGC people believe that gender hierarchy is forever also, not sure, but I agree with you about TGC groupies being like them. I mean, as long as there are gospel manipulating superlative apostles like Mahaney in the following clip here emotionally insisting that the gospel itself could die if we don’t obey gender rules. Who wants that on their conscience. I’m sure he just means its only his Gender Gospel that’s possible to be in peril, um right?, he certainly couldn’t mean the True gospel of Jesus Christ. Does he ever listen to himself? How can he take himself seriously with that nonsense. I keep having a daydream of all of these types of pastors in a back room just laughing at all of us yahoos for ever listening to them and then they just laugh and laugh and laugh and share their manipulation stories of how they got us week willed women to fall for them hook, line and sinker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADQpp0RYFY

  145. Bridget wrote:

    “Don’t miss the point here: gender is front and center in creation, the fall, and the curse.[6]”

    *scratching head in confusion*

    It is? I didn’t think a whole lot about gender, if at all, while reading Genesis in the opening chapters.

    I thought about humanity in general, how sin messed everything up and how God was setting the stage even then for Christ’s death on the cross.

  146. Steven wrote:

    This was in the mid ’90′s and at the time my thought was…. this church doesn’t allow women to preach…. Anne is preaching…. they’re invoking some kind of weird technicality… it’s still preaching…. who’s fooling who?

    I’ve seen Christian men who really, strongly dislike the idea of female preachers, none- the- less approvingly quote from the books or blogs of Christian women, and in one or two cases, even in so far as using the female’s commentary to correct and refute views by male Christian preachers.

    I just heard one such Christian male on a radio show the other day glowingly endorse a female Christian’s blog where she criticized the preaching of seeker friendly church male preachers.

    This is a guy who does not like females being allowed to preach in church, but, he’s cool with blogs / books by females being used to correct other male Christians (some of them preachers).

    To me it’s very disjointed, and there is some cognitive dissonance going on.

    If you are a Christian man (or even a woman) who doesn’t believe women should preach in church, why then, trust them, or view them as sources of authority and teaching, in the books and blogs, and go so far as to use their material to refute the words of male Christian preachers?

  147. I’d like to retract my use of the word groupies in my previous comment. It was stock snark. What I should have said is that like others above have commented, believers who are followers of false teachings not only owe it to themselves and others, but have a responsibility and are accountable for, worshiping God first, checking teachings against what Scripture says in context, and thinking it through for themselves. Then they need to have the courage to take action if they don’t agree. That can be very difficult to do if one has been raised in the false teaching, but I have a harder time with the Neo Cals, most of whom have drifted in from other denominations of Christianity.

  148. @ raswhiting:

    One other lesson I take away from the Woman at the Well story and similar:

    Jesus was not scared to be seen with women who had questionable lifestyles, or who worked as prostitutes.

    Yet the evangelical church today regularly tells men, both single and married, to avoid single Christian women at all costs, because they are harlots who will entice you and snare you.

  149. Anon 1 wrote:

    I agree with HUG. This is a man that was never able to get in touch with his maleness. He has serious issues and they play out in public.

    He is very much protecting a part of himself from the “evil” feminine not knowing that what he really needs is some sort of inner healing. He is changing the gospel to alleviate his irrational fears concerning women. Instead he needs to get healed (or some kind of therapy) so that he is no longer petrified of emasculation by any confident woman within 100 feet of him.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/05/jock-strap-religion.html

  150. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    If this goes back to creation, you really can’t claim it was just a current cultural issue.

    You can’t find male authority or leadership in the creation story / account, though. It is merely assumed to be there by gender comps, it’s not really there.

  151. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    However, in the following two verse Paul refers to Adam and Eve taking his statement back to creation. If this goes back to creation, you really can’t claim it was just a current cultural issue

    Here’s what Paul was saying:

    1) Let a woman be instructed (learn)
    2)… because Adam was molded/formed first
    3)… she must not teach or have authority until she learns
    4) so that, like Eve, she will not be deceived

    You might notice that Paul is not placing any authority on a man either since Adam willfully, intentionally disobeyed. That does not entitle him to lead. The point I see here in this passage is simply concern for learning before teaching. Men (Adam) has been “molded/formed”…it’s women’s (Eve) turn.

  152. @ Daisy:

    Daisy,

    I agree. They never seem to think about people who don’t fit that mold to a T. (Or they cast everyone as a loser who didn’t try hard enough.)

    In that little bubble world, you are white (or act white), you are married, you are successful, you are well-dressed, your wife doesn’t work outside of the home, you have no disabilities, and children are all bright and healthy, and you probably homeschool.

    No wonder church attendance has declined. So few people meet the Gold Standard of Evangelicalism.

    Jesus didn’t come to make us poster children for Evangelicalism; He came to save us.

  153. The real thing is this. Throughout Christian history the Holy Spirit has never seemed willing to obey the rules. From Hildegard of Bingen to Susanna Wesley to Ann Graham Lotz, the Spirit has given women beautiful, strong messages to edify anyone willing to listen. In Susanna Wesley’s day, for example, 200 people, men and women, would come to hear her preach because God was with her. You can forbid a woman to speak except to other women, but the men will find ways to listen. If you actively prevent men from hearing the message when women are anointed to speak, it’s the men who lose out.

  154. burntnorton wrote:

    Most women have always had to engage in economically productive work, as in income, food, or other necessity-generating work other than simply cooking and sewing for her own family.

    burntnorton,

    Amen and amen.

    Anyone who reads Proverbs 31 knows that woman was a wealthy real estate investor, an import/export expert, and a manufacturer with a staff. If you read all the way to the bottom, both she and her husband are praised at the city gates.

    Many many women will be found guilty of burying their talents in the ground by the Master when he returns.

  155. Daisy, I read the post on the link, thanks. Oh, my! I have a lot of respect for Dohse and his and his wife’s descriptions of Augustine and Plato having influenced our modern interpretations of Scripture and thus, Church history and how we have viewed Judaism, papal infallibility, etc. It has also effected the Reformers’ and even Arminians’ theologies. I’m afraid he called the bathroom scene correctly, and pray that if any wives were abused after that conference, that they find help and freedom.

  156. “You might notice that Paul is not placing any authority on a man either since Adam willfully, intentionally disobeyed. That does not entitle him to lead. The point I see here in this passage is simply concern for learning before teaching. Men (Adam) has been “molded/formed”…it’s women’s (Eve) turn.”

    Actually, Authenteo means something more sinister was going on. It does not mean authority over. “Domineer” comes closer. (And we know it is something men can do to a wife because Chrysostom tells men not to do it in one of his Homilies)

    Because he mentions Adam being formed first and then whole childbearing issue probably refers to the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, a fertility cult, that taught Eve was formed first. It was considered a wonder of the world back then. It was huge and popular because so many women died in childbirth. Paul was referring to “The childbearing” would save her. Messiah.

    This passage has nothing to do with women teaching men. (What do they do with women prophesying in 1 Corin 11?) For one thing, the grammar is singular. Not plural. He is referring to A woman. “She and they” most likely refer to a husband and wife situation. Yes, he says, let her learn. As in chapter 1 he refers to those deceived out of ignorance and those who deceive on purpose. She was ignorant.

  157. While not completely on the topic of women’s conferences, I still believe this is valid to the conversation of women teaching and learning:

    Before my church left me (I want to emphasize that I did not leave it), I overheard a conversation involving two members around my age. The one member, who was a newlywed, was talking about how much she learned about the Bible from her husband since her marriage. On face value, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, she was raised in the church since birth and he had only became a Christian two years before that. I’m sure that his new perspective on various topics gave her some food for thought, but she acted as though she didn’t know squat before being married to him. Surely she could have provided him some insight.

    On a similar note, a friend of the family invited me to a Biblical Manhood/Womanhood conference after he heard about me leaving my abusive Christian boyfriend (irony noted). During the conference, the man talked about how the woman must look up to the man for everything including knowledge of the Bible. Out of curiosity, I asked if a Christian woman could marry a newly Christian man. His response was that is was just as bad as marrying a non-Christian.

    In conclusion, I’m wondering if there’s a trend for some women in ultra-conservative denominations to mask their knowledge so they: 1) can maintain the ideals of the “perfect” man-woman relationship; and 2)are not accused yet again of “ursurping” a man’s authority.

  158. “He is very much protecting a part of himself from the “evil” feminine not knowing that what he really needs is some sort of inner healing. He is changing the gospel to alleviate his irrational fears concerning women. Instead he needs to get healed (or some kind of therapy) so that he is no longer petrified of emasculation by any confident woman within 100 feet of him.”

    People also forget his dad was a Bob Jones style fundamentalist. He was raised this way. Ever heard stories about how his mom changed when his dad came home? She was not even allowed to find a table in a restaurant. His dad had to do it. I can see where being raised an only child with an authoritarian dad gone a lot but watching his mom be in charge and then totally dependent when dad enters the room had to take a toll on his understanding of male/female. Although I am of the opinion that IFB types really do hate women.

  159. Anon 1 wrote:

    Although I am of the opinion that IFB types really do hate women.

    They THEY (the IFB types) need to stop changing the gospel to justify their hatred and oppression of women and get therapy… or something.
    This projection of hatred onto God is just a bit too close to taking His name in vain i.e. claiming that God says, intends, or designs things that are not so.

  160. I haven’t read all the posts here today so hope I’m not repeating something someone else already posted. A Cry for Justice has an interesting article today about John Piper. His views on women and marriage are very dangerous for women in abusive relationships.

    http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/

  161. @ dee:

    It is short man syndrome. A woman in heels would tower over Piper. He needs someone to be “smaller” than he is. And that is very hard, because I think he is both physically and emotionally small.

  162. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, Thanks for the link! I am very interested in this:

    “In the Greek Septuagint, for example, a noun form of the word (authentas) refers to those who engaged in ritual violence in the worship of a false god.3”

    That totally fits the historical context.

  163. The pastor of a church I attended regularly for five years was a woman. Among the best preachers I have ever heard. I disagreed with her on church polity (too staff leadership oriented) and on a few other issues, but her preaching was Bible based and sound. Then we had a male pastor, who had really good sermons for a year or so, then they were not so good. Also had women in other staff roles who would preach on occasion. Most were as good as the regular preacher. I have been in churches will really good, scripturally-based, exegetical sermons from pastors male and female, and after the novelty wears off, most people in those congregations felt the women were as good or better than the men they had heard. And I have seen first hand, the amount of work that can go into a good sermon.

    BTW, for all you who want to make Eve into something less than Adam due to her creation last, keep in mind that Psalms calls God a help-meet (ezer) to David, as Genesis calls Eve a help-meet (ezer) to Adam. God:David as Eve:Adam!!!!!

  164. Jessica wrote:

    Out of curiosity, I asked if a Christian woman could marry a newly Christian man. His response was that is was just as bad as marrying a non-Christian.

    😯 If one thing is keeping too many Christian women single (who want marriage), it is a set of very narrow rules of who they marry, handed down by Christian authors and speakers.

    A spouse-hunting criteria list, as issued by some married Christians to single Christians includes:

    -must be a Christian [equally yoked];

    -must be a guy who can be your spiritual head/ leader;

    -and now some jokester is telling you the male in question ALSO has to be a Christian for a longer time period than you.

    There is not an abundance of single Christian adult men out there to pick from. You cannot afford to be that super choosy picky about mate selection if you are a Christian female.

    But Christian teachers/preachers keep adding requirement upon requirement upon Christian spouse selection, which makes a Christian woman’s choice of suitors grow smaller and smaller.

  165. Evie wrote:

    No, it must be a bitter pill to swallow watching women like Noel Piper and Kathy Keller take the stage at Women’s Conferences knowing they’re there solely on the basis of their husband’s merit, something that is now lost to the Mahaney girls.

    Evie,

    Thanks for putting that into words so well. I’ve been trying to put my finger on it. Those woman have achieved little beyond getting married to men who eventually climbed up the ladder.

  166. @ Wisdomchaser:

    I am not surprised. As I said above, gender complementarianism is codependency taught using religion as a veneer.

    If you make up a check list of qualities that abusive, controlling men look for in a female mate,
    and make another list of typical codependent traits,
    and another of what John Piper (and gender comps) consider to be ‘biblical womanhood,’ all three lists would be about identical.

    And they keep women trapped in abusive relationships.

  167. An Attorney wrote:

    It is short man syndrome.

    I agree. Plus Anon 1 says Piper was subject to some bad Bob Jones doctrine.
    Short man + misogynist doctrine = Piper’s squirrely views on women.

    Piper: “and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.”

    Although he, as a man, has every right to press upon a woman in an authoritative way.

  168. lemonaidfizz wrote:

    Yet I suspect many TGC followers would discourage women from attending higher ed, much less having a career. So where do they think their next generation of speakers will come from??

    The Holy Spirit will infuse some of the bare foot and pregnant with everything they need to be good speakers for the cause.[/sarcasm]

  169. Wartburg and commenters have now undertaken a psycho-analysis of John Piper.
    *
    Instead of “Dissecting Christian Trends”
    *
    Wartburg and commenters are now simply dissecting Christians.
    *
    I think that is quite uncharitable – to say the very least.
    *

  170. Steven wrote:

    Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is

    Yes. She can really deliver a message.

    But at times she sure seems a bit off in that message. She is convinced Jesus is coming back soon because in her mind he will return before she dies. Not sure where this theology comes from.

  171. Daisy wrote:

    There is not an abundance of single Christian adult men out there to pick from. You cannot afford to be that super choosy picky about mate selection if you are a Christian female.

    That’s not an issue for me, fear is. I’ve been in multiple abusive/controlling relationships, and while I would like to find a partner, I’m absolutely terrified of going down the same path again. I’m not saying this to gain pity, I just want others to see where I’m coming from.

  172. @ Jessica:

    Oh, I hope I didn’t come across wrong.

    I didn’t mean to imply that Christian women should have zero standards in dating, even to the point of dating abusive jerks, only to say that the current (and even past) Christian mandated shopping list given to singles by married Christians in what to look for in mates is too ridiculously narrow.

    To the point I really do feel Christian women need to consider dating or marrying Non Christian men.

    There are not many Christian single men out there anyway. Walk into any church, there are usually far more single women than men.

  173. lemonaidfizz wrote:

    Looking at the conference speaker line-up, I’m honestly a little puzzled. These are women with graduate and professional degrees, and careers outside of the home. Yet I suspect many TGC followers would discourage women from attending higher ed, much less having a career. So where do they think their next generation of speakers will come from?? Isn’t it a little hypocritical to preach one thing, but have leaders (I think it’s fair to call these speakers “leaders” even if they are only allowed to lead women) who follow a completely different path? Are they oblivious to this?

    I think that most leading comp women do not actually teach women should not go to college, but are pretty vague on that. They speak in a way that followers get that impression between the lines. But the benefits of women going to college is so great,(did you know educated women has a better chance to marry, be happily married and stay married? Societies with educated women are also more wealthy)I believe that if they were honest, they would come right out and say the unpopular thing on which they are actually wiser than their followers: It is very good for women to be educated, and to have a career with public recognition. Their honesty would benefit a lot of their followers. But I suspect they know their followers have bad ideas – but simply don’t care. Their popularity is more important than to them than honesty.

  174. NC Now wrote:

    She is convinced Jesus is coming back soon because in her mind he will return before she dies. Not sure where this theology comes from.

    Dispensational eschatology without balance can be so pernicious. AGL is not the only Christian leader to do this.

  175. @ Daisy:
    No worries, Daisy. It didn’t. 🙂

    I completely agree with your statements. I was just trying to provide background to my pov and experience.

  176. I don’t think any of the comments here have been off in regards to intent, but there is a huge difference between authoritative and authoritarian. Authoritative=good, authoritarian=bad.

  177. Janey wrote:

    burntnorton wrote:
    Most women have always had to engage in economically productive work, as in income, food, or other necessity-generating work other than simply cooking and sewing for her own family.
    burntnorton,
    Amen and amen.
    Anyone who reads Proverbs 31 knows that woman was a wealthy real estate investor, an import/export expert, and a manufacturer with a staff. If you read all the way to the bottom, both she and her husband are praised at the city gates.
    Many many women will be found guilty of burying their talents in the ground by the Master when he returns.

    Who is guilty of burying a woman’s talent– the woman, or the church authority who forbid her to use it?

  178. elastigirl and Daisy, thanks for your input about my feeling that “offness”. You’re probably right. If most of my attendance had featured women pastors, I probably would see it differently. I think the overarching issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money. I also don’t discount fear or dislike of the opposite sex.

  179. dee wrote:

    Seneca

    Can you dial it back? Warning…

    Any chance, Dee, you can ask the commenters to forgo the psycho-analysis of people they disagree with and just argue for their perspective on the disagreement? If you/they want to dissect Christian trends; have at it. But if the blog is about dissecting Christians, I am much against that.

  180. Val wrote:

    @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

    Does it bother you when Piper and his his buddies dissect any Christian that disagrees with him?

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/03/19/john-piper-and-the-pope-some-observations/

    Or is the outrage all one direction?

    You’ll note Piper would bring up areas where he disagrees with the Pope theologically, but no personal attack or suggestions that the Pope believes what he does be cause he was bullied in high school, suffers from stature issues or was raised in a home with a lot of issue. Piper simply sticks to the theological differences.

  181. Dee/Deb, you have – at times – asked the commenters to “dial it back”. It is the nature of blogs and anonymous comments that you probably have to do that occasionally if you run a Christian blog. Otherwise you have people taking personal shots at others they don’t actually know, truly unbecoming of a fellow believer.

    Takes Wade’s last comment; he points towards disagreement with Piper over Scriptural perspectives on women and on the Trinity. He takes absolutely NO CHEAP SHOTS at Piper himself. His is a good example of how it should be done – IMHO
    *
    Feel free to send this comment into permanent moderation. I wrote it in response to you, not the commenters.

  182. NC Now wrote:

    Steven wrote:
    Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is
    Yes. She can really deliver a message.
    But at times she sure seems a bit off in that message. She is convinced Jesus is coming back soon because in her mind he will return before she dies. Not sure where this theology comes from.

    I haven’t heard/seen Anne since around 1992. I have no idea where she is spiritually. My point had more to do with how she was introduced but thanks for that info. Seems like most Christians think Jesus will return before they die. I just hope He returns before we get another mega church franchise in South Carolina.

  183. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Wartburg and commenters have now undertaken a psycho-analysis of John Piper.
    *
    Instead of “Dissecting Christian Trends”
    *
    Wartburg and commenters are now simply dissecting Christians.
    *
    I think that is quite uncharitable – to say the very least.
    *

    Seneca, you must be kidding. If someone has the audacity to put themselves out there as a Christian celebrity then they are fair game for dissection. Every word and action can and should be maximally scrutinized. One of the reasons the church is so messed up is because celebrities get a free pass. If someone doesn’t want to be dissected then let them live a quiet, humble life, attending to their own business, and maybe even work with their own hands. Sound familiar?

  184. @ Steven:

    +1

    I’m sure these preachers in question have no qualms about dissecting secular celebrities. They should have the gall to take what they’d give.

  185. @ KR Wordgazer:

    If the woman knows no different, the church is at fault for filling her with false truth. If she does know not to bury her talents, and knows she is in no real danger for doing it, but still chooses the authoritarian route, she is at fault. Agree?

  186. Wade Burleson wrote:

    , I have a deep appreciation for Piper and his theology of God. His view on women honestly makes me believe he has an intellectual understanding God but a huge void when it comes to intimacy with God.

    I’m struggling to understand how one can appreciate a person who has this view of half (or more) of the Body of Christ. It’s an ugly, distorted, crippling, perverse view. And it’s cruel in that he never hesitates to express it in a manner that clearly exposes his deep emotional problem with women to the extent he publishes lists defining their permitted participation.

    It reminds me of the cruel “whites only” signs at restrooms and water fountains. I know “supposedly” men have the “unique” ability to compartmentalize things, but Piper’s theology can’t/shouldn’t be separated from the words that come out of his mouth/heart that not only marginalize women, but encourage others to “lash” out at them as well.

    I can’t appreciate him.

  187. BTW, Jesus didn’t mince words in chiding the Pharisees for laying heavy burdens on others. If Piper is laying heavy burdens on women, he should be corrected publicly by those who may have an influence on his attitude.

    Where is the outrage among leaders who see his distorted views? Are they approaching him to correct this?

  188. Steven wrote:

    Seneca, you must be kidding. If someone has the audacity to put themselves out there as a Christian celebrity then they are fair game for dissection. Every word and action can and should be maximally scrutinized. One of the reasons the church is so messed up is because celebrities get a free pass. If someone doesn’t want to be dissected then let them live a quiet, humble life, attending to their own business, and maybe even work with their own hands. Sound familiar?

    Amen! John Piper pontificates on his Desiring God website, YouTube videos, etc. in order to influence others. We are challenging some of his beliefs and theological positions.

  189. Victorious wrote:

    BTW, Jesus didn’t mince words in chiding the Pharisees for laying heavy burdens on others. If Piper is laying heavy burdens on women, he should be corrected publicly by those who may have an influence on his attitude.
    Where is the outrage among leaders who see his distorted views? Are they approaching him to correct this?

    …………….
    Good points.
    Am so very tired of so called godly men admiring Piper’s theology and missing the elephant sitting in the middle of the room, Piper’s disdain, disrespect of women.

  190. A@ Victorious:
    ……………
    Can’t appreciate him either. For all his supposed desiring God and love of grace, he comes across to me as a phony little man.

  191. He is a real little man, with little man syndrome, which is where his enthusiasm for dissing women arises. How can that little man make himself bigger? By demeaning half of the population. Jesus treated women with respect, not so Piper.

  192. I don’t see what the big deal is. On my dad’s farm he “butchered” the bulls and kept the woman cows alive for profit.

  193. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    Who is guilty of burying a woman’s talent– the woman, or the church authority who forbid her to use it?

    KRW,

    My answer is “both.” Certain teachings within the church hold women back, and women hold themselves back. Have you read Sheryl Sandberg’s book _Lean In_? She’s the COO of Facebook. She blames both, and has caught a lot of flack for it, but in my world I see it every day. I’ve been looking for someone who describes it well. She nails it.

    For devout women, I agree. It’s a big factor. After my very-necessary divorce I realized I’d been freed from those rules: I was that now — as a single mother — able to do what I really loved: work in a profession that uses my gifts to the fullest.

  194. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
    I am not afraid of what you say and that is why I allowed this comment. I would venture to guess that this blog allows the most disparate comments and negative comments directed towards the blog, its editors and its commenters anywhere within the Christian community.

    You seem to have loads of insight into others and you appear unable to see yourself. You do a CJ Mahaney “I am the worst sinner I know” and instead of paying attention to the ramifications of such insight, you proceed to hurt others.

    You are one of the most divisive commenters at TWW and it is not for pointing at the “truth.” You continually go after those hurt and wounded by the church. Some of these folks have been harmed in despicable ways like pedophilia and promoting ideas that lead to acceptance of domestic violence. Instead, you support, wholeheartedly, public figures that have serious issues.

    I don’t know you and don’t pretend to have any insight into you. I can only judge by the reactions of others to understand that I am not alone in my perspective. One of the questions that I am most asked, offline, is why I put up with you.

    You have not done so well on other blogs. But this blog has put up with you and your cheap shots in the hopes that you might drop that armor a bit. And sometimes, rarely, I have some hope but then you go and do a Seneca which then causes me to wonder how things are in your house.

    So, I have allowed three more critical comments by you. But I want you to dial it back.. And I really don’t care whether you like why I am doing this to you and not someone else. However, the one thing that you cannot say is that it is because I am in any way intimidated by you.

  195. Steven wrote:

    Seneca, you must be kidding. If someone has the audacity to put themselves out there as a Christian celebrity then they are fair game for dissection. Every word and action can and should be maximally scrutinized. One of the reasons the church is so messed up is because celebrities get a free pass. If someone doesn’t want to be dissected then let them live a quiet, humble life, attending to their own business, and maybe even work with their own hands. Sound familiar?

    Amen to that. Repeat: amen to that.

  196. I really dislike the “little man syndrome” talk.  My husband his short and I know many men as short or shorter than him.  The prevalence of abusive behaviors among them is no higher than among taller men of my acquaintance.  Piper’s problem is that he is a bully (and, like many bullies, he probably has a personality disorder).  The psychosexual issues that shape the content of his bullying may include his feelings about being short, but ALL bullies (short, tall, rich, poor) kick down.  In evangelical culture (and to a lesser extent our culture in general) women as a group are reliably lower than men as a group.  We women are therefore a convenient target for kicking by male bullies of all shapes and sizes. 

    More than that, though, I think much of the rhetoric and behavior of these men are rooted in sexual disfunction.  Specifically, they never learned to deal with their sexuality in a healthy way.  Anything touching on sex has a HUGE “danger” flag for them, and so they avoid anything that touches on it in any way that might possibly eventually in some fever dream be sinful.  Except that sexual desire is normal, natural, and persistent, so they keep having to up the ante on what to avoid and what rules to follow.  Avoiding being alone in a room with a woman not his wife is quickly not enough.  They have to avoid touching women, avoid seeing any part of a woman that might be attractive, avoid talking to women, avoid sitting in a lecture hall where a woman is at the front, etc., etc. 

    It’s why they obsess over teaching modesty and why rules of modesty tend to ratchet up in a modesty or purity culture. While they give lip service (and may even believe) that modesty rules help keep women from being objectified, the truth is that the rules themselves are a product and an instrument of just that objectification.  Because these rules treat women not as whole people, but as objects with the potential to cause or be used in sin. 

    I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual.  A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man.  Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”.  They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas. 

     

    Combine these serious psychosexual problems with a personality disorder and a disposition to bullying and, presto!, you get men like Piper and Driscoll and Phillips and Wilson.   

     

     

  197. burntnorton wrote:

    Anything touching on sex has a HUGE “danger” flag for them, and so they avoid anything that touches on it in any way that might possibly eventually in some fever dream be sinful

    Burntnorton, you have spoken wise words. However, the result of the psychosexual problems coupled with a personality disorder and tendency to bully inevitably makes women the “enemy.” I’m tired of being their enemy or root cause of their problems. It’s like I tell my sons when they are angry…don’t take it out on me!! It’s totally misdirected and I shouldn’t have to pay the price for their disorders. It’s inhumane to punish women for their inadequacies.

  198. Conferences (Womens, Mens, and everything in between) fill bank accounts and egos. Don’t believe me? Visit the massive bookstore at say the Ligonier Conference in a couple of months. Tons of books being sold and their humble authors signing autographs. It is with deep regret that I confess I’ve been there and have the autographs to prove it. My conclusion: conferences are a quick thrill for immature Christians. Let me know if you’d like to buy an autographed copy of a book written by a Christian celebrity in the mid 90’s.

  199. @ Victorious:
    I absolutely agree. A wcompassionate man with the same psychosexual problems would put in the work on learning to overcome them and teach other men to do the same.

  200. Daisy wrote:

    J
    If one thing is keeping too many Christian women single (who want marriage), it is a set of very narrow rules of who they marry, handed down by Christian authors and speakers.
    A spouse-hunting criteria list, as issued by some married Christians to single Christians includes:
    -must be a Christian [equally yoked];
    -must be a guy who can be your spiritual head/ leader;
    -and now some jokester is telling you the male in question ALSO has to be a Christian for a longer time period than you.

    Not to mention that in some circles (e.g., Doug Phillips), he must own his own business and be prosperous enough so that his wife never has to work outside the home. With all those burdens, why would any man want to get married?

  201. Daisy wrote:

    I really do feel Christian women need to consider dating or marrying Non Christian men.

    I have two daughters, aged 21 and 18. Frankly, I have NO PROBLEM if they marry a non-Christian man as long as he is a man of integrity who will treat them right and support them in achieving their dreams. (This shocks some of my Christian friends.)

  202. I guess I see this WW blog post as a non-issue. It is a women’s conference after all and the women paying to attend know who will be speaking. The sponsoring organization is Neo-Calvinist and the topic agenda is (surprise surprise) Neo-Calvinist. I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.

  203. burntnorton wrote:

    Except that sexual desire is normal, natural, and persistent, so they keep having to up the ante on what to avoid and what rules to follow. Avoiding being alone in a room with a woman not his wife is quickly not enough. They have to avoid touching women, avoid seeing any part of a woman that might be attractive, avoid talking to women, avoid sitting in a lecture hall where a woman is at the front, etc., etc.

    And an addiction/tolerance two-step until “etc” gets to the point where Burqas, Locked Harems, FGM, and Honor Killings are on the table?

  204. burntnorton wrote:

    I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual. A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man. Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”. They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas.

    “I SEE Things…”

  205. Mara wrote:

    Piper: “and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.”

    Although he, as a man, has every right to press upon a woman in an authoritative way.

    “Pressing upon a woman” on top as in “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”?

  206. burntnorton wrote:

    I really dislike the “little man syndrome” talk. My husband his short and I know many men as short or shorter than him. The prevalence of abusive behaviors among them is no higher than among taller men of my acquaintance. Piper’s problem is that he is a bully (and, like many bullies, he probably has a personality disorder). The psychosexual issues that shape the content of his bullying may include his feelings about being short, but ALL bullies (short, tall, rich, poor) kick down.

    I’m linking this in honor of your husband.
    In it, I mention a friend of mine, a short but powerful missionary man. He is meek and soft spoken, but in no way weak.
    He it the antithesis of John Piper, like I’m sure that your husband is.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/04/small-men-make-me-nervous.html

  207. Keith wrote:

    I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.

    I didn’t say it was sneaky or under-handed. It is on the FAQ page. I am a believer in the free market and the 1st amendment. Assuming that, why would you think we might want to point this out?

    Our goal is to dissect Christian trends. There is no question that Neo-Calvinism is the “it” trend. The leaders have assumed positions in many seminaries and denominations. Their POV will become the law of the land in those groups.

    Today I shall post on this trend and how it affects people in a university. It will also affect those who choose churches to join and parachurch groups with which to affiliate. Our favorite motto? Caveat Emptor.We hope that our writings will help people understand why they are treated poorly in certain churches.

    Hope this makes sense.

  208. dee wrote:

    It is an issue for others.

    I can only imagine some young husband, all enamored with Piper, pressing authoritatively upon his already overburdened wife to go to this conference.

    This conference and what is stands for just might be a serious issue to her.
    Since Piper is held up as an idol to be worshipped by young men in the NC movement, I’m sure they will not hesitate to authoritatively press this idolatry upon their wives so that they and their wives can ‘flourish’ as defined by Piper.

  209. I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.

  210. Keith wrote:

    I guess I see this WW blog post as a non-issue. It is a women’s conference after all and the women paying to attend know who will be speaking. The sponsoring organization is Neo-Calvinist and the topic agenda is (surprise surprise) Neo-Calvinist. I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.

    Keith, you have a valid point. There are those who, for various reasons, don’t see it as their role to get involved in the dissection of Christian trends. Others of us see it differently. We tend to get rather worked up about the sheep getting slaughtered, or at least sheared. I once took a human anatomy course in which the class was divided into groups of six people. The task was the dissection of a human cadaver. It was the task of the entire group but the reality was that only one or two people actually did the dissection. The rest of the groups watched, learned, and offered support. Those doing the dissection had messy lab coats. It’s ok for you to wear a clean one.

  211. Clay Crouch wrote:

    I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.

    My current church has only one pastor, and he’s a man. But I’ve listened to female speakers and teachers in church before. I can’t imagine being bothered by a female pastor.

  212. elastigirl wrote:

    @ dee:

    I can’t help but think fear of boobs has something to do with it.

    I totally gigglesnorted at this: in that case I am an object of terror. TERROR I tell you 🙂

  213. Clay Crouch wrote:

    I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.

    Do you know where there’s a good one? Man, woman, or child? That would be exciting!

  214. Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

    My current church has only one pastor, and he’s a man. But I’ve listened to female speakers and teachers in church before. I can’t imagine being bothered by a female pastor.

    Maybe I should have also asked how many currently attend a church that would allow a woman to serve as the lead pastor.

  215. @ burntnorton:

    “Anything touching on sex has a HUGE “danger” flag for them, and so they avoid anything that touches on it in any way that might possibly eventually in some fever dream be sinful. Except that sexual desire is normal, natural, and persistent, so they keep having to up the ante on what to avoid and what rules to follow.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    I agree, very much. If women are invisible, it’s much more convenient.
    ——-

    “modesty rules… Because these rules treat women not as whole people, but as objects with the potential to cause or be used in sin.”
    +++++++++++

    I feel the heart of all this gospel gender ridiculousness masked with “biblical and for God’s glory” is really what is emotionally convenient for men. Women are indeed objects (voodoo dolls?) that are dressed and moved around according to a man’s convenience.

  216. Completely off-topic.
    I almost linked it yesterday but didn’t because it really IS completely off topic.
    But every time I see this I laugh so I’m going to share it here to through a little levity into this difficult topic of Piper’s misogyny.

    “MRW” means “My reaction when”

    So the caption says, “My reaction when, as a Briton I see the current US temperature converted to Celsius”
    (referring back to when we, in the U.S were dealing with our polar vortex.)

    http://imgur.com/gallery/5SuibEF

  217. @ burntnorton:

    Oh yes. Absolutely. Except I would modify one thing you said, that “sexual desire is normal, natural and persistent.” I would modify that to include that not all sexual desire is normal–just look at the psych literature to see how crazy and messed up people can get.

    And also–We talk a lot about the celebrities, but it is the rank and file who financially support this stuff.

    We talk a lot about the men, but have you seen some of the women? I mean some of the women who just eat this stuff up (oops) and then try to lord it over other women (oops) by saying that they (the alleged subs) are more spiritual then anybody else. Let’s just say it–one can submit in order to control, in order to get the upper hand (oops). I could go on in this vein, but it would get ugly.

    I have watched how some of them do, and tried to think realistically about the dominance/submission continuum, and I think that I see what I see.

    My main point–it is not just the men. Humanity is flawed, both male and female. Human sexuality is an area which must be redeemed along with the whole totality of the human person. Thanks be to God, that is possible, but it would be unwise to assume that such redemption of the personality is automatically visited on everyone who says “Lord, Lord.”

  218. Have the titles of the talks for this conference been released yet?

    My guess is that Piper, Carson and Keller will give the heavyweight theological sermons, while the women speakers will focus on gender roles, pressing upon the female attendees what their limited roles as women should be. I’ve noticed that TGC and CBMW often gets females to drive home the unpalatable messages about restrictions on women, etc. They think women will take it better coming from other women.

    Meanwhile on TCG blog, among the hundreds of daily blog posts, the only ones I’ve ever seen written by female authors are on the subject of bringing up children and the home. As if that’s all women are capable of thinking or writing about.

    It’s demeaning and sickening. I have met Carson several times and it saddens me that he is so involved in such nonsense. An utter waste of time for the Kingdom. More than that – terribly damaging. 🙁

  219. @ Nancy:
    It definitely isn’t just men and it isn’t just the abusive leaders who have the problem. Like the rank and file, they are products of a culture that is profoundly messed up about sex and desire. Indeed, this aspect of culture is alsp a root of rape fantasies – some women arr so conditioned to think sex is bad that they can only enjoy it if they fantasize that they are being forced and are therefore not tainted by the sin of acting on their desire fpr sex. It is hugely damaging to everyone involved.

  220. burntnorton wrote:

    I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual. A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man. Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”. They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas.

    Support that.

  221. @ Steven:

    “…an autographed copy of a book written by a Christian celebrity in the mid 90′s.”
    +++++++++

    just curious what the shelf life is for Christian celebrities. who are these ’90s celebrities? Are we talking Spencer Tracy or Shaun Cassidy?

  222. Clay Crouch wrote:

    I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.

    I think you are asking the wrong question. Let me show you.
    Would you go to a church which had a lead pastor who was a man? Joel Osteen, perhaps? To me, the issue is not body parts but theology.

  223. Clay Crouch wrote:

    I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.

    Count me in the group. The lead (and only) pastor at my church is a woman. In fact, she is a woman married to a high school principal and they have two young children. She is also smart, petit, athletic and attractive, just in case anybody thought she was a nun or something. And she is a Duke grad, I add for the benefit of D/D and the folks over in the eastern part of the state. Of course, I am a Methodist, gloriously saved from my prior live in evangelicalism by no less a one than Himself.

  224. dee wrote:

    Would you go to a church which had a lead pastor who was a man?

    lol…sounds so silly when the table is turned, doesn’t it? You’re so right, dee; it’s not about body parts!

  225. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
    @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

    There’s usually a reason why people behave as they do. I don’t think it is entirely out of bounds to wonder what in their past or upbringing has contributed to their views now.

    Take for example Mark Driscoll. By most people’s standards, the man has strange views about sex and talks about sex excessively. People speculated that there must have been something in his life or past that caused him to behave that way – you would condemn them for wondering, but he later admitted in some book or blog that was exactly the case. He said he was having (in his view) sexual problems in his marriage, and these issues impacted his public preaching on women, marriage and sex.

    I’ve heard preachers say on blogs that if you preacher preaches on Topic X all the time and with intense passion, there’s a good chance he is struggling with Topic X in his personal life.

    I don’t see it as being cheap shots per se to try to understand how and why someone behaves as they do or what may be contributing to their behavior and opinions.

  226. @ Steven:

    It’s also a very common mindset with fans of celebrities, rock stars, movie actors, etc.

    If you dare criticize or say anything negative at all about ‘Rock Star X’ on some blog or forum, immediately, 564 of his/her fans will jump on you and say things like, “Do you know X personally? Have you ever met X in person?”

    Nope. But I don’t have to.

    Rock stars and movie actors are a public persona and their public actions are open to scrutiny.

    They say and do things on television and in interviews for all the world to see. Sometimes reporters dig up information on these people and publish it.

    I don’t see why I have to suppress and opinion or cease forming conclusions about the sort of person they are based on the stuff they do and say in public.

    Same thing with public Christian figures such as Piper, Driscoll, Furtick, Benny Hinn, and all the rest.

  227. RB wrote:

    issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money.

    Egalitarians aren’t after power for the sake of power, or money or glory, though.

    Egalitarians ask for an equal seat at the table, but the comps keep saying “no,” and interpreting egal requests to treat women as equals as being grabs for power, or trying to usurp “male authority.”

  228. @ Mara:

    I remember in 2001 being on a Campus Crusade retreat in LaCrosse, Wisconsin and in the guy time guys were asking if their girlfriend should sumbit to their boy friend in preparation for marriage. I was stunned to hear questions like that.

    These are real and disturbing issues and the burnout they cause people is immense. I am bothered by the lack of discernment by evangelcials. Why don’t people ask or explore what they are consuming?

    It came up above and I can’t find the post. But in reagrds to John Piper there are several things people need to remember about him.

    1. John Piper teaches from the perspective of the Prodigal Son’s brother. His book “Don’t Waste Your Life” captures the senitment and belief system of the Prodigal Son’s brother. This is one of the many reasons why John Piper is rooted in error and a false teacher. He is nothing but a wolf in wolf’s clothing. I find it interesting at least in regards to the women’s conference that Piper will be sharing the stage with Tim Keller. Keller is known for grace which is exhibited in the book “The Prodigal God” so in a way I guess one could say that you have the prodigal and the prodigal son’s brother sharing the same stage.

    2. John Piper’s soveringty is nohing but determinism. If you are going to follow John Piper them when you child gets molested, your neighbor is murdered by a man high on PCP, or you lose a relative in a plane crash…then your response is to celebrate God’s sovereingty at work. God wanted such evil to occur and was the author and since God wanted it to occur then so be it. Piper’s teaching belongs in a mosque in Lahore, Pakistan than in an evangelcial chruch becuase his teaching is more Islamic than Christian.

    3. When it comes to talent that doesn’t matter. This is a penal driven theology system based upon what you have between your legs. That’s all that matters and that is a tragedy becuase that would have blocked out so much history from occuring. Not only that but would we have the stories of Rebekah, Esther, Deborah, etc.. in scriptue if these extreme gender roles played out. Think about Esther…Esther disobayed her husband and challneged his authority. PLUS I would argue with the type of soveringty taught that what was planned was God’s will. Perhaps you can even make a case that the change in this plan shows a theological example of open thiesm.

    You know if you guys really want to see a movie that will &^%$ off John Piper you should see the Adjustment Bureau. I can’t think of a movie that would send Piper up a wall more so than this.

  229. dee wrote:

    @ numo:
    He is about there. I actually thought he did better for awhile after his last hiatus.

    He seems like a person who suddenly awakes from a deep sleep and isn’t sure where he is, what happened, and is on immediate defense. He woke up yesterday and let loose.

  230. Victorious wrote:

    It reminds me of the cruel “whites only” signs at restrooms and water fountains.

    I’ve said that before on this blog, too.

    All the complementarian blathering about women being ‘equal in being/worth but not in roles’ (or however they put it) sounds very much like the “separate but equal” talk used against black people by some white people.

    Separate but equal

  231. Daisy wrote:

    RB wrote:

    issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money.

    Egalitarians aren’t after power for the sake of power, or money or glory, though.

    Egalitarians ask for an equal seat at the table, but the comps keep saying “no,” and interpreting egal requests to treat women as equals as being grabs for power, or trying to usurp “male authority.”

    Right. Egalitarian is NOT the opposite of Patriarchy. Matriarchy is the opposite of Patriarchy. Matriarchy is as much as sin although more rare.

  232. Eagle wrote:

    Piper’s teaching belongs in a mosque in Lahore, Pakistan than in an evangelcial chruch becuase his teaching is more Islamic than Christian.

    Amen. Piper: Bridges collapse because God is Sovereign. No, they collapse because humans did not deal with infrastructure issues.

  233. Eagle, I think it will take several generations to undo the damage Piper has done to so many young people and what they believe because of him. It scares me.

  234. @ Victorious:

    I wonder if it’s a personality trait some people have.

    Both my siblings have the nasty habit of, if they get angry at their boss, they will come home and kick the dog, rather than talking to the boss.

    I’ve been on a receiving end of verbal abuse from both siblings when I didn’t do anything wrong, they were taking their anger out on significant others or bosses on me.

    I didn’t really pick up that habit myself. If I’m angry at ‘Person 1,’ I don’t take it out on ‘Person 2.’

  235. @Joy H. – I used to dread the women’s meetings because I really couldn’t relate to the talks or the focus. It wasn’t just that I’m single and have no children. It was more the personalities of the pastor’s wives. And especially Carolyn Mahaney, since I’d rather be in jeans and t-shirts than heels and dress pants or skirts.

  236. @ Steven:

    Something else I find a little annoying about the conferences (or Christian books and movies) are all the tchotchkes that get marketed along with the main event.

    They can’t just have a conference or book (or movie), oh no, they have to peddle t-shirts with the conference logo, and key chains, mugs, baseball caps, etc.

  237. Leila wrote:

    Not to mention that in some circles (e.g., Doug Phillips), he must own his own business and be prosperous enough so that his wife never has to work outside the home

    I had forgotten about that!

    There are now so many rules that some married Christian leaders insist that a single, Christian woman follow to get married, and what qualities she must insist upon in a spouse, someone needs to make a “Bingo” card to keep track of them all.

    I hope that these married Christians realize that the type of Christian man they tell single ladies to wait to marry is about as common as a plaid elephant or a unicorn.

  238. Bridget wrote:

    He seems like a person who suddenly awakes from a deep sleep and isn’t sure where he is, what happened, and is on immediate defense. He woke up yesterday and let loose.

    Great insight!

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot. One comment not approved. Guess who!

  239. @ Leila:

    I was holding out for a Christian man to marry for many many years, especially because the “yoked” teaching one hears all the time, but when you walk into church after church and see about 10 -1 5 single Christian women for every single man there, it starts to dawn on you that you may never marry if you keep sticking to that.

    I think a Non-Christian man can treat a lady just as nice, so I don’t see the harm in a Christian lady marrying a Non Christian. I have also seen too many reports of Christian husbands who are not prizes (some are abusive to their wives, for example).

  240. @ Clay Crouch:

    It wouldn’t bother me to go to a church that has a woman preacher.

    I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and they do not permit women to preach.

    In so far as I cling to Christianity at all, most of my understanding of the faith is still pretty much in agreement with Southern Baptists, but I don’t agree with their acceptance of gender complementarianism.

  241. elastigirl wrote:

    just curious what the shelf life is for Christian celebrities. who are these ’90s celebrities? Are we talking Spencer Tracy or Shaun Cassidy?

    Pat Boone is still a poster boy for Christian celebrity. He is on TBN quite often even these days.

  242. Daisy wrote:

    I wonder if it’s a personality trait some people have.

    I don’t know if it could/should be labeled a personality trait or a nasty habit. It is a well-documented ploy used by abusive people aimed at hurting another person. For example, an abusive husband might purposely destroy his wife’s favorite keepsake or family heirloom. Animal cruelty is also a red-flag concern related to abuse. It’s sometimes learned behavior but most always cause for concern as anger directed to inanimate objects and pets usually escalate to include persons.

  243. dee wrote:

    Would you go to a church which had a lead pastor who was a man? Joel Osteen, perhaps? To me, the issue is not body parts but theolog

    Dee, as an Episcopalian, the sex of my bishop, pastor or deacon is of no consequence to me. I am only concerned with their ability to serve and function in the office to which they are called. Those are my egalitarian bona fides. I was only curious about how many of the commenters attend a church that would even consider calling a woman to serve as pastor. To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So I think my question is appropriate. To put it another way, imagine what this discussion would look like if the leadership issue in question was race instead of sex.

  244. dee wrote:

    To me, the issue is not body parts but theology.

    Ah, there’s the rub. The complementarian’s theology IS about body parts.

  245. Daisy wrote:

    Same thing with public Christian figures such as Piper, Driscoll, Furtick, Benny Hinn, and all the rest.

    Daisy, even more so. The stakes are much higher.

  246. Anon 1 wrote:

    Eagle, I think it will take several generations to undo the damage Piper has done to so many young people and what they believe because of him. It scares me.

    ……………………

    Agree. I see the damage his influence has done at my former church. (causing a takeover) I am fearful for what his influence is doing (behind closed doors) in these young people’s homes.

  247. Daisy wrote:

    @ Steven:
    Something else I find a little annoying about the conferences (or Christian books and movies) are all the tchotchkes that get marketed along with the main event.
    They can’t just have a conference or book (or movie), oh no, they have to peddle t-shirts with the conference logo, and key chains, mugs, baseball caps, etc.

    It really is sickening. When I look back I can’t believe I fell for it. I was actually in Orlando when a certain “Study Bible” was launched. I bought the deluxe leather edition. I got home and couldn’t believe how weak it was. Sadly, I bought my wife one two. For some reason it seems like Jesus talked about this. Maybe not.

  248. Clay Crouch wrote:

    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So

    To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

  249. Lin wrote:

    Agree. I see the damage his influence has done at my former church. (causing a takeover) I am fearful for what his influence is doing (behind closed doors) in these young people’s homes.

    I saw it quite a few years ago when some of my family went to work/study with him after graduating from Wheaton. They came back totally different people. Arrogant, insulting, proud and exclusive. None of us long time believers much older than them knew the “real” Gospel including their parents and grandparents…long time workers in the Body of Christ. Fortunately for them, our family ignored it and continued to love them even though we were not “real” Christians.

  250. @ Nancy: you know, I lived with some nuns for a while when I was in college, and more than a few of them were both smart *and* attractive. (Very much so, in fact.) And they pretty much knew what they were choosing when they made their final vows. The system was set up so that people *did* have outs prior to making that choice.

    Even so, things change. At least one of them ended up leaving and getting married… We don’t always know what life holds for us.

    Ultimately, all of the women I knew did a great deal of pastoral ministry (though there was no recognition of this in so many words), and most all of them could easily show up Piper, MD and the rest with their knowledge – broad, deep and eminently practical – of theology, the Bible, church history and, most important of all, loving and caring for others in a Christlike way. They’re as human as the next person, but have led lives that guys like the above-named can’t even begin to contemplate as something they could do themselves. That’s mainly because it would involve getting off their high horses and just living as normal people.

  251. Bridget wrote:

    dee wrote:
    @ numo:

    He is about there. I actually thought he did better for awhile after his last hiatus.

    He seems like a person who suddenly awakes from a deep sleep and isn’t sure where he is, what happened, and is on immediate defense. He woke up yesterday and let loose.

    LOL actually

  252. Anon 1 wrote:

    To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

    Isn’t it possible that the same be said for the men at The Gospel Coalition?

  253. Anon 1 wrote:

    Clay Crouch wrote:
    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So
    To it ions of authobe fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.
    </blockquote

    I'd like to hear Wade on this. IIRC, Wade's church is SBC, so women ministers are verboten- a very recent policy instituted by Mohler and his flunkies. This was followed by a purge of women professors from affiliated seminaries and positions of authority in SBC organizations worthy of Stalin.

  254. @ Steven:

    “I was actually in Orlando when a certain “Study Bible” was launched.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Just make sure you’re not there for the launch of The BBQers Devotional Bible, The ESV Football Bible, and especially not the Scuba Divers Study Bible.

    Any day now.

  255. @ Anon 1:
    @ Anon 1:

    I have a few posts waiting in the wings which you’ll get to read one day. But I saw the damage first hand. One of the things I write about in those posts was what it was like to attend the largest atheist rally in the United States here in Washignton, D.C. While there atheits talked about how religion and faith is toxic and the harm it does. And one of the things I listned to and agreed with as an agnostic at the time….was listening to Greta Christina (Google her) rail about atheists being angry that there are Christian pastors that teach women to endure domestic abuse in a marriage. When she was speaking about this I was thinking of John Piper and his teaching.

  256. The SBC is driven by ego and money; not in that order. There are some godly pastors in the SBC; they are few. They are non-existent in SBC megachurches. These are wolves. It is preposterous to believe that these people and the businesses they run have anything to do with the eternal destination of a human soul. If it weren’t for the Annuity Board most pastors wouldn’t be a part of such an organization as the SBC. I know a few who stay with the SBC in spite of significant differences. Why? Annuity Board. I grew up in a small SBC church. I have an M.Div. from SEBTS (I was there under both Drummond and Patterson). I was ordained in an SBC church. I left the SBC. I would attend a Roman Catholic Church any day before I would ever attend an SBC church. I’m speaking here in broad and general terms. I do realize there are exceptions. The denomination as a whole is worthless and should be disassembled before it does more harm.

  257. elastigirl wrote:

    Just make sure you’re not there for the launch of The BBQers Devotional Bible, The ESV Football Bible, and especially not the Scuba Divers Study Bible.
    Any day now.

    Ha, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. I could almost predict the names of those who would write the endoresements.

  258. Clay Crouch wrote:

    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So I think my question is appropriate. To put it another way, imagine what this discussion would look like if the leadership issue in question was race instead of sex.

    Wade has some pretty high views on the role of women. I think you might find him becoming more outspoken on this issue in the coming years.

  259. dee wrote:

    Keith wrote:
    I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.
    I didn’t say it was sneaky or under-handed. It is on the FAQ page. I am a believer in the free market and the 1st amendment. Assuming that, why would you think we might want to point this out?
    Our goal is to dissect Christian trends. There is no question that Neo-Calvinism is the “it” trend. The leaders have assumed positions in many seminaries and denominations. Their POV will become the law of the land in those groups.
    Today I shall post on this trend and how it affects people in a university. It will also affect those who choose churches to join and parachurch groups with which to affiliate. Our favorite motto? Caveat Emptor.We hope that our writings will help people understand why they are treated poorly in certain churches.
    Hope this makes sense.

    Well stated, Dee. I appreciate what you are doing on this blog and your graciousness in allowing many points of view to be expressed. I just find it amazing at how many different opinions are out there on what “Real Christianity” is all about or what the Bible “Really” says. Do I agree with what my Calvinist brothers and sisters believe about “Biblical manhood and womanhood”? No. But I find it intriguing that we both read the same Bible but come to such a different conclusions. I look forward to spending eternity with them after this life is through — though I suspect our differences in doctrine will be moot at that time.

    Psychology was one of my favorite courses in college however I went into the physical sciences instead to understand how our physical universe works. I would love to have another lifetime to go back and try a different major so I would have the tools to parse out how our belief system works. I freely acknowledge I don’t have the skills to wrap my brain around understanding how we think. Quantum mechanics is much easier. Fortunately, (I believe) the atoning work of Jesus was able to transcend our feeble thought and belief system or we would ALL be in deep doo-doo.

  260. @ numo:

    Oh, my, I said that very poorly and I apologize. What I was meaning to address is that there is an idea abroad that no woman would commit herself to any religious vocation, secular profession or anything else other than stay at home mom if, in fact, she could avoid doing so. I should not have used the word nun in that context. That said, I interned at a catholic hospital and had some very bad experiences with some sisters (we all did). Some of the sisters were the ones who so resented women in medicine. That is no excuse for me to generalize about people in any vocation, and I am sincerely sorry for my terminology and attitude and carelessness.

  261. @ Nancy: No worries! The nuns I lived with all had battle scars from the kinds of nuns you’re talking about. Keep in mind that many orders decided what you should do professionally, rather than allowing you to choose according to your talents and abilities. I think that warped a LOT of people.

  262. @ Nancy: also, i don’t know of any other lay people who had the chances i did via living with ‘the girls,’ as they liked to call themselves. it was unusual, then and now.

  263. @ RB:
    In the early church ‘prophesying’ was the equivalent of preaching today – only with the power of the Holy Spirit most certainly involved. So, women were up there teaching and prophesying (it isn’t just sharing, it was the focus of the meeting). Also ‘letter carriers’ were the ones who not only carried the letter to the church, they also read it to the congregation and explained it (teaching). Phoebe is the letter-carrier for Romans. Finally, Pricilla and Aquila teach Apollos, who is later mentioned as an apostle:
    Acts 18:26bWhen Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

    So, I suspect it is just aculturalization that makes people favour men teachers/preachers over women preachers. The women preachers and prophets I have heard, except for ‘summer Sundays’ have all been from Pentacostal or Charismatic denominations. Those denominations have a unique flavour to their preaching – Male or Female that turns a lot of Evangelicals off. Good Preaching takes time and experience, women are rarely give the time to gain that valuable experience. Our church is candidating a young seminary grad currently, and his lack of experience makes him feel “weak” and “off”. I personally like intelligent and knowledgeable Sunday School leaders who actually aren’t afraid of tough questions and hate rote answers, they are few and far between, either male or female.

  264. JeffT wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    Clay Crouch wrote:
    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So
    To it ions of authobe fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.
    </blockquote

    I'd like to hear Wade on this. IIRC, Wade's church is SBC, so women ministers are verboten- a very recent policy instituted by Mohler and his flunkies. This was followed by a purge of women professors from affiliated seminaries and positions of authority in SBC organizations worthy of Stalin.

    JeffT, It is really strange. Some SBC associations will kick out a church for having a woman pastor but not a church that protects child molesters. And what is being kicked out anyway? They refuse a churches money? that is all it is–churches give money to the cooperative program and local associations.

  265. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

    Isn’t it possible that the same be said for the men at The Gospel Coalition?

    I seriously doubt if any of those guys are in churches with congregational polity.

  266. @ Val:

    Part of the problem is that in today’s Christian economy seminary training and intellectual gain is replacing the real qualifications for those who are called to teach. Older (more life experiences), wiser (does not necessarily equate to education, but might), good character to wide community, are not things you usually find in a young seminary graduate.

  267. Just had a look at the talks. Both male and female speakers are speaking from Nehemiah; as well as that there are a plethora of workshops, and the whole thing’s being rounded off by Don Carson.

    Also looked at 2012 conference, which was the last time TGC held a women’s conference. In 2012, Carolyn Mahaney was a speaker. But not this time. I would love to know why? Is she persona-non-grata because of her husband? I imagine that if she WAS invited there is no WAY she would turn it down – the Mahaney machine is desperate to continue promoting its links with the Neo-Calvinist groups.

    I’m glad she’s not there, as from her blog I can see her brand of teaching is little more than works-based salvation, with guilt-trips, sin-seeking and pressure being meted out on women (including her own daughters) constantly.

  268. @ Beakerj:

    elastigirl wrote:

    @ dee:

    “I can’t help but think fear of boobs has something to do with it.”

    beaker wrote:

    “I totally gigglesnorted at this: in that case I am an object of terror. TERROR I tell you”
    ++++++++++++++

    I hope your shoulders are back and you carry them with confidence & head held high.

  269. Eagle wrote:

    I think the reason why some people like John Piper (and Mark Driscoll) is that becuase of their teaching they can force people to submit or do stuff they do not want to do. And a Christian can justify their action and say, “well John Piper/Mark Drisocll tought ________” And there you have your vindication and clearance for sexual assault.

    Of course their teaching can be used to justify this.
    When John Piper talks about “acts of authority is being exerted” on people, how far off is that from “acts of dominance”?
    NOT FAR WHEN YOU USE THIS SORT OF CONVOLUTED LANGUAGE! a.k.a. Piper-speak.
    (sorry for yelling/allcaps. I don’t know how to bold or italicize.)

  270. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I think that is quite uncharitable – to say the very least.

    I know that a certain commenter who will go unnamed is in moderation mode right now.
    I also know the quote I have above is waaaaaay up this thread somewhere.
    But I’m still shaking my head at what he said.

    Piper’s views on women are quite uncharitable. His views on the importance of God’s sovereignty far and above God’s other great qualities, like love, mercy, and justice… those views are quite uncharitable.
    And his views on marriage and divorce where spousal abuse is involved… those views are completely devoid of anything that halfway resembles charity.

    So I’m shaking my head.

    Who started this uncharitable fest? (if in fact we are really being all that uncharitable here.)

    Who?

    None other than Piper
    May his charitiless gender/sovereignty gospel have a great fall and never recover.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, commenter whom I will not name.

  271. An Attorney wrote:

    @ dee:

    It is short man syndrome. A woman in heels would tower over Piper. He needs someone to be “smaller” than he is. And that is very hard, because I think he is both physically and emotionally small.

    You left out “mentally small”.
    Inadvertent, but, IMNSHO, notable omission.

  272. Anon 1 wrote:

    JeffT wrote:
    Anon 1 wrote:
    Clay Crouch wrote:
    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So
    To it ions of authobe fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.
    </blockquote

    JeffT, It is really strange. Some SBC associations will kick out a church for having a woman pastor but not a church that protects child molesters. And what is being kicked out anyway? They refuse a churches money? that is all it is–churches give money to the cooperative program and local associations.

    It’s mind boggling. Especially when you consider that the SBC allows Calvinism, a theology completely opposed to their traditional Baptist theology, yet they propagate a War on Women.

  273. Deb –

    I listened to that entire clip of Piper’s response. The entire response laced with Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” while being taught by a woman face to face. I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.

    The other thing that I noted is that he misquoted the scripture every time he said it. It says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man . . . ” He said over ‘men’ every time he said it, as if this scripture was meant to convey a context of a woman teaching men. It’s quite possibe that Paul was replying to a specific situation of a certain woman and certain man. Piper changes the meaning of the text by using the plural form of man.

  274. Bridget wrote:

    I listened to that entire clip of Piper’s response.

    Kudos to you Bridget. I couldn’t make it past his imitating a drill sergeant. Piper uses way to many words in answering questions. I used to pretend that I understood what he was trying to say. I never do. In fact I don’t know any other person that talks like him. I can’t tell if he’s trying to be impressive or if he just plain never knows what he’s talking about. Most of us could have answered that question in less than 30 seconds; without the corny drill sergeant stuff.

  275. Bridget wrote:

    listened to that entire clip of Piper’s response. The entire response laced with Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” while being taught by a woman face to face. I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.

    Yep, very good.
    And not only does he not care one iota about how an abused wife is feeling, he also has the gall to define what ‘sweet’ should look like or feel like for women.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/02/men-defining-sweet-for-women.html

  276. elastigirl wrote:

    I feel the heart of all this gospel gender ridiculousness masked with “biblical and for God’s glory” is really what is emotionally convenient for men. Women are indeed objects (voodoo dolls?) that are dressed and moved around according to a man’s convenience.

    @ Bridget:

    In fact Bridget, I think this goes hand in hand with what elastigirl said earlier that bears repeating.

    And all this ridiculous concern for how a man is ‘feeling’ while not giving one single care as to what a woman is feeling…

    Well, I think this is quite uncharitable.

  277. @ Bridget:

    “…Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” … I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.”
    +++++++++++++++

    it’s like, handle men with kid gloves. (obviously no such concern for women)

    he really paints a picture of male fragility. this can’t be what he wants to be doing.

    I know some great men, who are both strong and very kind & sensitive. But I have to say…. women are tough.

  278. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Maybe I should have also asked how many currently attend a church that would allow a woman to serve as the lead pastor.

    I AM one. Does that count? 🙂

  279. Nancy wrote:

    Clay Crouch wrote:
    I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.
    Count me in the group. The lead (and only) pastor at my church is a woman. In fact, she is a woman married to a high school principal and they have two young children. She is also smart, petit, athletic and attractive, just in case anybody thought she was a nun or something. And she is a Duke grad, I add for the benefit of D/D and the folks over in the eastern part of the state. Of course, I am a Methodist, gloriously saved from my prior live in evangelicalism by no less a one than Himself.

    W00T! A fellow Duke Div grad! HOORAY! 🙂

  280. Why are the comments on the new thread closed? I will make my point here. Its a disagrace that many SBC fear women in leadership more than a sexual predator who molests and assaults children. I knew many people who attended Cedarville. For several months I used to attend Garfield Baptist in Peawakee, Wisconsin (today Spring Creek Church) and its Senior Pastor is on the Board of Cedarville. I wonder what his thoughts are….

    Dee some of the conversations I had with you on the phone when I raged about fundementalism were amazing. You know your stuff. I am amazed as to how a woman could address and speak to theological issues that many male pastors can not even address. As a man I had no problem being taught by you.

    I look forward to hearing about the sexual discrimination complaints. Maybe the best things for Cedarville is to lose its accrediation. Then they can officialy train Sovereign Grace Pastors. (Not that Trinity, SEBTS, etc… are much better…)

  281. @ elastigirl:
    @ Mara:

    . . . and Piper is speaking at TGC National Women’s Conference – it is a frightening thought to consider what they will be hearing over the course of that weekend.

  282. Daisy wrote:

    This page discusses the topic further:

    Thanks for the link Daisy. But here’s the thing. You are not going to change Jimmy’s mind any more than he’ll change yours with what his Gurus teach (although they’ll swear up and down that the problem you have is not with them but with your own rebellious ‘sin nature’ at odds with what the Bible ‘clearly teaches’)

    I will say this though. Any church or para-church organization that persists in a gender based hierarchy, will not survive the 21st century.

  283. Janey wrote:

    KR Wordgazer wrote:
    Who is guilty of burying a woman’s talent– the woman, or the church authority who forbid her to use it?
    KRW,
    My answer is “both.” Certain teachings within the church hold women back, and women hold themselves back. Have you read Sheryl Sandberg’s book _Lean In_? She’s the COO of Facebook. She blames both, and has caught a lot of flack for it, but in my world I see it every day. I’ve been looking for someone who describes it well. She nails it.
    For devout women, I agree. It’s a big factor. After my very-necessary divorce I realized I’d been freed from those rules: I was that now — as a single mother — able to do what I really loved: work in a profession that uses my gifts to the fullest.

    When someone has been taught to believe that using their talent is sin against God, they are really in a Catch-22, then. God is going to hold them responsible for burying their talent but also for using it in violation of their own consciences.

    I don’t believe God is harsh like that.

  284. @ Muff Potter:

    “I will say this though. Any church or para-church organization that persists in a gender based hierarchy, will not survive the 21st century.”
    +++++++++++++++

    in someone else’s words, “complementarianism/patriarchy is finished. just waiting for the machinery to wind down.”

  285. @ Muff Potter:

    They can claim that of course, but I used to be a gender complementarian, until I got to around my mid or late 30s, and prior to that, I had off and on doubts about it from around my mid or late 20s.

    It was a study of Scripture (there are examples in the Bible of women who did, with God’s approval, lead and teach men), and seeing all the inconsistencies of how it is taught and practiced by self professing gender complementarians that caused me to abandon it. 🙂 Not feminism, but the Bible itself and gender comps themselves that caused me to see the problems with it.

  286. androidninja wrote:

    A little bit unrelated, but I’ve been chuckling for a couple of days over this:
    http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-womens-devotional-bible-hccase/
    Crossway has, IMO, been promoting itself as an anti-Zondervan of sorts, only to fall into the same trap with hyper-specialized Bibles. I can only imagine what the Men’s Devotional Bible would look like.

    Good call! I loved this line: “These contributors include professors, musicians, authors, counselors, homemakers, and conference speakers.”

    Despite the fact that nearly 70% of women with children under 18 work, there are no professionals, sales people, doctors, lawyers, managers, etc.

  287. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    I don’t believe God is harsh like that.

    Nor do I anymore, but there was a time when I did. In the late 90s when I began my journey out of Calvary Chapel’s brand of fundamentalism, I noticed that all the bricks and shticks (Biblical proof texts) no longer fit together as neatly as claimed and that their brand of fundamentalism is very selective.

  288. Oops! I meant to reply to commenter who said the answer to speech (by complementarians) is more speech.
    (I said that’s what we’re doing here!)
    I went back to do a copy paste from their comment and can’t find it amongst so many.
    I’m having a bad day!!!
    But Dee and Deb, I appreciate this blog so much!!

    @ Jinx:

  289. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    When someone has been taught to believe that using their talent is sin against God, they are really in a Catch-22, then. God is going to hold them responsible for burying their talent but also for using it in violation of their own consciences.

    Yeh, I see your point. I was simply trying to out-proof-text the proof-texters who cherry pick Scripture.

  290. @ Jinx:

    “I went back to do a copy paste from their comment and can’t find it amongst so many.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    Jinx: an idea for finding something — if your computer is like mine, you can go to Edit at the menu bar, select “find on this page” in the drop-down menu, type in a word you’re looking for (a name, a key word), & all the occurences of that word will be highlighted. Click on “next” or “previous” to go through until you find what you’re looking for.

  291. Oh, crud. Deb, wanna hear something funny? I ran the mixing board in the sound booth for a women’s conference at my then church once! I was certainly the “most eligible bachelor” at that conference, to be sure. Uh, this was before I got married, of course. And, my future wife was not in attendance. I not only heard the conference, I made cassette tape copies afterward.

  292. As a charismatic (I was saved in a tiny Pentecostal church back in the old Jesus Movement days), I have listened to–and been blessed by–many, many women pastors and teachers over these past forty years.

    But, as I said, I’m a charismatic, and in the eyes of men like Mohler, Piper, and MacArthur, dangerous, deluded, and harmful to the Body of Christ.

    I couldn’t be prouder! *G*

  293. JOhn Robinson

    Welcome to the world of TWW in which  many of us proudly wear the title of deluded and dangerous.

  294. I always wonder how the Kellers fit in with these types of events. The GC flavor doesn’t seem to fit what goes on at their own church. I had a (single female) friend who was a deacon at Redeemer and I’m pretty sure she taught/led a small group. She ended up leaving because she thought there wasn’t enough church discipline and the “belonging before becoming” philosophy led to rampant immorality among church members that was never addressed (her assessment).

    I think it’s interesting that Keller is considered a black sheep by both sides: By the hard-core reformed types http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/10/tim-kellers-transformationalism who think he’s too blurry with gender roles and too friendly with the Biologos crowd. And by frequenters of this site who think he’s Piper’s homeboy.

    I have never read a book or article by Keller that wasn’t gracious and thought-provoking, even if I didn’t agree with everything. I like to hope he just sticks with the GC folks to try to keep them thinking some about the post-modern cultural engagement mission that it was started with. (It was started in response to all the legitimate issues the emerging church brought to the forefront. It has morphed into something different.)

    In Keller’s words (maybe he’s changed since 2009) [quote]With the ‘complementarian’ views, however, other things are at stake. When I read many of the works of writers in this camp, I find something strange. They do very detailed and fastidious exegetical work to show us that Paul forbids some kind of authority and role in the church to women. That, I think, is clear.

    But then they jump immediately to assert all sorts of specific tasks that women can and cannot do in the church—or at all. They may argue that women should not work outside the home, that they can teach male children but not males over 12, etc. But nowhere does the Bible give such details. The Bible leaves us a lot of freedom here, but many writers assume very traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity that (I believe) can’t be supported in the Bible. Also, once they work out in their own churches what the role of women should be, they are quite condemning of any church that has a less restrictive policy than theirs.

    This tendency on the part of complementarian writers only makes the whole position more unpersuasive. It even has made me reluctant to call Redeemer a ‘complementarian church.’ Indeed, most complementarians believe Redeemer is way too ‘loose’ with regard to women’s role. So, in summary, I think that the over-heated rhetoric of the complementarian camp is a great danger. Not only does it undermine the credibility of the historic church position on women, but it may create a haven for true sexists and bigots. [/quote]http://www.gracetoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/women07session.pdf

  295. D.A. Carson in one of his books (Exegetical Fallacies) goes out of his way to give props to Linda Belleville (his former student and Evangelical feminist par excellence) for changing his mind about the interpretation of John 3:5. It’s obvious he respects her exegetical skills even though she comes down totally different on women’s roles.

    He is another one I wonder about. Either he and Keller just totally change their tune depending on who they are talking to or working with, or they are conflicted.

  296. Bridget wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    Off-topic, but not too far off.
    For those who haven’t seen it yet:
    http://juniaproject.com/response-complementarian-view-of-women/
    Thanks for that link, Mara. It was great. I went to the original article by Strachen

    For all of you ladies who enjoy occasional rage surfing, Owen Strachan is always a good bet. My favorite was when he said in a radio interview that he was sick and tired of all these women complaining that they couldn’t use their gifts in the Church. If you are so bent on preaching and teaching, then go off to the foreign mission field where you can use your gifts all you want, you don’t belong in leadership in the Church. Right. Because the mission field isn’t about the real “Church”? Maybe brown illiterate men’s inferior masculinity isn’t strained by listening to a woman teach? They evidently don’t care about job competition or faithfulness to the Bible’s authority structures where you get malaria and live without running water. It was the most covertly racist thing I heard all year.

  297. Christy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Mara wrote:
    Off-topic, but not too far off.
    For those who haven’t seen it yet:
    http://juniaproject.com/response-complementarian-view-of-women/
    Thanks for that link, Mara. It was great. I went to the original article by Strachen
    For all of you ladies who enjoy occasional rage surfing, Owen Strachan is always a good bet. My favorite was when he said in a radio interview that he was sick and tired of all these women complaining that they couldn’t use their gifts in the Church. If you are so bent on preaching and teaching, then go off to the foreign mission field where you can use your gifts all you want, you don’t belong in leadership in the Church. Right. Because the mission field isn’t about the real “Church”? Maybe brown illiterate men’s inferior masculinity isn’t strained by listening to a woman teach? They evidently don’t care about job competition or faithfulness to the Bible’s authority structures where you get malaria and live without running water. It was the most covertly racist thing I heard all year.

    Good grief!! Do you have a link to that radio show? How does he get there, really? The amount of cognitive dissonance that you would have to have to get there is unthinkable, to me anyway . . .

    I can hardly bear to listen or read what that man has to say. It grates on me.

  298. Bridget Do you have a link to that radio show? How does he get there, really? The amount of cognitive dissonance that you would have to have to get there is unthinkable, to me anyway . . .
    I can hardly bear to listen or read what that man has to say. It grates on me.

    I have tried to find the exact quote once or twice and not been successful with Google searches, because evidently no one has posted a transcript online. I’m pretty sure it was in the debate with Rachel Held Evans on Justin Brierley’s UK show. Strachan has a link here. http://owenstrachan.com/2012/09/29/a-fun-debate-with-rachel-held-evans-on-gender-roles/ But I’m not positive that was where I heard it, because after listening to that, I wanted to hear more nonsense, so I listened to a few other interviews he did. I don’t remember which ones though.

  299. Christy wrote:

    If you are so bent on preaching and teaching, then go off to the foreign mission field where you can use your gifts all you want, you don’t belong in leadership in the Church. Right. Because the mission field isn’t about the real “Church”?

    I asked this somewhere before, maybe at Spiritual Sounding Board blog, but…

    For these men who are anti women preachers, etc, but who are okay with women teaching/preaching to men overseas:

    Okay. So they’re fine with an American Christian female preaching to guys in let’s say African nations.

    Suppose a Christian woman from an African nation is sent as a missionary to preach/lead American men?

    It seems to me that the guys who are fine with American women preaching/leading overseas are making her nationality, not her gender the primary issue… which means, they are not so much concerned with a woman leading/preaching to men as they are they are (if you get down to it) against an American woman leading/preaching to men.

    If they are hunky dory with US women preaching to African guys, they should be just find with Christian Non American women coming to America to lead/preach to American men, yes? That’s where their logic leads.

  300. @ Daisy:

    Post Script.
    I’ve heard on TV in the past five years that Christian missionaries from other nations do already come to the U.S.A. to preach/ lead/ evangelize, and some of the clips shown had women in them.

    I forget which nations were involved, but I think I heard South Korea and Africa mentioned.

    So there may already be female Christian missionaries preaching to male Americans now.

    According to gender complementarians who are fine with American women preaching/evangelizing in other countries, Non-American women preaching in the USA should be just fine too.

    Oh, churches do the same thing with adult singles.

    Churches who are prejudiced against adult Christian singles (churches that won’t allow singles to lead, preach – though the Bible is not opposed to it), will never the less allow adult singles to work as missionaries overseas.

    They don’t want you in home churches in your nation of origin but are fine with you being shipped off to preach/lead in other nations. It makes absolutely no sense.