Owen Strachan, CBMW, John Piper and David Platt: Gender Whackiness on the Rise

"I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy." 
Mitch Hedberg link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=10258&picture=nutsNuts

TWW is convinced that the gender debate is escalating due to radical complementarians. Did that make you sit up? Did you think that the names mentioned in the title of this post are not known for being radicals? Do you think we are exaggerating? This post is intended to prove our point. It is not based on old material. The statements that we are highlighting are recent and, in our opinion, concerning. It appears that, unless you are complementarian, you are not to be trusted, or even included amongst the ranks of" gospel"© Christians. 

1. John Piper: The Bible allows for women prophets which proves that prophets must be fallible.

On Desiring God, November 16,2013 link, Tony Reinke wrote a post which was supposed to highlight John Piper's response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire Conference. Apparently, John Piper had been criticized for not offering more support for charismatic gifting. Piper appears to support a certain number of these gifts within his theological construct. That post appears to be an attempt to clarify his position. 

At the conference, Piper was characterized as open to the gifts but not advocating for them or encouraging others to pursue the gifts themselves. This is a misunderstanding, says Piper. “I advocate obedience to 1 Corinthians 12:31, ‘earnestly desire the higher gifts.’ And I advocate obedience to 1 Corinthians 14:1, ‘earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you might prophesy.’ And I advocate obedience to 1 Corinthians 14:39, ‘earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.’ I want Christians today to obey those texts.”

And Piper seeks to obey those texts himself. “I pray for the gift of prophecy almost as often as I pray for anything, before I stand up to speak.”

So far so good. Now here is where it gets whacky. Piper is an advocate for the gift of prophecy within the context of the church. But Piper encountered a problem and attempted to resolve it. Most theologians have long advocated that the test of a true prophet would be that his/her prophecies were proven to be true. If they are not proven to be true, then their claim to speak for God is not true because God always speaks the truth.

Piper concluded the prophets must be fallible because women are allowed to be prophets!

Third, 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 encourages prophecies from women in the church. Said Piper, “I don’t see how women prophesying in the assembly fits with an infallible Scripture-level authority when Paul forbids that kind of authority to be exercised over men by women in the church in 1 Timothy 2:12. So the fact that women are encouraged to do this, and yet women are told not to exercise authority over men, says to me that we have got something going on here besides what is Scripture-level authority.”

His apparent belief in specific gender roles appear to be driving his theology. John MacArthur calls him to task on this matter in this post at Cripplegate by Mike Riccardi.

 A. He disagree with Piper's conclusion that prophecies from true prophets are fallible.

But isn’t that precisely what we see in the Old Testament—God commanding His people to test those who spoke with infallible, inerrant, Scripture-quality authority? Whether someone predicted falsely (Deut. 18:20–22), or predicted truly and yet prescribed falsely (Deut. 13:1–5)—if what he spoke was not in accord with God’s previously revealed words—God commanded the people to judge him as a false prophet and condemn him to death. So, does the command to test and judge Old Testament prophets imply they could legitimately deliver fallible prophecies? Absolutely not. . . . To assume, as Piper does, that being told to test New Testament prophecies implies a brand-new category of “fallible prophecy” is baseless.

B. MacArthur, who is a complementarian, then disagrees with Piper due to Piper's views on women prophets.

But again I ask: Is the only legitimate answer to infer such a radical redefinition of the gift of prophecy, especially without a single explicit comment from any New Testament author? Is there another interpretation, which fits all the biblical data, does not depend on inference, and requires less explaining away of explicit prohibitions? Indeed, there is a still more excellent way.

…MacArthur goes on to offer those very interpretations in the rest of the post. Strongest amongst his three points is the observation that the existence of Old Testament prophetesses (like Miriam [Exod 15:20 ], Deborah [Jdg 4:4 ], and Huldah [2 Kgs 22:14 ]) prophesying with infallible, Scripture-level authority (since all agree that was the only kind of prophesy in the OT) did not undermine biblical gender roles. If Piper’s argument is that women exercising infallible prophecy doesn’t square with complementarianism, he’s either got to argue that the Old Testament was egalitarian or he’s got to abandon his objection. 

Here is a direct link to John MacArthur's full response at Grace to You.

C. My conclusion: It appears that Piper is saying that, if women are involved in any authoritative way, there will have to be mistakes

2. Owen Strachan/CBMW believe that any view except complementarian thought is non-Christian.

Owen Strachan link

Dr. Strachan is Assistant Professor of Christian Theology & Church History at Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky. He is a contributing writer for The Gospel Coalition, a blogger at Patheos, a blog columnist for Credo magazine, and a fellow of the Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology

What his biography fails to include is the fact that he is the son-in-law of Bruce Ware, the chief advocate for the controversial doctrine called ESS: The Eternal Subordination of the Son. This doctrine includes that belief that Jesus will be subordinate to the Father in eternity. Ipso facto, women will be also subordinate to men in eternity. You can read Wayne Grudem's "proof" here. This argument has serious implications for the church.

For example, recently, CBMW reposted an article which claimed that gender roles will continue in heaven with, of course, the gospel boys being in charge and women hanging onto their every biblical command. You can read about it here. Here is a quote from that article.

There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God’s “very good” creation will remain.

So, one can be sure that Strachan will lead CBMW rigidly down the road of exacting gender roles. It is, after all, the family business. In spite of his obvious passion for this subject, the following statement came as a surprise to me. In an article for CBMW here, Strachan praises the complementarian views of Tim and Kathy Keller. Look how he defines non-Christian thought.

Any time a leading Christian resists the pull of *non-Christian thought* in the area of gender and sexuality, I rejoice.

It is vital to note that unless you view gender roles in precisely the same way as Strachan, you have fallen into the trap of non-Christian thinking. How long do you think it will be before Strachan declare that everyone who disagrees with his conclusions are probably "non-Christian?" In fact, are we really that far away from calling complementarianism the only gospel© position? Or have the gospel© boys already accomplished that mission?

I bet some of you are thinking that Dee is making a mountain out of a molehill? Well, let me lower the boom.

3. David Platt believes that we must defend complementarianism with our very lives for the sake of the gospel!

Bob Allen of The Associated Baptist Press reported on the following statements made by David Platt at Southern Seminary on March 20, 2014. 

Brothers and sisters, this is one of the areas in our day where the word of God comes up totally against the patterns of our culture, and we’re forced to make a decision,” Platt said. “Are we going to believe the Bible or not?”

 “Let us defend sexual complementarity with God’s word. Let’s defend sexual complementarity with our lives and our marriages through pictures of husbands as heads and wives as helpers, loving authority — glad submission in the context of beautiful relationships — and let’s do this for the sake of the gospel in the world.”

“Spiritual darkness engulfs the picture of marriage in our culture,” he explained.

“So let’s give ourselves to his design,” Platt urged students. “Let’s let this moment drive us to revive our marriages across the church so the gospel of God on display in marriage might be all the more clear in and through his church in the middle of this culture.”

The Christian faith has a long history of martyrdom. Those martyrs went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of Christ's death and Resurrection. It now appears we must also go to our deaths to defend gender roles. I, for one, will die to proclaim the truth of Christ. However, I will not go to the death to defend all male elder boards. I.Will.Not.Do.It. Nope, not a chance.

I see the absolute confusion as to what constitutes proper gender roles within the leaders of this group. Mary Kassian (the self proclaimed inventor of the term "complementarianism) says that the female gender role has nothing whatsoever to do with housekeeping, child raising or working outside the home link and link. Yet, Owen Strachan calls men who stay at home to raise the children "male fails." The members of this movement are not convincing others because they cannot define it themselves. (Digression: you know who are real male fails? Guys who are afraid to take comments on their blogs.)

Platt claims that we must be complementarian in order to to make the gospel© clear. I have news for Platt, Piper, Strachan. and Kassian. You have failed, and failed miserably. I am a well versed Christian who has traveled and lived all over the country. I have never once, let me repeat, never once, heard anyone say something to the effect of "Gee, now I get the gospel. Fred and Mabel are perfect examples. Mabel submits like Christ and Fred rules like the Father. Yep-now it all makes sense. Can I be spontaneously baptized?"

In order for something to be a clear picture, it must be able to be clearly defined and observed.The simplistic answer "I know what it looks like for me, not for anybody else," is absolutely useless. If marriages is held up as a clear example of the "gospel©," then it must be able to be defined. It's not. Wayne Grudem attempted to do this with his 83 rules and it was an embarrassment. That may be why no one else has tried.

In my obviously fallible, female opinion, there is no reason to try because we have all been given the real picture of the Gospel. It is the birth, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ who did just fine without being married. Paul didn't do so bad himself.

Let me leave you with the main points summarized in case you have forgotten. Please don't forget. It is time for all of us to point out the craziness which is infecting the church.

  1. John Piper: Prophets have to be be fallible because God allows women to be prophets.
  2. Owen Strachan and CBMW: Any thought opposed to his definition of complementarianism is non-Christian.
  3. David Platt: We must defend complementarianism with our very lives.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

Lydia's Corner: Lamentations 1:1-2:22 Philemon 1:1-25 Psalm 101:1-8 Proverbs 26:20

Comments

Owen Strachan, CBMW, John Piper and David Platt: Gender Whackiness on the Rise — 422 Comments

  1. This is beyond crazy.

    As Chris Rock has said in one of his routines, “Put the Crack Pipe down!!!’

  2. A Public Service Announcement:

    The registration deadline for Together for the Gospel 2014 is TODAY! If you want to hear these complementarian leaders in person, including two that have been mentioned in this post (Piper and Platt), you've got to sign up now!

    CBMW, which is led by Owen Strachan, will be hosting a conference BEFORE the conference.

    As you can see, the men making these statements are high profile leaders in the complementarian movement.

    You can't say we didn't warn you… 😉

  3. Yup= you’re right—it is getting exponentially more whacky in here….

    I think your digression “(Digression: you know who are a real male fail? Guys who are afraid to take comments on their blogs.)” actually speaks to the heart of the matter–these guys make such loud quacking and trumpetings because they ARE afraid!

    Real bravery & real security for either gender is portrayed by calm assurance and calm “getting down to business”, not the continual and arrogant bragging of
    We’re Bravest, We’re Blessed, We’re Men…..

    Most soldiers will tell you that usually the worst cowards in battle were the same ones who did the most audible and arrogant boasting Before the battle.

    Maturity is security. Maturity is being aware of other’s opinions as well as the intrinsic worth of others and tempering the discussion to reflect those facts.

    Maturity doesn’t require the whole world to agree with me & doesn’t require a belligerent attempt to accomplish ‘one world thinking’.

  4. molly245 wrote:

    Maturity doesn’t require the whole world to agree with me & doesn’t require a belligerent attempt to accomplish ‘one world thinking’.

    Amen, sistah!!!

    It’s kinda odd to see the theme of the conference as “unashamed” – if they are so unashamed of their beliefs, why not allow some dialog???

  5. If they didn’t have so much influence this would be hysterical.

    We need a new term for the kind of theological knots Piper tied himself into there… Eagle, Nick B could you oblige? That was so bonkers I find it hard to believe I read it, & this is supposed to be John-led-only-by-infallible-scripture-Piper? 🙂

  6. @ Marie2:

    Ok I listened to one of Chris Rock’s early routines, complaining about how Marion Barry could get caught with crack, and then get re-elected. There are many great sound bites from this youtube. It does not include the climax to his routine, where he just shouts at the top of his lungs: “Put the crack pipe DOWN!!!”

    Anyone who has spent time in the D.C. area when Mayor Barry was in charge would understand this 1:52 video – under 2 minutes.

    “How bad do you have to be to lose to a crackhead?”

    “What do we say to our children when we try to get them to not smoke crack? The child will say back (with eyes really big) I could be Mayor”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMif8cGlcE

    Warning: this humor is profanity laden, but I wish there was a comedian out there who could ask the same question about Piper and all those people having so many followers.

    How in the world can this many people be that deceived? I so wish I could just show up on the curb and protest somehow, maybe with Chris Rock pictures and fake crack pipes….

  7. Dan from Georgia wrote:

    Does the phrase “Jumping The Shark” apply here?

    No, no, no. When they add a new child (or a skateboarding dog – Go Poochie!) to the list of arguers THEN it will have jumped the shark.

    How “big” are these guys really? I’ve been in circles where their words were near gospel and I’ve been in circles where they are pretty unknown. I prefer the latter and am more than willing to let the crazy inmates have the asylum to themselves. (“So-and-so has a Sad about such-and-such doctrine.” Shrugs, moves on…)

  8. @ Marie2:

    I’m pretty sure that snippet was taken from this show, delivered in Washington D.C. no less,

    “Chris Rock-Bring The Pain”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-opn0LzBR8

    That show blew my mind, that Mr. Rock could completely insult the people of Washington D.C. about the Marion Barry scandals, and have them eating out of his hand at the end of the performance.

    Hopefully I can find that quote in that routine and post a time-stamp, just for some extra comic relief.

    Many apologies to those who find this guy to be offensive.

    chacun à son goût, as the French say – “Each person has his own taste”

  9. So complementarianism is one of the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith according to Platt and CBMW (the organization that only has $85,000 in annual revenue)?

    Wow. Eyes rolling.

  10. Marie2 wrote:

    chacun à son goût, as the French say – “Each person has his own taste”

    Sorry to correct you, it’s actually “Each person according to his own taste”.
    “à” is a preposition, “a” is the third person singular of “avoir” – “to have”.

  11. This whole idea that marriage is a picture of the gospel is built on a misreading of Ephesians 5 and sets a dangerous precedent for husbands to be equated with God. Here’s a guest post I did for Rachel Held Evans that details the problem:

    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church

    I will quote from it briefly:

    ”Are Christian wives really supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Is marriage a place where a man and a woman illustrate divinity (the man) relating to humanity (the woman)? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture– they are often frankly disgusted.”

  12. The more often they post these types of power-grab theories and try to support them with scripture, the more desperate they appear.

  13. @ gus:

    Whoo HOO I knew a literalist would show up, if I gave a basic gloss.

    Ça me fait rire.

    Quel dommage, hahaha.

    J’ai réussi à trouver quelqu’un qui parle Français.

    Ça me fait plaisir.

    Thank you for the correction, it warms my heart to know that there are people who read here who speak French. It’s been a while, but it’s been fun for me to do – possibly spoil the tourist industry by my attempts, but if I don’t try, I won’t learn.

  14. srs wrote:

    Dan from Georgia wrote:

    How “big” are these guys really? I’ve been in circles where their words were near gospel and I’ve been in circles where they are pretty unknown. I prefer the latter and am more than willing to let the crazy inmates have the asylum to themselves. (“So-and-so has a Sad about such-and-such doctrine.” Shrugs, moves on…)<

    unfortunately These guys are very big in too many places!

    To back up my statement I'll have to digress into more history and detail than usual but please bear with me…

    I have been closely monitoring the entire "Christian Homeschooling" movement since nearly the beginning of the movement. I began homeschooling my children in 1983–which is just about Prehistoric in Homeschool Timelines. I also was employed as a Curriculum buyer and 'How To Homeschool" lecturer during that time.

    I read the first ever printing of classics by such authors as Rushdoony, Gary North, Mary Pride, Greg Harris et al. (These are some of the Founding Fathers of the Quiverful MOvement, Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism & more. All of these authors and movements have a very strong Complimentarian component.)

    I wasn't impressed then and am not now, but the fact remains that I have seen now 2 generations of homeschooling families move their families along the same destructive pathways–hyper complimentarian-Patriarchal-Courtship-Disaster….

    The impact that these bozos have had on literally millions of homeschooling families can't be overstated.

    I speak only in this area as I am sure of my facts, but I'm confident they can be replicated in several different arenas of the Christian Circus.

    So, I don't think we can yawn and turn away-as much as many of us would like to do.

  15. They seem to like this “sexual complementarianism” or “sexual complementarity” phrase of late. Why the need to suddenly specify sexual complementarianism? Is there some other kind we might mix it up with if we just used “complementarianism”?

  16. Janey wrote:

    So complementarianism is one of the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith according to Platt and CBMW (the organization that only has $85,000 in annual revenue)? Wow. Eyes rolling.

    Great point! And net assets of around $2,600 (as of 2012). link

    Maybe T4G attendees will fork over some $$$ for their cause.

  17. @ Hester:
    I noticed that as well. I have no idea but, knowing this group, we will soon find out if this is the gospel© way to say it. It is getting so I have no idea what nutty thing will become the latest craze.

  18. Yup, it’s craziness. Alice in wonderland stuff, even for many evangelicals. For those outside of evangelicalism (including believers), it must seem like something from the Twilight Zone.

    BTW, just to be clear, it’s unlikely that John MacArthur’s criticism of Piper, though valid, was a swipe at complementarianism. MacArthur was going after Piper because of Piper’s continuationist stance (MacArthur is a rigid cessationist), and the inconsistencies in Piper’s complementarian view were pretty much collateral damage in that little skirmish. On the issue of complementarianism per se, the two most likely agree; JMac is a pretty strict complementarian himself.

  19. @ gus:
    For years I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. But they continue to escalate. At times I simply throw my hands up in the air.

  20. @ Janey:
    @ Deb:
    Let me see, should I give money to push the ESS doctrine or should I give to my local homeless shelter. Seems like an easy choice.

  21. As I’ve already said in another thread after another post, anyone who thinks marriage is about power, about who has the trump card, the decisive vote, and who hast to submit to whose authority, shouldn’t be in the business of getting married at all. They have understood NOTHING about marriage.

    And anyone who thinks that pastors should have power and the members of a church must submit to them has understood nothing about the message of Jesus:

    (From Luke 22:) And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26“But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

  22. @ dee:

    Oops – so sorry:

    figurative translation:

    This makes me laugh.
    That’s too bad of me, haha.
    I have succeeded at finding someone who speaks French.
    This gave me pleasure, or genuine happiness.

  23. Beakerj wrote:

    We need a new term for the kind of theological knots Piper tied himself into there… Eagle, Nick B could you oblige?

    There’s both a humorous and a serious point to make here, I think.

    Joking aside, then:

    Theologians have already got there, ISTM; what we’re seeing is simply legalism. If that doesn’t sound very derogatory, it’s only because we so rarely see legalism for the terrible spiritual disease that it is. We should frown on legalistic teaching like we’d frown on the dumping of high-level nuclear waste into civic water supplies. Perhaps the single greatest enemy of Paul’s ministry was the reduction of the Gospel to rules; and his comment on the growing so-called “circumcision party” (I wish those mutilators of the flesh would go the whole way, and castrate themselves) is instructive.

    Paul presumably had names and faces in mind when he wrote that; I don’t wish it on John Piper per se. But if your gospel requires rules to confer righteousness, you will inevitably encounter anomalies – i.e., examples where the rules create obvious contradictions or injustices. When that happens, there are only two things you can do. One is to force the rules on people regardless, making your church exclusive and repressive. The other is to make more and more rules to fine-tune the exceptions, making your gospel ridiculous.

  24. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    And on the humorous side: can’t really think of anything beyond “scriptural sufficiency”.

    We believe in one God: in three Persons. This God, in the Person of his Son, revealed himself in the most perfect way it’s possible to imagine: He became one of us, succeeded wherever we have failed, and yet was moved not to contempt but compassion by it. And in the Person of his Spirit, he now promises to live in us and share his very being with us. So what’s the one thing we really, really need?

    A book.

    You either get why that’s funny, or you don’t, I suppose.

  25. These guys have made their own religion. They are nuttier than fruit cakes and that is mighty nutty.

  26. Piper’s remark that he always prayed for prophecy before he stands up to speak should give him pause… scripture says the “spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.” If there are female prophets in the church, his prophetic words would be “hupotasso” to them. 🙂

  27. @ Molly245:
    Thank you Molly for this clarification. I’m single, no kids, so I don’t have the perspective to see how things are affected on the homeschooling side.

  28. 3. David Platt believes that we must defend complementarianism with our very lives for the sake of the gospel!

    AKA Male Supremacy IS the Gospel?

    Wouldn’t these guys be happier in Saudi or Talibani Islam? Then they could drink their Complementarianism(TM) straight on the rocks instead of watered down, with a Predestination/God’s Sovereign Will chaser. And harems of wives and handmaids instead of just one wife, just like a Biblical Patriarch — can’t forget that.

  29. John wrote:

    Yup, it’s craziness. Alice in wonderland stuff, even for many evangelicals. For those outside of evangelicalism (including believers), it must seem like something from the Twilight Zone.

    I’d check around for a Chinese Dragon made of mismatched animal parts with a voice like John DeLancie.

  30. Molly245 wrote:

    I speak only in this area as I am sure of my facts, but I’m confident they can be replicated in several different arenas of the Christian Circus.
    So, I don’t think we can yawn and turn away-as much as many of us would like to do.

    Hi!

    Thank you very much for this input. It is much appreciated.

    I had never heard of Piper until I had heard his name mentioned on a blog in the last couple of years.

    My first response was, who IS this guy, and why is he soooo special????

    He really is outside the mainstream in many ways, and likely could not hold his own in other venues.

    Prayerfully, I hope that people will stop buying his books pronto, as his ego has gotten too big.

    Thank you for writing,
    Marie

  31. I continue to wonder what these men are so afraid of. They seem to feel genuinely threatened by the thought of women being strong, smart, and godly. I don’t get it.

  32. emr wrote:

    I continue to wonder what these men are so afraid of. They seem to feel genuinely threatened by the thought of women being strong, smart, and godly. I don’t get it.

    I do.
    1) GURLZ GOT COOTIES!
    2) Nobody — especially a GURL — can ever be stronger, smarter, or more Godly than MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  33. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    One is to force the rules on people regardless, making your church exclusive and repressive. The other is to make more and more rules to fine-tune the exceptions, making your gospel ridiculous.

    And the exceptions to the exceptions.
    And the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.
    And the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

    “But then what if he crosses the International Date Line?”
    — George Carlin, “Class Clown”

  34. Hester wrote:

    They seem to like this “sexual complementarianism” or “sexual complementarity” phrase of late. Why the need to suddenly specify sexual complementarianism? Is there some other kind we might mix it up with if we just used “complementarianism”?

    Animal Forced Dominance Display:
    Man On Top as Dom.
    Woman On Bottom as Sub.
    And Woman exists only to Service Manly Man.
    “Just like a Porn loop, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

  35. dee wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    the more desperate they appear.
    That is a great word for all of this. Desperate.

    Desperate for what would be my question?

    What do they hope to gain? All the energy put into the complementarian agenda could be directed to something much more effective in helping people and possibly changing lives.

  36. Beakerj wrote:

    We need a new term for the kind of theological knots Piper tied himself into there…

    Theological BDSM?

  37. Bridget wrote:

    All the energy put into the complementarian agenda could be directed to something much more effective in helping people and possibly changing lives.

    This is such an important point!

  38. srs wrote:

    Dan from Georgia wrote:

    Does the phrase “Jumping The Shark” apply here?

    No, no, no. When they add a new child (or a skateboarding dog – Go Poochie!) to the list of arguers THEN it will have jumped the shark.

    How “big” are these guys really? I’ve been in circles where their words were near gospel and I’ve been in circles where they are pretty unknown. I prefer the latter and am more than willing to let the crazy inmates have the asylum to themselves. (“So-and-so has a Sad about such-and-such doctrine.” Shrugs, moves on…)

    I can tell you for a fact that having lived for nearly a decade in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro, that John Piper is not even a big deal locally; I attended a church that could swallow Bethlehem Baptist up about twice over. In fact, I never heard of the “prominence” of Mr. Piper until I attended a neocal church thousands of miles away, and all the young turks would almost leap with excitement when I told them I’d lived a while in the Twin Cities–something of a Mecca for them. I’m not even sure Piper was considered in the top 5 in local prominence in the Twin Cities evangelical circles I ran in–and I did get around a lot of ministries, citywide stuff, was very plugged in at the time. Piper’s only a big deal among a tiny subset of passionate young neocalvinist men, many of whom I think are a bit emotionally disturbed.

  39. Bridget wrote:

    Desperate for what would be my question?

    I think there are people out there who live to control others, even if it is as an admiral in rowboat which is what these guys are. It was interesting. Deb and I ate lunch with an old friend from a few years ago. She is a committed Christian, is very involved in missions with her husband and leads Bible studies, etc. She goes to a church which is not involved in all of this stuff. She was shocked at these stories.

    There are women in her church who are involved in leadership and she cannot imagine that there are churches who do not allow it. It dawned on me that these guys are not as well known as they like to think they are.

  40. LawProf wrote:

    I can tell you for a fact that having lived for nearly a decade in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro, that John Piper is not even a big deal locally;

    Deb and I have always wondered how Piper was viewed by the local population. Do you know if he was accepted as just an ordinary pastor or whether locals thought of him as a bit odd?

  41. LawProf wrote:

    Piper’s only a big deal among a tiny subset of passionate young neocalvinist men, many of whom I think are a bit emotionally disturbed.

    I have begin to wonder about this myself. This post was based on a fairly recent statement. When it is combined with his other comments about muscular women and not allowing women to teach him in a way that feels like they are forcing their body differences on him,etc., I have begin to wonder if there is something off about him. This sort of thing does not sound normal.

  42. LawProf wrote:

    I can tell you for a fact that having lived for nearly a decade in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro, that John Piper is not even a big deal locally; I attended a church that could swallow Bethlehem Baptist up about twice over. In fact, I never heard of the “prominence” of Mr. Piper until I attended a neocal church thousands of miles away, and all the young turks would almost leap with excitement when I told them I’d lived a while in the Twin Cities–something of a Mecca for them. I’m not even sure Piper was considered in the top 5 in local prominence in the Twin Cities evangelical circles I ran in–and I did get around a lot of ministries, citywide stuff, was very plugged in at the time. Piper’s only a big deal among a tiny subset of passionate young neocalvinist men, many of whom I think are a bit emotionally disturbed.

    Thank you for this. It helps put things in perspective.

  43. I LOVE THIS!:

    I have never once, let me repeat, never once, heard anyone say something to the effect of “Gee, now I get the gospel. Fred and Mabel are perfect examples. Mabel submits like Christ and Fred rules like the Father. Yep-now it all makes sense. Can I be spontaneously baptized?”-Dee Parsons

  44. dee wrote:

    LawProf wrote:

    I can tell you for a fact that having lived for nearly a decade in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro, that John Piper is not even a big deal locally;

    Deb and I have always wondered how Piper was viewed by the local population. Do you know if he was accepted as just an ordinary pastor or whether locals thought of him as a bit odd?

    Honestly I can’t say. I was part of a ministry for about a year that met at the Bethlehem Bap campus (the old bldg.) on Fridays, I attended one of the marches around downtown Mpls that Piper would have in conjunction with another pastor or two in the late 90s (and was utterly unimpressed, it was the first time I’d ever seen Piper or heard of him, and wife and I looked at each other and said “That was all about prideful men congratulating each other on how important they were”. It was a total letdown compared with the Marches for Jesus that we’d attended, which seemed to be mainly about glorifying the Lord). Saw a Piper sermon once. Just not impressed: flat stale arrogant mediocrity. My opinion, and that was formed long before I even knew what Calvinism was or that Piper had anything to do with it.

    There is the sum and substance of my knowledge of Piper. My knowledge of his reputation is from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s, and frankly, there isn’t much of a local Piper reputation to speak of, at least there wasn’t then. Greg Boyd is far more prominent, North Heights Church far more, Lowell Lundstrom (who I met and didn’t particularly like much) a bigger deal. That’s just off the top of my head. It is not a Piper Town, not by a longshot.

  45. emr wrote:

    I continue to wonder what these men are so afraid of. They seem to feel genuinely threatened by the thought of women being strong, smart, and godly. I don’t get it.

    ………..

    I do not understand their fears either, they are irrational. Yet, there must be some underlining premise for them to be so anti women. (and a biblical premise it’s not) One wonders if they would be happy living in Saudi Arabia, where women can’t even drive a car.

  46. @ LawProf:
    Fascinating. I, too, have never particularly enjoyed Piper’s preaching style. For a long time, I thought it was a genetic defect or something. Now, I know that I just don’t agree with him on many occasions.

  47. @ Erik:
    But its true!!! They keep saying it is a clear picture of the gospel. They have got to be inhaling something. They can’t even tell us what “it” is. The only thing is boils down to is all male elder boards, all male pastors and men getting the tie breaking vote. The majority of the Christian community is underwhelmed with their arguments.

    The word “complementarian” is in the same bucket as “church discipline.” Try to pin them down on that one and you will be banging your head against the wall.

  48. Lin wrote:

    One wonders if they would be happy living in Saudi Arabia, where women can’t even drive a car.

    Ha! Not if Manal al-Sharif has anything to say about it. She was willing to go to jail for driving. Makes this bunch look like wimps. http://tinyurl.com/pgc3krl

  49. @ Deb:

    I have been on a couple of Christian non-profit boards, and I doubt that CBMW had more than 75 donors total last year (or maybe just a handful of big donors), if their giving profile is similar to other ministries in that size range.

    So I doubt they have much of a grass-roots following. As they say in Texas, “All hat, no cattle.”

  50. dee wrote:

    Try to pin them down on that one and you will be banging your head against the wall.

    You’ve got me giggling. As a father of a 5yo and 2yo (and soon to be born baby) I’m already banging my head on the wall. 🙂 But, you are so right!

    Keep on keeping on!

  51. Hester wrote:

    They seem to like this “sexual complementarianism” or “sexual complementarity” phrase of late. Why the need to suddenly specify sexual complementarianism? Is there some other kind we might mix it up with if we just used “complementarianism”?

    I would posit that it helps them kill two birds with one stone by making reference to the fact that two women or two men are not “sexually complementary.” I suspect it may be a shotgun approach to subjugating women and fighting the “gay agenda” simultaneously.

  52. These guys aren’t building churches, they’re building insane asylums

    Their desperation to enslave women with their heresy is frightening

  53. Josh wrote:

    I suspect it may be a shotgun approach to subjugating women and fighting the “gay agenda” simultaneously.

    I'm starting to suspect this as well.

  54. @ LawProf:

    the Bethlehem Bap

    I know this is an abbreviation for “Baptist,” but nevertheless my totally silly first reaction to this was to picture someone getting “bapped” in the forehead. Perhaps for invading the Nativity without permission.

    And with that I end my completely unimportant and useless non-contribution to this thread. 🙂

  55. @ Josh:

    I would posit that it helps them kill two birds with one stone by making reference to the fact that two women or two men are not “sexually complementary.”

    Seconding Deb here – yep, my feeling also. Maybe it has something to do with Moore’s theory that egalitarian straight marriages are really “same-sex”? (Even though by claiming that, he’s actually tacitly admitting that roles are ontological in comp and thus giving away the store.)

  56. @ Hester:

    Or you could misread it as the “Bethlehem Rap,” which opens up entirely new doors of creativity for people more inventive than myself.

    There once was a brother by the name of John Piper
    He said women were the best at the changing of the diaper.
    And he had a buddy, Owen, who was really in a quandry
    ‘Cause his mommy never ever taught him how to do the laundry.

    Ok, someone else take over, please. This is terrible.

  57. And now I want a do-over, because in my struggle to find rhyming words, I unintentionally blamed Owen Strachan’s mother for his [French word for shower]-baggery. Mea maxima culpa. :o

    Maybe we could say…

    “Cause he thought it was beneath him to know how to do the laundry.”

  58. Yay! The blogpost I've been waiting for! Couldn't be more excited if it were Monday night and the latest installment of a 6 week mini series were about to begin.

    Getting my root beer and my blankie before I start reading 🙂

  59. Let’s defend sexual complementarity with our lives and our marriages through pictures of husbands as heads and wives as helpers, loving authority — glad submission in the context of beautiful relationships

    This doesn’t look like a call for martyrdom. From this section you quoted, it sounds more like defending “complementarity” in how we live out our lives as Christians and how our lives witness to the quote-gospel-quote.

  60. One clarification on the MacArthur/Piper debate: I’m a continuationist, I believe everything should be tested, and I don’t believe fallible prophecies pass that test.

    Where did Piper get fallible prophecies from those verses, and why are they saying to be a continuationist you have to believe prophecies must be fallible? (Hear that “whooshing” sound? It’s the point they’re trying to make going over my head).

    I think Piper has made complementarianism his primary doctrine by which all other doctrines (including prophecy and the land of glory no less!) must pass muster.

    It’s getting truly obsessive at this point.

  61. Deb wrote:

    A Public Service Announcement:

    The registration deadline for Together for the Gospel 2014 is TODAY! If you want to hear these complementarian leaders in person, including two that have been mentioned in this post (Piper and Platt), you’ve got to sign up now!

    CBMW, which is led by Owen Strachan, will be hosting a conference BEFORE the conference.

    As you can see, the men making these statements are high profile leaders in the complementarian movement.

    You can’t say we didn’t warn you…

    PLEASE tell me someone from this blog (writers or responders) is going to this.

  62. chris wrote:

    Yay! The blogpost I’ve been waiting for! Couldn’t be more excited if it were Monday night and the latest installment of a 6 week mini series were about to begin. Getting my root beer and my blankie before I start reading

    Ditto, I've been waiting to start the week off right 😀

  63. @ srs:

    I agree Platt probably didn’t intend that to mean martyrdom, though he’s still jumping on the complementarianism-is-essential-to-correctly-preaching-the-Gospel bandwagon. Personally, I wasn’t much impressed by Platt before and this hardly comes as a surprise.

  64. Josh wrote:

    And now I want a do-over, because in my struggle to find rhyming words, I unintentionally blamed Owen Strachan’s mother for his [French word for shower]-baggery. Mea maxima culpa.

    Maybe we could say…

    “Cause he thought it was beneath him to know how to do the laundry.”

    ‘Cause he thought t’was beneath him to do the laundry.

    The above might fit the meter better.

  65. emr wrote:

    I continue to wonder what these men are so afraid of. They seem to feel genuinely threatened by the thought of women being strong, smart, and godly. I don’t get it.

    I think it’s hyperdefensiveness of the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. I love the bible – and one reason I fled to the “Evangelical wilderness” was that I was tired of the bible being made larger than God Himself, and the requirement of one’s experience of God being mediated through the bible – IOW, “bibliolatry.” (What in the world did the first Christians do for 25 years before Paul began writing the first of what came to be the books of the New Testament???) I think first and foremost this is a challenge to inerrancy. The greater they perceive the challenge to be, the tighter the wagons get circled.

    There certainly may be some who really do believe that women are a different kind of being than human, and/or are afraid because of cultural shifts. I think all that plays into the challenge to inerrancy.

    It’s always about hermeneutics. Inerrancy makes God small, very small. But its proponents can’t see that.

  66. Mara wrote:

    In honor of John Piper.
    Out of the 100 most beautiful English words, Winsome IS NOT one of them.
    http://imgur.com/gallery/81SzNem

    Sorry Charlie.
    (And this is my completely unimportand and useless non-contribution to this thread.
    Double )

    Maybe we just need a new word. Like say, instead of gospelly or winsome, we could just say something like “winspely”.

  67. Marie2 wrote:

    It’s kinda odd to see the theme of the conference as “unashamed” – if they are so unashamed of their beliefs, why not allow some dialog???

    Have any of these big names in the comp movement ever “really” engaged with egalitarians in person or online on the ESS/ESW issue? In a situation where they cannot merely write (and answer) their own questions in the debate? Are these members of this “brave new movement” just not brave enough to defend celestial marriage beyond the walls of the “comments are closed” zone? In my fantasy world I would love to see one of the CBMW apologists enter a live debate with egalitarians on this “doctrine.” It would change things…and that is why it is a fantasy…

  68. chris wrote:

    Maybe we just need a new word. Like say, instead of gospelly or winsome, we could just say something like “winspely”.

    With the close synonym, Whine-spely, for how they whine about having to defend their noble faith all the time.

  69. What these guys are teaching is not the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. It is some sort of patriarchal perversion. You can look high and low in the Gospels and you can’t see any of this. These guys took some stuff written in the Pauline letters and went whole-hog crazy with it.

    Also, it became clear to me that with the idea there would be subordination in heaven that there’s one sin which has not and will not ever be forgiven. And that’s the sin of Eve. Adam’s sin can be forgiven, but Eve’s will hang over women forever.

  70. In the 80’s when I first came across hyper-Calvinism, I decided that the “4 Spiritual Laws” of Calvinism would start with “1. God may love you and has a definite plan for your life.” After all these years, you have given me an idea for #2: “All women have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of men.” I’m with you guys, when I want an enjoyable evening read, I often come here. Thanks for all your hard work! The stuff you deal with is so gut-wrenchingly nauseating, it’s fun when you can laugh at some of it.

  71. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    So what’s the one thing we really, really need?
    A book.
    You either get why that’s funny, or you don’t, I suppose.

    Funny, in a tragic sort of way. You skillfully highlighted the absurdity of the Neo-Cal obsessive privileging of facts/knowledge/rules over person/relationship. What a sad way to live, no?

    It makes me imagine a little child who sequesters himself/herself in their room and desperately tries to write and memorize a large, confusing manifesto of rules and procedures, while all of the other kids are downstairs next to the roaring fireplace with Mom and Dad, laughing and singing and telling stories.

  72. This seems the perfect time to post the following wonderful satire, now viewed 11 million+ times, by some very talented and funny Saudi activists: “No Woman No Drive.” Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZMbTFNp4wI

    Note to Piper, Stracham, et.al: THIS IS A SATIRE. NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. 🙂

  73. Piper has long advocated against “retirement.” As he seems to espouse increasingly wackier views perhaps he may wish to reconsider his stance on this.

    Either that or he could team up with Pat Robertson for a conference titled “Gospel Centered Crazy Proclamations.”

  74. Balaam was not a very good man, but as a legitimate prophet of God (at least part time) he found himself incapable of prophesying falsely in God’s name. His advice and teaching aside from said prophesy was very bad, and yet the prophesy itself was true. So being a foolish and partly pagan consultant to fully pagan kings (and being known to talk out of his ass, hehe) doesn’t disqualify you from infallible prophesy, but being a woman does?

  75. @ Josh:

    Hester wrote:
    They seem to like this “sexual complementarianism” or “sexual complementarity” phrase of late.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    I think they just get off on it. a kind of pleasure in affirming their perception of their own virility.

  76. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    And that’s the sin of Eve. Adam’s sin can be forgiven, but Eve’s will hang over women forever.

    There’s some truth in that, but really only for married Eves.

    If you’re a single Eve, you don’t really figure into their thinking.

    They seem to assume that femaleness and maleness can only be demonstrated within the context of marriage and/or having children.

    And original post (quoting some complementarian person),

    “Let us defend sexual complementarity with God’s word. Let’s defend sexual complementarity with our lives and our marriages through pictures of husbands as heads and wives as helpers, loving authority — glad submission in the context of beautiful relationships

    I’m not sure what “with our lives” could mean, but he goes on to say “and our marriages” and also mentions “husbands” and “wives.”

    I am not married, never have been, and may never be.

    Therefore, how does this complementarian presume I am to model “sexual complementarity,” since he seems to understand it as only being possible within a marriage, as though unmarried adults are totally asexual or androgynous?

  77. Janey wrote:

    So complementarianism is one of the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith according to Platt and CBMW (the organization that only has $85,000 in annual revenue)? Wow. Eyes rolling.

    it is one of the essential doctrines for acts 29 churches, which is why I am adamantly against their spread, people who won't take this doctrine up front will unknowingly join said churches and then realize they will get cast out of the community if they question it after having signed their membership cards and probably their binding-agreement to tithe regularly. I wonder, along with non-disclosure statements that are required at acts 29 churches, if there is a penalty for early withdrawal also! it reminds me of something a friend once told me, if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump right out, so if you want to cook a frog you put it in a pan of cold water and heat it up very slowly.

  78. Marie2 wrote:

     Hi! Thank you very much for this input. It is much appreciated.

    I had never heard of Piper until I had heard his name mentioned on a blog in the last couple of years.

    My first response was, who IS this guy, and why is he soooo special????

    He really is outside the mainstream in many ways, and likely could not hold his own in other venues.

    Prayerfully, I hope that people will stop buying his books pronto, as his ego has gotten too big.

    I had never heard of any of them or complementarian whatever before either, until I started reading Christian news online….if not for blogs I would have thought the whole of christendom had gone Mormon, with the 7 wives in the kitchen thing.

    On another note, and no I don't know his doctrinal beliefs, but Pres Jimmy Carter's latest book, just out is a major women's rights help. Also, he addresses the practice of churches keeping women under unbiblical dominance (abuse). I can't find the link right now but I saw an interview he did just the other day at a book signing and I think its going to be a wonderful book and a great help for women and men in all countries.

    MOD EDIT: Quoting fixed per request of poster.

  79. @ Daisy: Same here. I’ve never been married. I’d like to be, but such is life. Ergo, I gather I am to be stuck in this single state, a social outcast, even in heaven. If that’s their view of heaven, it sounds more like hell to me. Then again, I’ve also read some sources who mention if I don’t have godly christian children, I’m not going to receive salvation. If my salvation comes via my spouse, I’m doomed.

    What’s a normal Christian to do other than just be thankful for being an Episcopalian?

  80. Bridget wrote:

    Desperate for what would be my question?
    What do they hope to gain? All the energy put into the complementarian agenda could be directed to something much more effective in helping people and possibly changing lives.

    I think the question is what do they hope not to lose. the financial support of men that follow them, you know the kind of men with money, the kind of men that get off by treating people as property or servants, they often don’t care about anyone so they often have lots of money from unscrupulous business practices also. or people with such low self esteem that pastors like that are promising them power they will never have otherwise, they do everything the pastor says and then down the road they realize it was just another guy taking advantage of them, the problem is that people like that being used by men who have bibles in their hands and in a pulpit, often think they have failed God and not been swindled by lies. Trying to convince people that Jesus loves them and God’s not aiming lightning at them after they have been victims of spiritual abuse is very very hard. The devil uses condemnation but disguises it as coming from God. people in the church can never quite do everything required to get to the top or get acceptance cause the rules keep changing. complementairwhatever is very harmful to women, but it is very harmful to men also thinking they are pleasing God they abuse their wives and degrade their daughters, then they realize one day what kind of person they are…

  81. Marie2 wrote:

    Whoo HOO I knew a literalist would show up, if I gave a basic gloss.

    I just hope I didn’t come over as an obnoxious know-it-all.

  82. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    AKA Male Supremacy IS the Gospel?

    It is?

    Well, according to some, it has always been – always since at least 1988 (Danvers Statement). So it has had a really long life as Christian orthodoxy 😉 If you ask me, it's well past its use-by date.

  83. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But if your gospel requires rules to confer righteousness, you will inevitably encounter anomalies – i.e., examples where the rules create obvious contradictions or injustices. When that happens, there are only two things you can do. One is to force the rules on people regardless, making your church exclusive and repressive. The other is to make more and more rules to fine-tune the exceptions, making your gospel ridiculous.

    Shouldn’t there be quotes in the last sentence? Like this:

    The other is to make more and more rules to fine-tune the exceptions, making your “gospel” ridiculous.

  84. @ gus:

    Sorry, posted this too early.

    Because legalism is the opposite of gospel, isn’t? The law condemns us. That’s why we need the gospel.

  85. gus wrote:

    Because legalism is the opposite of gospel, isn’t?

    (Second) fix of the (first) fix:

    Because legalism is the opposite of the gospel, isn’t it?

    I think I really shouldn’t be posting today, if my typing and spelling are anything to go by. Too much work recently, and too little sleep,

  86. Re: David Platt’s comment: “Let us defend sexual complementarity with God’s word. Let’s defend sexual complementarity with our lives and our marriages through pictures of husbands as heads and wives as helpers, loving authority — glad submission in the context of beautiful relationships — and let’s do this for the sake of the gospel in the world.”
    Re: Your comment: “The Christian faith has a long history of martyrdom. Those martyrs went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of Christ’s death and Resurrection. It now appears we must also go to our deaths to defend gender roles. I, for one, will die to proclaim the truth of Christ.”

    Look, I don’t agree at all with male supremacy, but you have jumped the shark to see in this Platt statement a call to martyrdom. He is simply urging those who agree with him to live their lives by what they believe. Look at the context in the sentence. “lives” is paired with “marriages”, it means your daily lives, not your death by martyrdom.

    There is plenty to criticize without exaggerating and taking the comment out of context. Good grief…

  87. @ Marie2:

    These guys are cleverly and – dare I say it? – truly WINSOMELY poking fun at the actual ruling of Saudi’s mutaween (religious police) warning that women’s ovaries will be damaged if they drive.

    “Because the Queens don’t drive!!!!!!!!!!” :)

    Disguising blatant discrimination and trampling people’s dignity with a “separate but equal” framework, all the while falsely flattering women that they are such noble, unique, queenly, gospelly producers of children …

    Oh, I’m talkin’ ’bout YOU, CBMW, not the mutaween!

  88. chris wrote:

    Sorry, the “winspely” comment was mine, not Mara’s. Not sure how I posted that wrong.

    Stuff happens… I fixed it for you. 🙂

  89. Ouch! The complementarian arguments and theories are falling apart like dominoes. They seem to see how far they can take an argument, but at the end their theory isn’t infallible. If their focus was only on the Word of a God rather than the theory based on one section? Problem is they take one part of Bible and base their whole world view on this one Infectious Disease Service, even to point of neglecting everything else. Some of them don’t seem to like women.

  90. Rafiki wrote:

    This seems the perfect time to post the following wonderful satire, now viewed 11 million+ times, by some very talented and funny Saudi activists:

    “No Woman No Drive.” Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZMbTFNp4wI

    Note to Piper, Stracham, et.al: THIS IS A SATIRE. NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

    That was a great clip. If the Calvinistas were to do their own rendition, it would go something like this:

    "No woman, no preach"

  91. @ raswhiting:

    Jumped the shark? I disagree.

    When you have someone such as David Platt writing books called "Radical" and going to the Middle East to proclaim his faith, what is the message he is sending?

    To demonstrate my point, take a look at this video:

    How do you think this message is being perceived by the young and impressionable guys in the Neo-Cal movement?

    Sorry, but Platt is a sensationalist trying to rally the troops.  And 'complementarianism' is the most important tenet of this crowd.

  92. Lol! I am in medical field and spell checkers are a curse sometimes. This group doesn’t seem to see the forest from the trees because just that one tree or group of trees in the forest is their focus, and the whole forest is described based on that one section. This is a concern I have with their theology. I am more of a simple biblicist than a person following any theological school. Wish it were just the Bible rather than arguments filtered through a famous theologian’s or human founder’s lens.

  93. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    What these guys are teaching is not the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. It is some sort of patriarchal perversion. You can look high and low in the Gospels and you can’t see any of this. These guys took some stuff written in the Pauline letters and went whole-hog crazy with it.
    Also, it became clear to me that with the idea there would be subordination in heaven that there’s one sin which has not and will not ever be forgiven. And that’s the sin of Eve. Adam’s sin can be forgiven, but Eve’s will hang over women forever.

    This is so perfectly on point it needs to be quoted again in its entirety. Those last two sentences, that Eve’s sin will always be unforgiven, is exactly what these guys are teaching.

  94. @ raswhiting:
    While I don’t doubt that Platt would claim to have meant what you claim he meant, he chose to use the phrase “defend. . . with our lives.” This phrase is almost always used to mean actially risking one’s life. It evokes violence and martyrdom. Since Platt makes a living with his words, I assume he made this choice deliberately. Moreover, it fits the pattern of elevating gender roles to a primary doctrine, worth going to the mat to promote.

  95. Marie2 wrote:

    @ Josh:
    And the man could bring on much swagg-ery
    silencing every threat of tongue wagg-ery

    ‘Cos the women were all of Eve
    And though it might make those girls grieve
    Own and Piper knew the truth that the fruit picking was total proof
    Those women will be eternally inferior
    They ain’t no Mother Superior
    Owen and Piper got cheerier and cheerier
    To confine women to the interior
    They think women are less
    And it’s all such a mess
    I think it makes Christ feel weary and wearier

    (I have to admit i used rhymezone online rhyming dictionary for help on this)

  96. What the bleepity bleep does potential fallibility have to do with authority? Not even devoit Catholics think the pope is infallible in everything, but even when not speaking ex cathedra, he has authority. Really, I have no idea what Piper is trying to prove. He’s twisted himself into a pretzel over. . . I have no idea what.

  97. raswhiting wrote:

    Look, I don’t agree at all with male supremacy, but you have jumped the shark to see in this Platt statement a call to martyrdom. He is simply urging those who agree with him to live their lives by what they believe

    Really? How much do you listen to David Platt? I have listened to him a lot. I have attended his church on a number of occasions and yes, I live in Raleigh and he is in Birmingham.

    Radical statements are part of his persona. Take, for example, his risking his life in some “secret” Muslim country to hold a conference. For crying out loud, if you hold a conference, it is not secret. In fact, there were ads up all over Dubai about where to go for his “secret” location. That conference (telecast “live”-well sort of ) made me rethink Platt’s thinking. I think he has gone overboard.

    Defend with our lives….he really didn’t mean it? Watch the above video in Deb’s comment and see what you think he is saying. This is a habit and the rhetoric is going way overboard.

  98. Deebs, Beaker, NickB…..

    I am thinking as to what we can call this absurdities by John Piper. He truly is the Reformed Pat Robertson. One gets *** excited to hurricanes and Piper to tornados and bridge collapses!

    But in terms of what this new theological musings should be called? How about a Piperism? 😛

  99. @ Rafiki:
    Hahahaha! That got a share with my family.
    I’m happy to see the Saudis taking a stand for women’s rights. If David Platt *really* wants to impress me, he should pull his Dubai shtick in Saudi Arabia.

  100. Wow with all this new theology about gender roles, women prophets not having to be correct I am astounded. I know some theologians have called the Neo-Cal version of God’s soverignty to be “the Islamization of Christianity”. I would say after the growing parallels between Neo-Cal theology and Mormonism, maybe we shoudl call this movement the “Mormonization of Christianity”

  101. chris wrote:

    I think Piper has made complementarianism his primary doctrine by which all other doctrines (including prophecy and the land of glory no less!) must pass muster. It’s getting truly obsessive at this point.

    It is getting obsessive, and I am impressed at the numbers of people who listen to this and believe that it is right because Piper says so. I wonder…has anyone considered the possibility that Piper is having some emotional problems?

  102. @ chris:
    I think we should also have a “Blocked from My Twitter Account” which only means you can’t reply to his tweets. Reading them continues. I believe Strachan may be in the running for the King of blocking -just like a real man.

  103. @ dee:
    PS I am also tiring of their “club” words: audacious, dangerous, etc. They sound like secret agents as opposed to simple pastors.

  104. @ LawProf:

    I would say your analysis is spot on. I was in Campus Crusade during this time, and Crusade pushed John Piper in the upper midwest. He even spoke at the annual Crusade Christmas conference in the Minneapolis TCX event. If you look at his book "Don't Waste Your Life", there is a DVD of Piper giving a talk to Crusade in 2003. I actually gave it to Dee. But I knew who Piper was because Crusade pushed him. My accountability partner liked Mark Driscoll and wanted to move from Milwaukee to Seattle to be a part of Mars Hill.

    But Neo-Cals know what Bethlehem Baptist is and for them its the only church in the Twin Cities. I went there once with a friend who used to attend there. That was in 2003, 2004.

  105. @ raswhiting:
    I also included the “entire” comment for everyone to see so I was not in any way trying to hide what he said (unlike Platt who did not admit that he did his “live telecast” from downtown Dubai-dangerous my foot).

  106. Carole wrote:

    I’m with you guys, when I want an enjoyable evening read, I often come here. Thanks for all your hard work! The stuff you deal with is so gut-wrenchingly nauseating, it’s fun when you can laugh at some of it.

    Thank you.

  107. @ TW:
    I believe that it is his support of CJ Mahaney that has rallied the troops. Many of these so called leaders do what Piper does. Is any one out there putting the brakes on and thinking about what he is really saying? Or is it knee jerk “Whatever Piper says, Piper’s right.”

  108. Mark wrote:

    This is a concern I have with their theology. I am more of a simple biblicist than a person following any theological school

    Me too. I have read the Bible since I was 17. Piper has tied himself up into a theological knot which clearly proves this is all about gender for him. It is a bit bizarre.

  109. burntnorton wrote:

    This phrase is almost always used to mean actially risking one’s life. It evokes violence and martyrdom. Since Platt makes a living with his words, I assume he made this choice deliberately. Moreover, it fits the pattern of elevating gender roles to a primary doctrine, worth going to the mat to promote.

    Agree!

  110. @ SJReidhead and
    @ Daisy (in no particular order!):

    I’m not going to say “I know how you feel”, because none of us really knows how anybody else feels, but let me put it thus (bear with me for a paragraph or two – in particular, please keep reading past the next line!):

    “Normal” people get jobs, get married and have weans. They’re easy to cater for and easy to fit into traditional churches.

    OK; the “married with weans” bit I can tick – for me, it’s the “getting a job” bit that has been problematic. Despite a raft of qualifications including two degrees, one of which from Cambridge University (and yes, I mean the Cambridge University), my entire life since moving to Scotland 25 years ago has been a tooth-and-nail fight to secure even temporary paid employment. For the whole of my 20’s, I couldn’t even buy a job.

    Before I moved to Scotland I went back to Cambridge to live/work for a year, and yes, I went and got a job – no problem. So there isn’t anything fundamentally wrong with me or with my understanding of jobs. I don’t doubt that both of you also understand perfectly well the usual mechanics of going out and meeting people. The point is that in the last 25 years, the usual means of going out and getting jobs have not worked for me. And I suppose that, likewise, the usual means haven’t worked for you either, for reasons that have nothing to do with either of you being stupid or sinful.

    And therein lies the rub. The majority of western “church” has evolved to be mass-produced and as efficient as possible. That means it has evolved to cater for those of the middle and upper classes for whom the usual approach to life has worked. They come to church with no conspicuous needs: they’re not poor or single, for instance. And they don’t struggle with taboo sins like homosexuality (boo! hiss!), which the church leaderships don’t struggle with and therefore can safely single out for condemnation. Even domestic abuse need not disturb the peace of Sunday church culture because, after all, it’s the woman’s fault: we don’t need to do anything different.

    Unlike Jesus himself, this prevailing church culture has no power; only words, rules and traditions. Megachurches can easily boast about “lives being transformed by the Gospel [sic]” because they mean “lives being conformed to middle-class values”, and those lives were already largely middle-class-compatible before they came to church. Life just works for them, so the church doesn’t have to do anything special or supernatural to reach them – just the odd bit of charity or a “12 Steps” group for the druggies and alcoholics.

    But people whose lives have not worked as simply, cannot be fed at traditional church. We need some kind of church that is radically different, has radically different expectations of the risen Jesus and a radically different manifestation of his power. I’m still only just beginning to get what this would be like, TBH.

  111. Eagle wrote:

    Wow with all this new theology about gender roles, women prophets not having to be correct I am astounded. I know some theologians have called the Neo-Cal version of God’s soverignty to be “the Islamization of Christianity”. I would say after the growing parallels between Neo-Cal theology and Mormonism, maybe we shoudl call this movement the “Mormonization of Christianity”

    ……

    Agree. Piper and the like minded are becoming a hybrid from both, “isms”.

  112. burntnorton wrote:

    While I don’t doubt that Platt would claim to have meant what you claim he meant, he chose to use the phrase “defend. . . with our lives.”

    Yeah, I have to agree with that. I had to read that sentence twice, because my snap judgement was that he considered complementarianism a martyrdom-worthy cause. Which makes me wonder: Did he craft the sentence that way on purpose? To fan the flames of passion in his audience, while giving himself enough plausible deniability to say “that’s not at all what I meant”?

    I think that sentence of Platt’s should have a disclaimer: “This sentence intentionally left vague.”

  113. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Despite a raft of qualifications including two degrees, one of which from Cambridge University (and yes, I mean the Cambridge University)

    You are one smart dude!

  114. Bridget wrote:

    What do they hope to gain?

    And someone has asked: “What are they afraid of?”

    They are afraid of God and they want to wrest power away from God and they want to be their own god. It is called legalism. They want to be today’s evangelical Sanhedrin and prevent God from doing whatever it is they are afraid He might do. Read Nick B. again if necessary. John above nailed it. Check out the history of this. A place to start is with the international mission board of the southern baptist convention. Classic case.

    Wait. Legalism? Really? Sure. Legalism is a wall that protects people from the unpredictable living God. It lets the practitioners of legalism be in charge. It protects the self from the radical life-altering reality that God will not let man be in charge-not even of himself or his own life. But legalism also lets one deceive oneself at the same time by thinking that somehow God has obligated Himself to defend and protect and justify the rule-keeping legalist and his rule-laden life style. So in this way the legalist has seized the control from God and deceived himself in the process. One way this can be done is by seizing control of the written word. One can control the written word by playing exegetical games and redefining words and choosing between many opposing possible definitions in the original language / text /ntext. And by wallowing in sophomoric philosophical silliness. And if you can convince enough people by this that you are God’s mouthpiece, then you can swish around in your robes in the temple and build a career and an individual mini-fortune doing it. All the while deceiving yourself.

    But nobody can control God. If control is your thing, then you better stay from God; everybody knows that, surely.

    The other option is to stand naked and alone and helpless in the presence of God and relinquish one’s supposed power How terrifying that is. What if. What is one finds God to be relentless and vengeful and I am destroyed by Him? What if there is nothing left of me after that? What if what I come to learn about God is something I cannot believe and therefore I come to realize that I have no faith at all? No, I think it better and safer and more to my advantage to stick with my rules and my games.

    Until. Until it all crumbles around me and I repent. Or until I actually choose the gray city (Lewis) and no longer care. And, yes, legalism is that seriously dangerous. David P. is bright and perhaps even brilliant and educated and wrong He uses the word radical incorrectly. He uses his seriously good ability to convince people and with it convinces himself…and IMO deceives himself.

  115. May wrote:

    I just love the way it’s a movement that ‘transcends race’ because there is one black member (Anyabwile) on TGC board!!

    There’s a reason South Park’s only black kid character is named “Token”.

  116. @ dee:
    I need to clarify this statement. Strange how things look after you drink some coffee. Challies was roundly criticized for seemingly stressing the contributions of African Americans to Reformed theology through rap music. Many felt he was saying that rap music was one of the only ways to show that people of color contribute to the “cause.”

  117. dee wrote:

    @ Rafiki:
    NO WOMAN, NO DRIVE! This should be the song of the patriarchs. Woman should never be in the driver’s seat.

    I remember the phrase “WOMEN DRIVERS! NO SURVIVORS!”

    And all the “wimmen drivers” jokes on the Flintstones.

  118. Mara wrote:

    dee wrote:

    audacious, dangerous,

    Hah! They wish in their manlywannabefertileyoung minds

    op cit Vladimir Putin photo op barechested astride a steppe pony.

    (To the Autocrat of all Russia: Next time pick a more impressive horse than a steppe pony. And take some riding lessons first so you know how to sit in a saddle.)

  119. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Nick here in the US I agree with what you are saying. Being an evangelical Christian mainly means being white, upper middle class, married and having children. If you don’t have any of those qualifications then for the most part you are not going to fit in. Before my faith crisis that consumed half of my 30’s I remember this one conversation I had with a Bible study leader at McLean Bible here in the DC area. He had just got engaged and he literally breathed a sigh of relief and told me that now that he’s engaged he’ll fit into McLean Bible better. It stunned me to hear that, but really should one be surprised?

    I am largely a doubter, but I came back to Christianity after seeing the theological problems with atheism. I analyzed the different belief systems, weighed the pros and cons. Even the way I approached Christianity and made the decision to get involved with the Christian faith again is different. I approach it from a very intellectual way. For a faith system that is very emotional driven and anti-intellectual this is what will keep me out of certain camps of fundagelicalism. Let me explain and expand upon that thought.
    In 2002 I graduated with an advanced degree in American History and a minor in European History from one of the best Jesuit schools in the Midwest. When I finished Marquette and was working in the business world people asked me, “what are you going to do with a History degree?” Others claimed it was useless as compared to computer science, nursing, accounting, etc… However I have come to appreciate and value that history degree for one simple reason. It gave me a lot of critical thinking skills which much of evangelicalism lacks today. Take John Piper for example who makes a great deal and speaks of his love of Jonathan Edwards. What John Piper and many Ne-Calvinists fail to do however, is speak of Edwards in the context of the historical era that which he lived. Edwards was a product of American culture and the 18th century. He was as much a product of American culture as I am a product of 21st century culture, or Nick you being a product of Scottish culture. Context is everything and it’s the context that is missing in John Piper’s theology. It’s why Piper is a terrible theologian and is an epic fail.

    Going back to Edwards what I have yet to hear the Neo-Calvinists address is Edwards role in the 1735 revival. A “suicide craze” took over the congregation leading to a couple of suicides, one I believe was Jonathan Edwards own uncle. Edwards had taught such an extreme form of theology that people felt like they shouldn’t live, and it facilitated their own suicide. Now who in their right mind would bow down at the altar of Jonathan Edwards and kill themselves for the glory of God? Maybe John Piper should have worked in the Japanese military during WWII, he could have inspired people to be kamikaze pilots in the Pacific theater.

  120. dee wrote:

    @ May:
    I found it amusing that the other African Americans on the list are rap artists.

    “GANGSTAAAAAAAAA!”

  121. Deb wrote:

    That was a great clip. If the Calvinistas were to do their own rendition, it would go something like this:

    “No woman, no preach”

    Not “Barefoot and pregnant”?

  122. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    (To the Autocrat of all Russia: Next time pick a more impressive horse than a steppe pony. And take some riding lessons first so you know how to sit in a saddle.)

    And lose some of the middle-age spread. You look like a 40-something English blogger living in Scotland.

  123. There is no way IMO to measure the damage this no women pastors, deacons, etc. has caused to the Southern Baptist Convention. But it is this way or there is the door from most of the leaders.

  124. mot wrote:

    But it is this way or there is the door from most of the leaders.

    Which is probably deeply frustrating if one is stuck in the middle of all that.

    On the plus side, there is a whole world of adventure and opportunity outside said door…

  125. I am slowing learning how to live outside said door. Because of one choice I made related to the gender issue in the Southern Baptist world my 38 years as a Southern Baptist was changed for me by others.

  126. @ dee:

    Dee, he was talking about their idolatry of the Bible, making it the fourth person of the deity, and probably ranked above at least the Holy Spirit.

  127. @ dee:

    With Piper and maybe others it is likely due to “small man syndrome” (or maybe “man with small package syndrome”) — have to have dominance over someone on some basis that does not require physical force to obtain submission — so package it as a salvation requirement for the woman to be submissive.

  128. @ chris:

    Give the no comments allowed group each a certificate of species confusion — they are more chicken than human.

  129. Eagle wrote:

    I know some theologians have called the Neo-Cal version of God’s soverignty to be “the Islamization of Christianity”. I would say after the growing parallels between Neo-Cal theology and Mormonism, maybe we shoudl call this movement the “Mormonization of Christianity”

    Both-and, I think.

  130. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

    Regardless of how these clowns attempt to set up religious empires, make up the rules as they go along and divide God’s people in the process, we do not need them and never have.
    The church, as it is today, was put into place 500 years after the Apostles died.

    So, what is the Lord referring to when he says, “Come out of her, My people.” ?

  131. gus wrote:

    just hope I didn’t come over as an obnoxious know-it-all.

    Hi, no, you did not come across as a know-it-all, I just projected past know-it-alls on top of you when I responded. My bad. I think I am the one who came across that way. But it did make me happy to see that there are other people who appreciate the French language. 🙂

    Peace,
    Marie2

  132. you know who are real male fails? Guys who are afraid to take comments on their blogs.

    What’s even a bigger fail are those that accept comments but delete comments that express a contrary opinion. That’s fraud. When the only comments that are left are those of sycophants, they try to create the impression that their pronouncements are irrefutable.

  133. @ Nancy:
    Nancy: Thanks for asking. It is a long story so I will summarize. I was pastoring a Southern Baptist Church. Our DOM was there the Sunday I made it clear to my congregation that Lottie Moon had in fact preached in China. I’ve never seen a more angry man. The association my church was part of disfellowshipped a church that had been in the Association for decades who called a woman Pastor at the Association meeting that was held at the church I pastored. I could have been there the night this happened but I had already planned a beach trip and had no clue this was going to take place or I would have definitely been there. Never from the pulpit but I let it be known it was wrong the way this (disfellowshipping)-BTW I hate this word-was handled. There is so much more, but it soon became apparent my work was done at this Southern Baptist Church and in due time it became clear there would be no subbing for any Pasor while they were away, no Interim work and no more pastoring for me in this Association and I resigned. When all of this happened this was not my fist church. I am slowing healing from this, but I am much more familar with what if feels like to be an exile and this was after 38 years as a Southern Baptist. I do not regret my decision to stand up for this fellow woman Pastor.

  134. mot wrote:

    Because of one choice I made related to the gender issue in the Southern Baptist world my 38 years as a Southern Baptist was changed for me by others.

    Hi!!!

    I’m very very sorry to hear of this…I hope you are ok, and that there are people around you to give you love and comfort over this. I can’t say that I have been through the same thing, but I’m sorry when this happens…Investing in a group for a long time, and have things end this way.

  135. @ Marie2:
    The very hard part was I really was not able to tell the Church the whole story of why I was leaving for fear of splitting the Church and I mean this sincerely I knew my work was done and I left for the betterment of the fellowship of the Church.

    It still hurts though.

  136. @ TW:

    We should probably create a TWW Hall of Fame for the wackiest ideas and statements we come across by those in the religious community. Could be a Hall of Flamers!!!

  137. this probably isn’t related, but maybe it is… my dad always said that men were afraid of women because of their ability to give life. Magical powers or something along those lines.

    I’m about at my limit with these men who give backhanded compliments towards women: oh we can be prophets according to Piper, but because of this–wimmins and all–it just proves our fallibility. sigh. I tell him, go give birth while at your pulpit and maybe then I will recognize his words of geewhizdom.

    In the meantime, he should be preaching the only one INFALLIBLE was Jesus. Just because he was male does not automatically place him (Piper) in the “I’m the best sex” column.

    Can’t these preacher-types just preach dignity to all instead pressing people down? The complimentarinism movement is backhand towards women, imo. And men too for that matter. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and it isn’t necessarily tied to our sex.

    just… sigh.

  138. @ raswhiting:

    Actually, a hetero couple are sexually complementary — tab A does complement slot B!!!!!. But SO WHAT? There is no social, religious, or other implication that necessarily flows from that. Every mammalian species has gender sexual complementarity!!!!

  139. An Attorney wrote:

    @ dee:

    With Piper and maybe others it is likely due to “small man syndrome” (or maybe “man with small package syndrome”) — have to have dominance over someone on some basis that does not require physical force to obtain submission — so package it as a salvation requirement for the woman to be submissive.

    You may be on to something. I’ve sensed huge insecurities in both Piper and Strachan. It’s easy to spot when you’ve known men like this.

  140. mot wrote:

    I knew my work was done and I left for the betterment of the fellowship of the Church.
    It still hurts though.

    Not to say that I have been there exactly, but I totally lost the respect of some leaders, and this was before I had found these blogs, and I felt guilty for almost a year, or at least 6 months, for leaving without saying much. There are people I would have wanted to say goodbye to directly, but it would have wrecked their faith, I think, to find out the ugly truth about these “pastors” – this was not an SGM church, it was just a couple of yahoos right out of seminary who worshiped a bunch of celebrity pastors.

    Someone, “LawProf” possibly, had talked about what I think of the seduction of trying to help people in leadership. I had tried to be helpful, and then realized I was being used, and just had to leave. Abruptly. Like that.

    So, I am sorry to hear of your story. When you feel ready to tell it, I am sure many people here will be there to listen, and pass the kleenex as necessary.

    It was a bizarre wound for me to get over – I kept thinking over and over there was something else I could have done, but now I see that there wasn’t anything.

  141. An Attorney wrote:

    With Piper and maybe others it is likely due to “small man syndrome”

    Wee Johnny Piper runs through the town
    Uptown, downtown in his night gown
    Rapping at the windows, crying through the dell
    Are the women all submissive, or else you’ll go to hell

  142. @ Marie2:
    Thanks for listening to what I shared. I pray almost daily for God to make me better from all of this and not bitter. Somedays though bitter wins the day.

  143. @ Sabrae:

    And as a result, there is no “pastoral authority”. NO ONE but Jesus himself has authority in the life of a Christian!!!!

  144. An Attorney wrote:

    @ dee:
    Dee, he was talking about their idolatry of the Bible, making it the fourth person of the deity, and probably ranked above at least the Holy Spirit.

    One day, several months ago, I was gathered with a small group at an administration meeting and an elder started to pray. He began with,”As we gather around your scripture . . .” I was saddened and disturbed to hear this coming from an elder. Later on in discussion, the importance of being a Bible preaching, Bible focused church was discussed. I asked what part/place God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit had in our church/gatherings. Three men tried to explain that the Word (Bible) was the same as if God was in the room with us, as the Bible is His words. I didn’t agree. I explained that I don’t worship the Bible. They went on for a bit with some silly analagies. Then one of them suddenly wanted to know how I came to be saved. He assured me he wasn’t questioning my salvation, but only wanting to hear my salvation story as he had never heard it before. (A little odd to me.) I shared a bit of my story, not feeling very inclined to do so as I really didn’t trust these men with the most precious moments of my life. We were interrupted and the subject changed. I believe they were relieved. I wondered where these men would take our small church. It hasn’t gone well in the past month.

  145. An Attorney wrote:

    With Piper and maybe others it is likely due to “small man syndrome” (or maybe “man with small package syndrome”) — have to have dominance over someone on some basis that does not require physical force to obtain submission

    Because if it came down to physical force these Mighty Manly Men would get themselves folded up like a carpenter’s ruler and stuffed into a trash can?

  146. Wow. Just wow. So I told my wife if we ever become Christian we’ll apparently have to start following our complementary roles. She laughed at me and told me I can take over managing the bills anytime (I’m awful with money and asked her to manage it early on in our relationship).

    On a less silly note, this sort of stance gets me wondering; do they even want to try to evangelize to outsiders anymore?

  147. An Attorney wrote:

    Dee, he was talking about their idolatry of the Bible, making it the fourth person of the deity, and probably ranked above at least the Holy Spirit.

    Tonight on Celebrity Deathmatch, for the Third Person of the Trinity:
    The Bible vs Ayn Rand!

  148. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    On a less silly note, this sort of stance gets me wondering; do they even want to try to evangelize to outsiders anymore?

    They don’t need to.
    Not with the “Bedroom Evangelism” of Quiverfull.

  149. “>Eagle wrote:

    Eagle on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:42 AM said:
    @ LawProf:
    I would say your analysis is spot on. I was in Campus Crusade during this time

    My condolences sir, on your past incarceration within Campus Crusade…

  150. An Attorney wrote:

    @ Sabrae:
    And as a result, there is no “pastoral authority”. NO ONE but Jesus himself has authority in the life of a Christian!!!!

    Exactly. 🙂

  151. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    So I told my wife if we ever become Christian we’ll apparently have to start following our complementary roles. She laughed at me and told me I can take over managing the bills anytime

    🙂 I like your wife. My husband and I are Christian, but he knows this would never fly either.

  152. JeffT wrote:

    you know who are real male fails? Guys who are afraid to take comments on their blogs.
    What’s even a bigger fail are those that accept comments but delete comments that express a contrary opinion. That’s fraud. When the only comments that are left are those of sycophants, they try to create the impression that their pronouncements are irrefutable.

    Fraud. Deceit. Lies of omission (as religious folks like to say). Presenting comments as something they really are not?

  153. @ Eagle:
    I’m sure you have something important to say, and the wonderful women of TWW are rather busy at the moment….I sometimes “cheat” by breaking posts into pieces…..just a thought….I enjoy your posts very much…Hope you are enjoying the coffee and pie being served in the moderation room, :-).

  154. Marie2 wrote:

    Hope you are enjoying the coffee and pie being served in the moderation room, :-).

    I prefer being there in the evening when the bar is open 🙂

  155. mot wrote:

    Somedays though bitter wins the day.

    I totally hear you on this.

    I hope you get many unexpected blessings as you walk through the Amazon river jungle of pain, and that God gives you a special machete to cut through it all.

    I was totally taken by surprise – a radio speaker, Alexander Begg, perhaps? I think he was a Scottish radio preacher, spoke about Jesus not hurting a broken reed.

    I was driving into town, to an inner city church over 20 miles away, in a bad mood that I had to do all of that driving to be healed – the inner city people were an awesome contrast to the narcissistic yahoos – and then, all of a sudden, I started to imagine Martha Stewart trying to do something on her household tips show with a broken reed. What could someone do with an actual reed, besides create a musical instrument? But dealing with a broken reed, good luck!

  156. Eagle wrote:

    Why am I stuck in moderation? What triggered it?

    I have asked Dee and Deb to place all your comments directly into moderation. Your days of “first” are over my fine-feathered friend. Bahahaha!

  157. @ Marie2:
    Continued….

    Moderation paranoia sinking in of creating overly long posts….
    zAlistair Begg: (All right all right so I cannot spell…)
    http://www.truthforlife.org/

    Isaiah 42:3
    New International Version
    A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick hez will not snuff out. In
    faithfulness he will bring forth justice;

    To all the other broken reeds out there, may they see a glimpse of God’s faithfulness and justice today!!

  158. Bridget wrote:

    Three men tried to explain that the Word (Bible) was the same as if God was in the room with us, as the Bible is His words. I didn’t agree. I explained that I don’t worship the Bible

    I couldn’t agree with you more, Bridget. It’s one thing to read a biography about Abraham Lincoln, for example, and quite another to actually knowing him personally.

    Scripture encourages us to grow in our personal relationship with Him because of what we know about Him.

  159. @ mot:
    I’m so sorry you experienced that. So much for autonomous congregations, eh? The SBC claims they can’t take a stand against child abuse cover-up, but they most *certainly* take a stand against women preaching. Thank you. I know it hurts.

  160. May wrote:

    Dee and Deb, Have you seen this?
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/Challies_VisualTheology/new-calvinism-timeline.html
    A visual history of the New Calvinism. Very interesting.
    I just love the way it’s a movement that ‘transcends race’ because there is one black member (Anyabwile) on TGC board!!

    That graph must be the greatest example of what I call a Theological Circle **** .ed). I use that term when a group of people discuss, debate, or show their theological view point as a means of attention, proping up one’s self, and self gratification. Notice how they make it seem like New Calvinism took power away from the Emergent Movement, and that John Piper endorsing rap music cased it to “explode in popularity”. I’ve never seen a group of people so into themselves.

  161. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    The SBC claims they can’t take a stand against child abuse cover-up, but they most *certainly* take a stand against women preaching.

    Ironic. This is perhaps the most wicked and contemptible examples of the evils of the SBC’s leadership.

  162. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    As I heard people say in Britain (when I visited a millennia ago ), “Brilliant”.

    A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about all these “You too can have the perfect Christian marriage in just 10 easy steps” books out there. We both agreed that in “normal” circumstances, as you put it, you could see improvement with quite a few of the concepts presented.

    But what about the person married to someone with Borderline Personality Disorder? What about Narcissists? Compulsive Liars? Manipulators? High functioning, Christian looking sociopaths? You need stronger medicine, dare I say supernatural, God powered medicine – adminstered over possibly a lifetime of walking with Christ.

    “10 easy steps” doesn’t work with brilliant, disturbed individuals.

  163. @ Deb:

    That whole shtick is ridiculous. Most of these Neo-Cal pastors don’t “live dangerously.”

    A few years ago I heard Wayne “Coach” Gordon share the story of his journey into ministry in one of Chicago’s most violent and crime-ridden neighborhoods. That is a man who has risked much to love and serve others.

  164. Mr.H wrote:

    Funny, in a tragic sort of way. You skillfully highlighted the absurdity of the Neo-Cal obsessive privileging of facts/knowledge/rules over person/relationship.

    That is something I mentioned either on this blog or at Julie Anne’s.

    I noticed many years ago, when I used to hang out or talk to Calvinist guys on their forums, that even among the ones I liked and considered internet friends, a lot of them are intellectually smug and arrogant. They place a lot of value on higher education and learning.

    There is nothing wrong with education or being intellectual, but many of the Calvinists I have encountered have about turned intellectualism into an idol. They scoff and chortle at people they perceives as not being as intelligent or learned as themselves, John Calvin, or their favorite Calvinist authors.

    They liked to put down IFB KJVOs for being uneducated- hicks- from- the- sticks (which perhaps they are often times, but that’s not the point), but then some of them turn around and embrace something like ‘Bible-only counseling’ and shout down psychology and psychiatry, which is, in my view, anti-intellectual.

  165. @ JeffT:
    What so many people do not realize is such situations that happened to me did not happen 35 years ago when the TAKEOVER began in the Southern Baptist Convention, they are still happening.

    I certainly do not know how many Southern Baptist Ministers there are that do not affirm the BF&M about women preachers but if this information gets into the wrong hands you are done.

    They must guard every word. What a sad way to try and minister.

  166. @ Marie2:

    It was in reponse to what Nick said, and a discussion of Jonathan Edwards and the lack of context that the Neo-Cals have. When your idol’s teaching results in members of your congregation committing suicide, I ask “what redeeming role does such a person play?”

  167. @ TW:

    Mr. Wilhelm…just for that you will be getting a phone call from your local 9 Marks church about rejoining “the local church”. Plus be on the lookout for a book from Mr. Humility on how to be humble. There is so much you can learn from CJ!! 😛

  168. SJReidhead wrote:

    Ergo, I gather I am to be stuck in this single state, a social outcast, even in heaven.

    I have read reviews of Christian books about marriage and singleness, and the reviewers mentioned this sort of expectation with some authors is earthly, too.

    A lot of Christian authors advise adult singles in their books about dating and marriage and so on that their role is to support married Christian couples.

    In yet other books, I have seen interview after interview with adult singles who said they were expected to be the free maid, butler, and baby-sitting service to married couples in their local churches.

    Meanwhile, married couples in churches do not often help adult singles or think them worthy of aid and support, nor do preachers or book authors remind married couples to support and help the adult singles around them.

    I guess getting married is viewed by many Christians as being the equivalent to Moses and gang making it to The Promised Land in the Old Testament.

  169. Eagle wrote:

    @ Marie2:
    It was in reponse to what Nick said, and a discussion of Jonathan Edwards and the lack of context that the Neo-Cals have. When your idol’s teaching results in members of your congregation committing suicide, I ask “what redeeming role does such a person play?”

    I would suggest that God will not lay someone’s decision to take their own life at Jonathan Edwards teaching. That would be another case of “God, it’s his fault that I sinned.” ( Surely taking your own life is a sin.)

  170. raswhiting wrote:

    Look, I don’t agree at all with male supremacy, but you have jumped the shark to see in this Platt statement a call to martyrdom. He is simply urging those who agree with him to live their lives by what they believe. Look at the context in the sentence. “lives” is paired with “marriages”, it means your daily lives, not your death by martyrdom.

    I’m still trying to figure out as a never married person past age 40 how that applies to me.

    I guess I can never, ever reflect God in any way. I need a man to give me identity, purpose and to make myself fully human?

    There are also widows, widowers, and the divorced, those who were once married, but they are single once more.

    I guess they too cannot participate in this gender complementarian stuff of modeling for the world Jesus and God, and God’s relationship to the church, and so on?

  171. @ Daisy:

    I thought they spoke in the plural. As in all women subject to all men in heaven. I don’t even want to think about the possible ramifications of that.

  172. Daisy wrote:

    A lot of Christian authors advise adult singles in their books about dating and marriage and so on that their role is to support married Christian couples.

    This has been covered several times over at Internet Monk. I will answer by cherry-picking their best comments.

    In yet other books, I have seen interview after interview with adult singles who said they were expected to be the free maid, butler, and baby-sitting service to married couples in their local churches.

    Until you get married and all the Singles now have to Serve YOU. This adds additional pressure to marry so THEY Serve YOU instead of YOU having to Serve THEM.

    Meanwhile, married couples in churches do not often help adult singles or think them worthy of aid and support, nor do preachers or book authors remind married couples to support and help the adult singles around them.

    I’ve found through experience that Marrieds do NOT associate with Singles, Period. Either they’re too busy Focusing on Their Families or Singles have Cooties. It’s very rare as a Single to find a Married who will actually associate with you.

    I guess getting married is viewed by many Christians as being the equivalent to Moses and gang making it to The Promised Land in the Old Testament.

    “Then you get married and can sit at the Grown-Ups table with all the other Grown-Ups.”

    Though I always snark that “Married is Christianese for Getting Laid, with all the accompanying desperation and baggage. Popping your cherry means you’re now a grown-up instead of just a kid, only that in the Christianese Bubble you have to have an accompanying ring and ceremony.” Once you look at it that way, all the craziness falls right into place. Christians are just as messed-up as everyone else, just with a different (and often opposite) set of symptoms.

  173. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    ( Surely taking your own life is a sin.)

    This comment is a disgrace.

    Seneca, this is a warning. I have friends and family who have contemplated suicide. Your words are condemning. This stops with this comment. Do it again and you will go on ice for a long time.

    In fact, do me a favor and stay away for a couple of weeks and wise up.

  174. Nancy wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    I thought they spoke in the plural. As in all women subject to all men in heaven. I don’t even want to think about the possible ramifications of that.

    Well, that would fulfill a male porn fantasy — any woman, any time, just because I wanna.

  175. Rafiki wrote:

    Disguising blatant discrimination and trampling people’s dignity with a “separate but equal” framework, all the while falsely flattering women that they are such noble, unique, queenly, gospelly producers of children …

    I’ve felt for some time that the Christian gender complementarian teaching is similar to the once upon a time American support for racial segregation (separate but equal).

    I am awaiting the Christian, gender equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, where Southern Baptist churches will start installing “Men Only” signs by the water fountains and so forth.

    I remember watching old shows from the 1950s and 1960s where a white character would say to a black character, “You’re a credit to your race.” It was meant to be a compliment but sounded so condescending.

    I hear that sort of thing when the gender complementarians assure women that “you are equal in value to God, but you just have different roles, is all.”

    And they hype to the rafters excessive praise on women birthing babies and raising them.

    (Please do not misunderstand me. I am not knocking motherhood, especially for women who make a choice to be a mother. I am talking about the gender complementarian tendency to make motherhood out to be the only worthwhile, biblical, or acceptable role for all women.)

    I can see Neo Calvinist gender complementarian churches and SB churches initiating “Men’s Only” pews, “Men’s Only” coffee shops (in the larger churches that have those). Women need not apply or enter.

  176. dee wrote:

    Seneca, this is a warning. I have friends and family who have contemplated suicide.

    I have a friend who once attempted it.
    And I’ve been close myself a couple times.

    But to someone who’s never been there, it’s Hilarious — “Can’t You Take A Joke?”

    And I remember schoolyard bullies bragging they were going to drive the geeky kid to suicide, Just Because I Can.

  177. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve felt for some time that the Christian gender complementarian teaching is similar to the once upon a time American support for racial segregation (separate but equal).

    Daisy, you are not the only one to notice the parallel.

    And they hype to the rafters excessive praise on women birthing babies and raising them.

    That’s because she’s birthing and raising the Man’s seed. Legacy and Dynasty and His DNA and 200-year-plans and all that.

  178. Marie2 wrote:

    I think I am the one who came across that way.

    No, you didn’t. I found your reply actually quite funny, only my post looked a bit obnoxious when I reread it.

    Thanks for the nice reply.

  179. dee wrote:

    I have friends and family who have contemplated suicide.

    I had an uncle who did. It’s an absolute lack of love, compassion, empathy and all things that make one a Christian to be so disconnected from what it is to be human and the illnesses that befall us to believe that it is a sin. Is getting cancer or leukemia a sin? There is no difference except in the mind of the hard-hearted.

  180. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Eagle wrote:
    @ Marie2:
    It was in reponse to what Nick said, and a discussion of Jonathan Edwards and the lack of context that the Neo-Cals have. When your idol’s teaching results in members of your congregation committing suicide, I ask “what redeeming role does such a person play?”
    I would suggest that God will not lay someone’s decision to take their own life at Jonathan Edwards teaching. That would be another case of “God, it’s his fault that I sinned.” ( Surely taking your own life is a sin.)

    Surely believing in the sovereignty of God to the point where nothing happens outside of God’s providence is laying blame for all that happens on God. This must surely grieve our Father.

    Have you heard of mercy, Seneca?

    I’ve seen your comments on other blogs and they don’t seem to have the same flavor as they do here at TWW. Maybe other blogs don’t post all or most of your comments.

  181. There is another whole reason I don’t believe in their winsome complimentarian ‘gospel’. Surely, if men were meant to ‘lead’ women in this way, then they’d have superior abilities for this. Most of the complementarianism I see looks like women having to pretend they are less than they are so the ‘man’ can feel like he is more than he is. If complywhatsitsism is true why aren’t men stepping up to show themselves as worthy leaders, rather than pushing women down? Why aren’t they obviously ‘over’ these women & worthy to lead them? Then we’d see women as all they are & men as far superior to these complithingys.
    It’s obviously because it’s not true. It’s all a bit Tom Cruise… can’t stand having a taller wife, so she has to wear flats & he has to wear lifts, or stand on things.
    I think some of these guys are still living in the shock of 2 World Wars, coming home to find that in their absence women have filled their shoes in many many areas they were formerly considered incapable of doing. Once that truth was so blatantly displayed I think the game was up, try as they might to conceal it. My Great Aunt Lottie, who was an Anglican Missionary in Shanghai at the turn of the 20th century, came out of retirement during the 2nd World War to run a Munitions Factory… oh no, not another horrendously capable female missionary…

  182. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Eagle wrote:

    @ Marie2:
    It was in reponse to what Nick said, and a discussion of Jonathan Edwards and the lack of context that the Neo-Cals have. When your idol’s teaching results in members of your congregation committing suicide, I ask “what redeeming role does such a person play?”

    I would suggest that God will not lay someone’s decision to take their own life at Jonathan Edwards teaching. That would be another case of “God, it’s his fault that I sinned.” ( Surely taking your own life is a sin.)

    Your compassion knows no beginning Jimmy.

  183. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    They don’t need to.
    Not with the “Bedroom Evangelism” of Quiverfull.

    Oh that’s disturbing and shortsighted. How many will really stay, even if there’s a lot of them?

  184. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    How many will really stay, even if there’s a lot of them?

    I agree wholeheartedly with you….But perhaps another question, an even sadder one, is, how many of these “quivers” will vow to leave the church permanently, and never return? At least that is one of the many sad results of SGM-ville that I have heard about….

  185. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I have a friend who once attempted it.
    And I’ve been close myself a couple times.

    I am so glad that you are here with us. Somehow, blogging would not be the same without your unique commentary style.

    Seneca is now on ice.

  186. @ Mr.H:

    Yep, it's just a facade. Many of these Neo-Cal pastors can't even leave the comfort of their studies to visit congregants in hospitals and nursing homes.

    WHO DO THEY THINK THEY'RE KIDDING?

  187. Invalid_Nate wrote:

    That graph must be the greatest example of what I call a Theological Circle **** .ed). I use that term when a group of people discuss, debate, or show their theological view point as a means of attention, proping up one’s self, and self gratification.

    A nice description of this crowd. And yes, the graph is jaw-droppingly narcissistic and self-congratulatory. The sad thing is they are so blinded by their own brilliance that they don’t see it. I mean, they’re even writing their own history already – rather like ideological despots do.

    The other sad thing is that, distressingly, young men still appear to be lapping up this stuff and merrily attending conferences. I don’t see any evidence of a decline in the movement. It will end eventually, as all movements do, but the damage to the church has been and continues to be immense.

  188. Dee/Deb, thanks for bringing the wackiness to light in such a succinct way. All I can offer by way of encouragement is, “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You!” 🙂

  189. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    A lot of what you said is true there. I’d also add problems and pain.

    If you are a Christian undergoing any kind of problem or pain, many American Christians – in and out of church services – will either blow you off, or hand you platitudes.

    I had a lot of that after the death of someone close to me and all the years I had depression.

    Since visiting blogs similar to this one, I’ve seen Christians who said they went through the same thing with local churches or Christians they knew.

    Churches and American Christian culture prefer Christians who are constantly happy, upbeat, and who have no problems, troubles, or pain in life.

  190. May wrote:

    Dee and Deb, Have you seen this?
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/Challies_VisualTheology/new-calvinism-timeline.html
    A visual history of the New Calvinism. Very interesting.
    I just love the way it’s a movement that ‘transcends race’ because there is one black member (Anyabwile) on TGC board!!

    Wow, just wow. I just read the “timeline.”

    The arrogance, smugness, and self-congratulatory tone is breathtakingly obnoxious. It’s totally cringeworthy. Honestly, are we sure it isn’t a joke?

    And I don’t even know where to start with the inane so-called perspective on “race.”

    Please forgive the use of a crude phrase which I believe may earn me a seat at the TWW Moderation Bar (double Scotch, neat, please – it’s been a long day): what a complete … circle jerk.

  191. Daisy wrote:

    Mr.H wrote:

    Funny, in a tragic sort of way. You skillfully highlighted the absurdity of the Neo-Cal obsessive privileging of facts/knowledge/rules over person/relationship.

    That is something I mentioned either on this blog or at Julie Anne’s.

    I noticed many years ago, when I used to hang out or talk to Calvinist guys on their forums, that even among the ones I liked and considered internet friends, a lot of them are intellectually smug and arrogant. They place a lot of value on higher education and learning…They liked to put down IFB KJVOs for being uneducated- hicks- from- the- sticks .

    And funny, most of the neocals I ran into were ESVOs, or nigh close to it.

  192. @ Invalid_Nate:

    LOL Invalid_Nate, I must have missed your comment as I was scanning the page – I made the exact same conclusion you did and used the exact same (admittedly crude but in this case accurate) descriptor. :O

    Hence I am in moderation which is understandable, but I’ll stand by my use of the descriptor just this once. 🙂

    BTW, and I guess this is a “neener neener nanny nanny boo boo” moment for me to lord it over the routinely moderated, but yours truly has rarely had the experience of being in moderation. No complaints, though.

    The conversation and company is delightful and the barkeep is attentive and efficient, LOL.

  193. @ dee: thank you for doing what needed to be done! The most recent comment that made it through was beyond awful.

  194. srs wrote:

    Dan from Georgia wrote:
    How “big” are these guys really? I’ve been in circles where their words were near gospel and I’ve been in circles where they are pretty unknown. I prefer the latter and am more than willing to let the crazy inmates have the asylum to themselves. (“So-and-so has a Sad about such-and-such doctrine.” Shrugs, moves on…)

    They are big enough to be stealing our young men who feel called to be church rulers. We have to protect our young people from this hype that creeps into our youth and gender segregated ministries. I can hardly believe sometimes the books and curriculum that our church uses sometimes from these kinds of people.

  195. Eagle wrote:

    @ LawProf:

    I would say your analysis is spot on. I was in Campus Crusade during this time, and Crusade pushed John Piper in the upper midwest. He even spoke at the annual Crusade Christmas conference in the Minneapolis TCX event. If you look at his book “Don’t Waste Your Life”, there is a DVD of Piper giving a talk to Crusade in 2003. I actually gave it to Dee. But I knew who Piper was because Crusade pushed him. My accountability partner liked Mark Driscoll and wanted to move from Milwaukee to Seattle to be a part of Mars Hill.

    But Neo-Cals know what Bethlehem Baptist is and for them its the only church in the Twin Cities. I went there once with a friend who used to attend there. That was in 2003, 2004.

    I was there in 2003. Yes, it was very surprising to me that John Piper was this Big Deal thousands of miles away from Bethlehem Baptist when he wasn’t even a Big Deal down the street from Bethlehem Baptist.

    I’ll bet if you polled the general population in the Twin Cities, 80% to 90% would have no name recognition of Mr. Piper whatsoever. That may be to his credit, because unlike Mr. Driscoll and the ironically-named Mr. Noble, he does not seem to cause much of a stink locally, and you don’t hear ugly abuse stories in the TC coming from Beth Bap.

    When I first saw him, I thought “There’s your average harmless milktoast pastor, the doddering uncle type.” But when I got the vibe hearing him speak, seeing him in person, experienced the Piper/Beth Bap thing directly, I came to the conclusion–as did my spouse–that there was something ugly, arrogant, condescending coming off the guy–fairly reeked of it. Just didn’t want anything to do with him thereafter.

    But as far as a TC reputation, there was none I ever heard of. At the time the TC was the home of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn (later moved away), KTIS–the first ever Christian radio station, some prominent Christian colleges and seminaries, mega churches a good sight bigger than Beth Bap, churches with national prominence that sponsor national events.

    There was a lot of stuff going on, and my wife and I were plugged in about as much as we could be, and I never heard John Piper come up in conversation once, not that I can remember.

  196. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    On a less silly note, this sort of stance gets me wondering; do they even want to try to evangelize to outsiders anymore?

    Some SB churches send missionaries out, including females. They will permit women to preach to adult men overseas, but not to American adult males in America.

  197. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
    You’ve written a lot of rude things on this site, but this takes the cake! I know what it’s like to be suicidally depressed and I can tell you from personal experience that your thinking gets extremely scrambled.

    Until you’ve been in the place of psychic pain of those of us who have been there, you really should not say a word more about whether God considers suicide a sin. To reiterate, you don’t know what it’s about and you sure as **** can’t judge.

  198. @ LawProf:

    One of my friends went to Bethel and studied under Greg Boyd. He likes Greg Boyd. John Piper had this pure hatred of Greg Boyd and treid to get him fired from Bethel. Roger Olson has talked about it at his blog as he hired Greg Boyd. The problem of that Piper is pushed in organizations like Cru as if he is teh answer. They have had him speak, push his books, encourage people to read his material, etc… That is why someone like me who lived in SE Wisconsin knew so much about Piper.

    editor deletion

  199. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would suggest that God will not lay someone’s decision to take their own life at Jonathan Edwards teaching.

    Ultimately, it may be that one person’s choice and responsibility, but, someone else could have played a role in it, much like the many teens we hear about today who commit suicide after enduring months of bullying by classmates.

  200. @ Nancy:

    Most of the time the gender complementarians only discuss married women, including their discussions about men and women in Heaven.

    A person commenting on this at Julie Anne’s blog, (the post about gender complementarians teaching that wives will be submissive to husbands in the afterlife), asked ‘what about Elisabeth Elliot, the Christian author lady who was like married one hundred times (her husbands kept dying).’

    To which husband should she submit in the great here-after, husband 1, 2, 3 or ? Or, is she to split time evenly on each guy?

    The Bible says humanity will eventually be elevated above the angels (in that we have only been made slightly lower than the angels temporarily). If this implies angels will serve humanity in the here-after, why would formerly earthly married women have to serve their spouses in heaven? Couldn’t these men ask angels for assistance?

    And how exactly do these men expect and want women to submit in Heaven, do they mean to say they expect the wife to bring them their pipe and slippers and bake them casseroles?

    Jesus said there would be no more marriage in heaven. That means the person you are married to now (if you are married), you will not be married to them in Heaven. The whole thing is moot.

  201. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I’ve found through experience that Marrieds do NOT associate with Singles, Period. Either they’re too busy Focusing on Their Families or Singles have Cooties. It’s very rare as a Single to find a Married who will actually associate with you.

    Another reason is many married people assume all singles are randy, have loose morals, and out to have affairs with their spouses. Which we are not.

    If I had a nickel for every news report I see of married (married!!) preachers getting caught using, or selling, explicit child material, having affairs, visiting prostitutes, and hitting on women not their wives, I’d be filthy rich.

    HUG said,

    “Then you get married and can sit at the Grown-Ups table with all the other Grown-Ups.”

    You know those books reviews I wrote about above? One of them had excerpts from one Christian book for adult singles, and it actually pretty much used that very analogy, sadly.

    It told Christian singles reading the book that married Christian couples get to sit with other marrieds in a fancy banquet hall, they got to sit down at fancy tables with table clothes, china plates, silver ware, etc.

    But being single means you are standing alone in a hall outside at a long buffet table, taking your paper plate along with you, with your plastic spork, and you have to eat standing up.

    You may serve the marrieds by bringing them re-fills of their tea or whatever, but you won’t get to sit at the fancy table yourself until you get married.

    This book was trying to be helpful to singles, but based on the excerpts I saw, it was terribly condescending and made singlehood sound like a second class way of being.

    The message conveyed in books such as that is that you will only arrive and be permitted to sit at the Adult Table when and if you marry.

  202. @ dee:

    I have (had) a Christian friend who did commit suicide – this was about eight, nine years ago. He was a sincere believer in Jesus.

    I had had suicidal thoughts on and off since my childhood when the clinical depression started. I’m not so bad now, but I was a sincere follower of Jesus since I was a kid.

    There is a definite lack of compassion and understanding about mental health struggles by a lot of Christians.

  203. Eagle wrote:

    @ LawProf:

    One of my friends went to Bethel and studied under Greg Boyd. He likes Greg Boyd. John Piper had this pure hatred of Greg Boyd and treid to get him fired from Bethel.

    I knew about Boyd’s (in my opinion) odd view of Open Theism when I lived there (but I still consider him fundamentally orthodox), but I had no notion of Piper’s hatred of him for it. But had I known of it, I, like most evangelicals living in the TC at the time, would have thought “So the flea wishes to challenge the elephant?”

    Bit of an exaggeration perhaps (and honestly I do not value being a Big Thing in Christendom at all, I consider it primarily a dangerous thing), but truly such were the relative Twin Cities reputations of Mr. Piper and Mr. Boyd in my recollection. One can only speculate at the thought process of the powers that be at Bethel as Mr. Piper laid his allegations at their feet: “So, because this creaky, supercilious nonentity doesn’t like our most famous professor–the one who’s the head pastor of the fastest-growing local megachurch, the dynamic lecturer with degrees (with honors) from Yale and Princeton, the one beloved by students and colleagues, the one responsible for much of our national reputation–we’re supposed to fire him? Will someone please show Mr. Piper the door?”

  204. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Oh that’s disturbing and shortsighted. How many will really stay, even if there’s a lot of them?

    As I have pointed out before on older threads, this sort of thinking is no longer limited to Quiverfull groups.

    Guys like Pat Robertson (Christian figure) endorse Christians winning the world for God by marrying and cranking out more babies.
    If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Outbreed ‘Em

    I’ve seen that view espoused or applauded by other mainstream Baptist or evangelicals in their blogs or TV appearances the last few years. They don’t spot the problems with the view.

    Though I am right wing concerning politics myself, I am creeped out by the often times knee-jerk hatred of childless or childfree people (some who are also Christian) I find on right wing political sites by other right wingers, or their assumptions that anyone who is childless or childfree must: 1. hate kids 2. be selfish 3. be pro choice
    4. be a militant atheist and/or hate all Christians

    Jesus taught that people would be won into his kingdom by preaching the Good News to them, not by people who were already in the kingdom getting married and having children.

  205. Keith Phillips wrote:

    Our problem in the modern churches are liberal women like the ones that write this blog who want to bring the “world” in the house of God.

    Behold.
    A man who hates all women and totally misunderstands God and the Bible.
    He also thinks that a few cherry picked verses taken out of context and used as a bludgeoning tool against women is a correct way to read, understand, and use the Bible.

    Psalm 68:11 The Lord gives the command (literally “word”);
    The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host:
    Keep it up ladies.
    You are shaking up evil spiritual abusers like ol’ Keith. He and his screwed up doctrine both need a kick in the pants.

    And, Bye, bye Keith (or whoever you are). Take your poison elsewhere.

  206. @ Eagle:
    I’ll second your idea of the new term “mormonization of Christianity”. I was blind to the similarities until I started spending time in Mormon central. I stand out like a sore thumb out there due to my inability to keep my mouth shut and be sweet. 🙂

  207. Mara wrote:

    Behold. A man who hates all women and totally misunderstands God and the Bible.

    Well, probably, but more to the point, behold a sock-puppet whose comments are not to be taken seriously.

    If, as Dee hinted, (s)he is the same person who’s been commenting here under several different pseudonyms, there’s no evidence regarding whether the person concerned is male or female. His/her posts are not about any kind of engagement, they’re about mischief-making. Rather like a wean who likes pressing doorbells and running away. It is highly unlikely that (s)he cares tuppence about any verses in the Bible, about Mars Hill Ltd, Elevation Church Ltd or anything related. It’s all just for amusement.

  208. Point of historical interest:

    The first recorded instance of interweb trolling is believed to be one in which a scientist started a discussion on a fantasy role-playing forum which he suspected would become heated and which he hoped to encourage as such. Specifically, he posed the question: who would win in a fight between Gandalf and The Emperor From Star Wars? Both (fictitious!) characters soon gained their own camps of supporters and the flame war between these two groups became more and more vitriolic. Which was the whole point of the post. The scientist himself, of course, had absolutely no interest in either Middle-earth or Star Wars.

    Unfortunately, I can no longer find the source where I first read this. In fact, if you google “internet troll gandalf emperor” one of the top 10 posts is the comment on TWW in which I said this last year… oh dear, oh dear. Thus are urban myths born.

  209. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In fact, if you google “internet troll gandalf emperor” one of the top 10 posts is the comment on TWW in which I said this last year… oh dear, oh dear.

    Ok, well, can you add this to your resume: urban myth originator?

    Maybe there is a certification in it, for extra pay?

    Just checking. 🙂

    I think that’s great that you are at least a bit taken aback by this…..Others, like Piper, are surely proud of all of the terms, useless conventions, and “stories told as fact” they have originated…

  210. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Both (fictitious!) characters soon gained their own camps of supporters and the flame war between these two groups became more and more vitriolic. Which was the whole point of the post. The scientist himself, of course, had absolutely no interest in either Middle-earth or Star Wars.

    He just threw a rock into the hornets’ nest and ran?

  211. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Rather like a wean who likes pressing doorbells and running away.

    In SoCal, that’s called “Ding-Dong-Ditch” and was the subject of a Beavis & Butthead episode — B&B were so dumb they forgot the “Ditch” part.

  212. dee wrote:

    PS I am also tiring of their “club” words: audacious, dangerous, etc. They sound like secret agents as opposed to simple pastors.

    James Bond Wanna-bes.

    (Check the “Heathen Critique” blog out sometime — it’s a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction of various works of bad Christianese fiction. Jerry Jenkins of Left Behind fame gets snarked on a regular basis over there. Most of the guy’s stuff reads like BAD James Bond/Tom Clancy fanfic, Utterly Perfect Author Self-Inserts and all. The guy must be Ian Fleming in his own mind.)

  213. dee wrote:

    I believe that it is his support of CJ Mahaney that has rallied the troops. Many of these so called leaders do what Piper does. Is any one out there putting the brakes on and thinking about what he is really saying? Or is it knee jerk “Whatever Piper says, Piper’s right.”

    The Party is Never Wrong.
    Ees Party Line, Comrade.

  214. @ Marie2:

    Thing is, I definitely remember reading this somewhere other than an interweb forum. It may have been wikipedia, whence it may have been removed as discredited, of course.

  215. JeffT wrote:
    <blockquoteWee Johnny Piper runs through the town
    Uptown, downtown in his night gown
    Rapping at the windows, crying through the dell
    Are the women all submissive, or else you’ll go to hell

    LOL!

  216. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Thing is, I definitely remember reading this somewhere other than an interweb forum.

    I hear you on this….I have checked and checked, because I am super curious…Maybe it is something that is only “hidden in books”, so to speak, in terms of perhaps it has been documented somewhere in a book. Haha.

    I have had many a librarian lecture me to not believe everything I read on the Internet. On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of factoids out there to explore…

    Here is hoping that someone pipes up with a source for you…I believe you…

  217. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would suggest that God will not lay someone’s decision to take their own life at Jonathan Edwards teaching. That would be another case of “God, it’s his fault that I sinned.” ( Surely taking your own life is a sin.)

    Two things.

    1) ““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” – Matthew 18:6-7 NKJV

    2) I know, from personal experience, that suicide is not necessarily a sin (the intent of the heart in it would be the factor). There are far worse things that are an affront to love and life than choosing, in a moment (or longer) of severe mental distress, to take the only exit you can see. Is it the best? No. Is it what God prefers? Certainly not. Is it a ‘mortal’ sin? Absolutely not.

    This attitude is at the heart of spiritual abuse. Leaders – preachers – not taking responsibility for the affect their words and actions have on the people they have set themselves over. Per the above quote from Jesus, those who are responsible for contributing to the stumbling/falling of a child of God will have to answer for it one way or another. That is a very sobering thing and should give anyone who thinks they want to be ‘in charge’ of God’s people reason to pause and consider….

  218. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    He just threw a rock into the hornets’ nest and ran?

    That’s what they do. Trolls usually don’t care about the topic under debate itself, they will take either side just to cause a ruckus.

    They only like to stir up arguments and fights. There are other types of trolls, but that is one of the original types. I used to have run-ins with trolls at several different discussion boards where I was a moderator (years ago).

    Though I heard the history of trolling a little different from Nick.

    I heard some of the first trolls would do things like join Cat lover of cat pet owner news groups and post recipes for cat meat dishes, etc. Political and religious forums were really popular to troll, and some go to fandoms to troll fans of celebrities.

    Some trolls are just silly. One of the earliest ones I read about was some guy who would go to – I forget the forum or news group – but he would type his posts as though he was that cat puppet character from Mr. Rogers Neighbor kid’s television show, meaning, his sentences were filled with the word “Meow.” As in, “I meow know! I was meowing that meow, meow funny!”

    The internet occasionally brings out the weirdos.

  219. Dee and Deb,

    It has been quite some time since I have participated on these forums, and I am hesitant to post anything now, but I feel the need to share the following for the sake of clarity and context.

    I have stated on here before that I have a lot of respect for David Platt and the church he pastors in Birmingham. I know many people personally who do not and many of you on this forum do not care for him. That is ok, but I would like to share my perspective.

    I agree with raswhiting and say that I do NOT think Platt meant that we need to “martyr” our lives for Comp doctrine. Rather, I think the context shows he is saying we need to “defend” Comp doctrine with our lives by living it out THROUGH our marriages, NOT by sacrificing our lives for it.

    Deb, you said this earlier:

    “Sorry, but Platt is a sensationalist trying to rally the troops. And ‘complementarianism’ is the most important tenet of this crowd.”

    A sensationalist of what? If you are saying he is a sensationalist for Evangelism, for people to OBEY God when he calls people to the far corners of the Earth where the unreached people groups are…then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. And yes, if being a “troop” means sharing Christ to this world, then I want to be part of that.

    Maybe I am missing something, but when did it become wrong-taboo, to be courageous enough to follow what God has called us to do, even if it means that we will not be safe? (That was a big point in “Radical”) Maybe I am missing something, but isn’t Platt saying Jesus is worth the risk we should take in following Him, even if following him means losing everything? (Another point in Radical)

    You say that complementarianism is the most important tenet of this crowd…I just don’t see this with Platt. Platt adheres to comp doctrine, preaches it, and considers it important to the way (in his view) God designed marriage to be, but I do not see this being his MOST important tenet…Nope..Not at all.

    To prove my point—I went and listened to his sermon he preached at Southern Seminary. I read the article y’all posted, but I wanted to actually hear what the sermon was about. Sure enough, he only spends a little over 5 minutes talking about Comp marriage.

    He says this:

    “Let’s defend sexual comp with God’s word. Let’s defend sexual comp with our lives and our marriages through pictures of husbands as heads and wives as helpers loving authority glad submission in the context of beautiful relationships and let’s do this for the sake of the gospel in the world”

    (Maybe I am missing something again, but is he not saying we should defend comp with our lives and marriages THROUGH what the husband and wife does? Again, I don’t see martydom here..)

    And he says this:

    “Today’s cultural climate presents a huge opportunity for gospel witnesses. Spiritual darkness engulfs the picture of marriage in our culture. Spiritual light will shine all the brighter in a picture of a husband who lays down his life for his wife and a wife who joyfully follows her husband’s loving leadership. God’s design for marriage is far more breathtaking and satisfying than anything we can create on our own.”

    Yes–He teaches comp doctrine (which ironically my wife and I do not follow–we are more Egalitarian), but then he spends the next 10-15 minutes talking about this:

    “We work for justice in the world as we speak about the justice of God in the world”

    His topics to discuss…Christians working to end poverty and horrendous things like sex trafficking in the world. Then he talks about the unreached people groups of the world.

    Among all of this, his sermon also discusses the problems relating to abortion, sexual immorality, etc. My point, he does not spend 50 minutes harping on Complementarianism. No. He spends 50 minutes describing a multitude of things that I believe you would find a hard time NOT finding in scripture.

    Do I agree with his stance on marriage? No, not exactly. But I think he has a right to teach this based on what he interprets from scripture. Just like any of us have the right to teach what we interpret.

    Platt may cross the line at times by turning comp doctrine into a bigger issue than it is (I still don’t see him making as big of a deal as other pastors), but I still appreciate the fact that he calls Christians to recognize the importance of reaching the lost, standing up for injustice in our world, and most importantly–He actually practices what he preaches. (As you ladies have written about before).

    His rhetoric is radical, but when the context of his rhetoric is calling people to wake up from a slumber of comfort and actually DO something with our faith…I am thankful for pastors like Platt.

  220. dee wrote:

    @ dee:
    PS I am also tiring of their “club” words: audacious, dangerous, etc. They sound like secret agents as opposed to simple pastors.

    Don’t forget “renegade”.

  221. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    Also, it became clear to me that with the idea there would be subordination in heaven that there’s one sin which has not and will not ever be forgiven. And that’s the sin of Eve. Adam’s sin can be forgiven, but Eve’s will hang over women forever.

    Hon, they don’t believe that this has anything to do with Eve’s sin. They believe (as Calvin believed) that women were created from the very beginning as inferior. One of the things I remember well from research for a paper I wrote, comparing and contrasting Calvin and Luther, in my first year of seminary at Duke.
    And one of the reasons for my thorough dislike of Calvin (and a sneaking liking for Luther, who learned how to love from Katie von Bora!)

  222. Fair post, I don’t really know much about the guy so I abstain from addressing his beliefs/words. Speaking personally, and maybe this isn’t fair (I keep working through this in my mind…), but people who have cast their lot with the neo-cal group (I’m not saying all neo-cals) that has rallied around, and even promoted CJ, have lost a fair amount of credibility in my eyes and have become lightening rods. Again, maybe it’s something I need to repent of (judging them), just saying how it is from my POV. All that to say, I respect many of the things you mentioned about platt.

    Seeker wrote:

    Please refer to Seeker’s linked comment.

    Request: If you agree with someone’s comment, please just link to it via the name of the person. When we get a lengthy comment, it gets a bit overwhelming when it is copied again. Its fine if it is a paragraph but many paragraphs is too much. Most readers do not read lengthy comments.

  223. David Platt has never allowed a woman in his pulpit. He has stated publicly that he respects the role of a woman, and a woman is better than a man…. At being a woman.

    I respect his view and also happen to agree with him. It is not politically correct. But you can look at the downfall of our nation…it all started with women preachers.

  224. @ Daisy:
    But to drive it they need to put the seat up where the little ladies put it, so to speak, and that can be very demeaning. Better to have a driver paid by the church, doncha know.

  225. Seeker wrote:

    let’s do this for the sake of the gospel in the world”

    The gospel is not dependent on a certain view of marriage. The gospel is revealed in our weakness and Christ’s sacrifice. It is not dependent on great marriages. If it was, we would be in deep trouble because we have a 50% divorce rate.

    I also contend that there have been few, if any, people in this world who have come to the gospel due to some sort of imagined “clear” view of complementarian marriage as demonstrated by the husband as the “Father” and the wife as “the submitted Son.”

    Platt, along with every other complementarian, is unable to define in any clear terms what this sort of marriage looks like. And then he clams it must be accomplished “for the sake of the gospel.” This is rhetoric, words without clear meaning.

    Sake of the gospel? Good night!

  226. I really have been unable to take Strachan seriously in anyway since his screed against Sesame Street. What did Sesame Street do that was so blasphemous in his view? Apparently, one of their muppet characters who is gendered male was shown playing with a doll, and according to Strachan’s theology, it’s a sin for a male puppet to play with a doll… or something weird and twisted like that.

  227. @ Seeker:
    Although I disagree with you on this one ( really do think Platt is waaaay over the top), I did write this about him.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/09/09/david-platt-and-francis-chan-two-calvinistas-i-could-grow-to-love/

    However, Platt also stretched things about his time in Dubai-that caused me to begin to question him a bit.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/10/30/my-my-dubai-9-marks-played-hardball-while-lifeway-david-platt-stretched-the-truth/

  228. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I have heard this story as well. I believe the “guy behind the curtain” told me about it. I would have loved to watch that one play out.

  229. Daisy wrote:

    I have (had) a Christian friend who did commit suicide – this was about eight, nine years ago. He was a sincere believer in Jesus.
    I had had suicidal thoughts on and off since my childhood when the clinical depression started. I’m not so bad now, but I was a sincere follower of Jesus since I was a kid.
    There is a definite lack of compassion and understanding about mental health struggles by a lot of Christians.

    It is so interesting that this topic of depression came up today. I did a speech today about people with with depression who have inspired me over the last 40 years since i was diagnosed.

    And re: being submissive in heaven? If i wouldn’t do it now, why in the world would I do it in heaven?

  230. Andrew,

    I hear you on this one. I too am bothered by Platt’s silence on this matter. I have not written him off over it, but I do wonder/question why he would remain completely silent.

    Is he silent to be protective of Mahaney? Possibly…I think it could also be because these things are still in the realm of “allegations”…and he is afraid to break the silence on an allegation issue of cover up.

    Either way, I think he is wrong here. I feel he should speak up on this issue–mainly because there are plenty of red flags that should result in a statement or two by the neo-cals. I still see a lot of credibility in other things he stands upon/does.

    Dee,

    I agree the gospel is not dependent on a certain view of marriage. His whole sermon was not just about marriage, but other ways we live for the “sake of the Gospel” such as standing up for injustice in the world, flee sexual immorality, etc.

    I don’t think fleeing sexual immorality alone or feeding the poor will necessarily bring people to the point of embracing the Gospel–but I do think it brings credibility to the world to show we love/live like Jesus. I think Platt’s understanding of complementarian marriage is to ultimately love each other the way God intended in our marriages, which points to the love of Christ-which ultimately points to the Good News of Christ… (At least that is what I think is his understanding).

    As far as being practical in what that means, he didn’t say in this sermon. He DID say that a husband should lay his life down for his wife and a wife joyfully follows her husband’s leadership. That’s about as practical as he got.

    Again, I don’t agree with his position on marriage, but I DO agree that if my wife and I are loving in our marriage, we remain faithful to each other, we serve one another, then we will represent Christ IN our marriage. I would hope that the love my wife and I demonstrate to each other will ultimately give us an opportunity to point others to Jesus who saved us. (We love/sacrifice for each other like this because Jesus love/sacrificed for us). I contend (much like Platt) that a loving marriage is not the only “good fruit” that should come out of our faith for the sake of the Gospel–many other things should come too.

    I read the piece on Platt and Chan before–and I appreciated you highlighting some things that they have done.

    Will have to go back and read the article on Dubai later when I have time to process all of it—If it involves Lifeway, I am not suprised… Lifeway’s marketing tactics are incredibly shameless at times. Although Platt’s books are channeled through Lifeway, I am not so sure he would have direct influence over their marketing schemes. Of course, I have no earthly idea how that works. He could have been the main one to draft the statement surrounding the simulcast. If so, it was definitely misleading, and takes away from the central message his book “Follow Me” was trying to convey.

  231. Daniel barrick wrote:

    David Platt has never allowed a woman in his pulpit. He has stated publicly that he respects the role of a woman, and a woman is better than a man…. At being a woman.
    I respect his view and also happen to agree with him. It is not politically correct. But you can look at the downfall of our nation…it all started with women preachers.

    LOL!!! Male preachers are such “MEN OF GAWD”, and they never mislead others…

  232. David Platt makes a living with words. I believe he meant what he said and he honestly does think that complementarianism is part of the Gospel.

    I’m not sure which is the worse heresy among these comps: the Eternal Subordination of the Son or needing to defend sexual complementarity (whaaa?) with our lives. I’m going to go with the latter as being at least original, as ESS is just a tiresome old retread of Arianism.

    Not that I have any say about heresy these days since I’m outside the fold, but I did want to note the sheer novelty of Platt’s argument.

  233. @ dee:

    Don’t forget the Jerry Falwell Tinky Winky purse tiff. That was similar. It brought me a few laughs back when it happened.

    Tinky Winky controversy

    [Falwell] warned parents that Tinky Winky could be a covert homosexual symbol.

    …. Ken Viselman of Itsy-Bitsy Entertainment, who distributed the show in the USA, commented, “He’s [Tinky Winky] not gay. He’s not straight. He’s just a character in a children’s series.”

  234. nmgirl wrote:

    It is so interesting that this topic of depression came up today. I did a speech today about people with with depression who have inspired me over the last 40 years since i was diagnosed.

    You have probably already heard it or seen it, but the Warrens have been in the news a lot this past week. Their church has been doing a series of conferences or something about mental health.

    I know a lot of Christians do not like Warren’s theology, but I think he and his wife are correct about mental health, that Christians need to step up more and stop shaming Christians who have depression or something.

    Rick Warren: Churches Must Do More to Address Mental Illness

  235. “As far as being practical in what that means, he didn’t say in this sermon. He DID say that a husband should lay his life down for his wife and a wife joyfully follows her husband’s leadership. That’s about as practical as he got.”

    So either the husband is already dead in a comp marriage or he is not doing his bit. Or does this mean that the husband lays down his life first and then his wife follows him?

    After getting a divorce from an comp ex who was addicted to violence, I married a man who had never heard of complemntarianism. Its like heaven. There is no comparison.

  236. Daniel barrick wrote:

    David Platt has never allowed a woman in his pulpit. He has stated publicly that he respects the role of a woman, and a woman is better than a man…. At being a woman.
    I respect his view and also happen to agree with him. It is not politically correct. But you can look at the downfall of our nation…it all started with women preachers.

    Not to go too far down the road of philosophies of gender and sex, but what exactly is “being a woman”? Is it having a body that has the biological capacities of the female sex? Does it include some base level “maternal instinct”? Does it require physical weakness and diminutiveness? Does it mean being bad at reading maps? Does it mean being able to do a perfect winged eyeliner? Does it require squealing at the sight of a mouse or spider? What’s the list of required attributes of being a woman (or of being a man)?

  237. I lived in Birmingham, many moons ago. The imbedded culture has looked at men’s and women’s roles in a more defined way than in other places I’ve lived. But make no mistake about it, those women are running the show.

    The more a woman claims she’s submissive to her husband, the more accomplished she is at manipulation behind the scenes. I’d love to document this, it would be so easy.

    Or there was the using of a husband’s “leadership” to tell someone that she could not attend some function “because my husband doesn’t want me to go.” In reality, she either told her husband to say that, or she manipulated him to say it so she could blame him instead of owning her own decisions. Saw this too many times to count.

  238. One more observation:

    When men try to point out that women are not as smart or wise as men, given to their emotions and gullible, they can come up with many examples to try and prove their point. But the truth is that many girls are raised to do little, stunting their growth in areas, thereby making it easier to come up with such examples.

    I believe that being a wife, mother, and homemaker can be wonderful! I also believe that choosing to work can be wonderful, too. Either route a woman chooses, there will always be some areas that are well developed and some areas that are lacking. We just can’t do it all. But when the culture, or belief system, calls for women to be subservient, the women tend to be underdeveloped in some glaring areas. The men then interpret that as the women being weaker, less wise, more gullible, etc…

  239. Katie wrote:

    But when the culture, or belief system, calls for women to be subservient, the women tend to be underdeveloped in some glaring areas. The men then interpret that as the women being weaker, less wise, more gullible, etc…

    Exactly. The fundamentalists who see women as the weaker vessel (and let’s face it, the CBMW crowd are all fundamentalists, just more modern-looking than the typical IFB crowd) do everything in their power to keep it that way.

    And most women of comparable education (or even with a lot less education) can run rings around their arguments – so they have every reason.

    As the Austrian writer Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (1830-1916) said:

    “An intelligent woman has millions of born enemies – all the stupid men.”

  240. Interesting arguments from both sides. I give these unanswered questions to God, Human beings can’t be pigeon-holed. We put each other into pegs without knowing each other’s stories. I know women who work on cars and men who can’t. In fact I would trust some women in changing oil in a car more than I would men. And this has nothing of do with feminism. It has always been the case. Now as far as Pipers argument that women who prophecy in the Bible have a more more fallible revelation because they are women? This is ridiculous because the source of that prophecy is one Source Who is infallible. In the Bible it is written God can use whoever and whatever He pleases to proclaim His Word, even stones. My question is Who is the Potter and who is the clay? My understanding is that God created man, both male and female, and that man was created in Gods own image. Now there are certain traits that are sex specific. Men have traditionally been leaders while women have reared children. Part of this is in our genes, but this doesn’t mean that men can’t nurture and raise children and women can’t be effective leaders. People can’t be pigeon holed.

  241. Women being weaker vessel arguments have been made for centuries. There was a time when it was questioned by theologians if women have souls because they are weaker vessels. A weaker vessel argument doesn’t hold water now any more than it did in the Middle Ages. God doesn’t create a defective product. I question if some of these radical complementarian arguments are based on misogyny and cultural influences as much as Scripture.

  242. Yes, Leonard the Troll, that wasn’t even close to being plausible. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Leonard Watson:
    @ Daniel barrick:

    Are these the same person with different names, or are they just blogging in the same basement?

    Either way, they’re obviously just ‘avin a larf. And that, too, is a statistical fact.

    The same teenage kid (or pack of them), egging each other on. This one from Leonard the Obvious Troll is my favorite, actually funny.

  243. @ Leonard Watson:

    I held onto my wife’s hand because I knew this woman would not be after me she would be after my wife. … 75% of the women in ministry are lesbians. That is a statistical fact!

    You’re a hoot, sir. Bravo.

    On a sadder note, I did once have a Calvary Chapel friend seriously claim that I should be ready to get hit on a lot as a church organist because of “all those lesbian ministers” in liberal mainline churches. I LOLed so hard.

  244. @ mot:

    We’ve never met, of course, so I can do no better than educated guesswork here. But I’d be surprised if you were actually bitter (in the sense of, the culpable withholding of forgiveness out of an unrequited desire to punish).

    Lesley and I were effectively thrown empty-handed out of a church setting into which we’d both invested 8 years of our lives. When we invest so much in something and then lose it, it really is a loss. You can’t just “get over it” as though it didn’t matter, especially when the loss has not been replaced.

    If I may cite a scripture (not to wag a patronising finger at you as though you had never read it, but to explain myself): In Psalm 55, David writes/sings at length about the pain of loss and, moreover, of betrayal. At one point he declares:

    As for me, I shall call upon God, and the Lord will save me. Evening and morning and at noon, I will complain and murmur, and He will hear my voice. He will redeem my soul in peace…

    “Complaining” is something that, apparently, God can cope with better than the prevailing culture of the western church can. There is an especially perfidious meme circulating in english-speaking Christendom these days. The notion is that anyone who entertains any kind of negative feelings about anything that has happened to him is being sinful, selfish and infantile; he has no real problems, he’s just a spoilt brat wanting everything his own way. Anyone who mourns is just thinking about himself, and he needs to think of others instead. And so on.

    These books are written by people who have not suffered the things they rebuke their readers over. Either that or, having now been comforted, they have forgotten what it was like when they were mourning. If I understand Jesus aright, he has never forgotten what it is to be acquainted with grief (as the saying goes), which is why he is fit to be High Priest.

    A lot of words there, I suppose, but for what it’s worth: If you tell me that the loss of 38 years’ work is hard to deal with, then I think more, not less, of you for it.

  245. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Er… would either Deebs or GBTC be so kind as to insert a [/blockquote] at the end of “He will redeem my soul in peace” in that post? I seem to have forgotten the forward-slash…

    Thanks… (red-faced graphic)

  246. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Nick:

    Thanks so much for the very kind words. I feel I have forgiven the folks who helped bring an end to my ministry, but it is an everyday effort.

    You and others really are helping me as yesterday is the first day that I opened up about my situation.

  247. Katie wrote:

    I believe that being a wife, mother, and homemaker can be wonderful! I also believe that choosing to work can be wonderful, too. Either route a woman chooses, there will always be some areas that are well developed and some areas that are lacking. We just can’t do it all.

    Katie, I love what you say in your comments. If I had the space I would be saying “yes” to this and “yes” to that. But what you say here seems to imply that women must choose between work and motherhood. In my life I did both, rather in the public eye, and with a significant degree of success. The worst opposition and ugliness I faced was from other women who thought that women should not do both. But I had grown up at a time and in a culture when women “did it all” basically all the time. So I just thought that those saying that it could not be done were just (not saying word leading to moderation) or else held a belief system which was destructive and perhaps even evil in its attitude toward women.

    History is replete with times and societies in which there were other expectations of women and other behaviors from women than what we see today in the US, and especially what we see in the southern US and most especially in what we see in calvinist evangelicalism. The most recent of those times, for the whole nation, was during WWII. And the most recent from a subculture standpoint would be the Irish catholic women of my childhood who had large families and were also out and making it happen in whatever way they could. ( My own grandmother was similar to this, except for being baptist.) And today we have the ongoing example of first generation immigrant women who continue to do this, some with even a poor fluency in English. To say “can’t” is not a statement which can be shown to be true. Now to say “should not” might be a religious statement, and that is entirely a different thing which would have to be defended on religious grounds alone.

    Sometimes this “can not / should not” is used by the more affluent women to be one more way to put down the less affluent women in the never ending snotty games that women play. Notice that some of the women who declare their inability to function effectively and simultaneously in both worlds also have hired household help who somehow are able to do both. What is wrong with this picture? It is caste and class in the US. And it is ( another omitted word). And, yes, for those who want to see racism in almost everything, there is an element of “racism” here especially if you include the intermediate skin color of the new immigrant women.

    Katie, you did not say this, but I want to include it in my statement here. One is not “chosen” by being white and upper middle class and fertile.

  248. Daniel barrick wrote:

    But you can look at the downfall of our nation…it all started with women preachers.

    Behold.
    Another man who hates women and doesn’t understand the Bible. The world seems full of them.

    AFA women preachers, listen up lil’ Daniel:

    Fact: Women Preachers have been alive, well, and active since the beginning of this nation.

    (I know, Nick, just another wean who rings the bell and runs. Still, why would he do it if he liked women, actually understood the Bible and had a grasp on American history?)

  249. Leonard Watson wrote:

    I knew this woman would not be after me she would be after my wife.

    I know I’m feeding the troll but I can’t resist it: Leonard, I think I can confidently say that most STRAIGHT women would prefer your wife to you. I know I would.

  250. @ Leonard Watson:

    There is at least one place here (a rather large Presby church) in with the look that you describe is thought to mean that one is “authentic” or something, especially the jeans (and if they are tight enough to facilitate the growth of fungus). And at the local SBC mega that look was significantly gaining ground among the young married-with-kids. Except, of course there had to be a blond pony tail at the baptist place.

    But. Leonard, if you are actually afraid that your wife could not or would not efficiently and with ease handel some misdirected sexual advance from either a lesbian female or a heterosexual male then you do indeed have something to worry about. I thought all of us learned how to do that by about age, oh, 11 or 12. You might want to look at your own situation at home and see why you think she might be susceptible to someone else’s sexual advances.

  251. @ Nancy:

    It’s absolutely a classist thing, used to justify mistreating poor women who must morally defective because theyare unfeminine and unnatural mothers, etc. These people are either appallingly ignorant or appallingly stupid. Most women in most places at all times have had to engage in econmically productive work beyond caring for their own homes and families. This includes upper class women in the premodern period. In addition to managing their family estates, they often spenyt time waiting on women further up the chain – as in actually physically serving, feeding, and dressing them and helping with the housekeeping and estate management. They were compensated for this in various ways.

    The post Victorian ideal of woman is a recent and mostly unnattainable invention.

  252. Correction: it is a false that medieval theologians questioned if women had souls. But it is a fact misogyny exists.

  253. Leonard Watson wrote:

    I’m sick and tired of coming to church and looking at women who act like men and look like men. This past Sunday, we had a lady come in, wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt and real short hair. I held onto my wife’s hand because I knew this woman would not be after me she would be after my wife. All of this is happening because of the feminist movement, and it has polluted the church. 75% of the women in ministry are lesbians. That is a statistical fact!

    Hiya, troll! Looks like the earlier troll has a brother. Or a clone. Or multiple personalities. 🙂

  254. dee wrote:

    @ LawProf:
    Fascinating. I, too, have never particularly enjoyed Piper’s preaching style. For a long time, I thought it was a genetic defect or something. Now, I know that I just don’t agree with him on many occasions.

    I don’t know, Dee. I think there is something “off” IRT Piper. My husband and I were introduced to Piper in 2009 or so and enjoyed what he had to say on Twitter/Facebook and such. It quickly went downhill, though, when the rare occasions of my husband texting me “Did you see what Piper put on Facebook? WTheck is he saying?” and my nervous jokes of “I think Piper is smoking something” became rather common. We both declared the guy a nut and haven’t taken him seriously since.

  255. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I believe he meant what he said and he honestly does think that complementarianism is part of the Gospel.

    I, too, agree with you. I do believe that Platt is far better than some. He lives a simple life and gives much of his church’s money to missions. But, his view on women appears to be little different than Mark Driscoll’s view. And that is concerning.

  256. Marie2 wrote:

    Albuquerque Blue wrote:
    How many will really stay, even if there’s a lot of them?
    I agree wholeheartedly with you….But perhaps another question, an even sadder one, is, how many of these “quivers” will vow to leave the church permanently, and never return? At least that is one of the many sad results of SGM-ville that I have heard about….

    Marie2 – I am the oldest of nine and began to be homeschooled in the 80’s when it was hard to do so (think threats from officials and the like). My parents, though never involved in ATI and such, were heavily influence by Howard Phillips and Mary Pride and all of the things that came along with those folks. Thankfully, my parents threw away many of those ideas when I was a teen. However, here I am, with my own “quiver” and I am this close to leaving the church. It is hard to grow up one way, and hear Calvinist theology the majority of your life, to discover that you do not agree with what you were raised to believe. It throws you for a loop.

    I honestly believe many of the children in the homeschool/quiverfull movement will leave. It is a toxic environment to be in.

  257. Mark wrote:

    Correction: it is a false that medieval theologians questioned if women had souls. But it is a fact misogyny exists.

    Only loosely on topic, but it’s also a myth that medieval folk believed the world to be flat.

  258. Leonard Watson is a troll. (S)He has been responsible for a number of disgusting comment under various names. He slipped through because I did not do due diligence and enter in a number of factors that would have identified him as a repeater. I have since done that. I apologize.

    Imagine spending your life trolling. (S)he must be one sad individual.

  259. @ Win:
    Welcome to TWW.
    These guys are playing a game that is a mix of Candy Land and Dungeons and Dragons. They make all sorts of chivalrous statements about “laying down their lives” for their wives. Isn’t that nice?

    Except in the real world, if has little to do with slaying dragons to the death. It has to do with who makes the decisions from day to day: money, children, etc. That is where real life resides and that is where these guys who think they are patriarchs screw up.

    For many marriages, it ends up in “I make the decisions and you make the brownies. See. we both have equal worth roles.”

  260. Katie wrote:

    The more a woman claims she’s submissive to her husband, the more accomplished she is at manipulation behind the scenes. I’d love to document this, it would be so easy.
    Or there was the using of a husband’s “leadership” to tell someone that she could not attend some function “because my husband doesn’t want me to go.”

    You’ve got it. i see it here in Raleigh as well. The other one I like is this. When a guy is getting all sorts of accolades and things are going well for him it is “I did it. Thank you.” When things are going poorly, suddenly, they mention their wives.

    Look at the latest Driscoll statement when he “retired from social media.” It was Grace who really want me to to do this. Yep-Grace again. They drag in the wives when things are going poorly. Cowards all!

  261. dee wrote:

    I did not do due diligence

    Thirty-three certified thistle-sifters successfully threshed six thirsty thistles.

    And all because they failed to do due diligence.

  262. In other news, I fear Dr Fundystan and I will be at sporting loggerheads this weekend when Liverpool visit West Ham. Only one team can realistically emerge happy from the encounter, since a draw would keep the Hammers ticking over steadily enough but would be a big blow to our title hopes.

  263. Oh, goody, another list of what biblical womanhood is. And, as usual, the only part that couldn’t alsp be said about manhood is submission to one’s husband and not being a pastor. Why bother with the rest. Genders are different! Really. It’s just that the only difference is that women are supposed to submit because genders are different because. . . .

  264. @ LawProf:
    Funny thing, around the time of the Act Like Men conference, we were getting emails from guys asking us for tickets to the event. Can you imagine these “men” who were acting like “7th grade girls?” It made the two of us laugh since they obviously had no idea that the joke was on them.

  265. @ Mark:
    Although it did not enter into any theological treatise or council, there appears to be some evidence that idea was bandied about by a few. However, by promoting that Eve was the one who first sinned and therefore women are gullible has caused as much harm throughout the ages.

  266. Beakerj wrote:

    I know I’m feeding the troll but I can’t resist it: Leonard, I think I can confidently say that most STRAIGHT women would prefer your wife to you. I know I would.

    Comment of the week!

  267. @ dee:

    I get the impression, from observation only, that certain women are more than willing to cut this deal with their husbands and the church in order to avoid the horror of “having to work” and in order to have the time “for the children” as in pool, soccer, lunches with the girls, social book club out of town trips, shopping and more shopping, an excuse for intellectual laziness, time in the tanning bed, repeated cosmetic surgery, endless phone time, and so on. I do not get the idea that everybody who lives with one of the male offenders in this matter are necessarily dragged into it unwilling and blindfolded. I think they are paid well for their part in the bargain. Check out the cars in the parking lot.

    And, I think that these people probably constitute a significant proportion of the financial support of the church ( hint hint).

    Are there those who are ideologues and who suffer for the cause? Certainly. But it is that other crowd that seem to frequent the local SBC mega.

  268. @ burntnorton:
    Here we go round the Mulberry Bush, the Mulberry Bush, the Mulberry Bush…

    Don’t they have such dizzying intellects? It’s like where do you get on, and how can hop off lol

  269. We don’t need church fathers to tell us women folk our place. Just read some Aristotle like they did and liked his philosophy better than Jesus and Paul’s.

  270. For anyone here who believes in ESS could you please steer me to the verses that actually say that Jesus obeys the Father and for that matter can anyone point out verses that say that Jesus obeyed the Father when He walked the earth in His human form. This discussion has inspired me to look for them just like I had to look for verses that actually tell men to lead, rule or be head of their wives.
    Thanks

  271. dee wrote:

    For many marriages, it ends up in “I make the decisions and you make the brownies. See. we both have equal worth roles.”

    Dee, isn’t that the truth? In fact, in a dictionary, that would be an apt definition!

  272. @ Mark:
    Good points. Also, if complementarians are so keen at going back to the Garden in order to till up their notions of gender hierarchy, I would point out that God created everything with an ever increasing level of sophistication. But of course we biblical Egalitarians don’t rub that in the faces of Complementarians who think too highly of themselves and their manly interpretations. We believe in equality not hierarchy.

  273. Katie wrote:

    ut when the culture, or belief system, calls for women to be subservient, the women tend to be underdeveloped in some glaring areas. The men then interpret that as the women being weaker, less wise, more gullible, etc…

    I skimmed over a web page by a gender complementarian a couple of weeks ago. I can’t remember the site or who it was by, but there were the most curious comments in it by the male who wrote it.

    He was coaching Christian men to be leaders and the usual rigmarole, but some of his comments about Christian women bothered me. On this page, he scolded Christian women for being too passive, and he had similar complaints.

    Christian gender complementarianism advises or rewards Christian girls and women for being really passive, coy, unassertive, but then some of these male gender comps turn around and blame and criticize women for being too passive, coy, and unassertive! You can’t win in their system no matter what you do.

  274. Daisy wrote:

    He was coaching Christian men to be leaders and the usual rigmarole, but some of his comments about Christian women bothered me. On this page, he scolded Christian women for being too passive, and he had similar complaints.

    Ugh! Which is it, fellas? Do you want us passive or not? Assertive or not? We already know you want us ultra-modest but not (sex-kittens in the bedroom, yes?).

  275. Hester wrote:

    On a sadder note, I did once have a Calvary Chapel friend seriously claim that I should be ready to get hit on a lot as a church organist because of “all those lesbian ministers” in liberal mainline churches. I LOLed so hard.

    There are a lot of straight, married male preachers who hit on women in their congregations.

  276. @ Patti:

    Start with the article on arianism in wikipedia. It has a lot of information as well as some primary scripture references and covers the subsequent debates well, in my opinion, but I am not a church historian or a theologian.

    But If you are going to be either for it or against it you are right in my ball park when you say “show me.” There has been far too little argumentation on the part of the ESS people aimed at the general public. If they want to convince me they will have to show me also.

  277. @ Daisy:

    It is not just the gender comps. It is men in general. Mostly they don’t know what they want, and mostly they take what they can get. Just like women.

  278. Leonard must belong to the same sect that tried to shame the 8 yr old for not being ‘feminine’ enough. Gotta luv those “True Christians”.

  279. dee wrote:

    Look at the latest Driscoll statement when he “retired from social media.” It was Grace who really want me to to do this. Yep-Grace again. They drag in the wives when things are going poorly. Cowards all!

    I linked to this on an old thread, but this was so funny parts of it bears repeating (by Jeff Breakfast, doing a parody of Driscoll):
    All Apologies

    … To reset my life, I will not be on social media for at least the remainder of the year. … I will also be doing much less travel and speaking in the next season.

    … To be clear, these are decisions I have come to with our Senior Pastor Jesus Christ. I do want to publicly pat my wife on the head for presenting this idea to me that wouldn’t have taken shape unless I agreed to it. As an anniversary present, I want to give her more of her best friend— the guy in the comfy chair asking when dinner is ready.

  280. @ burntnorton:

    LOL, that list actually mentions single women. I notice that page was published March 2014. Maybe all the posts I’ve written about how gender complementarians has gotten through to some of them?

    But that is just a drop in the bucket… for every mention of unmarried women by gender comps (mentions that are not advising the single woman on how to get married, or insisting that she should marry), I can toss you about 100 million pages by them about how a married woman is supposed to behave.

    But, as is typical about singles, they (on the page you linked to) only attempt to define singles as how they can “serve more” and “do more for God.”

    The needs and challenges of adult singles are almost never addressed.

    Singles are just lectured to do more stuff for married couples and churches, and to stay chaste! (Depending on what group you’re reading. Some are pretty lax about sexual purity for adult singles).

  281. Daisy wrote:

    about how gender complementarians has gotten

    I meant,
    “about how gender complementarians usually ignore singles has gotten… “

  282. @ Patti:
    Good question.

    I say the scripture an astounding occurrence in which God took initiative to redeem fallen man. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” In full agreement and complete unity, the Trinity was temporary disrupted and Jesus was bestowed after He voluntarily humbled Himself and TOOK ON the form of a servant.

    During His time on earth, described as Jesus’ ministry, He was obedient to the Mission which without flaw He accomplished. The goal of course was our redemption and reconciliation, and to make it all possible for the Holy Spirit to come and the church to be birthed on the Day of Pentecost.

    There is nothing to suggest Jesus remains in an eternally subordinated condition. He ascended and all authority in heaven and earth was granted to Him. His Name is above all Names.

    I don’t know what proponents of ESS don’t see that Jesus went on a Mission Trip. We were his mission field. His self-sacrifice remains a model of ministry for us all. But it was something he did voluntarily, and the fact that it happened and that He didn’t consider His equality with God something to be grasped but chose instead to save us is AMAZING.

    It seems to me people who believe in ESS relate to Jesus as though He’s still locked in time and space. And I think the Father/Son terminology throws them for a loop.

    Anyway, just my two cents.

  283. dee wrote:

    @ Win:
    Welcome to TWW.
    These guys are playing a game that is a mix of Candy Land and Dungeons and Dragons. They make all sorts of chivalrous statements about “laying down their lives” for their wives. Isn’t that nice?

    Except in the real world, if has little to do with slaying dragons to the death. It has to do with who makes the decisions from day to day: money, children, etc. That is where real life resides and that is where these guys who think they are patriarchs screw up.

    For many marriages, it ends up in “I make the decisions and you make the brownies. See. we both have equal worth roles.”

    There’s a fellow here locally, a patriarch (a very patriarchal one, by the way) who I had the extreme displeasure of encountering at that cultic church I’ve told TWW about that was led by two former SGM leaders, one of whom was him; I’ve referred to him elsewhere as The Enforcer. Anyway, his Stockholm Syndrome wife once told my Strong Willed “Jezebel” wife “My husband is so good, he makes all decisions for me” (according to my incredulous wife this extended to everything: menus, when she was allowed out of the house, all financial, all child-rearing, all everything–essentially she was treated like a small child).

    Now to the point: in addition to being a domineering husband, he was also into showy displays of “chivalry”, and he has taught his five young sons, some of whom are teens, to do likewise. They speak and facebook excessively about being true gentlemen, knights in shining armor, they would with great flourish lay coat in puddle before lady. They’ve managed to convince a few of the teenage girls around, the sheltered types, of their great goodness. The interesting thing is this goodness does not prevent them from being full scale bullies, they refer to teenage girls (who do not acknowledge their goodness) with amazingly vile terms, they mock and ridicule small children, same for grown adults. They do this in ways that tend to run under the radar, however. If any of you are old enough to remember, it’s something like Eddie Haskell (with a demonic bent) from the old Leave It To Beaver show.

  284. No More Perfect wrote:

    We already know you want us ultra-modest but not (sex-kittens in the bedroom, yes?).

    I think I’ve mentioned that before on this blog.

    A lot of Christian teaching on the topic tells women to be real modest in clothing attire (cue the usual “lest you cause a brother to stumble”), but Christians also tell married women to look hotty totty for their man, and they tell single ladies, if you want a man, you must look pleasing and hotty totty.

    So, on the one hand, according to a lot of Christians, I’m supposed to be modest so that a guy doesn’t stumble, but on the other, I must also look sexy- stunning at the same time to get a man’s affection or attention. It’s a very mixed message.

  285. @ Nancy:

    I read some books that touched on some of these topics, and that is true. Some men think they know what they want, but when they get it, they find it’s not so appealing.

    A couple of the books I had talked about male clients who admitted to behaving like selfish, sexist swine because they liked toying with women and being in control.

    But, these therapists said, after years of this, these men said they realized they don’t want it after all… they are bored and lonely in the relationship, having all the power and control over the woman they are dating or married to. They say they want a woman to stand up to them and not be their doormat. They say they want a true equal, not silly putty they can squish around however they please.

    I also mentioned a Sci Fi movie that discussed this issue on an older thread. It is called Cherry 2000.

    The guy in that movie thinks he wants the perfect woman (who is a robot – literally), but after it breaks down, and he has to spend time with a real women (who sometimes argues with him and gives him a hard time), he falls in love with the real woman and decides he doesn’t want the robot replacement after all.

  286. Paula wrote:

    @ Patti:
    Good question.

    I say the scripture an astounding occurrence in which God took initiative to redeem fallen man. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” In full agreement and complete unity, the Trinity was temporary disrupted and Jesus was bestowed after He voluntarily humbled Himself and TOOK ON the form of a servant.

    During His time on earth, described as Jesus’ ministry, He was obedient to the Mission which without flaw He accomplished. The goal of course was our redemption and reconciliation, and to make it all possible for the Holy Spirit to come and the church to be birthed on the Day of Pentecost.

    There is nothing to suggest Jesus remains in an eternally subordinated condition. He ascended and all authority in heaven and earth was granted to Him. His Name is above all Names.

    I don’t know what proponents of ESS don’t see that Jesus went on a Mission Trip. We were his mission field. His self-sacrifice remains a model of ministry for us all. But it was something he did voluntarily, and the fact that it happened and that He didn’t consider His equality with God something to be grasped but chose instead to save us is AMAZING.

    It seems to me people who believe in ESS relate to Jesus as though He’s still locked in time and space. And I think the Father/Son terminology throws them for a loop.

    Anyway, just my two cents.

    Wow this is good stuff, Paula! (and to think I learned this insight from a WOMAN!) One of the main halmarks of a cult or cultic attitudes in an otherwise orthodox church is the subordination, diminishment, reduction of Jesus. Happens every time, ESS just another manifestation thereof.

  287. Patti wrote:

    For anyone here who believes in ESS could you please steer me to the verses that actually say that Jesus obeys the Father and for that matter can anyone point out verses that say that Jesus obeyed the Father when He walked the earth in His human form.

    I don’t think you can ask this, and then discount the obedient unto death verses in advance!

    Luke 22:42; 1 Cor 11:3.

    I don’t have any great opinion on ESS off the top of my head, but assuming for the sake of argument it is true, IF this in any sense is reflected in human relationships, surely rather than husband and wife it would be seen in the relationship between an adult son and his father. This would likely be seen in a deference and respect of the son towards his father, both of whom otherwise would be viewed as equal adults.

    I don’t think ESS supports complementarianism, but I also don’t think a biblically accurate doctrine of the trinity should be sacrificed on the altar of egalitarianism either. Which is a good way to win friends and influence people in a thread like this!

  288. The reasons a weak, insecure man would support this kind of nonsense are not hard to imagine–what floors me is that any woman with a lick of self-esteem would go along with it. Is making them the King of the House the only way to motivate men to be invested in their marriage and family? What a sad statement on manhood.

  289. @ burntnorton:

    So much disturbing double-talk in that list of 12 Marvelous Lies to Tell Yourself Whilst Living Your Life Subjugated Under Your Hubby/Pastor’s Boot.

    The section on “Education” is so telling:

    “that women as created in God’s image not only can learn but should learn and have access to literacy, skills training, and vocational instruction”

    Why isn’t “higher education” listed? Appalling.

  290. burntnorton wrote:

    And O forgot the link. Here it is http://www.biblicalwoman.com/2014/03/27/the-biblical-woman-statement/

    I will never understand where they get this from ” We believe that marriage was created by God as a covenant between one man and one woman for the purpose of communicating the relationship between God Himself and His people. . . ”

    Where do we find that marriage was created to show the relationship between God and His people? We see numerous times that God talked in terms of marriage in order to illustrate the relationship between God and Israel, but it is never said that the whole reason for marriage was for this reason?

  291. S@ dee:

    Just listen to the first 8 minutes of the video that Win linked to and you’ll see how important Platt thinks the “right perspective” of manhood and womanhood is.

    It amazes and frustrates me that these guys have turned the first few chapters of Genesis into a proof for complementarianism. I don’t believe that this is what the intent of those chapters were at all.

  292. Hester wrote:

    On a sadder note, I did once have a Calvary Chapel friend seriously claim that I should be ready to get hit on a lot as a church organist because of “all those lesbian ministers” in liberal mainline churches. I LOLed so hard.

    Well, on the other hand, you probably don’t have to worry too much about the male organists hitting on you…

    Father, forgive me for I have stereotyped… again. 😮

  293. @ Daisy:
    I will never understand treating singles like some alien species. Everyone was single at some point. I for one had a full adult life prior to marriage and would have even if I hadn’t gotten married.

  294. @ No More Perfect:

    If the symbolic nature of marriage is so important, I wonder why Jesus did not cite this when He discussed marriage and divorce. It is not like He was silent on the subject of marriage. But he does not seem to have been aware of the immense importance of the symbolism between marriage on the one hand and His own relationship with His Father on the other hand. There does not seem to be one word, either, about dominance and submission in His discussion of marriage and divorce. But He does seem to talk about biology. What on earth? Well, maybe He just did not know, you think?

  295. @ Nancy:

    Or, why didn’t Jesus show us the importance of marriage in displaying the Biblical Gospel to the world by getting married himself?

  296. Bridget wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    Or, why didn’t Jesus show us the importance of marriage in displaying the Biblical Gospel to the world by getting married himself?

    Exactly! Boom!

  297. Nancy wrote:

    @ No More Perfect:
    If the symbolic nature of marriage is so important, I wonder why Jesus did not cite this when He discussed marriage and divorce. It is not like He was silent on the subject of marriage. But he does not seem to have been aware of the immense importance of the symbolism between marriage on the one hand and His own relationship with His Father on the other hand. There does not seem to be one word, either, about dominance and submission in His discussion of marriage and divorce. But He does seem to talk about biology. What on earth? Well, maybe He just did not know, you think?

    I am starting to think that these people may not really understand Who Jesus is and why He is so important! It seems to me that the life of a Christian would be so much fuller if one strove to be like Jesus and less like the people who claim to speak for Him.

  298. @ Daisy:

    I have handled some of those cases, where it went beyond ogling and making little comments to actual sexually related contact. My role was working to protect the church, which generally requires firing the pastor, sending him to therapy at church expense, and providing counseling support for the woman involved. In some places, it is a crime (Texas, if they have a counseling or employment relationship, but not generally if he has not “counseled” her, which is a matter of what she is willing to say about how the relationship began).

    The churches always have a large percentage of the attenders who want to castigate the woman (if identified) and forgive the “repentant” pastor and restore him to the pulpit that he defiled. The only thing that sways some of that group is that were it to happen again, the civil liability of the church would not be covered by their insurance (previous event having voided that part) and they might as well deed the church property to the victim.

  299. No More Perfect wrote:

    I will never understand where they get this from ” We believe that marriage was created by God as a covenant between one man and one woman for the purpose of communicating the relationship between God Himself and His people. . . ”

    Cue gag reflex every. freaking. time. I hear someone prattling on about “marriage is a picture” blah blah blah BLEAH.

    Then again, maybe it IS true. I mean, based on the disaster that was my parent’s marriage I guess the “biblical” relationship that is “reflected” through marriage that I’m familiar with is, oh, I dunno, in Judges 4 when Jael drove the tent stake through Sisera’s skull.

  300. @ No More Perfect:

    Also, I have heard them say that there was no way Jesus could cover everything and that people weren’t ready for all the info and that’s why He had to go and send the Holy Spirit to speak through Paul and Peter to tell everyone those greater things that He wanted to tell them but that the weren’t ready for.

    That is how they use this verse.

    John 16:12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

    This is how they account for Jesus not addressing it. They say that compism is (one of) the truth that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into and that’s why we should place the (comp approved) writings of Paul to individual churches on the same level of importance as everything that came out of the mouth of Jesus. But then, there are other things the Paul wrote that they want to relegate to the culture of the day. And yes, the Comps are lords and keepers over which things we take as gospel and which things we take as for that time.

  301. @ Rafiki:
    I think what they *do* cover is pretty appalling, as it sounds like a 4th or 5th grade level of literacy/overall learning at the outside. Just enough reading, spelling and math to be able to cover the basics of housekeeping (that has to be the primary skill they’re thinking of), not anything like enough to be a fully-functioning human being. Especially not one who has learned critical thinking!

  302. @ Mara:

    They do practice that inconsistency. And then there is a huge industry (I mean that literally) in theologians disagreeing with each other, and historians disagreeing about what was in fact the culture of the day (I have been reading N T Wright) and church historians juggling who said what early on. I bet if the bulk of these folks went out of business there would be a noticeable hit to the economy. Some bookseller sent me, I assume by mistake, the religious academic catalog of their stuff. It was staggering. Huge amount of stuff. There is money to be had down these paths.

  303. Ken wrote:

    surely rather than husband and wife it would be seen in the relationship between an adult son and his father. This would likely be seen in a deference and respect of the son towards his father, both of whom otherwise would be viewed as equal adults.

    …I don’t think ESS supports complementarianism, but I also don’t think a biblically accurate doctrine of the trinity should be sacrificed on the altar of egalitarianism either.

    Are you saying “equal but different” here? Because we shouldn’t forget that Jesus made Himself “a little lower” for a while. Heb. 2:9 It was not a permanent subservient position but a temporary sacrifice for a specific purpose. He is, after all, God. He said when we see Him, we see the Father. John 14:9

    It’s the perfect example of total unity, equality, and purpose.

  304. Finally, the troll filter is doing its job after I did mine. 1 comment not approved. Troll:pound dirt!

  305. No More Perfect wrote:

    BTDT- I actually signed that way back when.

    I signed a lot of things in the past that I regret, too. I naively thought I was doing it “for the Lord.” Instead, they’ve almost destroyed my walk with the Lord. Thankfully, there are people shining a light on the craziness.

  306. @ Daisy:

    There are a lot of straight, married male preachers who hit on women in their congregations.

    True. It also didn’t seem to occur to her how completely creepy it would be for a 50+yo pastor (of either gender) to be hitting on the 23yo organist.

  307. @ Ken:

    I don’t think ESS supports complementarianism, but I also don’t think a biblically accurate doctrine of the trinity should be sacrificed on the altar of egalitarianism either.

    True. I don’t think the Trinity is pertinent to gender at all. The metaphor for marriage is Christ and the church and I don’t think either “side” should go beyond that, however they end up interpreting Ephesians 5.

  308. @ Josh:

    Well, on the other hand, you probably don’t have to worry too much about the male organists hitting on you…

    Yes, you are stereotyping again because all the male organists I know are straight (most of them married w/kids). 😉

  309. Addendum @ Josh:

    I’ve actually found myself wanting a shirt that says “My boyfriend is an organ” because the amount of time I spend practicing is probably more than I would be spending with a real live significant other if I had one… 🙂 Ah the joys/travails of working toward an AGO degree equivalency.

  310. dee wrote:

    @ Seeker:
    Although I disagree with you on his characterization of the gospel© of complementarianism, let me throw you a bone.

    http://bcaskins.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/contrasting-elephant-rooms-james-macdonald-mark-driscoll-t-d-jakes-and-david-platt/

    How weird, I just watched the elephant Room with MacDonald, Driscoll and Platt just this morning.

    It wasn’t a debate at all. It was a tackle by a couple of offensive linemen (and yes, offensive had a double meaning here).

    I take issue with complementarianism, and I truth stretching is dangerous for all of us. But dang, the contrast between MacDriscoll and Platt was amazing.

    Interesting side note: I’m obsessed with studying body language. James MacDonald exhibited anxiety the *second* it was mentioned that David Platt’s father was a financial auditor. Didn’t stop physically displaying until they were past that subject.

  311. Dee,

    Thanks for the link.. Platt has flaws and I think his teaching on Comp Doctrine are part of those flaws. I am going to listen to his series on biblical manhood and womanhood that someone linked above to try to get a better grasp on his position on marriage—never listened to his whole series.

    My wife and I functionally come away with an egalitarian marriage, although I myself have a hard time understanding the context behind some things said in scripture. Even in light of the cultural differences of the ancient world.. Some points seem to point in the direction that comps teach—Although I find it hard to believe if Comp’s truly live out what they teach or are practically egalitarian in their relationships..

    In spite of his flaws, I have great respect for Platt’s position on the Great Commission and justice for the poor/least of these. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit worked through Platt’s teachings to restore a passion in me for the unreached/least of these/poor around the world. And with the link you posted, he has certainly experienced his critics for practicing what he preached in his life and church.

  312. Kristen Rosser wrote:

    This whole idea that marriage is a picture of the gospel is built on a misreading of Ephesians 5 and sets a dangerous precedent for husbands to be equated with God. Here’s a guest post I did for Rachel Held Evans that details the problem:
    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church
    I will quote from it briefly:
    ”Are Christian wives really supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Is marriage a place where a man and a woman illustrate divinity (the man) relating to humanity (the woman)? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture– they are often frankly disgusted.”

    Of course they are. Christ was the one who showed obedience unto the cross. Christ was the suffering servant. That is the picture the husband should be emulating. What does the good Shepard do?
    I don’t recognize Christ in how they say a husband should act.

  313. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Incidentally, I’d never heard of Constance Keene before I found that FaceTube clip; but I quite like her approach to the Preludes. It sounds as though she had quite small hands, but she made an interesting feature of this.

  314. Who Knew? wrote:

    The reasons a weak, insecure man would support this kind of nonsense are not hard to imagine–what floors me is that any woman with a lick of self-esteem would go along with it. Is making them the King of the House the only way to motivate men to be invested in their marriage and family? What a sad statement on manhood.

    The world is full of people who want simple answers to life and for others to make the “hard” decisions. It’s easy to get from this position to allowing someone else to run your life.

  315. More from the Male Superiority Wacky Factory reported by ABP:

    http://www.abpnews.com/faith/theology/item/28519-seminary-website-lists-aspects-of-biblical-womanhood#.Uz1u9_ldWSr

    Not to be outdone by SBTS and Al “No Penis, No Pulpit” Mohler, and SEBTS and Paige “Stained Glass Graven Image” Patterson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary joined in the campaign to convince women that slavery to a husband is good thing, by establishing a new website “Biblical Woman” at

    http://www.biblicalwoman.com/

    In case you don’t get what a “biblical woman” is, the main page is helpful by posting a picture of a woman in the kitchen with a stack of folded towels and an iron. What you can’t see are the chains attached to her legs confining her to that life.

    It sure seems obvious that there is a concerted public effort by those of the fragile male ego set subjugate women to rescue their ‘manhood’.

  316. @ JeffT:

    Also note that Dorothy Patterson and Mary Mohler both have cushy teaching jobs at their husbands’ seminaries under the Wife of Big Shot (WoBS) exception to the CBMW rules.

  317. @ NC Now:

    The desire for simple answers is definitely a factor, but I also think many people are attracted to these movements because they fundamentally can’t accept that many lifestyle choices are morally neutral or morally equivalent to their apparent opposites. A commrnter on another blogs discussion of Gotthards antiadoption teaching finally asked straight out why, if God views adoption as just as valid as biological child bearing, a family should have bological rather than adopted children. He was clearly deeply uncomfortable with the idea that it should be left up to the individuals involved to decide what was best for them. The very idea that God didn’t have strong opinions on everything was anathema to him. It seems like an exhausting way to go through life, but I guess some people are getting something out of it.

  318. JeffT wrote:

    More from the Male Superiority Wacky Factory reported by ABP:
    http://www.abpnews.com/faith/theology/item/28519-seminary-website-lists-aspects-of-biblical-womanhood#.Uz1u9_ldWSr
    Not to be outdone by SBTS and Al “No Penis, No Pulpit” Mohler, and SEBTS and Paige “Stained Glass Graven Image” Patterson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary joined in the campaign to convince women that slavery to a husband is good thing, by establishing a new website “Biblical Woman” at
    http://www.biblicalwoman.com/
    In case you don’t get what a “biblical woman” is, the main page is helpful by posting a picture of a woman in the kitchen with a stack of folded towels and an iron. What you can’t see are the chains attached to her legs confining her to that life.
    It sure seems obvious that there is a concerted public effort by those of the fragile male ego set subjugate women to rescue their ‘manhood’.

    Ah, and how helpful that it has tips on how to keep me thin and beautiful healthy. http://www.biblicalwoman.com/tag/health/ Because we all know that true gospelly wives make sure they defy biology and keep themselves looking the same as they did when they were 19.

  319. Oops, “thin and beautiful” was supposed to be done with a strike-through. One of these days I’ll remember how to properly code words when I need to!

  320. @ JeffT:

    I saw a great picture/drawing of one of those stepford type women doing housework in heels and coiffed hair and an huge smile. Something from the 40s or 50s. She was cleaning the bathroom in an ad for this or that cleanser. The caption read: ” A spotless bathroom is the sign of a wasted life.”

  321. I have news for Platt: any gospel that stands or falls on defending complementarianism is a very weak gospel indeed.

    And as for the idea that egalitarianism is a new construct, I recommend Laura Martin’s post from earlier this week showing it has been around a long time, and used to be endorsed by such evangelical institutions as Moody Bible Institute.

  322. JeffT wrote:

    It sure seems obvious that there is a concerted public effort by those of the fragile male ego set subjugate women to rescue their ‘manhood’.

    I know I harp on this, but I just cannot blame it all on the men. Of course, male aggression is going to try to be top dog everywhere-on the job, with each other, at home, on the battlefield or sports field. This is one way the species profits from maleness. Somebody had to hunt the mammoths and tigers. But think about this. If there were no females on the planet who were willing to cower and “submit” in the comp understanding of that, would all the men throw up their hands and just swear off women? Would they say “that’s it, I never will get within three feet of another woman again as long as I live?” Would the species go extinct over this? Nah. There would be new prophets arise with a new “word from the Lord” telling the guys to go for it. It would be amazing what the new prophets would find in the bible to back that up.

  323. Nancy wrote:

    But think about this. If there were no females on the planet who were willing to cower and “submit” in the comp understanding of that, would all the men throw up their hands and just swear off women?

    Like that’s ever gonna happen.
    There are American men who have sworn off American woman and have gone the mail order bride route because American women don’t know their place. But those nice, submissive Asian women do.

    You could say the same thing about porn. There will always be vulnerable women (girls) who will get trapped in that system. And it is even less respectable than comp/patriarchy.

    (was going to say porn was more sick and vile than compism, then I remembered patriarchy and domestic discipline and had to rethink that.)

  324. No More Perfect wrote:

    Because we all know that true gospelly wives make sure they defy biology and keep themselves looking the same as they did when they were 19.

    What a sad state of affairs. Lesley looks much better than she did at 19, a feat achieved simply by living.

  325. Mara wrote:

    There are American men who have sworn off American woman and have gone the mail order bride route because American women don’t know their place. But those nice, submissive Asian women do.

    Here is an interesting tidbit from our “china collection” of odds and ends which my daughter picked up on one of her trips to China to adopt her girls. A Chinese saying is that the good life consists of Chinese food, American money and a Japanese wife (because the are believed to be submissive.) What does that tell you about Chinese women? And did you know that some of the most successful church planters in the Chinese underground house church movement are women evangelists? Got that from that missiology book I was talking about a couple of weeks ago. And then I read in some online regular news source not too long ago that some Japanese men are giving up on marriage partly, according to the story, because Japanese women are giving up on the submissive thing too much. Be interesting to see how that turns out.

  326. @ Ken:

    And thank you to others for answering my question.

    Ken, the Luke verse is the closest I could find also to support the subordination of Jesus to the Father. The Corinthians passage doesn’t support it all in my interpretation, that one is about a whole
    ‘nother matter.

    I can only find a direct verse that Jesus as a human child was subject to his human parents. Jesus was obedient to the plan and in step and in the will of the Father but I cannot find direct verses saying that Christ was obedient to God or the Father other than that. I can be in complete agreement with and in the will of and being willing to do the will of my husband and actually do his will without being subject to him or under his authority. Why is that so clear to me but so contradictory to ESSers and comps.

  327. @ Nancy:
    It was an eye opener for me to read that Katherine Bushnell actually witnessed the Chinese Bible translators purposely mistranslate scripture to keep their Christian women subjugated.

  328. Had this link been posted on TWW before? I *loved* this article. I’m neither reformed in my beliefs nor am I complementarian, but I really enjoy reading Carl Trueman. His writing strikes me as Presbyterian Church meets Monty Python. Love his British wit…

    Anyway, I think someone over at TGC wrote a response, but I haven’t gotten around to reading that yet.

    Trueman just nails the ludicrous levels this argument had risen to.

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

  329. One last observation:

    Trueman’s post above was writer *after* he attended T4G 2012, where one of the breakout sessions discussed how complementarianism was essential to the gospel.

    So no, Trueman hasn’t taken a stand on Mahaney, totally disappointing. But yes, he has taken a stand on this gender role madness, not to mention taking on the celebrity pastor culture.

    I think there are some in that Reformed camp that, while certainly like myself are far from perfect, let me take a much needed breath knowing that God is still moving in people’s hearts, however far from the goal we may still be.

  330. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    No More Perfect wrote:
    Because we all know that true gospelly wives make sure they defy biology and keep themselves looking the same as they did when they were 19.
    What a sad state of affairs. Lesley looks much better than she did at 19, a feat achieved simply by living.

    My husband says the same of me, in re: to what you say of your own wife. I choose to believe him and drown out the voices in evangelicalism and the secular world that tell me otherwise.

    Thanks God for good husbands!

  331. LawProf wrote:

    One of the main halmarks of a cult or cultic attitudes in an otherwise orthodox church is the subordination, diminishment, reduction of Jesus.

    Amen to that. I have seen it in individuals, too, who “seem” so orthodox, until they spit out some utterly alien thought. And when I try to trace it back, I find that the person always–always–downplayed Jesus Christ.
    This is a big danger signal.

  332. No More Perfect wrote:

    Thanks God for good husbands!

    A point often missed by comp preachers is that the church is not a simpering, infantile plaything. To pull out just a few familiar scrippies:

    As the Father sent me, so I send you…

    and

    … what I have, I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazarteth: Walk!

    and

    Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

    If a preacher believes he is elevated and special, but his only real ability is in crafting a fine (“anointed”) lecture, then he will naturally infantilise the rest of the church, so that their role is to sit at his feet on a Sunday morning and do his bidding. They must be less than him, in other words. In that culture, you can understand how a man’s pride can become so inflated that he comes to believe the church depends on a few like him. If “his” church is a helpless dependant, it’s not a big step to believing that a woman too is a helpless (but “equal”!!!) dependant.

    Thank God for the thousands of faithful, un-famous, unsung preachers around the world who understand that Jesus regards his bride rather differently.

  333. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If “his” church is a helpless dependant, it’s not a big step to believing that a woman too is a helpless (but “equal”!!!) dependant.

    And it is not a big step to believing, if the analogy of Christ and the church holds, that Jesus is an egomaniacal tyrant in relation to the church. Thus, the enemy has an attack on both women and Christ.

  334. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Thank God for the thousands of faithful, un-famous, unsung preachers around the world who understand that Jesus regards his bride rather differently.

    Amen! And since we have a running list of things to thank our Creator for, I’ll add to it: iPads that keep my kiddoes concentrated on Kung Fu Panda while we huddle down in our laundry room while tornadoes pass us by. Hope everyone else in the US affected by last night’s storm is okay!

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If a preacher believes he is elevated and special, but his only real ability is in crafting a fine (“anointed”) lecture, then he will naturally infantilise the rest of the church, so that their role is to sit at his feet on a Sunday morning and do his bidding. They must be less than him, in other words. In that culture, you can understand how a man’s pride can become so inflated that he comes to believe the church depends on a few like him. If “his” church is a helpless dependant, it’s not a big step to believing that a woman too is a helpless (but “equal”!!!) dependant.

    Ah, and this is really the crux of tyrannical preaching, isn’t it? Elevation of one’s self in order to belittle everyone else. Power feeds on making others small and insignificant. And when those in your care are deemed of no importance, then the conscience doesn’t sound so loud when accusations of abuse, and of children, no less, are heard.

  335. Victorious wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    Er – no, I’ve no idea where “Nazarteth” is… oops.
    …about 70 miles north of Bethleharm…

    Snort!

  336. It’s been a while since I have commented here but I would like to respond. I find it dismaying that the complementarian voices speak of the truth of Christ only in the context of gender roles within marriage. I am aware that marriage is HUGE within Christendom because Jesus describes the church as his bride thus marriage seems to be quite symbolic for a myriad of reasons. (For this reason, I think it would be difficult to describe homosexual marriage as a legitimate form of Christian marriage but, that may be something to speak of in another post.) However, in the 1st century and the years that followed people were being martyred in truly unspeakable ways because they would not bow down to an earthly power proclaiming said power to be “Lord.” In other words, they were proclaiming that Jesus was in fact God and they knew that because after he was killed he got back up a few days later and walked, ate, and talked with lots and lots of people. No one as far as I have ever read was martyred because he or she proclaimed that the man was the head of the household. In fact in the 1st century Roman Empire world, the notion that the man was anything other than in control would have been laughable. Maybe you might have been murdered if you said that you and your wife had equal say in all matters. (Who knows) However, fast forward to today and I bet there are a few Muslim women out there who have some really nice stories of how they were abused due to not “submitting” properly.

  337. Pingback: David Platt Lets Complementarian Doctrine Trump The Gospel | Tim's Blog – Just One Train Wreck After Another

  338. Robin wrote:

    It’s been a while since I have commented here but I would like to respond. I find it dismaying that the complementarian voices speak of the truth of Christ only in the context of gender roles within marriage. I am aware that marriage is HUGE within Christendom because Jesus describes the church as his bride thus marriage seems to be quite symbolic for a myriad of reasons. (For this reason, I think it would be difficult to describe homosexual marriage as a legitimate form of Christian marriage but, that may be something to speak of in another post.) However, in the 1st century and the years that followed people were being martyred in truly unspeakable ways because they would not bow down to an earthly power proclaiming said power to be “Lord.” In other words, they were proclaiming that Jesus was in fact God and they knew that because after he was killed he got back up a few days later and walked, ate, and talked with lots and lots of people. No one as far as I have ever read was martyred because he or she proclaimed that the man was the head of the household. In fact in the 1st century Roman Empire world, the notion that the man was anything other than in control would have been laughable. Maybe you might have been murdered if you said that you and your wife had equal say in all matters. (Who knows) However, fast forward to today and I bet there are a few Muslim women out there who have some really nice stories of how they were abused due to not “submitting” properly.

    A.M.E.N!!!

  339. Nancy wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    If “his” church is a helpless dependant, it’s not a big step to believing that a woman too is a helpless (but “equal”!!!) dependant.

    And it is not a big step to believing, if the analogy of Christ and the church holds, that Jesus is an egomaniacal tyrant in relation to the church.

    “HE WILL RULE WITH A ROD OF IRON!!!!!”
    — Seventies radio preacher ranting about the rule of Christ in “the Millennial Kingdom”

  340. No More Perfect wrote:

    Because we all know that true gospelly wives make sure they defy biology and keep themselves looking the same as they did when they were 19.

    Didn’t Voddie Beaucham go on record as saying that wives get Old and that’s why God gives a man daughters?