Is Complementarianism Really Surging?

"Fast forward to 2015.  CBMW is, by God's grace, going strong."

Owen Strachan

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=74363&picture=silhouette-woman-and-manSilhouette Woman and Man

Next month marks the 28th anniversary of a clandestine meeting that took place in Danvers, Massachusetts.  It was at this gathering that the term 'complementarian' came into being.  And, as most of you know, the document that resulted has come to be known as the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  The organization that birthed the Danvers Statement is known as the Council on Blblical Manhood and Womanhood.   

Several months ago Patheos published an article entitled Why Complementarianism is Surging: Introducing the 2016 CBMW T4G Pre-Conference, written by CBMW president and editor-in-chief Owen Strachan.  Strachan begins the article as follows (see screen shot below):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/09/why-complementarianism-is-surging-introducing-the-2016-cbmw-t4g-pre-conference/#disqus_thread

Is CBMW really going as strong as Strachan claims?  One indication should be their financial statements, which are submitted to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).  According to the ECFA website, CBMW has received a steady increase in donations over the last several years.  In 2012 revenue was around $100,000 with expenses slightly outweighing revenue.  In 2014 CBMW's total revenue was just over $262,000 with expenses amounting to approximately $187,600.

Sounds pretty good until we take a look at CBMW's rival – Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).  According to CBE's member profile on the ECFA website, their total revenue last year was approximately $829,000, with expenses totalling around $704,000.  In 2012 CBE's revenue was around $750,000.  On the eve of the annual gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society, we find this comparison between CBMW and CBE interesting since each group will have a booth at the ETS event in Atlanta.

Since Strachan claims complementarianism is surging, who is promoting CBMW?  Of course, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tops the list since it provides CBMW's housing.  The other Southern Baptist seminaries also promote CBMW, as do Southern Baptist churches that strictly adhere to the BFM2000.  Then there's the Presbyterian Church of America.  

And lest we forget, there's the 'family' of Sovereign Grace Churches, which recently featured Owen Strachan at their Pastors Conference.  He did a breakout session on the topic Strengthening our Complementarian Convictions.  In recent years C.J. Mahaney has been absent from the speaker line-up of the SGC Pastors Conference, but this year he was back in the saddle.  His message — Sustained in Suffering by the Saga of Job — appears to be a compilation of messages he preached at Sovereign Grace Church Louisville, where Mahaney and Jeff Purswell have been working their way through Job for the last few months.  Finally, it was interesting to see Crazy Busy Kevin DeYoung listed as one of the main sesion speakers.  That's the same Kevin DeYoung who served on the three-man panel that deemed Mahaney fit for ministry back in 2012.  Never ever forget that when the Sovereign Grace Ministries leaders appointed the three-man panel, they kept their identities secret until the report was published. 

Getting back to Strachan's artcle in Patheos, almost all the comments were critical of complementarianism, Calvinism, etc., and a number of commenters balked at the title of the article – Why Complementarianism Is Surging…

Of course, Strachan (who happens to be Bruce Ware's son-in-law) is working social media hard to promote the upcoming Together for the Gospel Conference as well as CBMW's Pre-Conference.  Here is just one example (see screen shot of Strachan's Tweet):

Screen Shot 2015-11-16 at 11.16.32 PM

CBMW Tweet – Screen Shot

T4G is less than five months away, and the pressure is on!  Not only is Owen Strachan and gang pushing the main event, but also CBMW's pre-conference. In 2014 CBMW held its 'Brave New World' pre-conference, and this how Strachan described the event:

We recently held our first CBMW National Conference in conjunction with the 2014 Together for the Gospel conference. We wanted to present an event that would be gospel-focused, positive, and exciting.

These were our starting points, but we honestly didn’t know what to expect. We thought that we might have 500 people. Then people started signing up, and kept signing up. So we went back to the book publishers that were among our event sponsors and asked them to greatly increase the amount of books that they were giving, and they did. Then even more people signed up, so we went back to the publishers one more time, and they were gracious to give even more books. Finally the day of the conference came, and God brought close to 1,500 people. We sold every single seat and then several dozen “standing room only” seats. Wow!

Perhaps attendance at CBMW's pre-conference will exceed expectations again next year; however, it's important to point out that complementarianism has been around for almost 30 years, and even though the champions for the cause have garnered thousands of loyalists who attend these bi-annual conferences, we do not see this as a 'surge'.  There appear to be far more Christians outside the complementarian camp, and with the recent blunders made by some complementarian leaders, we don't believe this movement will continue to grow.  That's our opinion, and we're sticking to it…

Comments

Is Complementarianism Really Surging? — 405 Comments

  1. The Boys-Will-Be-Boys Compliment Club, more likely.

    I wonder if they argued at that first meeting about how to brand themselves. Household Dictators sounded too domestic I guess.

  2. EricL wrote:

    The Boys-Will-Be-Boys Compliment Club, more likely.
    I wonder if they argued at that first meeting about how to brand themselves. Household Dictators sounded too domestic I guess.

    Good call.

  3. Owen Strachan: “Complementarianism is Surging”
    Idiom: Blowing your own horn – someone who blows their own horn is making great fanfare about themselves. It is appropriate that it be done by a herald, when done by yourself it is an admission of pomposity and thus an embarrassment.

  4. Ah, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. On my list of “Explain to me why we need a ($200K a year) council on this matter?” councils, it ranks right up there with the Council on Biblical Church Sanctuary Light Bulb Wattage (a recent vote was split between 40 and 60 watts) and the Council on Biblical Maximum Passenger Capacity of Church Shuttle Vans (where the council is considering going with 12 instead of the more traditional 15, since those 15 passenger vans roll over too easily.)

    The Council on Biblical Church Computer Operating Systems, on the other hand, is one that is somewhat more justified in its existence.

  5. To nitpick: “Patheos” doesn’t really publish anything. They’re a publishing _platform_ for religious blogs. They host atheists, Christians of all stripes, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc.

    The “ThoughtLife” blog on patheos published that article. ThoughtLife is, of course, Owen Strachan’s blog.

  6. Also, I thought we were going to call it “Eternal Female Subordination” from now on. I like that term better: it gets at the heart of what it really is.

  7. AnonInNC wrote:
    <blockquotethe Council on Biblical Church Sanctuary Light Bulb Wattage (a recent vote was split between 40 and 60 watts)

    No, it should be Natural light and candles! Do you want to start a 401(c) with me? I’m thinking we need a Council for whether to have a Council of Light Bulbs.

  8. AnonInNC wrote:

    it ranks right up there with the Council on Biblical Church Sanctuary Light Bulb Wattage

    You seem currently to be in your element here, but I find it rather shocking (revolting would be too strong a word and would generate more heat than light) you are not taking a more positive line on this subject. You are poles apart from the more enlightenend commenters – such as Nick Bulbeck not to mention any names.

    Don’t you know there is a irreducible minimum of difference between male and female when it comes to electric plugs? Not a good idea to confuse people about this.

    Perhaps some exercise would be a good idea, go for a jog or something. A short circuit would do to start off with.

  9. even though the champions for the cause have garnered thousands of loyalists who attend these bi-annual conferences, we do not see this as a ‘surge’.

    Yeah, getting Reformed types to go to a conference packed with “big names” is pretty darn easy. Like the GEICO commercial would say, “if you’re Reformed, you go to conferences. It’s what you do.” The conferences aren’t the problem – the stealth positioning of young Turk TR pastors is, as you all have noted many times before.

  10. Clayton wrote:

    Also, I thought we were going to call it “Eternal Female Subordination” from now on. I like that term better: it gets at the heart of what it really is.

    I like that description as well. Opens the door to educating people as to what ESS is too.

  11. Next month marks the 28th anniversary of a clandestine meeting that took place in Danvers, Massachusetts.

    Was there a reason they chose to have this meeting in the location of the Salem witch trials (Danvers was part of Salem at the time, IIRC), or was that just a coincidence?

  12. So some bunch trying to make some money selling tickets and I assume stuff at some conference claims that ‘comp’ is surging.

    Interesting.

    Only relatively recently one R. Moore claimed just the opposite saying that when you actually look at the marriages of those who claim to be comp they are actually egal marriages in that they fall way short of patriarchy.

    What this bunch means is that the brand still has a market with some people.

  13. okrapod wrote:

    Only relatively recently one R. Moore claimed just the opposite saying that when you actually look at the marriages of those who claim to be comp they are actually egal marriages in that they fall way short of patriarchy.

    Good point. Russ Moore has moved on and somehow I don’t think he will promote his past teaching on patriarchy in his national position as President of the SBC’s ERLC. :o) He wants the ear of the establishment.

  14. “Only relatively recently one R. Moore claimed just the opposite saying that when you actually look at the marriages of those who claim to be comp they are actually egal marriages in that they fall way short of patriarchy.”

    I wonder what Moore is expecting to see, then? Each husband/father ruling with an iron fist in a velvet glove, dictating everything down to the minutiae?

  15. … Dorothy Patterson and a number of other Christian leaders …

    Still working on the grammar of this one.

  16. “clandestine”…really? Couldn’t come up with a word that didn’t involve the connotation of conspiracy or illicitness? Why not just “secret”?
    And does your comparison of the financial statements of CBMW and CBE not simply boil down to “Neener neener neener! Our organization is BIGGER!”
    You ladies have great passion and an admirable desire to know the truth, but the way you slant things that you disagree with really undermines that desire for truth.

  17. NJ wrote:

    I wonder what Moore is expecting to see, then? Each husband/father ruling with an iron fist in a velvet glove, dictating everything down to the minutiae?

    Yes, actually, back when he was all about patriarchy that was exactly what he was talking about.

    Let me illustrate. This is not from Moore but from some earlier IFB followers of patriarchy and which they told me. The husband controls everything, especially the finances. As to the case where the wife may be a CPA (which if she were a good christian of course she would not be) and if the husband is math challenged, it would be OK for her to keep the household books and write the checks but she is not allowed to sign the checks–he must do that in his position of authority. He will decide what washing machine she wants. She wants? Yep, with the words you don’t want that, what you want is this other.

    I am thinking this overlaps with lifestyle DSM way too much to be overlooked.

  18. @ Aaron:
    CBMW is subsidized by the SBC on SBTS campus. If it had to pay for infrastructure (building, servers, etc) I doubt it would still exist.

    CBMW promoted themselves as surging. What is wrong with checking that out by making comparisons? Surging as compared to what? Twenty years ago? As compared to an organization devoted to mutuality?

    Comp doctrine was big money 20 years ago. I think hooking up with T$G was a good marketing move. But it is also hysterical they will have women teaching men at the conference.

  19. @ Hester:
    Oh my word, Hester! I was thinking that too! Those puritanical thoughts just don’t lend themselves to a healthy perspective of womankind.

  20. Bill M wrote:

    Owen Strachan: “Complementarianism is Surging”

    It reminds me of what happens when my garbage disposable backs up and the water and assorted stuff surges into the sink.

  21. Clayton wrote:

    Also, I thought we were going to call it “Eternal Female Subordination” from now on.

    I shall remember to do so. It is the truth.

  22. @ Eeyore:
    Conferences are essential. They get into a room filled with those who totally agree with them and it gives them the push to carry on in the outside world which is far less enamored of their doctrinal distinctive. For example, try pushing the Eternal Subordination of Women at most churches in America…

  23. @ Mae:
    I have been in touch with some folks from his church. I am hoping to do a story one of these days which will prove he is one of the boys.

    I met a couple from his church a few years ago when I was on a trip-really enjoying myself. The introduced themselves and told us about their church (Beggs). Here is the first comment out if their mouths after I said I had heard of it. “We practice church discipline.”

  24. @ Hester:
    Fancy golf course associated with the hotel as well. I wonder what they thought when they toured Salem which spend far more coinage on museums surrounding the witch trials than the supposed *purity* of the Puritans.

  25. okrapod wrote:

    Moore claimed just the opposite saying that when you actually look at the marriages of those who claim to be comp they are actually egal marriages

    I bet there are a few patriarchs n this crowd who delude themselves that they are the ones on charge of their marriages. I have met one too many of them whose wives truly run the show.

  26. I wonder if any Mennonites will be in attendance? The Biblical Mennonite Alliance adopted the Danvers Statement, and the Mennonites could really teach the CBMW a few things about “women’s roles”. (But I do have trouble seeing the CBMW men plowing fields with teams of draft horses and mules.)

    I would drive up to Louisville just to see the traffic “surge” when all of the Mennonite buggies and tractors hit town.

  27. dee wrote:

    I bet there are a few patriarchs n this crowd who delude themselves that they are the ones on charge of their marriages. I have met one too many of them whose wives truly run the show.

    Which brings another dynamic into play:

    The P-whipped Patriarch does not dare raise a finger against She Who Must Be Obeyed (in secret), so he takes it out on anything else without a Y chromosome.

  28. Aaron wrote:

    And does your comparison of the financial statements of CBMW and CBE not simply boil down to “Neener neener neener! Our organization is BIGGER!”

    First of all, neither of us is a member of either group. We are about as independent as they come. Instead, our disposable cash goes into maintaining this blog which is not dependent on one dime from anyone else. We do not take ads or participate in any kickback book programs.

    Secondly, both of us have MBAs. It is natural for us to look at how money flows. To not do so would be going against our training. That is how we learned that CJ Mahaney and SGM gave $200,000 to SBTS years ago.

    Finally, I had a really good laugh when you used the word “Neener.” My husband and I made up this term when we discovered that someone who was quite opinionated regarding the operations of a charity that we help run had not given a thin dime to the organization. We took to calling him/her Neanr (Not even a nickel with an initial from her/his name.)

  29. Mae wrote:

    Hate seeing Alistair Begg featured as a speaker. Sad to see him fully cross over to dark side.

    I have exactly the same reaction as you do when reading his name listed with the others. 🙁

  30. okrapod,

    I remember Doug Wilson once mentioning such cultural minutiae as Dad being the one to drive when the whole family was in the vehicle, Dad having his own big chair, Dad being the one to carve the turkey, etc.

    I’ve noticed that in modern patriarchy/compdom, Dad is also supposed to be the sole financial provider (plus tithing 10% off his gross income), the one who determines the homeschooling curriculum and oversees what the wife and kids are doing, lead family worship, conduct devotionals with his wife, do his own devotions, devote hours to personal theological study in order to spiritually lead his family, take his family to church every time the doors are open, serve in the church in some capacity, make sure his kids court instead of date and oversee the whole kit and caboodle, make sure his daughters stay at home and do CollegePlus (at most) while sons must only go to a Christian institution…hmmm, did I leave anything out?

  31. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The P-whipped Patriarch does not dare raise a finger against She Who Must Be Obeyed (in secret),

    You know, HUG…I don’t even think Driscoll resorted to these types of derogatory, filthy words for impact. I find them revolting regardless of their desired purpose.

  32. “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.” -Proverbs 27.2

    A convicting verse for me every time I read it.

  33. Matt Chandler isn’t helping “complementarity” any by referring to women members of his church as “our girls.” Such condescending reference to other members of the Body of Christ is not New Testament teaching. There is no lower class of eternally subordinate citizens in the Kingdom of God. “Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Complementarian doctrine puts women back in bondage, after Christ set them free. Such teaching does not need to surge; it needs to die.

  34. In Paul’s letters, he did not challenge the unjust social structures of his day outright – that wouldn’t have gone down very well in Roman society, and he did not want to start a political revolution.

    Instead, he subverted what he saw as unjust, by substituting Christian teaching.

    – He did not tell women that they should rise up against male oppression, instead calling men to love their wives like Jesus did, and calling couples to submit to each other.

    – He did not call for immediate freedom for all slaves, instead calling slave owners to treat their slaves well, as brothers in Christ.

    – He stressed the equality of all who were Christians.

    Obviously, the CBMW does not see it that way. They think they are counter-cultural, beacons of light in today’s culture. In reality, they are bringing their own cultural prejudice and preconceptions to this question.

    There is no “complementarian theology” just as there is no “theology for slave-owners” – at least not today. If there were, we’d probably have a “Council for Biblical Master- and Servanthood”, with “servanthood” as a useful euphemism for “slavery”, just as “complementarianism” is used as a euphemism for “patriarchy”, when in reality “eternal subordination of women” would be the correct term.

    The fact that they posit women’s subordination to their husbands even heaven, when Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, and there would not be a conflict for a remarried widow, tells you everything about the complementarian “theology”.

    I wonder why my browser’s spellchecker keeps putting red squiggles under “complementarian”, “complementarianism”, etc. 😉

  35. Gus wrote:

    “Council for Biblical Master- and Servanthood”

    OTOH, “Council for Biblical Master- and Servanthood” would not be such a bad name for CBMW, would it?

  36. Mae wrote:

    Hate seeing Alistair Begg featured as a speaker. Sad to see him fully cross over to dark side.

    Aligning yourself with New Calvinism is good marketing strategy. Follow the money – the YRRDs (young, restless, reformed and deceived) are buying lots of books.

  37. Gus wrote:

    I wonder why my browser’s spellchecker keeps putting red squiggles under “complementarian”, “complementarianism”, etc

    Because your spellchecker has more sense than New Calvinists. Those are not words that belong in Christian vocabulary … your spellchecker knows that.

  38. Aaron wrote:

    You ladies have great passion and an admirable desire to know the truth, but the way you slant things that you disagree with really undermines that desire for truth.

    Eh, I don’t think so. I think that is either just your opinion or some sort of ploy to get them to back off of being very direct concerning the truth and to use more weasel words or less damning words or something along those lines.

  39. Mae wrote:

    Hate seeing Alistair Begg featured as a speaker. Sad to see him fully cross over to dark side.

    Alistair Begg has been a complementarian forever. According to a gifted, educated woman I met years ago, he just forgot to mention that fact when he was called in the 1980’s to the newly founded church (Parkside in Cleveland OH area–where I lived at the time). According to her, shortly after Mr. Begg arrived, she and other women who helped start the church with their time, energy, prayer, teaching, and leadership experienced the pain of restrictions in using their gifts–simply because they were women. He successfully converted it to a “boys club.” And what happened to this woman I met? She later used her education and gifts as Professor of Biblical Studies at a seminary in another state. I met her at a conference where I benefited from her teaching, as I’m sure her many male and female seminary students did. (Obviously the conference where she and I met was not sponsored by the boys of the “gospel glitterati :))

  40. Is Complementarianism Really Surging?

    Remember the Libertarians after each election? About how a Libertarian was elected assistant dogcatcher in Dogpatch, Arkansas and How This Is Only The Beginning Of The Great Libertarian Victory Sweep Of The Entire Country Up To The White House?

  41. Mara wrote:

    Aaron wrote:

    You ladies have great passion and an admirable desire to know the truth, but the way you slant things that you disagree with really undermines that desire for truth.

    Eh, I don’t think so. I think that is either just your opinion or some sort of ploy to get them to back off of being very direct concerning the truth and to use more weasel words or less damning words or something along those lines.

    Question, everybody:

    Aaron — CBMW sock puppet or not?

  42. I have meant to write a lengthy blog post on this Comp/Egal issue but of late I haven’t had the energy to write much of anything. It is a subject which interests me greatly. I have studied much on the subject and appreciate some readers on this blog who gave me some good advice quite some time ago.

    One of the main planks of defense the Comps use to bolster their view is their doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically the “eternal subordination of the Son.” They then apply this highly suspect (dare I say heretical?) view of the Trinity to the Male/Female Husband/Wife relationship. Anyone interested in this should listen to the debate I linked to below. I found Kevin Giles to be quite compelling and have purchased two of his books on the Trinity. (I have not yet read them.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_mYvbgcKE

    Also, I have read numerous books written by authors from both sides. The book I thought was most convincing was authored by Kathryn E. Stegall, titled “The Full Rights of Sons.” She is an excellent teacher, very logical and thorough. I wish proponents from both camps would read it.

    http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rights-Sons-K-Stegall-ebook/dp/B00FL4L4JG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446220937&sr=1-1&keywords=the+full+rights+of+sons

    Lastly, Deb mentioned Mahaney spoke on Job at his latest conference. I did a post which highlighted what I consider to be some blatant plagiarism in one of his early sermons. I believe if I had the time to carefully peruse his later sermons on Job I would find much more, but I can only take the guy in small doses. I don’t think the man is capable of much original thought. Admittedly I am not either, but I have the good sense to admit it and refrain from attempting to pass myself off as some great preacher. I fail to see the attraction of Mahaney for all the neo-reformed minions, but then there is much I find unattractive in their movement.

    https://thouarttheman.org/2015/10/07/c-j-mahaney-doing-the-hard-work-of-sermon-preparation/

  43. Gus wrote:

    In Paul’s letters, he did not challenge the unjust social structures of his day outright – that wouldn’t have gone down very well in Roman society, and he did not want to start a political revolution.

    Instead, he subverted what he saw as unjust, by substituting Christian teaching.

    – He did not tell women that they should rise up against male oppression, instead calling men to love their wives like Jesus did, and calling couples to submit to each other.

    – He did not call for immediate freedom for all slaves, instead calling slave owners to treat their slaves well, as brothers in Christ.

    – He stressed the equality of all who were Christians

    In this, Paul was carrying on an old Jewish approach — the Subversive Wisdom of ha-Torah.

    As was explained to me, Subversive Wisdom does not confront the evil directly, but takes a side route. Examples given were Honor Killings and Slavery — both Perfectly Normal in Semitic tribal culture. If Torah had commanded an end to Honor Killings and Slavery, the people would have blown it off as Crazy Talk and carried on. So… Torah got sneaky. Honor Killings and Slavery were legal but regulated to the point they became impractical:
    — Honor Killings were permitted, but the family doing it had to first get an OK from “the elders at the city gate”, i.e. the legal authorities. In public. Since the purpose of an Honor Killing is to hush the scandal so nobody knows about it (“If nobody knows of my sin, I Am Not Shamed”)…
    — Slavery was permitted, but regulated with restrictions and Jubilee years to where it was easier to just hire free workers. (Not that slaveowners didn’t try every loophole they could come up with to get around the regulations…)
    — And Harems (another normal perq of wealth and rank) — ever notice how in Tanakh they write a lot about the downside of harems? Abraham throwing Sarah at Pharoah for his own safety? The blood feud between the sons of Sarah & Hagar? Jacob and his wives? Vashti & Esther? What harem politics (Amram & Absalom) did to the House of David?

  44. Deb Willi wrote:

    Alistair Begg has been a complementarian forever.

    That anything like George Wallace and “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!”?

  45. Does anyone know the demographics of those who attend CBMW’s conferences? Are they mostly in church leadership who are religious professionals, or are there people who are farmers, laborers, mechanics, retail workers, office workers, restaurant workers, medical care workers, home care workers, animal care workers, factory workers etc? Are those in attendance mostly upper class, or are there people from the low and middle classes as well? Are those in attendance mostly white, or are there also those who are black, Latino, and Asian? Are those in attendance mostly married with kids, or will there be those who are single and childless in attendance?

    CBMW will not be able to persuade me that complementarianism is surging until I see it practiced and preached among ALL demographics and see ALL demographics attending their conferences.

    ..And meanwhile, I see that CBMW’s 2016 conference is being held at the The Galt house. The history geek in me wonders if it’s named after and owned by relatives of Norman Galt, first husband of Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, second wife of President Woodrow Wilson who is considered by some historians to be America’s first woman president because of her basically running the office of the president in the months following President Wilson’s October 1919 stroke.

    Given what CBMW preaches about women, it would be wild for them to hold their conference at an establishment named and operated by a family with a member who became one of America’s most powerful women!

  46. Two thoughts:
    1. I am so very disappointed to see Alistair Begg listed as a CBMW pre-conference speaker. I like his style and the fact that, even though he is mainline Calvinist, he is friendly to the Keswick teachings.
    2. Since only the federal government has the ability to operate with a deficit, who or what has been propping up CBMW? And even with a surplus in 2014, it is razor thin and could easily be wiped away by two months of reduced income or greater expenses.

  47. I’m guessing they’re not “surging” too much because the same people have been giving the same message for almost 30 years. If they can’t manage to get some new blood in there, how are they going to survive 20 years from now? What new thoughts can they really offer?

  48. dee wrote:

    Owen Strachan: “Complementarianism is Surging”
    It reminds me of what happens when my garbage disposable backs up and the water and assorted stuff surges into the sink.

    A useful analogy but we live outside the city and have a septic tank so we don’t use a garbage disposal. Speaking of septic tanks, given their doctrine I’m thinking their “surging” is similar to the bathroom fixture backing up and overflowing, a very disagreeable mess altogether.

  49. Katia wrote:

    Does anyone know the demographics of those who attend CBMW’s conferences? Are they mostly in church leadership who are religious professionals, or are there people who are farmers, laborers, mechanics, retail workers, office workers, restaurant workers, medical care workers, home care workers, animal care workers, factory workers etc? Are those in attendance mostly upper class, or are there people from the low and middle classes as well? Are those in attendance mostly white, or are there also those who are black, Latino, and Asian? Are those in attendance mostly married with kids, or will there be those who are single and childless in attendance?

    I’d like to see the breakdown, too.

    What do you suspect, Katia?
    Upper and middle class White?
    With filled out with lower-class White for rank-and-file?
    (this was the demographic mix of the Third Klan in the Fifties)
    Or some Black and Brown reflecting/reinforcing ethnic Machismo cultures?
    (Not sure how Asians fit into the mix — I’ve heard some doozies about old-country Koreans, but my source was not only secondhand but unreliable.)

  50. Kathi wrote:

    I’m guessing they’re not “surging” too much because the same people have been giving the same message for almost 30 years. If they can’t manage to get some new blood in there, how are they going to survive 20 years from now? What new thoughts can they really offer?

    Scratch Libertarians.

    This is Taiwan during the Chiang Kai-Shek years, when Taiwan was always soon going to invade and liberate/take back all Mainland China.

    Or that Mackinista I used to know who claimed in 1996 that Apple would completely wipe out Microsoft before the year 2000 — “Apple Akbar!”

    And both would get instantly VERY hostile if anyone pointed out these were not realistic expectations.

  51. Katia wrote:

    ..And meanwhile, I see that CBMW’s 2016 conference is being held at the The Galt house. The history geek in me wonders if it’s named after and owned by relatives of Norman Galt, first husband of Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, second wife of President Woodrow Wilson who is considered by some historians to be America’s first woman president because of her basically running the office of the president in the months following President Wilson’s October 1919 stroke.

    I keep associating “Galt’s Gulch” from Atlas Shrugged myself. Especially after all the John Galt Celebrity Impersonators that flooded my spam filters after the 2008 elections.

  52. Here’s something I wrote about the problem of evil and the French terrorist attacks.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/france-has-its-september-11th-musings-on-the-situation-and-the-problem-of-evil/#more-3855

    I am actually working on a list of 95 reasons why we need a new Reformation for my next post. Its based off an article Jon Bloom wrote at Desiring God. The person who nails these 95 reasons to the door of CHBC will get dinner from eagle 🙂

  53. @ Katia:
    I have no information on which to base this wild guess, but I’d be shocked if their demographics show a significant presence of anyone other than white, cisgender, straight men, most of whom are likely either paid church staff or otherwise closely associated with ministry.

  54. “Does anyone know the demographics of those who attend CBMW’s conferences? Are they mostly in church leadership who are religious professionals,…mostly upper class,… mostly white,…mostly married with kids,…?”

    I think we all know the answer to that.

  55. Deb Willi wrote:

    He successfully converted it to a “boys club.”

    In Matt Chandler’s complementarian interview with John Piper, he said “I preach to men.” New Calvinism really is a boys club. Their pulpits are staffed by preacher boys, not men of God. I sometimes wonder if these young whippersnappers push gender roles beyond Biblical bounds because they came from homes with domineering mothers … perhaps, this is their weird way to get back at mama.

  56. What are the deomographics? Josh said white, cisgender, straight men, mostly either paid church staff or otherwise closely associated with ministry.

    Yes.

    And now in my ongoing role as little old lady who will say it if necessary-lots of information has come out as to how many men who meet that description are heavy into porn, including pastors. Frankly, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that there are crowds of men out there who want to practice female ‘submission’ because they are threatened in their manhood by washing machines.

  57. Eagle wrote:

    Here’s something I wrote about the problem of evil and the French terrorist attacks.
    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/france-has-its-september-11th-musings-on-the-situation-and-the-problem-of-evil/#more-3855
    I am actually working on a list of 95 reasons why we need a new Reformation for my next post. Its based off an article Jon Bloom wrote at Desiring God. The person who nails these 95 reasons to the door of CHBC will get dinner from eagle

    Oh man….looking forward to the 95 reasons post…

  58. Perhaps this was pointed out above, but one of the ‘selling points’ of the CBMW conference, according to Strachan’s promotional piece on Patheos, is that “4. You will be blessed by the voices of numerous women.”

    This is about as accurate as Volkswagen’s emissions statistics. ALL of the women listed as ‘speakers’ are either speaking at the Women’s Conference or, if there is a male present, giving a ‘testimonial.’

    Caveat emptor

  59. Presented with minimum comment, other than all these women are forced to be compliant and bland in their countenance and personalities (not that they are originally like that, but forced to be that way/don’t know there’s another way to live). Of course, some of them are misogynists themselves, and not very nice either, and benefit greatly from playing within the CBMW system.

    http://www.sbts.edu/women/

    http://womenslife.sebts.edu/ (Some of the posts on this blog are troubling)

    http://swbts.edu/academics/schools/womens-programs

  60. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Question, everybody:
    Aaron — CBMW sock puppet or not?

    Oh, I’m pretty sure he is.
    A few of them have to make some sort of an attempt at a push back. They just use big words or interesting word arrangements or fake complements to try to hide how lame their push back really is.

  61. Burwell Stark wrote:

    You will be blessed by the voices of numerous women.

    As they read carefully selected texts from the ESV and go back to their seats, without personal commentary. That’s how it works at the SBC reformed church plant near me regarding female involvement in church services … destined to eternal subordination without offering a word from the Lord of their own.

  62. T4G is really

    T4C

    T4PC (Pushing Calvinism) or

    T4TULIP or

    T4RT (Reformed Theology) or

    T4TRCC (The Reformed Catholic Church)

  63. @ Katia:

    They are young pastors, wannabe pastors, seminary students, para church male workers, etc. Many of them cannot afford to be there if their church did not pay the way. But they would spend their last dime getting there. It is sad, really.

  64. Let me tell you all a story:
    I recently went to a small conference that has a number of close connections to TGC, though not directly related. There was no small amount of “fangirling” over a particular TGC council member who spoke – which was unfortunate because while his message was good, it wasn’t even the best of the talks.

    There also was a woman who spoke to the main conference, and while hers was not billed as a plenary talk, it was to the exact same group of people at the exact same time [in addition to all the women who led breakout sessions]. This sister works for TGC, but here she was speaking to men and women. It was a lovely message and she did a great job.

    This particular conference, while “gospel” centered, attracts people from a wide variety of ministry backgrounds, including women who are in pastoral ministry. It has been very encouraging to attend and see how we choose to lift up Jesus whether we are reformed or not, Charismatic or not, Baptist or not.

    A close friend of mine also attended with her husband – we used to attend church together in the same state but do so no longer. After the conference we were sightseeing and I threw out the question, “So, what did everyone think?”
    Everyone in our group said “great!” except for this friend who said:
    “It was really great, but with the wide variety of people from different backgrounds I wish they had been a little clearer on some stuff.”
    “What do you mean, clearer? In what area?” I asked. After all, the conference was very Christ-exalting and encouraging. I thought they did a great job of reminding us of the main thing, Jesus’ work for us in salvation!
    “Well, complementarianism.” She remarked with forthrightness that astounded me.
    “Complementarianism?!?” I said, shocked.
    “Yes.” She responded.
    “What do you mean, clearer?” I was still shocked. She was saying this as if there was only one biblical view, just like someone would say “I wish they’d been clearer on the fact that sin deserves punishment”.
    “Just…I think they should have been clearer in it.” She was so obviously dogmatic I wasn’t getting through.
    “Well ___________, you know that’s an open-handed issue.” I was referring, of course, to the view that our old church used to remind us they held, that there are “closed-handed” theological issues like Jesus’ divinity and salvation vs. “open-handed” issues like baptism, reformed theology, spiritual gifts, and even gender roles.
    “Well it depends on what you mean by open-handed.” She responded so glibly.

    I was absolutely blown away. BLOWN away. I mean this is a friend who I respect a lot in her faith and love for the Lord, and yet she has elevated this issue to the point in her life and her marriage that it has become for her a primary issue and she can’t even see how someone could possibly hold to a different view. I knew that she leaned toward dogmatism, but I never would have anticipated this. It grieved me terribly as I tried to bring it up again but she wouldn’t really listen [she dismissed my bringing up Priscilla and Aquilla so quickly], plus sightseeing wasn’t the place. We aren’t in close enough community anymore for me to confront her about her lack of humility, but I’m not sure she’d listen anyway.

    I consider myself a “soft complementarian” with emphasis on the soft, but I am somewhat alarmed by this “surge” that Strachan is calling. Perhaps what he means is not “we’re growing in number” but rather “we’re growing our proselytes to be more entrenched in their views.”

    If the enemy can get us distracted in fighting “the evils of egalitarianism” within our camps then perhaps we’ll forget about Jesus’ commands to feed and clothe and help those who are in need. Perhaps that’s what the “success” of CBMW is due to – if so, I pray that they see that and repent quickly.

  65. @ Burwell Stark:
    It can’t be asked enough. It got really bad not long ago and they did not bring enough in to pay a director. It became a stepping stone ” do your time” job. I was shocked to see the revenue is up so much. I wonder if the church ” pay to be in the database” is helping. My guess is some church ponied up on donations.

    Aligning it with T$G is not going to go over well with the non cal comps in the SBC. But they have no power so who cares?

  66. Max wrote:

    As they read carefully selected texts from the ESV and go back to their seats, without personal commentary. That’s how it works at the SBC reformed church plant near me regarding female involvement in church services … destined to eternal subordination without offering a word from the Lord of their own.

    I would like to add that not all reformed churches are like this – the church I attended that I loved was reformed, I think newly minted as an SBC church [but primarily for the purpose of sending more missionaries, which they actually do] and I thought did a decent job of using women in services. Obviously they’d never preach, as the church was pretty conservative, but I often was asked to welcome everyone, read scripture at the beginning of the service and perform the call to worship which included a prayer – whatever the Spirit laid on my heart. In public church meetings prayer and testimonies and words of encouragement were often given by women.

    Now, I know that many of you would say that isn’t enough, or isn’t what Paul meant, or whatever the case may be. But I found that it was a church where instead of saying “okay, we interpret the Bible this way so women can never do anything!” they said “we interpret the Bible this way but what is the MOST we feel we can allow women to do Biblically.”

    Just a bit of encouragement that there are godly complementarians out there, even if there are just as many who use it to abuse their power.

  67. Interesting article. Got me digging a little bit into the differences between CBE and CBMW. It seems to me that CBMW at least, if not complementarianism, is surging. According to EFCA, in 2012 CBMW revenues were just 84,719 but in 2014 revenue had more than tripled to 262,171. That’s a pretty good surge. Owen Strachan wasn’t comparing CBMW to CBE. He was comparing CBMW revenue over the past couple of years, along with increased online and publishing output, increased conference exposure, etc. CBMW is surging. Does this mean complementarianism is surging? That can’t be proven from CBMW alone but it would appear that complementarianism is at the least alive and well within evangelicalism and very influential within the Reformed strain of evangelicalism. Because the Reformed strain has had a greater influence within evangelicalism at large in the past few years, it would seem to follow that complementarianism has seen a surge as well. So to answer the question posed by the title, I would say yes, from what I can tell.

    One other note, the one thing we can say about CBMW is that it is highly unlikely that anyone on staff is getting rich working for CBMW. With revenues of 264K and at least twelve people listed on staff, it is unlikely anyone is raking in big bucks. Now of course this could be a stepping stone for other associations and such and if you combine seminary income with pastoring with CBMW (like Owen does) you could make a nice piece of change. Still, I doubt he is getting anything near the famous megachurch pastors or even the prosperity preacher down the street. The CBE? Who knows? Their budget statement is pretty interesting and a little vague.

  68. Sarah wrote:

    I was absolutely blown away. BLOWN away. I mean this is a friend who I respect a lot in her faith and love for the Lord, and yet she has elevated this issue to the point in her life and her marriage that it has become for her a primary issue and she can’t even see how someone could possibly hold to a different view. I knew that she leaned toward dogmatism, but I never would have anticipated this. It grieved me terribly as I tried to bring it up again but she wouldn’t really listen [she dismissed my bringing up Priscilla and Aquilla so quickly], plus sightseeing wasn’t the place. We aren’t in close enough community anymore for me to confront her about her lack of humility, but I’m not sure she’d listen anyway.

    I would be careful…I am still reeling from a false accusation I endured. I am trying to find a way to go forward. What is happening is that many Christians in the US can’t practice discernment or critical thinking. Many of these people I think get corrupted in the course of time. In my case I saw a guy who loved Sovereign Grace and called it healthy. He then made a false accusation that took aim at my name, job, and reputation. It was the darkest season of my life. The things we fought over were incredible. Some of these people just can’t handle disagreements or differing points of view. Its their way or the highway. That is just indicative of fundamentalism. Watching an Air Force Officer abuse his authority taught me why rape is a problem in the military. But it goes beyond that…when a military officer calls Sovereign Grace healthy in light of all the problems it has, does that help explain why the US military is struggling with rape?

    Sarah I’d pick your battles carefully. Don’t destroy a friendship over a theological issue.

  69. With regard to CBE, it is true that in 2014, they brought in 828,976 in revenue and support. The interesting thing is that 739,769 of that was contributions and grants. I believe we will find grants to be a key word in this matter. CBE, according to their own records only netted 7,075 in book sales. In addition, they only netted 3,817 in conference revenue. Finally, they brought in 48,928 in memberships and subscriptions and 29,387 in other revenue (this revenue is not explained). All this together gets us to the 828,976 total above. Now how much of that total is grants versus donations? That is a salient question I can not find an answer to on the CBE site. I did find one example of a grant to CBE and it is quite lucrative (100K per year). Here is the link for that grant (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/03/prweb12603645.htm).

    The bottom line is I don’t think the comparison of raw revenue between the two organizations is a good indicator of their relative influence. ISTM that CBE would be a much more fertile ground to receive grants as their views would more likely resonate with grant-giving organizations. So what percentage of the 739+K of grants and contributions is made up of grants? That matters when the numbers look so different. Actual cash donations by individuals and churches might not be so different after all. This is especially true when you consider the membership and subscriptions revenue of only 48,928. The low end membership at CBE is $30 but memberships average around $50. When included with subscriptions I don’t see how CBE can have much more than 1500 members. I can’t find a total number of members on the website though.

    There is a network of churches connected with CBE, though there are only five or six in my state (a purplish state of sorts with a large population). The network of churches far outstrips CBMW (which as you have reported uses their church directory as a kind of fundraising method) but the CBE network of churches still numbers no more than 225 churches in the whole country. This is an estimate based on a PDF that ran a little over 10 pages with about 20 churches per page.

    By contrast, a quick search of 9marks reveals well over 2500 churches which endorse the 9marks.

    In light of these issues, I believe CBE has a better financial footing but not as much growth as CBMW.

  70. js wrote:

    CBE has a better financial footing but not as much growth

    I don’t know.
    Seems a lot of individuals and even churches, who might have otherwise stayed neutral, are appalled at the legalism involved in Compism and are leaning toward or straight up running screaming to CBE just to get some breathing room.

  71. @ Sarah:
    Pleased to hear that there are SBC churches with reformed leadership who are allowing female believers more freedom in church services. That is not the case with the young, restless and reformed leaders of church plants in my area … I guess their position on this could be termed hyper-complementarianism. You can actually discern the bondage to this authoritarian system by observing the countenance of the young women who attend these works … they will eventually get tired of it for their own spiritual health and drag their sorry husbands/boy friends out of the mess.

  72. okrapod wrote:

    What are the deomographics? Josh said white, cisgender, straight men, mostly either paid church staff or otherwise closely associated with ministry.

    Yes.

    And now in my ongoing role as little old lady who will say it if necessary-lots of information has come out as to how many men who meet that description are heavy into porn, including pastors.

    And porn teaches you (by osmosis if nothing else) that women are good for One Thing and One Thing Only.

  73. Max wrote:

    they will eventually get tired of it for their own spiritual health and drag their sorry husbands/boy friends out of the mess.

    Can they do that? Will the men let themselves be dragged out of this? That almost sounds contradictory.

  74. okrapod wrote:

    Will the men let themselves be dragged out of this?

    If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy! However, only the men who are praying for God’s will in their lives will hear the Spirit say “Get out and shake the dust off your feet when you hit the door.” Most are too macho to be influenced by eternally subordinate women … WWDD? types they are (What Would Driscoll Do?). I actually know women trapped in this system who are praying for their husbands to be enlightened and move their families to a more healthy church setting … for the spiritual welfare of all.

  75. Katia wrote:

    Does anyone know the demographics of those who attend CBMW’s conferences? Are they mostly in church leadership who are religious professionals, or are there people who are farmers, laborers, mechanics, retail workers, office workers, restaurant workers, medical care workers, home care workers, animal care workers, factory workers etc? Are those in attendance mostly upper class, or are there people from the low and middle classes as well? Are those in attendance mostly white, or are there also those who are black, Latino, and Asian? Are those in attendance mostly married with kids, or will there be those who are single and childless in attendance?

    Back in the day I used to attend Reformed conferences, they were almost exclusively white upper middle class male in demographics. I somehow doubt the past 15-20 years have altered things much.

  76. Kathi wrote:

    I’m guessing they’re not “surging” too much because the same people have been giving the same message for almost 30 years. If they can’t manage to get some new blood in there, how are they going to survive 20 years from now? What new thoughts can they really offer?

    If I would hazard a guess, I’d say that the recent surge in the CBMW’s coffers is from people getting angry about the recent spate of progressive legislation and cultural trends, and are sending more money to “culture war” charities. YMMV.

  77. Eeyore wrote:

    If I would hazard a guess, I’d say that the recent surge in the CBMW’s coffers is from people getting angry about the recent spate of progressive legislation and cultural trends, and are sending more money to “culture war” charities. YMMV.

    Help me here. How does go home and get your wife into some docile submissive servant have anything to do with gay marriage or recent immigration or legalized marijuana, just to name a few. Or are you meaning that people just get angry and take it out on whomever.

  78. Max wrote:

    Complementarian doctrine puts women back in bondage, after Christ set them free. Such teaching does not need to surge; it needs to die.

    Yes, and yesterday wouldn’t be a day too soon.

  79. @ okrapod:

    Much of evangelicalism is driven by fear. In order to make the system work you need an enemy. I was reading earlier today about the issue with the Syrian refugees coming into the US, and the way some governors in some conservative states are saying no and raising the ISIl issue. I am waiting to hear what Al Mohler and Russel Moore will do. I find it ironic that we would do that as a nation given the refugees we took in from Europe and Ireland earlier in our history. There was a time in which people rejected the Irish because they thoughts they would be bringing in members of the IRA or affiliated terrorist groups. I’m wondering when TGC and many Neo-Cals are going to start raising the terrorist card and fighting a new enemy.

  80. Eagle wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Much of evangelicalism is driven by fear. In order to make the system work you need an enemy. I was reading earlier today about the issue with the Syrian refugees coming into the US, and the way some governors in some conservative states are saying no and raising the ISIl issue. I am waiting to hear what Al Mohler and Russel Moore will do. I find it ironic that we would do that as a nation given the refugees we took in from Europe and Ireland earlier in our history. There was a time in which people rejected the Irish because they thoughts they would be bringing in members of the IRA or affiliated terrorist groups. I’m wondering when TGC and many Neo-Cals are going to start raising the terrorist card and fighting a new enemy.

    I wonder if it was REALLY due to the IRA or if the whole anti-Catholic was rearing its ugly head, once again, even in recent times.

  81. Eagle wrote:

    There was a time in which people rejected the Irish because they thoughts they would be bringing in members of the IRA or affiliated terrorist groups.

    I did not know that. I just thought that the accusations against some of my very own Irish ancestors was that they/we were dirty, ignorant, alcoholic, combative, fertile catholics. As if that were not enough of course.

  82. @ okrapod:
    Yeah, Eagle is right about that being a newer way to express anti-Irish bigotry and prejudice… Unfortunately, there was support among a small sector of Irish Americans (as opposed to Irish immigrants) for the IRA in the 70s-80s.

  83. dee wrote:

    @ Mae:
    I have been in touch with some folks from his church. I am hoping to do a story one of these days which will prove he is one of the boys.
    I met a couple from his church a few years ago when I was on a trip-really enjoying myself. The introduced themselves and told us about their church (Beggs). Here is the first comment out if their mouths after I said I had heard of it. “We practice church discipline.”

    Argh. I heard him speak at a conference ( at a non SBC baptist church ) maybe 15/ 28 years ago. At the time, I don’t remember him being anything but a good speaker, but back then I was not aware of a “reformed” takeover either.

  84. numo wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Yeah, Eagle is right about that being a newer way to express anti-Irish bigotry and prejudice… Unfortunately, there was support among a small sector of Irish Americans (as opposed to Irish immigrants) for the IRA in the 70s-80s.

    Yes, there was a minority who supported IRA. Ask any Irish in Boston.Thankfully, after 9/11 there is very little of it now.

  85. Katia wrote:

    Does anyone know the demographics of those who attend CBMW’s conferences? Are they mostly in church leadership who are religious professionals

    This part of the article pretty much sums it up:

    “On Tuesday, we’re holding a women’s mini-conference from 7:30am-10am. As is our way at CBMW, we’re packing a lot into a little time! This is our first time holding this event-within-an-event, and I hope that many WIVES will join their PASTOR HUSBANDS in coming to T4G both for this special gathering and for T4G itself. That is our intent.”

  86. @ Eagle:
    Massachusetts and NH aren’t conservative states at all. Their governors have joined the, ” no refuge”, bandwagon as well.

  87. @ okrapod:
    I won’t claim that there is exclusively one factor behind it, but I suspect that there may also be an element of fear of a slippery slope. That is, if you accept that a man and a woman can be in a marriage without predefined gender-based roles, then they fear that this will lead to the realization that there’s no reason that an opposite-sex partner couldn’t be replaced with a same-sex one.

    Now, notwithstanding my beliefs on this specific topic, which are probably to the left of those held by most people here, there are plenty of people who are egalitarian and accept only one man / one woman marriages, so the slippery slope fallacy is refuted not only by logical reasoning, but also by evidence.

  88. Kathi wrote:

    I’m guessing they’re not “surging” too much because the same people have been giving the same message for almost 30 years. If they can’t manage to get some new blood in there, how are they going to survive 20 years from now? What new thoughts can they really offer?

    I think you’ve got it right Kathi. Surging to whom? A small and tightly knit demographic that preaches to their own choir. And new blood? I’m with you, it just ain’t there, I doubt that the young will take up the banner.

  89. Max wrote:

    the YRRDs (young, restless, reformed and deceived) are buying lots of books.

    I once attended a Christian Reformed church that refused to deal with a deacon who was sexually abusing a boy in their Cadet group. So late one night, I took my paint brush and a tube of black paint and changed the ‘R’ to ‘D’ on their sign. 😉

    ‘Young, Restless and Deformed’ sounds appropo to me.

  90. okrapod wrote:

    I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that there are crowds of men out there who want to practice female ‘submission’ because they are threatened in their manhood by washing machines.

    You might enjoy the two posts called “Masculinity so Fragile” at Cicero Kirk:

    https://cicerokirk.wordpress.com/

  91. @ okrapod:

    I always wondered WHY any confident man would want to join a group that touts ‘male’ supremacy. The first thought I always have in such cases is WHY would a strong man need to have this kind of ego reinforcement?

    It seems to me to be a kind of ‘male idolatry’ which requires the sin of pride and hubris to keep it going . . . and maybe also a bit of bravado and in-crowd reinforcement.

    This ‘complementarianism’ certainly works well for the ‘Y’ chromosome folks, but the ‘x’ people don’t fare too well as their ‘roles’ aren’t defined by patriarchists for people who possess gifts and talents to share in the Body of Christ.

    Worse, still, there is in this ‘complementarianism’, a set-up for emotional abuse just in the very ‘acting out’ of the ‘roles’ such a system prescribes. It is hard to imagine the stress of giving up one’s personhood to become the lackey of such a superior being as is the male partner in a ‘complementarian’ setting. But more than that, what happens to the male in such a relationship? What happens to someone who is told that they are to have other persons submit ‘graciously’ to them? That is not something any male person should have to endure . . . it defies the dignity of what it means to be a human person made in the image of God.

  92. "surging"? yeah, that's one of those virility words. 50% pandering, 50% optimism, & 2% butterscotch ripple.

  93. whenever I think about how unhealthy ‘complementarianism’ and ‘patriarchy’ can get, I think of the marriage of that poor woman who went crazy and drowned her five children. She was very ill, but they kept having more babies. She needed help, but instead she was left to home-school and nurture five little ones, all very young. Her husband seemed somehow ‘detached’ from her pain.

    The price some have paid for the worst that can happen in skewed relationships is terrible indeed . . . people that support such skewed relationships need to know the costs can be dreadful for those people who are not mentally and emotionally strong enough to endure the stress of such unbalanced relationships.

  94. Josh wrote:

    the slippery slope fallacy

    There is more than one slippery slope in play with some people. Some men themselves are down some slope already. This is not something I know a lot about, and I would not want to label anybody. But in my own life I have known several men who looked like they were straight and then later came out-leaving behind a wife and a few children. I have known maybe half a dozen of these-not exactly an epidemic. If you want to stay hidden behind a facade of some sort perhaps you might go way too far in trying to be sure nobody ‘suspected’ that there was more to the story, and comp does look macho.

    Now here is a thought. These teachers of me tarzan and you jane are aiming at some market, and knowing that there are people who study this stuff and advise folks on how to build churches, I think they probably know what the market is and have no illusions about what they are doing. Trouble is, the rest of us don’t know the psychological profiles of those to whom this is marketed.

    So no, I am not saying there is just one variable, but I believe that sexuality itself in individual lives is one variable-not just the bible says and not just money.

  95. Aaron wrote:

    Why not just “secret”?

    Because they weren’t just “secret”. In the above link, Grudem decribes them being “very secret”:

    “those first two years we were still a very secret, by-invitation-only group”

  96. okrapod wrote:

    How does go home and get your wife into some docile submissive servant have anything to do with gay marriage or recent immigration or legalized marijuana, just to name a few. Or are you meaning that people just get angry and take it out on whomever.

    I’m sure there’s a proper name for this phenomenon somewhere, but what I am suspecting is that some folks are thinking “the culture is totally going astray in allowing gay marriage, I/we must redouble our efforts to defend True Biblical Marriage!”

  97. In the article, Strachen only names Grudem, Piper, and Dorothy Patterson as CBMW Founders; but the CBMW site identifies several lesser known Founders:

    http://cbmw.org/about/history/

    “CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles.”

    Now we’ve all gotten an earful from Mrs. Patterson since then, but what about the Council’s other mother, Susan Foh? Any chance the TWW could interview her?

  98. Women and men are equal in every way. And yes I know there are physiological differences that make us male and female like a big chunk of the life on this planet. I am talking that there is no reason a woman cannot attain anything that she doesn’t want to do. There are challenges. Equality in our society is not a lock for some professions but those walls are coming down. A few months ago, flew internationally and saw multiple female pilots. These pilots looked to be early to late twenties so,it’s awesome to see. I can’t say it enough, the bible has to be taken in context of the time in which it came. One of the commenters had a great way of looking at how Paul had to work within the confines of the society of the day. The complementarians are wishing for some sort of bronze age awakening. A twisted “Leave it Beaver”/”Father Knows Best” theocracy that is better consigned to scrap heap of history.

  99. @ Josh:
    And same-sex martiage blow the whole thijg about gender roles to pieces, don’t forget. Becsuse it’s equal partnership, no?

  100. Hester wrote:

    Was there a reason they chose to have this meeting in the location of the Salem witch trials (Danvers was part of Salem at the time, IIRC), or was that just a coincidence?

    It’s because that’s where the hotel was where they met up:

    http://cbmw.org/about/history/

    “The group next met at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers, Massachusetts, on December 2-3, 1987, before the 1987 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society [at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in South Hamilton]. The draft was adopted in meeting and called the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The group then voted to incorporate as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”

    It could as well have been the “Sheraton Ferncroft Resort Statement”.

  101. @ okrapod:
    A lot of people still seek this out in conservative circles; some really don’t have much choice – especially if they’re in patriarchal-land. If they leave, they lose family relationships.

  102. Mara wrote:

    Has someone already linked this one?
    http://www.jorymicah.com/how-complementarianism-played-into-my-sexual-abuse-under-my-former-pastor-doug-wilson-by-natalie-greenfield/

    Natalie did a particularly good job in that post, I think. Very happy that so many people are helping her keep the story alive. Wilson is forced to continue blithering and snapping on his blog, looking more ridiculous as time passes. He, all by himself, exposes the huge fault-lines in complementarianism. You go, Doug!

    Also lots of comments with good responses by her and Jory.

  103. @ numo:
    As in this region, in Amish and Old Order Mennonite churches. For Hasidic and very orthodox Jews, same deal.

  104. Jerome wrote:

    Here, Grudem says they STARTED with a vast majority:

    If anyone were to do a fact check on what Grudem says, they might be surprised to find out how much is just not true or contradicts what he says elsewhere.
    The history of a lot of Protestantism is one where women were thought to be less than men. By, the sixties and seventies, this was no longer a tenable position to hold. Thus something needed to be done, voila compelmentarianism. Now women are equal to men, but in a subordinate way!?

  105. Eagle wrote:

    @ Max: Where do you live Max? I live and work in the Washington, D.C. area.

    I'm fairly sure Max is somewhere in New England, but I think he wants to keep the location private. 😉

  106. Clayton wrote:

    Also, I thought we were going to call it “Eternal Female Subordination” from now on. I like that term better: it gets at the heart of what it really is.

    That’s good. It’s better than what I’ve been referring to it as, “The proper care and feeding of women.” Not everyone will get the irony.

  107. Christiane wrote:

    I always wondered WHY any confident man would want to join a group that touts ‘male’ supremacy. The first thought I always have in such cases is WHY would a strong man need to have this kind of ego reinforcement?

    Well you have to understand, us males are superior, but we have fragile egos that have to be propped up.

  108. Max wrote:

    Deb Willi wrote:

    He successfully converted it to a “boys club.”

    In Matt Chandler’s complementarian interview with John Piper, he said “I preach to men.” New Calvinism really is a boys club. Their pulpits are staffed by preacher boys, not men of God. I sometimes wonder if these young whippersnappers push gender roles beyond Biblical bounds because they came from homes with domineering mothers … perhaps, this is their weird way to get back at mama.

    Well, since the “whippersnappers” are led by their “seniors” (Piper, Begg, Ortlund, Mohler, etc.) I would not blame their moms. I think instead the Bibles the boys use in study have massive holes in it, from Genesis to Revelation, and certainly a hole where Galatians 3:28 exists in most Bibles.

  109. Patrice wrote:

    Max wrote: the YRRDs (young, restless, reformed and deceived) are buying lots of books. I once attended a Christian Reformed church that refused to deal with a deacon who was sexually abusing a boy in their Cadet group. So late one night, I took my paint brush and a tube of black paint and changed the ‘R’ to ‘D’ on their sign. ‘Young, Restless and Deformed’ sounds appropo to me.

    LOL!!!

  110. Jerome wrote:

    Aaron wrote:
    Why not just “secret”?
    Because they weren’t just “secret”. In the above link, Grudem decribes them being “very secret”:
    “those first two years we were still a very secret, by-invitation-only group”

    Thank you, thank you very much! :-)

  111. Jerome wrote:

    Aaron wrote:
    Why not just “secret”?

    Because they weren’t just “secret”. In the above link, Grudem decribes them being “very secret”:

    “those first two years we were still a very secret, by-invitation-only group”

    1) Isn’t “Occult” the Koine Greek word for “hidden”/secret?
    2) Isn’t “very secret, by-invitiaton-only” also characteristic of Conspiracies?

  112. Deb wrote:

    Deformed

    No doubt that being indoctrinated in reformed theology will retard a young person’s spiritual development – they are taught that Calvinism ‘is’ the Gospel and it is their mission to restore the gospel that the rest of us have lost. They are steeped in teachings and traditions of men, but genuine spiritual life in Christ is not always evident.

    When I was an unruly youth, the threat of being sent to “Reform School” loomed over me – it was a place where youthful offenders were sent as an alternative to prison (I wasn’t really that bad, however – folks just scared me with that possibility if I didn’t straighten up). Today we send our youth intent on rebelling against their parent’s way of doing church to “Reform Seminary” … to learn an alternative to traditional church. SBC’s Southern Seminary is ground-zero for New Calvinism.

  113. Max wrote:

    I sometimes wonder if these young whippersnappers push gender roles beyond Biblical bounds because they came from homes with domineering mothers … perhaps, this is their weird way to get back at mama.

    Wasn’t that also the motive for serial killer Edmund Kemper?
    Doing to coed proxies what he really wanted to do to his abusive mother?

  114. numo wrote:

    @ Josh:
    And same-sex martiage blow the whole thijg about gender roles to pieces, don’t forget. Becsuse it’s equal partnership, no?

    Or the image of someone “making a woman out of them”, doing to them what they want to do to a woman.

  115. @ Deb:
    Whoops. Deb, my previous comment should have been addressed to Patrice, not you. Fingers are not traveling across the keyboard as they should tonight.

  116. elastigirl wrote:

    “surging”? yeah, that’s one of those virility words.

    As in “surging” with Precious Bodily Fluids(TM)?

  117. Eagle wrote:

    Much of evangelicalism is driven by fear. In order to make the system work you need an enemy.

    Which through a lot of Western history has been The Jews(TM).

  118. Max wrote:

    Most are too macho to be influenced by eternally subordinate women … WWDD? types they are (What Would Driscoll Do?).

    WWDD?
    Punch you in the nose and throw you under the bus.
    “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! RAWR!”

  119. Gus wrote:

    [Point 1] There is no “complementarian theology” just as there is no “theology for slave-owners” – at least not today. If there were, we’d probably have a “Council for Biblical Master- and Servanthood”, with “servanthood” as a useful euphemism for “slavery”, just as “complementarianism” is used as a euphemism for “patriarchy”, when in reality “eternal subordination of women” would be the correct term.

    [point 2]
    The fact that they posit women’s subordination to their husbands even heaven, when Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, and there would not be a conflict for a remarried widow, tells you everything about the complementarian “theology”.

    As to point 1, please see:
    Gender in the American Church: Why the Racial Past Matters
    https://thisbrother.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/gender-in-the-american-church-why-the-racial-past-matters/

    As to point 2.
    Not only does that “women shall be subservient to men even in the afterlife” sound Mormon-esque (one reason complementarians should rethink their doctrine), but, again,

    Comps completely disregard and alienate any person who does not fit their neat little demographic of “Married by age 25 with three small children at home.”

    If you are infertile, don’t want kids, are widowed, divorced, or are over 30 years of age and have never married, you are “persona non grata” among Christian complementarians.

  120. @ numo:
    That reminds me of my favorite comeback [that I’ve never actually had a chance to use in real life]… “Asking who is the man and the woman in a same-sex relationship is like asking which chopstick is the fork and which is the spoon.”

  121. This shit is getting out of control. Why do we need a council for this? Who do these people think they are?

  122. @ Max:

    “I sometimes wonder if these young whippersnappers push gender roles beyond Biblical bounds because they came from homes with domineering mothers … perhaps, this is their weird way to get back at mama.”
    ++++++++++++++

    I think it’s a fast pass ticket to significance (my observation is that this is more valuable to men than ‘respect’ — forgive the generality and feel free to shoot it to smithereens)

    gender roles as ordained by God is a dream-come-true way to get back at jr. high.

  123. The New Yorker has a long article this week about Megan Phelps-Roper, formerly of the Westboro Baptist Church/clan/cult. Most of the article was stuff I’d heard before, but there was one new and disquieting thing. It shows the WBC are not so far apart from other very conservative Baptists and it was how Megan’s mother, Margie Phelps-Roper, was basically sat down and told to shut up. The new WBC leadership wasn’t about to listen to a woman…and where have I heard that before?

    By the way, comp (not a word–disestablishmentarianism is a word, not comp) does absolutely nothing for those of us women who are not married. I don’t know how the comps can call comp “gospel” and “central to the gospel,” when it omits so many people. Unless, of course, it’s not really comp that’s central to their gospel, but the eternal subordination of women that is central.

  124. Eeyore wrote:

    but what I am suspecting is that some folks are thinking “the culture is totally going astray in allowing gay marriage, I/we must redouble our efforts to defend True Biblical Marriage!”

    Eeyore, I have been thinking exactly the same thing.

  125. @ dee:

    So unintentional coincidence. That’s actually better, I think. Otherwise they would have been trying to make statement about the trials and I don’t think I want to hear certain TGC members’ thoughts on those particular trials.

  126. elastigirl wrote:

    I think it’s a fast pass ticket to significance

    Sad to see so many of our promising youth searching for significance in the New Calvinist movement … rather than in Christ … they are not one and the same.

  127. Katia wrote:

    CBMW will not be able to persuade me that complementarianism is surging until I see it practiced and preached among ALL demographics and see ALL demographics attending their conferences.

    I dug the rest of your post too, but I just wanted to highlight this part. It’s similar to what I’ve noticed with CBMW and other complementarians – they and their doctrine are only applicable to and interested in very narrow slices of demographics: married people who have kids at home.

    Anyone else (divorced, never married, widowed, infertile, the childfree) need not apply.

    This is also applicable to that point:
    On Being a Woman After God’s Own Heart
    Biblical womanhood, or cultural womanhood?

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/being-woman-after-gods-own-heart

  128. Will M wrote:

    Well you have to understand, us males are superior, but we have fragile egos that have to be propped up.

    One of those paradox thingys?

  129. okrapod wrote:

    Help me here. How does go home and get your wife into some docile submissive servant have anything to do with gay marriage or recent immigration or legalized marijuana, just to name a few. Or are you meaning that people just get angry and take it out on whomever.

    I don’t know if I can help explain very well, but I am a former gender comp and am still pretty socially conservative.

    A lot of conservatives who are still gender comps are motivate to push gender comp in large part because they get upset over cultural issues. They think one of the biggest reasons for America’s drift away from Judeo-Christian morals and in support of homosexual marriage, abortion and so on, is due to feminism.

    About all that is wrong with U.S. society (in their mind) can be traced back to the 1960s and/or any strides women made in gaining more and more legal rights, or in cultural shifts where upon most today do not begrudge women for staying single, for having sex prior to marriage, for having a kid out of wedlock, etc.

    If only women would take on super narrow 1950s gender roles and ideals (get married young, have ten kids, stay at home all day dusting furniture and baking cookies while the man has a 9 to 5 job) then American cultural decay would halt, and divorce, abortion and stuff like that would go away or decrease. That is how they think.

  130. Mara wrote:

    Has someone already linked this one?

    or this one? https://cicerokirk.wordpress.com/
    A new blog by the anonymous “Cicero” with great insight about all things “Kirk” and 5 articles already, including “Gospel for Shepherds”, “Masculinity So Fragile”, and “Masculinity So Frail”.

  131. Eagle wrote:

    Nate Sparks has a good article I have just skimmed through. It deals with complementarianism.
    https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/not-all-comps/

    That is somewhat akin to this older post:
    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

    And it touches upon something I said about comp on the Open Thread of this blog.

    That there are so many forms of complementarianism, that comps cannot agree on each other exactly when, where, how or if women may serve in churches or how much authority (if any) a woman may wield in a marriage, is an indicator, IMO, that their position is false.

    Some comps claim that gender roles is of great import to the Gospel (which I think is silly). But, as Deb and Dee have blogged about on TWW months ago, if the gender role subject is so darn falutin’ Gospel-level important,

    how is it that comps themselves are not in agreement on how Christians are to carry out the tenets of compism, or cannot agree on all its points, other than almost all of them believe that women should not hold the office of preacher?

  132. Jerome wrote:

    “On Tuesday, we’re holding a women’s mini-conference from 7:30am-10am. As is our way at CBMW, we’re packing a lot into a little time! This is our first time holding this event-within-an-event, and I hope that many WIVES will join their PASTOR HUSBANDS in coming to T4G both for this special gathering and for T4G itself. That is our intent.”

    Will they be giving out muffin and casserole recipes, and tips on housecleaning?

    About the only content I see by women for women on comp blogs usually revolves around very stereotypical 1950s American wifely pursuits.

    That, and editorials by Christian comp women convincing other Christian women that complementarianism is really cool, feminism is awful, stick with comp, comp is more biblical, there is freedom in being in the comp prison, etc.

  133. Mae wrote:

    Massachusetts and NH aren’t conservative states at all. Their governors have joined the, ” no refuge”, bandwagon as well.

    Yes, last I heard there were a handful of Democrat governors who said “no” to refugees.

  134. Jerome wrote:

    what about the Council’s other mother, Susan Foh?

    I am also curious about what has happened to Ms. Foh since her Westminster days where she re-interpreted Genesis 3:16 so helpfully.

    IIRC, the Evangelical Theological Society membership requirements are an M.Div. and subscription to inerrancy and basic evangelical theology. Interestingly, there was a kerfuffle about the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy at ETS, but the Female Subordinationists somehow were able to convince the others that an Eternally Subordinate Son is also equal in power and glory to the Eternal Father. So, which seminaries do you think have been producing M.Div. degrees by the boatload? And where is ETS located? In Louisville. On Lexington Road, IIRC. How very convenient for ETS to be located so close to SBTS and CBMW!

    I think that at this point the ETS is, for all practical purposes, a Female Subordinationist organization, though I do not have access to their membership list. Aaron’s comment is an interesting one, because stealthy and secret takeovers is the style of the Gospel Glitterati. Maybe Aaron hasn’t read all the posts and comments about that at TWW yet. Grudem and Piper and Knight saw their male clergy privilege slipping away as more and more *conservative* evangelical scholars saw the shoddy logic and exegesis which supports Female Subordination along with the Eternal Subordination of the Son. What was the need for a secret meeting if all they wanted to do was to make their exegetical arguments publicly? Was someone at ETS preventing Female Subordinationist papers from being presented and published? I cannot think of a good reason except that they needed to plan how to stop the “slide” away from the patriarchal orthodoxy in the ETS. In other words, they had very good political reasons for secrecy.

  135. @ Will M:

    This long (but very good) post discusses that:

    Reflections on a New Defense of Complementarianism
    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

    Snippet:

    From Thomas Aquinas down to c.1950, Christian accounts of gender ‘complementarity’ depended on an assumption that women were in some way weaker or less perfect than men.

    ….When it became clear that this basic argument was simply false, the churches had two options. [Churches then came up with new arguments]

    I particularly liked this part of his conclusion:
    —–
    I reflect, however, that these continually-shifting arguments [by gender complementarians] to defend the same conclusion start to look suspicious:
    by the time someone has offered four different defences of the same position, one has to wonder whether their commitment is fundamentally to the position, not to faithful theology. …

  136. mirele wrote:

    Unless, of course, it’s not really comp that’s central to their gospel, but the eternal subordination of women that is central.

    Especially MARRIED women (all caps for emphasis, not yelling).

    If you are an un-married lady, you are not under male control (which the honest ones will say can only be of the husband- controls- wife variety), and depending on the type of complementarian we are discussing, they either cannot
    a. conceive of a woman being single, or, if they can,
    b. they usually have no idea how to boss a single woman around, since we single ladies don’t have a husband to whom the comps can appeal to “tell your wife to behave”

  137. Deb Willi wrote:

    According to her, shortly after Mr. Begg arrived, she and other women who helped start the church with their time, energy, prayer, teaching, and leadership experienced the pain of restrictions in using their gifts–simply because they were women. He successfully converted it to a “boys club.”

    How do these guys deal with the numerous references and allusions to the church as “the bride of Christ”? If you bring it up do they begin to look ill, turn green and run from the room?

  138. Bridget wrote:

    Will M wrote:
    Well you have to understand, us males are superior, but we have fragile egos that have to be propped up.
    One of those paradox thingys?

    And don’t forget, as comps teach it, men are very vulnerable to female sexuality.

    Men so much as see a woman’s bare ankle, they cannot control themselves, yet, we are to believe God wants men (such helpless creatures) to be in charge of women, women who are supposedly more easily deceived than men (most comps having given up the “women more easily deceived” nonsense, but a few still cling to this thought, amazingly)?

  139. Mae wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    Massachusetts and NH aren’t conservative states at all. Their governors have joined the, ” no refuge”, bandwagon as well.

    You expected anything different? After Paris, any Muslim refugee will be looked at as an ISIS plant.

    And Massachusetts has always had the Puritan Righteousness attitude. Got rich on the slave trade, went abolitionist (with accompanying Moral Superiority attitude) a generation or two later, no slouch when it came to Jim Crow and Sundown laws after the Civil War (we don’t need them any more).

  140. Will M wrote:

    Thus something needed to be done, voila compelmentarianism. Now women are equal to men, but in a subordinate way!?

    Ask any black man from the pre-1960s Deep South about “Separate but Equal”.

    P.S. My spellchecker suggested “Compartmentalization” for “Complementarianism”.

  141. @ numo:
    Even though I’ve never eaten anything successfully with chopsticks, I wouldn’t insult them by comparing them to sporks. 😉

    @ Daisy:
    That person makes some interesting points that would carry more weight if it wasn’t blatantly obvious that said person is either afraid of those who are anything other than straight, or simply thinks that we serve no better purpose than to be made fun of. Sorry, I just can’t take it seriously.

    With that said, the George Rekers scandal spawned the euphemism “to lift another’s luggage,” which would be useful if more than 1% of the internet knew what it meant.

  142. @ Josh:
    Not to mention that the person who hired the luggage-lifter also though that one of the smsll boys in a study he was running had “seductive” eyes…

  143. Josh wrote:

    That person makes some interesting points that would carry more weight if it wasn’t blatantly obvious that said person is either afraid of those who are anything other than straight, or simply thinks that we serve no better purpose than to be made fun of

    Usually those who are “afraid of those who are anything other than straight” end up in the news getting caught with a rentboy lifting their luggage.

  144. Patrice wrote:

    I took my paint brush and a tube of black paint and changed the ‘R’ to ‘D’ on their sign

    This is a disgraceful way to carry on. Where is your verse to justify it?

    Nevertheless, it’s precisely the sort of thing I would enjoy doing, so if you ever want to do this again, for example change restless to witless, I’d like to volunteer to hold the ladder. It would be so good to work together as a team …

  145. @ Jerome:

    ““CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles.”
    +++++++++++++++

    well, now that’s interesting. where’s mary kassian? every time I’ve read her responses to criticism about complementarianism she always takes the opportunity to make sure everyone knows she was “there” at the (earth shaking) genesis, having a hand in it all. now there’s no mention of her.

  146. @ Jerome:

    “It could as well have been the “Sheraton Ferncroft Resort Statement”.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    and if the Sheraton had been completely booked, it could have been “The Holiday Inn Statement”.

    Has a nice ring to it. conveys nicely the silly hubris of it all.

  147. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    That does seem to be a pattern.

    Not just in this one area but in almost everything one good first approach when somebody has cause is ‘why is this particular thing so important to you-you personally?’

  148. Interesting how American Christianity uses/relies on hype/marketing/branding/etc…. Despite claims of being “not of this world” , light not darkness, etc, some much of American Christianity looks/behaves just like American business/economic/PR culture….
    The CBMW is a prime example

  149. Here’s the link to CBMW’s 2013 990 form. (This is public information because they are a public charity in the U.S. under 501(c)3.)

    http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_07_EO/36-3635678_990EZ_201312.pdf

    It show salaries and income. I’m not a tax professional, but I don’t see where they’ve listed their major contributors — which they are required to do by law — when they meet a certain threshold.

    In Schedule O, they make it clear that their particular view of men and women is “ESSENTIAL” to your Christianity. (Wow, I thought it was just believing in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.)

  150. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    @ Eagle:
    Massachusetts and NH aren’t conservative states at all. Their governors have joined the, ” no refuge”, bandwagon as well.
    You expected anything different? After Paris, any Muslim refugee will be looked at as an ISIS plant.
    And Massachusetts has always had the Puritan Righteousness attitude. Got rich on the slave trade, went abolitionist (with accompanying Moral Superiority attitude) a generation or two later, no slouch when it came to Jim Crow and Sundown laws after the Civil War (we don’t need them any more).

    Being a native of Massachusetts, I disagree with the notion of MAss. having much Puritism left in it. Nonetheless, I was very surprised that Mayor Walsh of Boston, agreed with the governor on the ban.

  151. js wrote:

    The bottom line is I don’t think the comparison of raw revenue between the two organizations is a good indicator of their relative influence.

    I totally agree but probably for a different reason. :o)

    From what I can tell with the small interaction I have had with them, they do not attract people who are dead set on following rules, roles and formulas. Their underlying theme is giftedness, not gender. CBMW’s underlying theme is authoritarianism… which is growing in acceptance in many sectors of society.

    Influence can be either good or bad. However, I have been in quite a few comp churches where the average pew sitters has never heard of CBMW. It is really a movement of pastors and Christian para church speakers, etc.

    I think CBMW is trying to change that.

  152. Lydia wrote:

    Their underlying theme is giftedness, not gender. CBMW’s underlying theme is authoritarianism… which is growing in acceptance in many sectors of society.

    i.e. “I GET TO HOLD THE WHIP!”

  153. Janey wrote:

    It show salaries and income. I’m not a tax professional, but I don’t see where they’ve listed their major contributors — which they are required to do by law — when they meet a certain threshold.

    Question for some experts: do they have to list churches who contribute?

  154. elastigirl wrote:

    ““CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles.”

    Flutterhands Piper and WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem.

  155. Will M wrote:

    The history of a lot of Protestantism is one where women were thought to be less than men. By, the sixties and seventies, this was no longer a tenable position to hold. Thus something needed to be done, voila compelmentarianism. Now women are equal to men, but in a subordinate way!?

    So you simply invent another doctrine called Creation Order and map it to the Trinity. And then insist it is traditional teaching.

  156. js wrote:

    In light of these issues, I believe CBE has a better financial footing but not as much growth as CBMW.

    Sarah wrote:

    If the enemy can get us distracted in fighting “the evils of egalitarianism” within our camps then perhaps we’ll forget about Jesus’ commands to feed and clothe and help those who are in need. Perhaps that’s what the “success” of CBMW is due to – if so, I pray that they see that and repent quickly.

    Financial footing and membership growth aside, Sarah’s story shows the differences in MISSION between CBE and CBMW. CBE exists to “PROMOTE biblical justice and community by EDUCATING Christians that the Bible calls women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world.” CBMW exists to “set forth . . . because these [complementary] teachings are ESSENTIAL FOR OBEDIENCE . . .and HEART of the Gospel . . . ” No wiggle room from CBMW, as Sarah noted.

    CBE’s membership and conferences, although smaller in members and churches, represent over 100 denominations. (Not every egalitarian chooses to leave his/her denomination or church with comp teachings, but hope to educate and change to allow other views within it). It’s interesting that evangelical international organizations such as World Vision, Lausanne, and mission organizations have called on CBE to help educate about Biblical equality (not “roles”), as these organizations have recognized that the inequality (not “roles”) of women is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. (Can we deduce that these organizations do not consider complementary teaching as “essential,” as CBMW states.)

    CBE’s next conference is hosted by South African church leaders where gender-based violence is the highest in the world. A South African pastor said that its government and business are ahead of the church in influencing its patriarchal society.

    John Stackhouse tweeted from CBE’s conference in LA last summer: “As Christians, our first callings are to make shalom and make disciples. Biblical gender equality makes us do both better.” (234 attendees and 28 speakers from 16 countries)

  157. @ Ted:
    the culture abandoned the ideal of ‘marriage’ long ago, then the ‘Churches’ left it, and we wonder why NOW, at this time, the issue of ‘saving marriage’ arises,

    is it because of Homophobia?

    we ‘Christians’ are more transparent in our attacks on ‘the others’ than we know. And I for one think we deserve to be discovered for the hypocrites we are when we do this.

  158. Mae wrote:

    I was very surprised that Mayor Walsh of Boston, agreed with the governor on the ban.

    Boston Marathon bombing . . .

  159. Victorious wrote:

    You know, HUG…I don’t even think Driscoll resorted to these types of derogatory, filthy words for impact. I find them revolting regardless of their desired purpose.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And porn teaches you (by osmosis if nothing else) that women are good for One Thing and One Thing Only.

    HUG is a porn expert, too!

  160. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Usually those who are “afraid of those who are anything other than straight” end up in the news getting caught with a rentboy lifting their luggage.

    More filth from HUG with the double entendre, “rentboy lifting their luggage.”

  161. I’m glad the CitizensAudit site was posted. I was able to go into both CBE and CBMW records. In neither case is a list of major contributors included in the records available, nor is there any record of grant money vs. contribution money (though it is obvious from the search for CBE on the site that the related hits include a lot of grants from outside organizations).

    Interestingly, Mimi Haddad, the long time head of CBE, apparently works there full time, reporting on the form that she works 60 hours a week with CBE. She makes more than $88,000 in total compensation. That’s a reasonable salary for someone in her position in my opinion. Owen Strachan brings in, by the latest available report, total compensation of around $35,000. Again, very reasonable, and we don’t have on the report any record of Strachan’s hours. I am a little concerned that Haddad is crazy busy, as her CBE bio relates her contributions to nine books, over 100 articles along with serving as an adjunct professor at three seminaries. In 2014 she spoke at 14 conferences or events listed on her bio, two of them international. Seems she is giving Kevin DeYoung a run for his money.

  162. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Deb Willi wrote:

    Alistair Begg has been a complementarian forever.

    That anything like George Wallace and “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!”?

    LOL. Good analogy. I unfortunately experienced that one, too!

  163. okrapod wrote:

    Not just in this one area but in almost everything one good first approach when somebody has cause is ‘why is this particular thing so important to you-you personally?’

    I’m pretty sure one dynamic in play is self-medication. Here’s a Preacher-man (who has to be more Perfect than God or other Christians will turn on him) who is secretly drawn to one of the biggest taboos in Christianese culture (all REAL sin is sexual). Add CELEBRITY Preacher and/or Activist to supercharge the mix.

    Of course he can’t admit it in public. Maybe not even to himself. So he self-medicates and self-treats in secret, like Rush Limbaugh becoming the Number One Fan of the War On Drugs while battling a secret Oxycontin addiction. Add in “I have X problem, so everyone must have the same problem!” like recovering alcoholic Billy Sunday preaching against Demon Rum to the exclusion of anything to do with Christ. Whip up the frenzy against My Secret Sin and maybe I can keep it under control. And the pressure builds in the pressure cooker.

  164. Patrice wrote:

    Max wrote:
    the YRRDs (young, restless, reformed and deceived) are buying lots of books.
    I once attended a Christian Reformed church that refused to deal with a deacon who was sexually abusing a boy in their Cadet group. So late one night, I took my paint brush and a tube of black paint and changed the ‘R’ to ‘D’ on their sign.
    ‘Young, Restless and Deformed’ sounds appropo to me.

    As a Cadet Counselor myself, I find that highly disturbing and horrifying. I hope you also filed a police report and got that monster arrested as well.

  165. numo wrote:

    Not to mention that the person who hired the luggage-lifter also though that one of the smsll boys in a study he was running had “seductive” eyes…

    WOW, really?

  166. Ken wrote:

    Where is your verse to justify it?

    Nevertheless, it’s precisely the sort of thing I would enjoy doing, so…I’d like to volunteer to hold the ladder….

    Actually I think it is in scripture. See Hezekiah 7: “Behold, a dollop of black paint will tell the truth on the face of silence.”

    Likewise, too and also, there’s this in Luke: “If they keep quiet, the very black paint on the signs will cry out.”

    I’ll let you know when the need for accuracy next reaches peak crisis. Be delighted with your help.

  167. Joe2 wrote:

    More filth from HUG with the double entendre, “rentboy lifting their luggage.”

    That filth is all George Rekers, acting judgmental and self-righteous while taking a male prostitute on (more than) one of his trips. And afterwards insisting that the rent-boy had only been hired to lift his luggage, even in face of a pic of him carrying his own luggage as the young man stood by.

    As Josh wrote in earlier comment, “With that said, the George Rekers scandal spawned the euphemism “to lift another’s luggage,” which would be useful if more than 1% of the internet knew what it meant.”

  168. Patrice wrote:

    That filth is all George Rekers, acting judgmental and self-righteous while taking a male prostitute on (more than) one of his trips.

    That’s my thought. Hug didn’t think it up. He is just repeating the facts.

  169. Cicero wrote:

    As a Cadet Counselor myself, I find that highly disturbing and horrifying. I hope you also filed a police report and got that monster arrested as well.

    Eventually, church leadership did act (~6 months out). A report was filed, etc, and when it all washed out, the deacon was on long-term probation. We the church paid for at least 3 years of counseling for the boy (I moved so don’t know whether longer than that).

    The offending deacon decided to attend another larger Christian Reformed church in the area and our church told their consistory about his predilections, with warnings. Unfortunately, two years later, he was again a Cadet leader. Scathing letter was sent and that’s the last I heard before I left.

    As these horror stories go, this one wasn’t the worst of. Still, though, sheesh.

  170. Patrice wrote:

    Unfortunately, two years later, he was again a Cadet leader.

    Had no one contacted the police? Or, was this one of those “we will handle this in-house” debacles?

  171. Bridget wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    Unfortunately, two years later, he was again a Cadet leader.
    Had no one contacted the police? Or, was this one of those “we will handle this in-house” debacles?

    I don’t know. Our church found out that he was again Cadet counselor not long before I moved out of state for grad school. Of course, our pastor should have reported it to his probation officer tout de suite (since the other church didn’t care), but I don’t know if he did.

    TBH I was topped out dealing with my own abuse from pastor-father from within the denom, so after making more loud noises, I left them to it.

    It seems there’s a passive smugness that comes from believing in a just-world theory. It’s a theory that can only be held by safe well-nurtured groups. I don’ really know, but what else would make these stories end in the same ignorant way, again and again? Gah!

  172. Patrice wrote:

    It seems there’s a passive smugness that comes from believing in a just-world theory. It’s a theory that can only be held by safe well-nurtured groups.

    “The Best of All Possible Worlds,” eh, Dr Pangloss?

  173. Patrice wrote:

    Joe2 wrote:
    More filth from HUG with the double entendre, “rentboy lifting their luggage.”

    That filth is all George Rekers, acting judgmental and self-righteous while taking a male prostitute on (more than) one of his trips. And afterwards insisting that the rent-boy had only been hired to lift his luggage, even in face of a pic of him carrying his own luggage as the young man stood by.

    All I can say is if he thinks that’s “filth(TM)”, Joe2 has never been outside his church womb with the Thomas Kincade-papered walls and warm milk. Or read Ezekiel without a bowdlerized translation. He has never seen the REAL thing. How would he ever survive in the real world, the world that Jesus incarnated into?

  174. numo wrote:

    @ Josh:
    Not to mention that the person who hired the luggage-lifter also thought that one of the smsll boys in a study he was running had “seductive” eyes…

    Fee! Fi! Fo! Fum!
    I smell PEDO…

  175. @ Jerome, Lydia, and Eeyore-The demographics you stated are precisely what I suspected. White married men in ministry in a variety of classes. People who are living in their ministry bubble and don’t understand how the other half lives. And it seems to me that with a few exceptions the only kind of person who would be interested in taking time off work to go to a conference like that.

    So CMBW can’t tell me that complimentarianism is surging when it’s only “surging” in a small segment of society.

  176. mirele wrote:

    By the way, comp (not a word–disestablishmentarianism is a word, not comp) does absolutely nothing for those of us women who are not married. I don’t know how the comps can call comp “gospel” and “central to the gospel,” when it omits so many people. Unless, of course, it’s not really comp that’s central to their gospel, but the eternal subordination of women that is central.

    Exactly! And what about the women whose husbands will not lead their families or cannot lead due to a medical or physical condition? I am the daughter of a woman in the first situation and the granddaughter of a woman who was in the second many years until “death did they part.”

  177. Patrice wrote:

    It seems there’s a passive smugness that comes from believing in a just-world theory. It’s a theory that can only be held by safe well-nurtured groups. I don’ really know, but what else would make these stories end in the same ignorant way, again and again? Gah!

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem

    Wayne lives in Scottsdale (or at least he owns a home there). He is also a research professor at Phoenix Seminary, which would likely not accept me as a student because I refuse to think inside their box. (Phoenix Seminary has no women on its resident faculty list either.)

  179. @ Daisy I agree 100% about what you say about comps and singleness. I’ve come to the conclusion that one of, if not the biggest reasons comps treat singles the way they do is because when one is honest, we singles prove everything they teach about gender roles etc is wrong. How can you tell a single woman she needs to submit when she’s got no man how to submit to and has to be assertive in her everyday life? How can you blame a wife for her husband’s infidelity because she’s not giving enough of you know what when there’s single men who are supposed to be happily living without that? How can you can tell women the only way to to be fulfilled is to be a wife and mom when there are single, childless women living happy, fulfilled lives? And so on.

  180. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    How would he ever survive in the real world, the world that Jesus incarnated into?

    Oh, I don’t know. He knew what it meant right off. It took me a good half hour to decipher the terminology, and that only after Joe2 brought up his objection. But no as to filthy. I think that street slang has its place. Not all the time of course, but p.r.n.. And I do not think that Rekers’ behavior needs to be spoken of in muted and respectful terms.

  181. Patrice wrote:

    It seems there’s a passive smugness that comes from believing in a just-world theory. It’s a theory that can only be held by safe well-nurtured groups. I don’ really know, but what else would make these stories end in the same ignorant way, again and again? Gah!

    Pederast, predator, serial molester, that’s all water under the bridge and you’re just a ‘poor sinner’. Get caught with your pants down doin’ the nasty with another consenting adult? Your goose is cooked, your hash is settled, and you’ll never be granted full participation in their circles again.
    Their ethos and how they arrive at it beggars the mind, it really does.

  182. Deb Willi wrote:

    t’s interesting that evangelical international organizations such as World Vision, Lausanne, and mission organizations have called on CBE to help educate about Biblical equality (not “roles”),
    as these organizations have recognized that the inequality (not “roles”) of women is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. (Can we deduce that these organizations do not consider complementary teaching as “essential,” as CBMW states.)

    There were two things I wanted to say about this. I can’t remember the second thing right off hand.

    The first thing. I think I read somewhere that Katharine Bushnell got into this subject.

    She traveled overseas (IIRC) and saw that a lot of men in nations outside of the U.S.A. justified or based their sexism and horrible treatment of women on their religious beliefs. She saw this was true of some Christian men too.

    Here’s an article that talked about it (I think this is by an Aussie author?):
    Headship and Abuse
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/04/headship-and-abuse/

    Snippet:

    …a woman by the name of Katharine Bushnell asked this very question. An American Methodist and social reformer, Bushnell campaigned to end prostitution and advocated for the rights of “fallen women”—in America, throughout the British Empire, and across the globe.

    Bushnell’s activism repeatedly introduced her to Christian men guilty of treating women with appalling cruelty, and then of condemning those women to lives of shame.

    …she argued that the theological basis of men’s cruelty towards women was rooted not in the inspired word of God, but rather in misogynistic mistranslations of the original text.

  183. I just posted this over at Julie Anne’s blog. I thought it sort of fit here, too.

    I think one danger of gender complementarianism is that it teaches women that their husband (if they are married) has authority over them, and that the man is supposedly her “head” (which is taught to be “boss”), and they are taught that “submit” means to put up with an abusive husband’s mistreatment.

    This page has an interview with a Christian woman who was being verbally abused by her Christian husband, and for a long time, she put up with it.

    ‘But He Never Hit Me’: A Christian Primer on Emotional Abuse on Christianity Today
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/december/but-he-never-hit-me-christian-primer-on-emotional-abuse.html?paging=off

    Snippet from the page:

    [quoting the abused wife]: “I tried so hard to be godly … and the Bible told me to submit to my husband. Maybe God just wanted me to suffer a bit, to make me more holy. Besides, it wasn’t that bad—he never hit me.”

    But it was bad, enough that their marriage disintegrated under the strain, leaving Deb brokenhearted, fearful, and ashamed.

    Deb’s story is not unusual. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four American women experiences domestic abuse in her lifetime, with emotional abuse present in the majority of cases. The numbers are no better among churchgoers….

  184. Christiane wrote:

    the culture abandoned the ideal of ‘marriage’ long ago, then the ‘Churches’ left it…

    Many churches (evangelical and Baptist especially) abandoned singleness too.

    They promote the crud out of marriage but treat singleness as though it’s a second-class, un-natural status. I think those views on singleness hurts marriage in the long run, as well as marginalizes singles.

  185. Joe2 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    And porn teaches you (by osmosis if nothing else) that women are good for One Thing and One Thing Only.

    Joe 2 said:
    HUG is a porn expert, too!

    I’m not a porn user myself, but I’ve read enough studies about it over the years to know what it’s about.

    Are you saying that porn does not teach that women are “good for only one thing”?
    Because based on what I’ve read about it over the years from Christian and Non-Christian news sources, that is an accurate assessment HUG is giving.

    Are you arguing that porn says wonderful, honorable things about women? If so, like what? Please illuminate.

  186. Muff Potter wrote:

    Get caught with your pants down doin’ the nasty with another consenting adult? Your goose is cooked, your hash is settled,

    Well, maybe. It seems like a large chunk of certain types of Christians (like Gothard fans, Quivering families, etc) will make excuses left and right for husbands who cheat.

    They then blame the wives for “letting their looks go,” or for not performing enough for the husband, or for not baking his favorite casserole often enough. The sins of the husbands in those regards (sexual sin) get watered down, and the woman gets the blame.

  187. Deb Willi wrote:

    It’s interesting that evangelical international organizations such as World Vision, Lausanne, and mission organizations have called on CBE to help educate about Biblical equality (not “roles”), as these organizations have recognized that the inequality (not “roles”) of women is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel….

    CBE’s next conference is hosted by South African church leaders where gender-based violence is the highest in the world.

    The second thing I wanted to say about this.

    Your comments here reminded me of this page, sort of:
    The Bait & Switch of Complementarians
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/bait-switch-complementarians

    Snippet:

    Though Piper endorses female education, he denies them equal authority because they are female and this places them at great risk, in any corner of the world!
    To be equal in education but unequal in service is a bait and switch which egalitarians reject as unbiblical.

    I don’t think complementarianism can do much to really fight against sexism in cultures around the world, because, for one thing, it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.

    It holds out an apparent message of hope and equality at first glance, but the complementarian position of “equal in worth but not role” is just a way to hide that complementarianism really doesn’t teach that women are equal to men or have equal worth.

    It’s no more honest or loving to tell girls and women, “God loves you as much as men, but only allows men to do X,” then it was for white people in America to tell black people “Sure, you guys are equal in value, but you’re not allowed to sit in certain places in restaurants or use the same water fountains whites use.”

    If you really think blacks and whites are equal, then why would you balk at them using the same water fountains and so on? The complementarians use the same shabby reasoning.

    Complementarians claim to care about women, but their gender doctrinal stance betrays women and girls in the end scheme of things.

  188. Muff Potter wrote:

    Pederast, predator, serial molester, that’s all water under the bridge and you’re just a ‘poor sinner’. Get caught with your pants down doin’ the nasty with another consenting adult? Your goose is cooked, your hash is settled, and you’ll never be granted full participation in their circles again.
    Their ethos and how they arrive at it beggars the mind, it really does.

    You said it just about perfectly.

  189. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    if he thinks that’s “filth(TM)”, Joe2 has never been outside his church womb with the Thomas Kincade-papered walls and warm milk.

    okrapod wrote:

    I do not think that Rekers’ behavior needs to be spoken of in muted and respectful terms.

    I think this is filthy: a PhD psychologist (UCLA, Harvard) and ordained Christian pastor (no ignorance excuse here) spreading malice, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and bald-faced lies. Engaging in sexual acts that he tries to “conversion therapy” others out of. Having the open-faced gall to mention that a boy in one of his studies had ‘seductive eyes’. Being praised in certain quarters and taking it all in as his due.

    It’s not what Joe2 sees as filth, of course, but it sits and stinks within his own little world.

    Only my opinion of course w00t

  190. @ Corbin:
    George Rekers is a very sick man, a hypocritr, and an unrepentant lisr. Describing a *4 year old kid* as a drag queen “swishing” around his parents’ house… The boy, who was hugley scarred by the so-called “therspy,” ended up killing himself. He was a very gifted man, and forever traumatized by the attempts to make him more “masculine” thst Rekers always clsimed were hugely successful.

    And for God’s sake, he was a *child* then. Just 4. Who thinks like this???!!!

  191. @ Patrice:
    Well, see the links i posted.

    As far as I’m concerned, Rekers is the ond who is “deviant” and guilty of child sbuse and more.

  192. @ numo:

    And this is a guy that CBMW still quotes from favorably, to bolster their complementarian agenda and arguments.

  193. Katia wrote:

    White married men in ministry in a variety of classes. People who are living in their ministry bubble and don’t understand how the other half lives. And it seems to me that with a few exceptions the only kind of person who would be interested in taking time off work to go to a conference like that.

    I have no problem with “white” men. I try very hard to take people as individuals although that is very hard with the YRR. :o)

    I know many Muslim men are misogynists. Many black men are, too. In fact, when I was on the board of a spouse abuse and rape crisis center, our biggest problem were black preachers who came to tell the abused wife she should go back home because the husband was sorry. The majority of women obeyed the preacher.

  194. numo wrote:

    George Rekers is a very sick man, a hypocritr, and an unrepentant lisr.

    Don’t remember where I saw this: “Being an a**hole is not a mental illness.”

    numo wrote:

    Well, see the links i posted.

    Can’t do it—I’d be nightmaring my way to tomorrow. But am glad to call this by its proper name. Evil.

    As Muff said above: “Their ethos and how they arrive at it beggars the mind, it really does.”

  195. Patrice wrote:

    numo wrote:

    George Rekers is a very sick man, a hypocritr, and an unrepentant liar.

    Don’t remember where I saw this: “Being an a**hole is not a mental illness.”

    I DO remember where I saw this (on a YouTube video I haven’t been able to find since):
    “Jesus didn’t die
    So you could be a a**hole;
    Jesus didn’t die
    So you could get rich…”

  196. Dee, have you heard of the pastoral position called ” pastor of administration of assimilation “?

  197. @ Patrice:
    Well, of ourse not, but i also think that falsely representing a 4 y.o. child as a “shrieking” drag queen is just sick.

  198. @ Patrice:
    I get what you’re ssying. Afaik, Rekers didn’t molest this boy; he was research assistant to the person who was basically trying to reprogram him. Keep in mind, thid was the era when John Money was at Hopkins, and B.F. Skinner’s ideas were in vogue…

  199. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Also of an extremely distorted, untruthful description that was published in a major psych journal. The guy who ran the “study” gave co-author credit to Rekers. They presented this all as a rsving sucess – they claimed to have made a pre-pubescent boy with “deviant” traits into a “normal” boy.

  200. Muff Potter wrote:

    Pederast, predator, serial molester, that’s all water under the bridge and you’re just a ‘poor sinner’.

    Seems to me that abuse of any sort is quintessential Biblical wickedness. Plain and simple, really. But what’s with all the excusers, ignorers, schmoozers, evaders, and victim-blamers?

    I wonder if perhaps they see the world as essentially a fair place. Maybe, when “things like that” happen, they trust there’s a good (or at least decent) reason for it because they see the world as run by a just and all-good God. Could this be what makes them so complacent/passive in the face of raw wickedness?

    The thing about the ‘just-world theory’ is that it can only be held by those who’ve been mostly safe, protected, well-fed throughout their lives. It’s how they’ve found the world to be so of course it’s like that for everyone….

    I wonder something similar regarding complementarianism. Isn’t it actually a theology of the Western middle/upper-class. Who else can afford to support one person staying at home with bunches of children? It’s weird to me.

    How many of the Evangelicals’ problems are due to identifying more as middle/upper-class than to the radical Christ?

  201. Lydia wrote:

    @ js:
    Owen has a job at Mid America now, right?

    How is this relevant? I was just saying people of all theological persuasions double or triple dip. Didn’t say Haddad was wrong and I don’t think Strachan or Deyoung are wrong either. But if she were in the TGC camp she would probably take heat on this site for having her hand in more than one pot.

  202. Bridget wrote:

    Deb Willi wrote:

    LOL. No, she has a husband–and one earned and one honorary doctorate.
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/content/dr-mimi-haddad-president

    Thanks for the answer. I didn’t think she was off doing her life while her hubby was home with six children

    Are you sure you want to go there? The same argument could be used against women working outside the home. How can she with full time when she has kids? Truth is we don’t know for sure how DeYoung relates to his family. He may be a super predictive guy who takes his family on the road with him and is a great father. Haddad may be a hermit who never gives her husband the time of day. We know they are both busy and we know they both have multiple irons in the ministry for assist from their primary jobs. That’s all we really know. All else is hearsay and speculation.

  203. js wrote:

    But if she were in the TGC camp she would probably take heat on this site for having her hand in more than one pot.

    Did she write a book concerning “crazy busy”? :o)

  204. js wrote:

    But if she were in the TGC camp she would probably take heat on this site for having her hand in more than one pot.

    Well, TGC aside, if she’d written a book about her personal besetting sin of over-busyness and immediately afterwards stuck both hands in several additional pots, yeah, she’d possibly get some heat on this site.

    It’s good to practice what one preaches. I think they teach that in seminary.

  205. *sigh* I was supposed to start going back to church this week. I’m reading a lot of the links and comments. This is great information but I have to confess the concrete repair job I’ve been procrastinating about is looking better and better. There’s a lot of going around the mulberry bush, coming back to the same points. Is church even relevant anymore? The bible keeps taking us back to bygone eras. Since 1800’s, it has been a slow but steady move forward in human rights (and we’re nowhere near done yet!). Women need to keep justifying their worth. Even in churches where they are not “complementarian” there tends to be an underlying misogyny (sometimes couched in pastors making “jokes” about the “little woman” and how she really “rules the house” har har nudge wink). What is complementary about complementarianism anyway? There’s no complementing, unless it’s the wife saying how awesome the husband is, because God said so doncha know? It should be called subjuganarianism. Ugh.

  206. js wrote:

    Are you sure you want to go there?

    Yes.

    Patrice wrote:

    It’s good to practice what one preaches. I think they teach that in seminary.

  207. Jack wrote:

    *sigh* I was supposed to start going back to church this week. I’m reading a lot of the links and comments. This is great information but I have to confess the concrete repair job I’ve been procrastinating about is looking better and better. There’s a lot of going around the mulberry bush, coming back to the same points. Is church even relevant anymore? The bible keeps taking us back to bygone eras. Since 1800’s, it has been a slow but steady move forward in human rights (and we’re nowhere near done yet!). Women need to keep justifying their worth. Even in churches where they are not “complementarian” there tends to be an underlying misogyny (sometimes couched in pastors making “jokes” about the “little woman” and how she really “rules the house” har har nudge wink). What is complementary about complementarianism anyway? There’s no complementing, unless it’s the wife saying how awesome the husband is, because God said so doncha know? It should be called subjuganarianism. Ugh.

    We tend to focus on certain kinds of churches here, but there is a whole spectrum of churches out there, with many different degrees and combinations of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ mixed and matched in all sorts of ways. The body of Christ is not the SBC, nor the YRR, nor the Westboro Baptist Church. Nor any other denomination – the very proliferation of which makes non-Christians shake their heads and roll their eyes in wonder, that they all think they have The Truth. Makes a joke out of the Gospel message.

    The church I grew up in was founded by the most strict Puritans imaginable, in 1638 – the real deal. Nowadays I suspect many here would consider it impossibly ‘liberal’ (whatever that means). It was development over centuries.

    Evangelical Megachurches are not ‘the Church’. Evangelicalism is not ‘the Church’. Calvinism is not ‘the Church’. And a lot of very good people who consider themselves Christian want nothing to do with the crazy stuff we spend so much time talking about here.

    Not sure what my point is, actually 🙂 Just thought that needed to be out there.

  208. Jack wrote:

    Is church even relevant anymore?

    No. But they sure try, what with insisting that complementarianism will appeal to people because it’s supposedly “counter cultural,” and the preachers wear skinny jeans, the churches have coffee shops in them, and some of these churches have cool, happening rock worship bands. 🙂

  209. Daisy wrote:

    No. But they sure try, what with insisting that complementarianism will appeal to people because it’s supposedly “counter cultural,” and the preachers wear skinny jeans, the churches have coffee shops in them, and some of these churches have cool, happening rock worship bands.

    A post modern Bronze Age I suppose. We’re hip, we’re happenin’, we’re making ignorance and subjugation cool again!

  210. Jack wrote:

    A post modern Bronze Age I suppose. We’re hip, we’re happenin’, we’re making ignorance and subjugation cool again!

    Or, from another angle, it could be called 50 shades of shepherding

  211. Okay, I have never heard of this Rekers guy before so I looked him up and read the story and WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE?! Why do they have to think up so many ways to abuse and damage each other? Why can’t a parent cherish their child just as he is? I am continually filled with grief at the things that go on behind the scenes of the (so-called) church. The hypocrisy and insanity.

    This man started the Family Research Council with James Dobson? Why have I not heard his name before or known what he did? I do remember hearing a Dobson show once, long time ago, pushing the idea that homosexuals could be straightened out with the right kind of therapy. Now that I know the rest of the story I just wish I could wash my brain.

  212. Patrice wrote:

    Actually I think it is in scripture.

    I’ve found a better place to justify these actions (and it’s not a gloss either):

    ‘But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?’

    So, if you are thinking of doing any more signs and wonders, I’ve got the ladder.

  213. Patrice wrote:

    js wrote:

    But if she were in the TGC camp she would probably take heat on this site for having her hand in more than one pot.

    Well, TGC aside, if she’d written a book about her personal besetting sin of over-busyness and immediately afterwards stuck both hands in several additional pots, yeah, she’d possibly get some heat on this site.

    It’s good to practice what one preaches. I think they teach that in seminary.

    No way in the would she’d get heat here. She’s wearing the right jersey.

  214. Patrice wrote:

    js wrote:

    But if she were in the TGC camp she would probably take heat on this site for having her hand in more than one pot.

    Well, TGC aside, if she’d written a book about her personal besetting sin of over-busyness and immediately afterwards stuck both hands in several additional pots, yeah, she’d possibly get some heat on this site.

    It’s good to practice what one preaches. I think they teach that in seminary.

    I think we have no idea whether DeYoung practices what he preaches. We don’t know the inner workings of his life or how he cares for his family or how he gets rest. If he recognizes it as enough of a problem to write a book about I would believe the best of him and assume that he is addressing busyness in his life until I have clear evidence otherwise. He took on some additional responsibilities, it is true, but we don’t know if he made other adjustments in his life to bring balance to his schedule. The same dynamic exists with Haddad. I brought her up to show that people of all theological stripes double or triple dip to expand influence and to make money. She too is very busy. I tend to think they are both just very productive people and I just think some people probably have a greater capacity for productivity while others need more down time. But to jump from that to the assumption that he must be neglecting his family because he is productive seems both unfair and uncharitable, much as it would be unfair to assume that a mother who works outside the home must be neglecting her family.

  215. @ js: it is always best not to preach to others what looks like one is not doing, either. Being a celebrity pastor does not excuse it. And yes, since he makes his living wanting people to pay attention to him, he should expect people to question when his actions and words don’t seem match.

  216. @ js: you came wearing your team jersey so you assume those that don’t agree in lockstep are wearing what you see as an opposing team. From what I have ascertained, CBE is not Matriarchal.

  217. Lydia wrote:

    CBE is not Matriarchal.

    Nope. It’s not.
    But binary people can only see two possibilites.
    Either the man rules, or the woman rules.
    In spite of the commands given in Genesis for co-rulership, co-rulership is an impossibility for the binary, black and white thinker. There is no third option. Men like this can only think, “If I don’t maintain my position as ruler, then I’ll fall to the position of servant. And that is NOT going to happen while I can help it. I will be the ruler and do whatever it takes to maintain my position of rulership, er I mean servant leader.”

  218. Lydia wrote:

    @ js: it is always best not to preach to others what looks like one is not doing, either. Being a celebrity pastor does not excuse it. And yes, since he makes his living wanting people to pay attention to him, he should expect people to question when his actions and words don’t seem match.

    It is best to be vulnerable and acknowledge a struggle even as you help others with the same struggle. If we can only teach about or write about the things we’ve mastered we’re in trouble.

  219. roebuck wrote:

    … a whole spectrum of churches out there … they all think they have The Truth …

    Christianity Today reported that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. Which one has a corner on The Truth? Jesus warned us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men … yet, 2000 years later, that is exactly what we have done! As a result, in far too many places, we are doing church without God.

  220. roebuck wrote:

    Calvinism is not ‘the Church’

    Likewise, Calvinism is not “The Gospel” … even though the hyper among them will tell you that.

  221. Jack wrote:

    Is church even relevant anymore?

    That question is easily answered by a careful and prayerful reading of Acts … the 1st century church is our pattern – even in today’s context. There is a lot of hype in 21st century church about being “culturally relevant”, particularly in New Calvinist ranks. Many churches have a “form of godliness” to attract folks, but “deny the power thereof”. Being culturally relevant to some means wearing funky clothes in the pulpit, potty-mouth preaching, taking the “church” into bars, gyrating on stage with hoochie-coochie praise teams, etc., etc. Even as an old man, I don’t have so much problem with form as long as there is some substance to it. But, it’s getting increasingly difficult to find substance in church.

  222. js wrote:

    I think we have no idea whether DeYoung practices what he preaches. We don’t know the inner workings of his life or how he cares for his family or how he gets rest. If he recognizes it as enough of a problem to write a book about I would believe the best of him and assume that he is addressing busyness in his life until I have clear evidence otherwise.

    Well, I know of one sense in which “RevKev” doesn’t practice what he preaches. It’s when he writes a blog post about not showing partiality, when he’s brazenly guilty of doing that in favour of his fellow pastors and Eternal Female Subordinationists. He co-signed a statement in support of C.J. Mahaney that contained at least two demonstrable falsehoods, and in the years since he hasn’t corrected, recanted, or apologized for it (to my knowledge). This in spite of plenty of pushback and public criticism from commenters, here and elsewhere.

    So, no, I don’t think the best of DeYoung. He claims to have recognized to problem of “busyness” in his life, but is blind to this glaring act of public dishonesty?

    What a joke… a sick, unfunny joke…

  223. Jack wrote:

    What is complementary about complementarianism anyway? There’s no complementing, unless it’s the wife saying how awesome the husband is, because God said so doncha know?

    God sent an apostle to tell her to ‘respect’ her husband. And the complement of her role whatever you exactly consider that to be is the husband loving her as Christ loved the church, even if this never gets beyond being a pale reflection of this in this life.

    It’s what Christ did for the church, the gathering of those who have put their faith in him that matters, vastly more important than whose view on marriage or church organisation is correct.

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

    It is to have this cleansing and purity increasing over a lifetime that believers ‘go to church’, which is really gathering with others who seek this. Without this reconciliation to God, this receipt of mercy and forgiveness, everything else is meaningless, outward religious show. It’s this message that makes the church relevant, or irrelevant if it has replaced this by entertainment and feel-good platitudes from positive thinkers.

    The NT unerringly puts its finger on the human condition, and you can’t tell me in view of the history of the 20th century that mankind is more enlightened than ever, even if we have granted ourselves lots of rights.

  224. @ Max:
    I am shocked at not just the fake relevancy they claim but at the idea they have a moral right to police thoughts and opinions.

    The examples are endless. My parents would have laughed in the face of such arrogance. What has happened to people?

  225. Lydia wrote:

    What has happened to people?

    Lydia, what the church doesn’t want to admit is that there is still a devil out and about on planet earth. There is a spiritual battle for the minds of church folks, particularly our youth. If he (the devil) can penetrate the mind with half-truth, he doesn’t have to pull other tools out of his toolbox to get the church off track. What has happened to people? They have bought the lie.

  226. Lydia wrote:

    From what I have ascertained, CBE is not Matriarchal.

    Yes, if you don’t support gender complementarianism and/or groups that promote it, like CBMW, often, gender comps assume you don’t take the Bible seriously, you are a liberal, you are a secular feminist (or have been under their influence), etc.

    It comes up in gender comp blogs and books- if you don’t share the gender comp interpretation of the Bible, they say you are disagreeing with God, or the Bible itself, is how they frame it.

    I find all this frustrating, because I’ve been a right wing conservative my whole life, a person who isn’t into most socially liberal causes, and I tend to take the Bible more “straight up.” I don’t agree with how the liberal Christians are so loose with the Bible.

  227. @ Daisy:
    And P.S. to Lydia’s commentary.
    And of course, if you disagree with gender comp, gender comps will automatically assume that you want women to be in charge of men. Even though that is not so.

    Gender comps equate asking for equal treatment of women to men to being non-GenderComps want women to rule over men…

    Gender comps already promote male rule over female – funny they are so alarmed by the reverse coming true

    (even though Christian mutualists / egalitarians and even a lot of staunch liberal feminists don’t want female rule over males).

  228. Mara wrote:

    In spite of the commands given in Genesis for co-rulership, co-rulership is an impossibility for the binary, black and white thinker. There is no third option.
    Men like this can only think, “If I don’t maintain my position as ruler, then I’ll fall to the position of servant. And that is NOT going to happen while I can help it

    You know what’s interesting about this.

    A few months ago, I was just reading a review of a book by an author who critiques Christian patriarchy or patriarchy from the Old Testament, and the author points out that this stuff hurts men too.

    Because there are only so many top tiers in the pyramid of power, so that lower ranking males are treated only marginally better than women, but they will never be “Top Dog” with all the benefits being Top Dog has.

    And the men who are at the Tippy Top of this power structure – the Top Dogs – can be toppled from that position by other males, because there are always men in the “lower caste” who are seeking to remove them, take their place.

    The whole system is not only grossly unfair to women, but it is stressful for men at the very top, and it can be unfair to the lower ranking males.

    And this stuff goes on in the church.

    I remember reading blog pages about how Mark Driscoll would chew out younger males in his church. Driscoll was Top Dog- but he got there by clawing his way there, using people, getting their money.

    But he was screaming at the younger guys of his church – who had a hard time finding jobs – to get a lot of money, buy a big house, get married.

    Not all men in our society today can land a steady, well paying job. It’s hypocritical for a Top Dog who exploits people, like Driscoll did, to criticize younger guys who are in a weaker position.

    And Driscoll was a big promoter of the Christian patriarchy (Gender complementarian) view, where men should rule over women.

    You can read about the book here

    On Biblical Manhood: A Q&A with Author Carolyn Custis James
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/takeandread/2015/06/on-biblical-manhood-a-qa-with-author-carolyn-custis-james/

    A snippet from that page:
    So to answer this question, yes, I believe we have embraced fallen notions of manhood. The Creation narrative doesn’t contain the slightest hint of one image bearer ruling over any other image bearers. Humanity’s call is outward to rule and care for creation for the good of all. Jesus didn’t come to endorse any human social or political system, no matter how we may try to “Christianize” or improve it.
    He calls those who follow him to a kingdom that is “not of this world.” Not a kinder-gentler version of how the world does things, but a Jesus, gospel way of living that is foreign to us and to our world.

  229. Daisy wrote:

    Gender comps equate asking for equal treatment of women to men to being non-GenderComps want women to rule over men…

    It is also a tactic used to throw us off the scent of their sin of worshiping hierarchy.

    It is the same tactic many unfaithful husbands use on their faithful wives. By accusing the faithful wife of being unfaithful, they throw the focus off of their own unfaithfulness and confused the victim.

    This is what male-supremacist do to cover their own lust to rule. They accuse others of wanting to rule to take the focus off of their drive to rule.

    No, CBE is not Matriarchal.
    But CBMW IS Patriarchal and promotes hierarchy heresy.

  230. @ Mara:
    I agree with everything in your post.

    There was a lady or two who used to post to this blog, who, any time I pointed out it was unfair, sexist, and unbiblical for churches not to permit women to hold positions of influence (such as teacher or preacher), these women accused me of being power hungry, or wanting women to rule over men.

    No. Simply asking for women to being afforded the same rights and roles as men is not being power hungry, lusting after power.

    I’ve actually been more of a follower myself and don’t care for power, because with power comes attention and the spot light. I feel more comfortable behind the scenes.

    But it bothers me to see women who DO want to preach and do stuff like that get told by churches “you are not permitted solely due to your gender.” To me, it’s about equality, not seeking authority for the sake of controlling others.

  231. Daisy wrote:

    the author points out that this stuff hurts men too.

    Oh, it definitely does. And in more ways than even what you brought out in you comment (which was very good, btw).

    But it’s hard to get men who are clawing for first place to understand how this is hurting them. The ones clawing don’t care who they hurt as long as they are on top and believe they aren’t being hurt.

    It is also hard to get the ones who are not on top to see how this is hurting them in any way other than the fact that they aren’t on top.

    But it hurts men because the teaching keep them from having to deal with the hurts and sins (pride, ego, lack of empathy etc.) of their own hearts because they get to blame women for everything.

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

  232. Daisy wrote:

    these women accused me of being power hungry, or wanting women to rule over men.

    It’s easier to accuse you of sin than to admit that everything they’d been taught is a perversion of the Bible.

  233. @ js:

    I only responded to your accusation that TTW people would never say anything critical about Haddad because we are biased like that. It was unfair and cranky, and I don’t accept it.

    Look, I don’t know Haddad but like De Young, I am Dutch-American. Workaholism is part of our culture, along with a (nearly pathological) thoroughness and pervasive stoicism. These are qualities entwined in Reformational thought.

    Thus, I believe De Young when he wrote that he was often guilty of over—busyness. I also know (personally) how difficult it can be to let go the arrogant idea that God can’t further His kingdom without me.

    So sure, productivity is a wonderful thing, but considering what De Young claims as his jobs, he is either doing a lot of them poorly or he is a super-hero. Fathering several children is what puts it over—I was raised in parsonage and experienced how it works against good fathering.

    Lastly, YRR-related people are hyper-critical towards everyone outside their fold, but when they get pushback from places like TWW, they cry foul. That doesn’t make for good brother/sister relationships, you know? You gotta be willing to take what you give out.

  234. js wrote:

    It is best to be vulnerable and acknowledge a struggle even as you help others with the same struggle. If we can only teach about or write about the things we’ve mastered we’re in trouble.

    I agree with this 100%. How lovely it would be if De Young would talk/write about his ongoing struggles with workaholism. How is he getting help with his too-many jobs? How does he decide what to leave in/out? What are the products/consequences, as he goes along?

    How excellent if he’d give his books’ ghost-writers their proper authorship (keeping self as by-line), thus relieving him of burden and allowing others to develop writing careers.

    It would also be tres sweet if he made clear that it does indeed takes a village to raise children, and name the members of the village that are helping raise his. It would help his wife and children a great deal.

    Same with pastoring; it’s a big job done well. What does he actually do and how does it work? Repeat with seminary lecturer.

    ‘When you stand in front of others, people will look at you.’ Being honest and humble in such ways would relieve everyone, including other Christian celebs who seem to feel the need to one-up each other.

  235. Patrice wrote:

    @ js:

    I only responded to your accusation that TTW people would never say anything critical about Haddad because we are biased like that. It was unfair and cranky, and I don’t accept it.

    Look, I don’t know Haddad but like De Young, I am Dutch-American. Workaholism is part of our culture, along with a (nearly pathological) thoroughness and pervasive stoicism. These are qualities entwined in Reformational thought.

    Thus, I believe De Young when he wrote that he was often guilty of over—busyness. I also know (personally) how difficult it can be to let go the arrogant idea that God can’t further His kingdom without me.

    So sure, productivity is a wonderful thing, but considering what De Young claims as his jobs, he is either doing a lot of them poorly or he is a super-hero. Fathering several children is what puts it over—I was raised in parsonage and experienced how it works against good fathering.

    Lastly, YRR-related people are hyper-critical towards everyone outside their fold, but when they get pushback from places like TWW, they cry foul. That doesn’t make for good brother/sister relationships, you know? You gotta be willing to take what you give out.

    I am Reformed and I am all for the rights of CBE to do their thing. I am not mad at anyone. I believe we should all stand strongly for our views without looking down on others who hold a different view. I may disagree with Rachel Held Evans or Peter Enns or Rob Bell or Mimi Haddad but it is not my place to vilify them. Nor do I want to shut down their voices or the voice of TWW, even where I disagree. I wish we could get beyond trading insults and assuming the worst of each other. Any guilt of the YRR in assuming the worst doesn’t give mean I should go there too.

  236. Patrice wrote:

    js wrote:

    It is best to be vulnerable and acknowledge a struggle even as you help others with the same struggle. If we can only teach about or write about the things we’ve mastered we’re in trouble.

    I agree with this 100%. How lovely it would be if De Young would talk/write about his ongoing struggles with workaholism. How is he getting help with his too-many jobs? How does he decide what to leave in/out? What are the products/consequences, as he goes along?

    >>>>Does he have to share with us who he is accountable to? Do we know he is accountable to no one?

    How excellent if he’d give his books’ ghost-writers their proper authorship (keeping self as by-line), thus relieving him of burden and allowing others to develop writing careers.

    >>>>>Are you certain he uses ghost writers? There is a difference between an editor and a ghost writer. If he uses ghost writers that is a real problem because in the couple of DeYoung books I have there is no credit to a ghost writer (contra Matt Chandler, who lists Jared Wilson under the byline of a couple of his books). So this is a serious deal but I need to see proof.
    It would also be tres sweet if he made clear that it does indeed takes a village to raise children, and name the members of the village that are helping raise his. It would help his wife and children a great deal.

    Same with pastoring; it’s a big job done well. What does he actually do and how does it work? Repeat with seminary lecturer.

    >>>>>Again, because of his public profile and book about busyness are you saying he is accountable to all of us for this? If so, are all Christian leaders who have a public platform accountable in the same way? If we’re not holding others to the same standards we are holding DeYoung, why not? Is it because he wrote a book about busyness? So did Bill Hybels. So did Perry Noble. And many mega pastors have given sermons about the breakneck speed of our culture. Why is there no interest in also holding these to account?

    ‘When you stand in front of others, people will look at you.’ Being honest and humble in such ways would relieve everyone, including other Christian celebs who seem to feel the need to one-up each other.

    >>>>>We don’t know how honest or humble he is to those before whom he actually stands and speaks. Unless anyone here knows what happens in his home church it is fruitless to speculate. It is also fruitless to speculate about the motives of his service to God.

  237. @ js:

    My message is more to followers and supporters of the celebs who make a living off Jesus: You do not know them. You cannot really know them. And that should be a wake up call before we put them on any sort of pedestal. Beware when they have ideas about how you should live or what you should be doing. You have the same Holy Spirit.

    Also, watch behaviors. When Rachel Held Evans responded the way she did over Tony Jones, it told us what she was really about: Celebrity. When Kevin DeYoung affirmed CJ Mahaney, he told us what he is really about.

  238. Lydia wrote:

    @ js: you came wearing your team jersey so you assume those that don’t agree in lockstep are wearing what you see as an opposing team. From what I have ascertained, CBE is not Matriarchal.

    I just see most of the people at TWW wearing the jersey of egal and being strongly opposed to the comp position. And it is always harder to criticize those sympathetic to your positions. This was one of the big problems with Mahaney. Dever, DeYoung, et al, couldn’t see clearly because of friendship. Thus my position that Haddad would never be criticized for the kinds of things YRR are criticized for here. And I’m not talking about abuse or the like, but issues like busyness or claiming a surge for the ministry, or personal mannerisms or lifestyle choices. People are just more reluctant to criticize those who agree with them. I understand that I can have the same bias. I think some critiques here of men and women I respect are fair but some are very unfair (guilt by association, etc). Too much time is spent here Watching for Warts among the YRR in order to pounce and reaffirm the rightness of another perspective. My view is that both perspectives (whether Calvinism/Arminianism or Comp/Mutualism) and any third ways that are seriously grappling with these truths should be allowed to stand as within the realm of acceptable Christian doctrine and both should promote their views and learn from each other and work hard to understand what God has said and what He wants. I would compare it to our views of the end times. I believe premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial views are vastly different and these views have real implications on how we live. Yet for the most part evangelicals have largely learned to deal with one another graciously on this topic. Certainly there are very few voices which charge the other views with heresy or question their salvation. In the same way, the issue of spiritual gifts, while at times divisive, seems to be one we have learned to live with for the most part. We just kind of know our view and tend to go to church where said view is supported. There are exceptions to this, but it seems that for the most part this is not a hot button issue. Baptism is the same way. Why do we hold our brothers and sisters who hold different views on the roles of men and women in such contempt?

  239. Lydia wrote:

    @ js:

    My message is more to followers and supporters of the celebs who make a living off Jesus: You do not know them. You cannot really know them. And that should be a wake up call before we put them on any sort of pedestal. Beware when they have ideas about how you should live or what you should be doing. You have the same Holy Spirit.

    Also, watch behaviors. When Rachel Held Evans responded the way she did over Tony Jones, it told us what she was really about: Celebrity. When Kevin DeYoung affirmed CJ Mahaney, he told us what he is really about.

    I totally agree with the first paragraph. Totally.

    As to the second paragraph, while I agree that we should watch behaviors I also am reluctant to be too quick to throw somebody under the bus for one bad response or some questionable association. I don’t think people are one dimensional. Evans’ actions may tell us about one aspect of her behavior (an aspect many people in her position would be tempted by) but it doesn’t tell us her whole story. I can still learn valuable truths from people who are very wrong about some very important things. I can still grow from the teachings of people with serious moral blind spots. This is why when RHE acted as she did, I think those who immediately wrote her off were being too harsh. In the same way, I think those who dismiss DeYoung because he co-authored the assessment of Mahaney are also too harsh. While neither DeYoung or Evans or any of us are likely to be lights of Church History, I would hate to ignore everything Luther wrote because he wrote some really nasty things about the Jews.

  240. Patrice wrote:

    YRR-related people are hyper-critical towards everyone outside their fold,

    Well, when you are convinced that you (as a New Calvinist) have been called into the world for such a time as this to restore the gospel that the rest of Christendom has lost, I suppose your message comes across as hyper-critical to non-Calvinists. Take, for example, the words of the good Dr. Mohler:

    “Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go …?”

    Soooo … any Christian who is not Reformed does not “want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ”? … does not “want to see gospel built and structured committed churches”? … “there just are not options out there”?! “Frustrated”? You bet we are Dr. Mohler! We are frustrated that so many of our youth have bought this lie! There is a difference between a critical spirit and the warning of watchmen … but if you have been blinded by aberrant theology, you just don’t hear and see anything but that which is filtered through the grid of the influencers you follow.

  241. Mara wrote:

    But binary people can only see two possibilites.
    Either the man rules, or the woman rules.
    In spite of the commands given in Genesis for co-rulership, co-rulership is an impossibility for the binary, black and white thinker. There is no third option. Men like this can only think, “If I don’t maintain my position as ruler, then I’ll fall to the position of servant. And that is NOT going to happen while I can help it. I will be the ruler and do whatever it takes to maintain my position of rulership, er I mean servant leader.”

    sorry, I meant to copy this quote in my above comment: People who cannot love default to power/control. This is all they can relate to. Not saying everyone who does this is unable to love, there are many who are led astray and can change. But people who are unable to love don’t seem to ever change. That’s my experience. Sociopaths. Every relationship to them is about power and control. Put someone like that in a leadership position and of course it is what they teach.

  242. js wrote:

    Why do we hold our brothers and sisters who hold different views on the roles of men and women in such contempt?

    Ask all the leaders in churches where as a woman if you aren’t in lock step with the comp belief, then you are not allowed to lead anything.

  243. js wrote:

    Why do we hold our brothers and sisters who hold different views on the roles of men and women in such contempt?

    BTW – I don’t hold anyone in contempt, but I also can’t pretend that they don’t hold me in contempt. And trust me, the men AND women in comp churches are horrid when it comes to accepting those couples who aren’t comp. You are viewed as poison that will ruin the well.

  244. @ js:

    I can understand differences on doctrine. what I cannot understand is someone who built their brand on the problem of oppression responding the way she did. As to DeYoung, he told us who he was over the CJ deal. When they cannot even acknowledge the victims or the wrong done and instead focus on saving the reputation of the wrong doer, they are not worth listening to.

    There are lines in the sand on this one. There should be.

  245. Bridget wrote:

    Ask all the leaders in churches where as a woman if you aren’t in lock step with the comp belief, then you are not allowed to lead anything.

    As one those of those who has been debating these things with comps, I can attest to this fact. I’ve dealt with an awful lot of contempt from comps, been called a pro-choice feminist (even though I’m a pro-life conservative) and far worse just because I don’t agree with their stringent and legalistic views on gender roles. I’ve been called liberal, accused of not respecting the Bible, and a whole host of other contemptuous things by gender comps.

    So yes, I agree, the contempt shouldn’t be there. But I’ve been on an the receiving end of a lot of this contempt you speak of. And I’ve witnessed far more contempt coming from the comp side than the egal side.

    All I can say is this: If someone wants to dish out loads of contempt on me, I can sling it right back. And I do. But if someone wants to debate respectfully, I’m so shocked it takes a moment for me to even realize what’s going on.

  246. @ js:
    I am a mutualist. I totally avoided the egalitarian movement because I personally don’t do movements. And as a history buff the word is just too “French Revolution” for me. However, the Egals I have come across were very conservative in many ways. I did not see the slippery slope so many determined. It was sort of like the TNIV propaganda.

    In sum, it has been a blessing to focus on developing gifts for the Body as a mutualist. It is a totally different world from the Talmudic comp camp. So many contradictions to accept. Focus on the wrong things.

    Most folks here were in the comp camp for years. Some really did their homework. You will find comps here. However, remember those who question it were not welcome in many churches and other blogs. So they might have migrated here for real discussion without all the shaming. I can understand why serious discussion is is not welcome in those type of places. It does not hold up well with serious scrutiny using consistent hermeneutics.

  247. Lydia wrote:

    I can understand why serious discussion is is not welcome in those type of places.

    It does not hold up well with “HOORAY! HOORAY FOR THE ONE TRUE WAY!”

  248. Bridget wrote:

    Ask all the leaders in churches where as a woman if you aren’t in lock step with the comp belief, then you are not allowed to lead anything.

    Only when you are completely broken to The System will you be allowed to advance within The System.

  249. Mara wrote:

    But binary people can only see two possibilites.
    Either the man rules, or the woman rules.

    That’s what happens when interaction between man and woman is reduced to Power Struggle.

    Because in Power Struggle there are only two possible end states: His Boot Stamping on Her Face or Her Boot Stamping on His. And the only way to avoid the latter is to make sure of the former. Forever.

    Game of Thrones — You Win or You Die.

  250. Here is the problem with complementarianism as I see it. As soon as you start defining to people what their “proper” roles are, freedom goes out the window. Even in their most innocent form (roles being different but no one in control over the other), these roles do not work for everyone! People are unique, every marriage is unique, and many different ways of doing things work fine! What is important? Love, kindness, respect! These are not limited to certain formulas, they can be practiced in all kinds of circumstances. God has given us freedom. The Christian life is not one of following a formula. It is a free journey of discovery.

    When you add in the control factor, the inherent abusiveness of one partner having control over the other, it becomes utterly problematic. Human nature is predictable. Power corrupts. You can not get beyond this.

    People cannot subjugate their individuality to narrow predefined roles without resentment and bitterness building up over the years. I think the future will reveal a lot of disillusionment and broken dreams.

  251. Ken wrote:

    The NT unerringly puts its finger on the human condition, and you can’t tell me in view of the history of the 20th century that mankind is more enlightened than ever, even if we have granted ourselves lots of rights.

    I will respectfully disagree with this point. I hope that the blog owners will forgive my digression, but I do think that it is relevant to complement-whatever-ianism. In 18th and 19th centuries we saw the start of the abolishment of slavery, scientific knowledge expanded exponentially, people did start thinking about social consciousness. This era gave us some great foundational treatises, of which the American Constitution is one of the most influential. Early in the twentieth century women got the vote. Yes we dealt with hypernationalism and totalitarianism vs liberal democracy. But I see in a lot of this history the birthing of a better world. A struggle against those who would keep us under some sort of totalitarian control (like in the days of the bible – when kings had the power of life and death over a helpless population). We have war now, but not on the scale of the past (including the 20th century). I think on the whole we live in a better world that still has it’s challenges. These complementarian folks are scared of a future where they have to share control and so they try to cling to the most controlling aspects of the biblical past starting with their families. Christianity is now one voice among many in our society, where at one time it was the dominant voice. This scares a lot of these guys.

  252. @ Jack:
    Thanks Jack, you beat me to it. There is always this tension in Christendom that the world has to be getting worse than ever or that it is all evil. Forgetting that even the concept of individual civil rights or governed by laws and not rulers is quite a step. Ideals that became stronger than the injustice of slavery.

    As Christians we are supposed to look like the redeemed. But when I look at history and the brave souls that brought about justice it is often an interesting mixture.

  253. js wrote:

    Nor do I want to shut down their voices or the voice of TWW, even where I disagree. I wish we could get beyond trading insults and assuming the worst of each other. Any guilt of the YRR in assuming the worst doesn’t give mean I should go there too.

    I don’t want to shut down anyone’s voices either. Nor do I see that desire here at TWW.

    Mostly, here, there’s an urgent desire for the hyper-criticism and authoritarianism to stop. That urgency desire comes from a wide variety of believers and also some non-believers—to stop the lack of respect and compassion, the abuse and denigration that is in too many places in the US church.

    It just so happens that right now the greater amount of those attitudes are coming from the YRR bunch. They have been very aggressive. Because of that, their doctrines will come in for more attention than usual, too. That’s just how it goes, you know?

    I wish Christians would learn proper methods of critique. Especially given our thousands upon thousands of interfaith divisions, it would be very useful to learn how to give/take fairly, to understand what is/isn’t vilification, ad hom, etc. It can take a while to develop a thicker skin, but once done, critique is very healthy.

    BTW, there is a substantial number of Reformed people who are egals or mutualists, and some who are also gay-accepting. They are also part of your Reformed family, yes?

    I wish you well, js.

  254. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    I have meant to write a lengthy blog post on this Comp/Egal issue but of late I haven’t had the energy to write much of anything. It is a subject which interests me greatly. I have studied much on the subject and appreciate some readers on this blog who gave me some good advice quite some time ago.
    One of the main planks of defense the Comps use to bolster their view is their doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically the “eternal subordination of the Son.” They then apply this highly suspect (dare I say heretical?) view of the Trinity to the Male/Female Husband/Wife relationship. Anyone interested in this should listen to the debate I linked to below. I found Kevin Giles to be quite compelling and have purchased two of his books on the Trinity. (I have not yet read them.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_mYvbgcKE
    Also, I have read numerous books written by authors from both sides. The book I thought was most convincing was authored by Kathryn E. Stegall, titled “The Full Rights of Sons.” She is an excellent teacher, very logical and thorough. I wish proponents from both camps would read it.
    http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rights-Sons-K-Stegall-ebook/dp/B00FL4L4JG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446220937&sr=1-1&keywords=the+full+rights+of+sons
    Lastly, Deb mentioned Mahaney spoke on Job at his latest conference. I did a post which highlighted what I consider to be some blatant plagiarism in one of his early sermons. I believe if I had the time to carefully peruse his later sermons on Job I would find much more, but I can only take the guy in small doses. I don’t think the man is capable of much original thought. Admittedly I am not either, but I have the good sense to admit it and refrain from attempting to pass myself off as some great preacher. I fail to see the attraction of Mahaney for all the neo-reformed minions, but then there is much I find unattractive in their movement.
    https://thouarttheman.org/2015/10/07/c-j-mahaney-doing-the-hard-work-of-sermon-preparation/

    Thanks, Todd, for these links and recommendations…always are helpful.

  255. Lydia wrote:

    As Christians we are supposed to look like the redeemed. But when I look at history and the brave souls that brought about justice it is often an interesting mixture.

    Yes, and the surprises are delightful, aren’t they? I am looking forward to seeing how God’s going to handle it all, in the end.

  256. js wrote:

    Why do we hold our brothers and sisters who hold different views on the roles of men and women in such contempt?

    I’ve written of this before on older threads, but I was raised as a gender complementarian (though my family did not use the phrase gender comp to describe this view).

    I was brough up under a gentle, warm and fuzzy variety, or “soft comp,” as some may call it, and it harmed me from the time I was a kid and as an adult.

    I don’t want to go into details about the negative ramifications of gender comp on me, because such a post might be ten pages long. I think I’ve explained in detail on older threads how it affected me. I am still working through some of these issues now.

    I find sexism repugnant, as well as racism. They’re both two sides of the same coin, limiting people based on traits they were born with (gender or skin color).

    It annoys, frustrates, and saddens me that so many Christians sit around insisting sexism (gender complementarianism or patriarchy as some call it) is biblical and God’s plan for humanity (and when it really is not).

    Many Christians who argue in favor of comp use the same (or similar) arguments to defend comp as white Americans used to keep black Americans in slavery or in a lower class position years ago.

    It’s hard to be ‘friendly sweet’ on such a topic in light of how insulting and damaging gender comp is.

    Some comps seem deliberately obtuse about things and at times they hold contradictory positions. I’ve argued round and round in circles with one of them on this blog.

    When you’re dealing with people who appear to be intellectually dishonest or who hold double standards when debating a topic, that gets very tiring.

    Gender comp may not bother me so much if not for the fact it does harm and unnecessarily limit girls and women, that some Christians insist everyone live by it (and if you don’t you supposedly hate the Bible or hate God), that some comps say it’s necessary to believe in the Gospel, or that it’s part of the Gospel.

  257. Mara wrote:

    I can attest to this fact. I’ve dealt with an awful lot of contempt from comps, been called a pro-choice feminist (even though I’m a pro-life conservative) and far worse just because I don’t agree with their stringent and legalistic views on gender roles. I’ve been called liberal, accused of not respecting the Bible, and a whole host of other contemptuous things by gender comps.
    So yes, I agree, the contempt shouldn’t be there. But I’ve been on an the receiving end of a lot of this contempt you speak of. And I’ve witnessed far more contempt coming from the comp side than the egal side.

    I’ve been on the receiving end of that from some comps too, the ones who assume if you disagree with comp, you must hate God, you don’t take the Bible seriously, you’ve been swayed by culture or by secular feminism.

    I’m a conservative and a registered Republican who doesn’t usually agree with secular feminists on much, so I get a little tired of the “poison the well” fallacy of comps who say in their books and blogs that “real” and “Bible believing” Christians would have to be gender comp and if not, are obviously God-hating, Bible rejecting feminists.

    I had a similar thing happen with a right wing internet friend of mine months ago. We were friends for many years, and she just totally turned on me over this. She got very vitriolic with me when my politics shifted from being far right-ish to a tad more moderate.

    In her view, any move at all equals to her that I must be a total left wing, Democrat- voting, abortion- supporting atheistic heretic.

    No matter how much I reassured her I’m none of those things, she kept yelling at me that I’m an atheistic Democrat now. I think gender comps are sort of similar, only more stark.

    They seem to think if you reject gender comp, you will totally turn into a socially liberal, abortion supporting, Bible denying pagan.

  258. Mara wrote:

    But binary people can only see two possibilites.
    Either the man rules, or the woman rules.

    I was re-reading a book I have on workplace abuse, and there’s a chapter on this issue. Books on verbal abuse also address this, as well.

    And these are not even books pertaining to gender roles – just workplace bullying and verbal abuse, but they confirm what you wrote.

    In this context, there are two groups of people. The first group views relationships as being beneficial and mutual. They want to get along, compromise, etc.

    The second group only sees friendships, marriages, dating, or job related relationships in “win or lose” terms, or “I must always be in control, which means I have to keep those I am dating/ working with/ married to beneath me.”

    These books explain how each group views relationship and power very differently.

    You do in fact have one group who sees relationships in ‘win/lose’ terms, so I can see how a lot of male gender comps, if in this group, view the gender role debate as being, “MEN are in charge and women are under their control, or it’s vice versa, and we men don’t want to be under anyone’s control.”

    These types of people cannot fathom or understand that men and women can rule things together. There does not have to be a winner or a loser, or a situation where one side gets all the goodies, the other side gets nothing.

  259. siteseer wrote:

    As soon as you start defining to people what their “proper” roles are, freedom goes out the window.

    Yes, and it also messes with a person’s identity.

    This woman wrote about it – her experience is pretty similar to mine. I didn’t want to go into detail about it above, but this is in fact one of the several ways gender comp messed up my life, and I’m still dealing with this (and other things it caused)

    How Complementarianism Stole My Identity
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/how-complementarianism-stole-my-identity

  260. Ken wrote:

    The NT unerringly puts its finger on the human condition, and you can’t tell me in view of the history of the 20th century that mankind is more enlightened than ever, even if we have granted ourselves lots of rights.

    Maybe so. American Christians in the 19th century were using the Bible to argue that the Bible and God condone white Americans keep black Americans as slaves.

    The vast majority of us today realize forced slavery is immoral. Yet gender comps use the same sorts of arguments to keep women today in servitude.

  261. Jack wrote:

    I will respectfully disagree with this point. I hope that the blog owners will forgive my digression, but I do think that it is relevant to complement-whatever-ianism. In 18th and 19th centuries we saw the start of the abolishment of slavery, scientific knowledge expanded exponentially, people did start thinking about social consciousness.

    Another thing too is that some gender complementarians today use gender comp/ their interpretation of the Bible to argue that men always have a right to sex with their wife, even if the wife doesn’t want to. These guys deny there is such a thing as “marital rape.”

    Marital rape itself was not outlawed in the United States until what, the late 19th or 20th century? I forget when exactly, but it’s been in the last 100 years. But you have Christian men today using gender comp and all its favorite Bible verses to defend the concept of a wife can never deny her spouse sex.

    Some of them use the same basic belief set Ken has to argue women should not attend university or hold jobs outside the home.

    Ken himself may feel fine with women holding 9 to 5 office jobs or women attending university, but other complementarians are not fine with those things.

    The ones who object to women attending school and having jobs are basing their views on women on the same and similar foundations he is using. And they’re doing this in the year 2015.

  262. Daisy wrote:

    This woman wrote about it – her experience is pretty similar to mine. I didn’t want to go into detail about it above, but this is in fact one of the several ways gender comp messed up my life, and I’m still dealing with this (and other things it caused)

    How Complementarianism Stole My Identity

    I enjoyed reading the article- it’s good to see people come out of that and begin to discover themselves. I hope that you, too, have been able to shed that oppression and become who God designed you to be, Daisy.

    This reminded me of an article I read once about how researchers had given the MBTI test to the members of a church and a large percentage of the women came out as, I believe it was ESFJ. It makes you wonder- either women of other temperaments were not sticking around, or else the women were burying their real selves under a mask of the typical “ideal” temperament.

    If God meant us to all be alike, he’d have made us that way. He didn’t. So, obviously, it is not important!

  263. siteseer wrote:

    This reminded me of an article I read once about how researchers had given the MBTI test to the members of a church and a large percentage of the women came out as, I believe it was ESFJ.

    Can you explain the four-letter alphabet soups?

  264. Lydia wrote:

    MBTI doesn’t measure nature or nurture, does it.?

    Would it matter if it did? Aren’t these temperaments subjective to say the least, and too closely related to astrology for comfort? (Mind you, my star sign so-called perfectly expresses my opinion of astrology: bull.)

    This rings the mega-church alarm bell for me, where you attain ‘success’ by putting people together who would naturally get on with each other, that is, you target a certain demographic. Shouldn’t an authentic church encompass every kind of person, and members be able to get on with each other by nurting the fruit of the Spirit rather than analysing their psychological make-up.

    I fear this kind of stuff has been surging in the church for far too long.

  265. js wrote:

    And it is always harder to criticize those sympathetic to your positions. This was one of the big problems with Mahaney. Dever, DeYoung, et al, couldn’t see clearly because of friendship.

    And money. Don’t forget the money, js. There’s plenty of it to be had.

  266. js wrote:

    In the same way, I think those who dismiss DeYoung because he co-authored the assessment of Mahaney are also too harsh.

    For me, it’s not just the fact that DeYoung signed his name to the pack of lies that was posted on TCG’s site. It’s his continuing dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that fact. He’s had at least two years to admit his wrong, retract that statement and apologize. So why hasn’t he? Is he just so “crazy busy” that he doesn’t have the time to issue a simple mea culpa? I don’t buy that. Until he addresses this, I see no reason to take him seriously.

  267. siteseer wrote:

    People who cannot love default to power/control. This is all they can relate

    Going back to this.

    So, basically, all these teachers of hierarchy and ‘creation order’ and ‘divine order’ are love deficient.

    Nice.

    These teachers of hierarchy search out the scriptures that seem to bolster their positions albeit precariously. Yet the heart and soul of the message from Jesus is cut out so their human lust for hierarchy can appear godly or gospelly, so to speak.
    These teachers zero in on some out of context Pauline verses while ignoring the words of Jesus and the one other apostle, what’s his name? Was is John or something like that?

    John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

    Yep, John. The lost apostle. The apostle unbeknownst to the hierarchy worshipers.

  268. Daisy wrote:

    Ken himself may feel fine with women holding 9 to 5 office jobs or women attending university, but other complementarians are not fine with those things.
    The ones who object to women attending school and having jobs are basing their views on women on the same and similar foundations he is using.

    I thought you were doing really well in the first sentence, you finally seem to have realised that not everything entitled ‘complementarian’ is the same. I’ve been saying this all along (and often all alone 🙂 ).

    Unfortunately, you then contradict this in your second sentence. Since I don’t have a problem with women being educated or working, those who do object to this can hardly be doing so from the same basis, the same understanding of scripture that I have.

    I’m not getting back into the details of this, but anyone who goes beyond a husband having greater responsibility in the home or a specific restriction on women’s ministry in a particular very targetted aspect of church life does not reflect what I think on the matter, and large numbers of conservative evangelicals who take a similar stance, though not perhaps large numbers in the States.

    This ‘broad brush’ approach is what John MacAthur and his critique of charismaticism suffers from.

  269. Ken wrote:

    Shouldn’t an authentic church encompass every kind of person,

    Gender complementarians don’t accept every kind of person, and you cannot be your authentic self.

    Gender comps demand that women fit a list of their pre-determined check boxes that are cooked up by gender comps, but gender comps insist these bogus check lists are “biblical.”

    (Gender comps do the same thing to men: all men are supposed to, according to comps, possess qualities X, Y, and Z)

    This page explains more of how gender comp discourages women from being who they really are, all to live up to a gender comp created ideal of “womanhood”-
    How Complementarianism Stole My Identity
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/how-complementarianism-stole-my-identity

  270. Mara wrote:

    These teachers of hierarchy search out the scriptures that seem to bolster their positions albeit precariously. Yet the heart and soul of the message from Jesus is cut out so their human lust for hierarchy can appear godly or gospelly, so to speak.

    This is one of the several things that finally drove me to abandon gender complementarianism.

    I noticed the small paltry of verses that SEEM to support the gender comp position are out-numbered by many more verses of biblical women characters who were leaders and teachers of men.

    Jesus did not follow the gender complementarian interpretation of Paul’s comments about women and theology and teaching and so on… Jesus took women on as his intellectual equals.

    Jesus taught women theology, allowed them to challenge him and question him. Jesus did not tell women to sit down, shut up, and go ask their “male covering” if they had questions about God.

    I think it may be far more accurate to interpret Paul in light of Christ, than vice versa.

  271. The post says that CBMW was founded in 1987. Back then there was no issue about gay marriage and IIRC nothing about homosexuality was an ‘issue’ back then like it is now. The driving force behind this, therefore, had to have been something else. Does anybody remember what the issue(s) was/were?

    Was it women in ministry?

  272. Ken wrote:

    Shouldn’t an authentic church encompass every kind of person, and members be able to get on with each other by nurting the fruit of the Spirit rather than analysing their psychological make-up.

    Post Script.
    Most Americans are extroverts.

    People who are introverts get the shaft in U.S. churches, as well as schools, workplaces, etc.

    An introverted guy even wrote a book about it:
    Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture Paperback – November 27, 2009
    by Adam S. McHugh (Author)

    Introvert? No Apology Required
    http://www.christianity.com/church/church-life/introvert-no-apology-required-11626582.html

  273. okrapod wrote:

    The post says that CBMW was founded in 1987. Back then there was no issue about gay marriage and IIRC nothing about homosexuality was an ‘issue’ back then like it is now. The driving force behind this, therefore, had to have been something else. Does anybody remember what the issue(s) was/were?
    Was it women in ministry?

    Gender comps have always been social conservatives, so the particular cultural issues they fight may differ over time; some of their motivation comes from anger or fear of the wider culture drifting more left wing or more secular.
    And they oddly feel that the way to fix these problems (as they see them) is to make men and women live out certain “roles.”

    In the 1980s, there were homosexual activist groups trying to normalize homosexuality.
    The militant homosexual groups (such as ‘Act Up’) were complaining a lot about President Reagan supposedly not funding AIDS research enough, etc.
    So homosexual marriage was not the topic of the day back then, but the homosexuals of the 80s were laying the ground work for that.

    I remember in the 1970s and 80s conservative, American Christians were complaining, worrying, and tut-tutting about women going to a job and dropping their kids off at day care.

    There was a lot of guilt tripping back then against women who worked outside the home. Even as late as the mid or late 1990s, some Southern Baptist talking head caused a ruckus when he said in some article that women should not be working outside the home and using day care… they should stay at home and be a full time mother.

    Suspicion or hatred of Feminism has always been a mainstay of gender comps – the guilt tripping the moms who work was one aspect of that.

    Divorce rates began escalating in the 1970s, and gender comps of the 80s and later were upset by that (and of course partially blamed feminism for that).

    The legalization of abortion was a pretty big concern of theirs, too.

  274. @ Ken:
    Hi Ken, I wasn’t really going there. But I get your point. I used to tell my clients who wanted MBTI that it is likely that Hitler and Mother Theresa shared a similar “type”. :o) They had to be realistic about it as a tool.

    My point, which I did not elaborate, is that environment often influences type. Environments also change. 18-21 year olds will usually prefer Feeler. Try them again at 40. :o)

    Traditionally girls have been raised very different from boys. They were not raised to be, say, Deborah’s. So would a majority of women Feelers be the result of nature or nurture?

  275. @ okrapod:
    I received a bit of a tutorial on this from an older woman who worked for the SBC decades ago. It actually started with the 1964 civil rights act. I have not verified this but it is an interesting possibility. Seems the original act was written in a way that gave black women more rights than other women. When that was corrected, that was when the real trouble started.

    So after that, the big push in some Evangelical circles became what they termed proper interpretation to keep it from infiltrating churches. It seems before that, women were not a threat: o)

  276. Lydia wrote:

    I received a bit of a tutorial on this from an older woman who worked for the SBC decades ago. It actually started with the 1964 civil rights act. I have not verified this but it is an interesting possibility. Seems the original act was written in a way that gave black women more rights than other women. When that was corrected, that was when the real trouble started.
    So after that, the big push in some Evangelical circles became what they termed proper interpretation to keep it from infiltrating churches. It seems before that, women were not a threat: o)

    That is interesting.

    I believe someone else on here (maybe Gram3?) also explained another reason was to do with women being in ministry, if I remember rightly.

    I don’t remember the specifics, but someone was saying someone, some guy (maybe in the 1970s??), had to come up with a new rationale to keep women out of the pulpit (no women preachers), and that was the impetus for gender comp itself, or for some particular gender comp interpretation of a particular biblical passage that until then was not known or taught by Christians.

    I do believe that fear or anger over how secular culture is playing out is one big motivating factor to many/most Gender Comps, and they almost always pin these changes back on 1960s feminist rhetoric or acts.

  277. __

    “Exit Only?”

    hmmm…

      Calvinism as a theological system, is a corruption of the word of God. It’s blueprint is John Calvin’s ICR ( “Institutes Of The Christian Religion” ) . Complementarism, on the other hand is a perversion of the intended purpose of Apostle Paul’s words for selfish ends. Those who hold and pursue and teach both theological systems do not hold to the intended purposes of the kingdom of God as presented by Jesus Christ. Those who follow these individuals will only darken the means of Christianity which is “Christ in us the hope of glory”.

    ATB

    Sopy

  278. @ Daisy:
    That’s right. George Knight III was tasked with keeping women out of ordained or authoritative positions in the PCA, so he came up with his rationale of ontologically equal but functionally non-equal. And he supported that with the novel doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. Knight was also a founder of CBMW, IIRC.

    The cultural context for this was 2nd wave feminism and the church context was the increasing ordination of women by the PCUSA, among others. But honestly, I think what drove the issue at the time among conservative pewpeons was abortion-on-demand and how 2ndd wave feminists made that a hill to die on for women. That made it easy for the CBMW types to blame all the bad stuff on the idea of equality. Because the denoms who were ordaining women were also “liberal” on inerrancy, that made it easier to tag anyone who dissented about female equality as “liberals.” As usual, reason and exegesis were beside the point, and it was driven by emotional thinking. That is, at least, how I have resolved my own participation at the time while also considering the connections and agendas of the relevant parties.

  279. And for the amusement of Ken and JS, my latest personal interaction on this matter has been with a woman who is firmly a matriarch. Not an egalitarian, but a matriarch. There actually are a few of these in conservative churches though they usually cloak it well! Predictably to everyone else but inexplicably to her, she finds herself in a difficult marital situation. The female subordinationists would say that the difficulty arises because she rules rather than he. Balderdash. If either person in a marriage rules over the other, the essential core of mutual love and respect cannot exist in more than a shell form which is unsustainable.

  280. @ Lydia:

    That makes so much sense, and it certainly corresponds with the feel of the times as I lived it. It would also explain some of the fervor which otherwise seems way out of proportion. I have the distinct feeling that comp is not just some desire to go back to the hollywood version of the 50s in people’s marriages, but also perhaps mostly a desire to go back before the civil rights era. I am being careful how I say this in public of course. There is a similarity in the rhetoric for comp and for segregation for example. And to think that the black woman would have ‘rights’ would put a crimp in some of the ole boys age old game of entitlement.

    I hope I am wrong, but I would not put money on being wrong. Evil wears many masks.

  281. okrapod wrote:

    The post says that CBMW was founded in 1987. Back then there was no issue about gay marriage and IIRC nothing about homosexuality was an ‘issue’ back then like it is now. The driving force behind this, therefore, had to have been something else. Does anybody remember what the issue(s) was/were?

    Was it women in ministry?

    Here’s my opinion:

    Back in 87′ as now, there were rabid femi-nazis who looked down their noses at women who wanted nothing more than home, baby, and a good man who would give himself for them. Extremism at its worst, no regard to gifting, talent, and predisposition of the individual, our ethos must apply to all.

    CBMW was merely a reaction to this in the opposite direction. Home, baby, and a good man must also apply to all regardless of gifting and talent. All of course under the rubric of ‘Biblical Truth’ as expounded by their exegetes.

    Think of the Reformation and the Counter Reformation in Europe centuries ago, and you can see the pattern repeating like the graph of say, y=sin(x).

  282. Daisy wrote:

    I think it may be far more accurate to interpret Paul in light of Christ, than vice versa.

    And every time I try to point this out to a gender comp they freak out and start to verbally convulse with all sorts of contempt. The the accusations start. Since I don’t hold to their narrow interpretations (actual scripture twisting) then I obviously won’t accept the FULL counsel of scripture. They claim that I am picking and choosing the parts I like while throwing away the bits I don’t care for. Because ‘clearly’ scripture teaches this hierarchy they worship. They have the smattering of verses taken out of context to prove it.

  283. @ okrapod:
    What blows my mind is the trajectory of comp doctrine. Shoddy scholarship with an agenda was taught and those seminarians stated filling pulpits. No internet. So any real debate stayed in theological academia which also had major splits of liberal/conservative over a few decades. So it became institutionalized doctrine that was hardly questioned by the pew peons for a few decades.

    Now the theological debate is in the public square. How would I have ever found Bushnell’s early work except for the internet?

  284. @ okrapod:
    My grandmother has an Mdiv from Moody to give you an idea of my background. She was a school teacher and never pastored a church. But she taught men all the time. She died in her 80sin the 1960’s. I did not know her but her life was very interesting. I have some of her papers. She was big into Romans. I remember my mom making a comment when I was in my 20’s that did not really resonate with me at the time but does now. She asked: since when did women become such a threat to the church?

    I think she felt that trajectory. The bottom line it seems is that women were free (er) to function in the church until they were viewed as a threat. Interesting isn’t it?

  285. Gram3 wrote:

    . But honestly, I think what drove the issue at the time among conservative pewpeons was abortion-on-demand and how 2ndd wave feminists made that a hill to die on for women.

    This is my experience with it, too. The lines were drawn. You were either in the comp camp or you wanted to murder babies.

  286. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    . But honestly, I think what drove the issue at the time among conservative pewpeons was abortion-on-demand and how 2ndd wave feminists made that a hill to die on for women.

    This is my experience with it, too. The lines were drawn. You were either in the comp camp or you wanted to murder babies.

    Only a Sith deals in that level of Absolutes.

  287. Muff Potter wrote:

    Back in 87′ as now, there were rabid femi-nazis who looked down their noses at women who wanted nothing more than home, baby, and a good man who would give himself for them. Extremism at its worst, no regard to gifting, talent, and predisposition of the individual, our ethos must apply to all.

    CBMW was merely a reaction to this in the opposite direction. Home, baby, and a good man must also apply to all regardless of gifting and talent. All of course under the rubric of ‘Biblical Truth’ as expounded by their exegetes.

    Think of the Reformation and the Counter Reformation in Europe centuries ago, and you can see the pattern repeating like the graph of say, y=sin(x).

    Communism begets Objectivism begets Communism begets Objectivism…

  288. Mara wrote:

    Yep, John. The lost apostle. The apostle unbeknownst to the hierarchy worshipers.

    Traditionally the youngest and most mystical of the Twelve.
    And (also Traditionally) the longest-lived and only one who died of natural causes.

  289. Lydia wrote:

    How would I have ever found Bushnell’s early work except for the internet?

    The history of the reprint of Bushnell’s book is very interesting. I purchased it IIRC in 1975 by sending $5.00 (the asking price) to Mr. Ray B. Munson of upstate New York who personally discovered the original and joined in prayer with others who helped with the financing of the reprint of 1943. The original was published in 1919. I think I’ve got the facts right.

    You can read the history here if you’re interested.
    http://godswordtowomen.org/foreword.htm

    And we didn’t have the internet back then. I found a little book entitled, “The Magna Charta of Woman” by Jessie Penn-Lewis in which she introduces Bushnell’s book.

    I still have both books.

  290. Mara wrote:

    These teachers of hierarchy search out the scriptures that seem to bolster their positions albeit precariously. Yet the heart and soul of the message from Jesus is cut out so their human lust for hierarchy can appear godly or gospelly, so to speak.

    Those born to Hold The Whip always seek out Cosmic justification for Holding The Whip.

  291. @ Victorious:
    Oh wow! That is awesome you have one of Munson’s first reprints. I would love that. I can imagine Bushnell died thinking the book died with her. I thought about that when I read how he found the book.

    That woman did her homework in a day and time it was very hard to do so..snail mail to scholars all over the world checking her work. I have a lot of respect for the time and effort she put in. She is one of my heros. Medical doctor, missionary, scholar.

  292. @ Lydia:

    Yes, and it’s no small miracle how it has been able to survive nearly 100 yrs.!! The truth always prevails, doesn’t it?

  293. Lydia wrote:

    This is my experience with it, too. The lines were drawn. You were either in the comp camp or you wanted to murder babies.

    And this is such immature and limited thinking. Can’t those who hold to this see it?

  294. @ okrapod:
    You don’t think the CBMW people were aware of AIDS and groups like ACT-UP? There certainly was a lot of public actividm, the unrelenting desth toll, the exhibition of the AIDS quilt on the National Mall (until it got so enormous that it vould no longer be transported to D.C.), anc much more – all of it met with, at best, indifference by the kinds of people who were involved in the founding of CBMW. I actually knew someone who wrote a chapter for the 1st book they published.

    Ironically (or not), many of thr people who were involved in support for both Reagan and his immediate successor were gay, many of them openly so, even then. It was very wrird yo see the iuxtaposition of fulminating about “the gay sgenda” and the many people who were gay and who supported others who really wanted to make them scspegoats.

  295. @ Daisy:
    Sadly, they were telling the truth sbout AIDS research. The hostility of many so-called xtians who, by rights, ought to have been the 1st out there in caring for the sick and dying, was really terrible. I was in a kind of place/state (mentally wnd geographically) where i was caught up in the indifference and bigotry. (It was very outright, from the pulpit, at the church i attended at the time.)

  296. numo wrote:

    The number of “rabid” people was really small, though. Thst epithet thst you used always makes me cringe.

    If so, they still got a lot of media face time. My brother once said that the media made it look like all college students were protesting Vietnam. He said he and his friends were too busy working and keeping their GPA up so as not to lose their scholarships. :o)

  297. Muff Potter wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    The post says that CBMW was founded in 1987. Back then there was no issue about gay marriage and IIRC nothing about homosexuality was an ‘issue’ back then like it is now. The driving force behind this, therefore, had to have been something else. Does anybody remember what the issue(s) was/were?
    Was it women in ministry?
    Here’s my opinion:
    Back in 87′ as now, there were rabid femi-nazis who looked down their noses at women who wanted nothing more than home, baby, and a good man who would give himself for them. Extremism at its worst, no regard to gifting, talent, and predisposition of the individual, our ethos must apply to all.
    CBMW was merely a reaction to this in the opposite direction. Home, baby, and a good man must also apply to all regardless of gifting and talent. All of course under the rubric of ‘Biblical Truth’ as expounded by their exegetes.
    Think of the Reformation and the Counter Reformation in Europe centuries ago, and you can see the pattern repeating like the graph of say, y=sin(x).

    I could do without RL’s nasty epithets, and i bet you vould, too. 🙂

  298. @ numo:

    I remember seeing news reports back then that the ACT UP criticism of AIDS researching being underfunded was not true.

    Reagan actually ended up spending more on AIDS research than some other health issue – though I can’t remember what, if it was cancer or heart attacks.There was some infographic in a local paper of the time.

    I don’t support or agree with homosexual militant groups, btw.

  299. @ Daisy:
    I knew people who worked in the AIDS research lab at NIH. They were like drowning people – the need was so great, the money close to nonexistant.

    You don’t have to agree with gay activists from that generation, but they were a relatively small percentage of those who died prior to the introduction of AZT and similar drugs. Both HIV 1 & HIV 2 (the latter spread exclusively via heterosexuals, as far as scientists know) have claimed uncounted numbers of men, women and children worldwide.

  300. @ Daisy:
    I think “militant” only applies to a small number of AIDS activists from the 80s-90s. ACT-UP was strident, though not what i would call militant, in light of the number of diagnoses and deaths back then.

    I used to encounter a fair number of men who were skeletal, looking more dead than alive, on my way to and from work, and evrn in the halls where i worked. Some of my friends from undergrad died of it – all far too young. (In their 30s.)

  301. Mara wrote:

    They claim that I am picking and choosing the parts I like while throwing away the bits I don’t care for. Because ‘clearly’ scripture teaches this hierarchy they worship. They have the smattering of verses taken out of context to prove it.

    Tell them it’s not that you’re chucking the stuff you don’t like, it’s more like you’re assigning different weights to the different components of Scripture. Granite blocks and grains of salt, tell them your own conscience and moral compass within will determine which is which.

  302. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Question, everybody:
    Aaron — CBMW sock puppet or not?

    There is no measure for this that would bear me out empirically, but I guarantee you that my ill opinion of the CBMW and of many of the players, especially John Piper, far outweighs that of their detractors on this blog. That is not to say that I feel the need to rehash it over and over again. My frustration is that of someone who in principle agrees with the intent, but has deep problems with the hermeneutical backflips undertaken in the name of practical orthodoxy. In other words, their outworking of the Biblical witness in this regard is reactionary and forced, ultimately a detriment to reformed orthodoxy because is makes use of an end justifies the means methodology.
    Doubt me all you like.
    I just think lopsided argumentation is cheap and that Christians should weigh all things with equal scales

  303. Muff Potter wrote:

    Here’s my opinion:
    Back in 87′ as now, there were rabid femi-nazis who looked down their noses at women who wanted nothing more than home, baby, and a good man who would give himself for them. Extremism at its worst, no regard to gifting, talent, and predisposition of the individual, our ethos must apply to all.
    CBMW was merely a reaction to this in the opposite direction. Home, baby, and a good man must also apply to all regardless of gifting and talent. All of course under the rubric of ‘Biblical Truth’ as expounded by their exegetes.
    Think of the Reformation and the Counter Reformation in Europe centuries ago, and you can see the pattern repeating like the graph of say, y=sin(x).

    Solid.

  304. Muff Potter wrote:

    Tell them it’s not that you’re chucking the stuff you don’t like, it’s more like you’re assigning different weights to the different components of Scripture. Granite blocks and grains of salt, tell them your own conscience and moral compass within will determine which is which.

    Not so solid.

  305. @ numo:
    Thank you. I’ve seen these sentiments pop up from time to time, and they seem to not change despite the presentation of correct information. This time, I had decided to let it go and not respond, but I appreciate that you went ahead and clarified these points.

  306. @ Josh:
    Being from an arts backgound (and jobs in the arts), there’s no way i could have bern around and *not* noticed. (Although my beliefs at that time don’t pass muster, exactly. I was conflicted, because in my gut i knew thst whst i was trying to believe was cruelly judgmental, but the docial pressure… well. I am not that perdon anymore, thank God.)

    There were sick men in my apartment building, too. There was no way to avoid the stark reality of AIDS being a desth sentence, not then.

  307. @ Josh:
    Also, i think you were born during/after the time when things were st their worst?

    So you didn’t see those people. It is not something that a person gorgets.

  308. @ numo:
    Without getting too specific, because public internet, I was born in the mid-80’s, and have lived my whole life in the rural midwest, or as I like to call it, the rusty buckle of the Bible belt. I didn’t meet anyone who was “out” until I went to college, and this being the mid-00’s, the situation was quite different from what you saw. With that said, I’ve read about the history from first-hand accounts, so I’m conceptually aware of what you describe. It’s heartbreaking just to read, never mind see, and it makes it difficult for me to take the people who complain about “militant homosexuals” seriously, particularly when they pretend like “the church” (specifically, the public face of the religious right) never did anything to deserve the chilly reception they now receive.

  309. @ Josh:
    The religious right has a lot to answer for, and one of those things is the refusal to care for those with AIDS – in any way at all – during the 80s-90s. Not just gay men with AIDS, either, but you do need to understand that even though there was, by the end of that time, a *lot* of info. on how to avoid infection, there was *none* at first. People believed it could be picked up from saliva, tears – almost anything. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t make people anxious – it really, really did. I can remember the 1st time I read about what would later be understood as AIDS. At that time, there were men showing up with Kaposi’s sarcoma, but nobody really knew what was causing it (underlying cause).

    Even today, misinformation abounds. In southern Africa (and probably in other places, too), one common belief is that you can “cure” yourself of HIV by having sex with a virgin. (Whether she agrees to it or not – and very few do, or are even old enough to give consent.) South Africa has had an unprecedented number of deaths, and subsequently, of AIDS orphans, since the late 80s, and education has been on a huge scale… and yet. R*pe is endemic now; has been ever since the AIDS crisis there began to swell.

    Here, black and Latino (and, no doubt) Asian women are stigmatized and often left alone to die. This has been true since the 1980s, when Larry Kramer went on record with some *very* stupid statements to the Washington Post about the # of infected women being almost zero. Not so, especially not in many “minority” communities. I couldn’t believe the Post published that without a disclaimer, but …

  310. @ Josh:
    I understand about not posting personal details. Dee has my email address, if you’d like to write and have her forward a message to me.

  311. @ Josh:
    Also fwiw, there was a lot of outcry – from elected officials in this country (during Bush I) over the evil S. African version of Sesame Street, “evil” because they dealt with AIDS. Now, the painful irony is that the people who were hollering about this did not even know about the fact that most cases were not only transmitted through heterosexual sex, but that parents were dying, and children were being orphaned. The character that talked about all of this was so that little kids who saw the show (or might have a chance of seeing the show) would have someone/something to help them – and they needed (still need) as much help as possible.

    Since the people who were hollering didn’t know any of this, they accused Sesame Street of being part of the so-called “gay agenda,” and worse.

    It beggars belief, yet it’s true.

  312. Joe2 wrote:

    More filth from HUG with the double entendre, “rentboy lifting their luggage.”

    Joe2, what ever would you have done if you had lived at the time of the Apostles, when the church was just getting started?

    THIS is the culture the Apostles were immersed in — at Corinth, at Thessalonica, at Galatia, at Phillipi, at Epehsus, at Rome. THIS is the situation where Paul wrote Philemon regarding Onesimus. THIS is what was NORMAL at that time and place:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhP-OUt1Eos

    Technical definition: “Pederasty” = same-sex pedophilia.

  313. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Joe2 wrote:
    More filth from HUG with the double entendre, “rentboy lifting their luggage.”

    I guess Joe2 doesn’t care much for your direct, cut through the BS way of pointing the actual filth going on.

    Personally, I appreciate you keeping it real. I have an aversion to flowery Piperspeak as well.

  314. Aaron wrote:

    Not so solid.

    Know what happens to a stone structure when all its components are the same size and shape?
    It collapses under its own weight.

  315. numo wrote:

    Since the people who were hollering didn’t know any of this, they accused Sesame Street of being part of the so-called “gay agenda,” and worse.

    It beggars belief, yet it’s true.

    And once you’re outside the four Thomas Kincade-decorated walls of the Christianese Bubble/Womb, general knowledge is that Christians are just Fred Phelps with a more genteel coat of paint.

  316. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Sometimes the coat of paint is fairly thin, like in the case of Kevin “womb tomb” Swanson, patriarch par excellence, who also is conveniently obsessed with everyone else’s sexuality (and with instituting the death penalty for homosexuality… but he’ll be nice about it and give them time to repent first). He’s in the OPC, and I see OPC and PCA folks defend him on Facebook regularly, so he’s kind of backwater, but apparently not that backwater.

  317. @ Josh:
    Womb Tomb has always struck me as a High School Dork and Omega Male who’s gotten into a position of Alpha Male justified by Divine Right and is throwing his new-found weight around HARD. King Joffrey HARD.

    Payback time for all those who “weren’t nice enough to him” when he was just a Dork.
    GOD WILLS IT!

  318. Muff Potter wrote:

    Know what happens to a stone structure when all its components are the same size and shape?
    It collapses under its own weight.

    Unless you deliberately build it that way to start with; in which case you have a pyramid, which is the antithesis of an authentic church structure. I realise that was part of your point…

  319. @ Mara:
    One of the safety nets for Driscoll is that no one could repeat his vulgarity on certain Christian pro Driscoll blogs without being moderated. It actually protected him for a long while.

  320. Daisy wrote:

    This page explains more of how gender comp discourages women from being who they really are, all to live up to a gender comp created ideal of “womanhood”-

    Interesting link, Daisy. The authoress on her own blog writes, without of course wishing to deny her femininity I remember being a child and wishing I could have been a boy, a sentence not likely to win round your out and out Patriarch!

    Be that as it may, I read the link. Something bothers me about this quite apart from the usual arguments on this theme. Identity foreclosure seems to indicate the need for a psychological liberation from being what others expect you to be. Now there’s nothing wrong with being freed from that where those expectations are not legitimate, but who is to blame if we succumb to striving to be what others expect? You can’t shove all of the blame onto others.

    More than that is the emphasis – What do you like to do? What are you good at? What are you dreams? What makes you tick? It’s not about what I can do for others, loving your neighbour as yourself, it’s all about me. My gifts, my talents, my inner being, my identity. Me me me.

    If all complementarian meant in practice were an excuse to dominate or bully, then count me out.

    If egalitarianism means treating women as equal recipients of the grace of God, count me in.

    If, however, it means in practice misusing the Christian faith (or substituting counselling and life coaching) to make myself feel better about myself, to focus on self, to empower self, then count me out here as well. There is a marked trend in seeker-sensitive teaching of ‘servicing the self under the guise of serving God’. I suspect this is why so much pop psychology has been incorporated into it, helping me to focus on my felt needs. Anthropology (about man) rather than theology (about God).

    Before someone says it, celebrity pastors who also abuse the faith for an ego trip (conferences and book sales) and personal gain (mansion) are every bit as bad. If egalitarianism is simply an attempt to enable women to have equal opportunities to make the same mistakes, this doesn’t strike me as getting us anywhere.

    Somewhere along the line those unpopular words of Jesus that none of us particularly likes to hear about – taking up your cross, denying self and even hating your own life – have to come into the equation. If that never starts to happen, what your views are on this topic are largely irrelevant, it’s bound to go wrong because self – in older bible versions aka ‘the flesh’ – will ensure it does.

  321.   __

    “Is Your 501(c)3 ‘Church’ Being Targeted 4 Spiritual Abuse?”

    hmmm…

      The core of John Calvin’s theological systen (calvnism) as outlined in his ICR, is nothing but a proverbial ‘sovereignty of god’ ™ cult orginating from Augustine in the fourth century. Most likely a very powerful demon spirit is behind this trek into this abyss of religious madness. Certanly evil powers drive this faux ‘church’ movement where abuse is its apparent inevitable outcome. Discresion is advised.

    (sadface)

    Christianity as your church has  known it has been subject to termination?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g-gC2vxOxI8

    CalvinNet is a reality…

    Please don’t make it yours…

    **

    Christ Jesus presented the greatest sacrificial ‘love’ the world has ever known,

    His ‘true’ followers are doing the same; accept absolutely no substitute.   

    ATB

    Sopy

  322. Hester wrote:

    Next month marks the 28th anniversary of a clandestine meeting that took place in Danvers, Massachusetts.

    Was there a reason they chose to have this meeting in the location of the Salem witch trials (Danvers was part of Salem at the time, IIRC), or was that just a coincidence?

    Maybe they hope to start the trials up again….. See Zooey donning tinfoil hat right this way.>>>>>

  323. Christiane wrote:

    whenever I think about how unhealthy ‘complementarianism’ and ‘patriarchy’ can get, I think of the marriage of that poor woman who went crazy and drowned her five children. She was very ill, but they kept having more babies. She needed help, but instead she was left to home-school and nurture five little ones, all very young. Her husband seemed somehow ‘detached’ from her pain.

    I have often thought of that case, too. An sad example of what is wrong with the whole patriarchal system…..

  324. Has anyone ever noticed that the Proverbs 31 woman has awesome ripped arms. It’s so important to this Bible passage, it’s mentioned twice.

  325. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    siteseer wrote:

    This reminded me of an article I read once about how researchers had given the MBTI test to the members of a church and a large percentage of the women came out as, I believe it was ESFJ.

    Can you explain the four-letter alphabet soups?

    I’m no expert but in the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter, the ESFJ type is extraverted sensing feeling judging- I have been told this temperament kind of embodies the ideal qualities for a woman in the Christian world, it’s outgoing, concerned with the concrete, here and now, sympathetic, values oriented and attuned to rules and schedules and respecting authority.

    I’m sure this simplifies horribly, people who understand the Myers-Briggs types could explain it way better than I can. But the point is, the different temperaments are sprinkled throughout the world and it would be unexpected to have a concentration of one type in a church.

    All this to say, it seems that people in church tend to subjugate their natural temperaments and strive for the “ideal” that is presented to them.

    I actually had a pastor who used to preach, “you shy people need to get a new personality,” since God’s most important goal is for us to all go soul-winning door to door and he can’t use us shy people, you know.

    It’s very fatiguing to try to be something you are not and eventually you have to question why God created us all with different qualities if he meant us to all be the same. Just another crazy-making thing that doesn’t make sense.

  326. Lydia wrote:

    MBTI does measure nature or nurture, does it.?

    No, not at all, just the intrinsic qualities one is born with. It helped me a great deal to understand my children and relate to and teach each one in a way they could understand. It can be so hard to “get” someone who looks at things in an entirely different way than you do. We are all very different and have different abilities and traits.

  327. Ken wrote:

    I’m not getting back into the details of this, but anyone who goes beyond a husband having greater responsibility in the home or a specific restriction on women’s ministry in a particular very targetted aspect of church life does not reflect what I think on the matter, and large numbers of conservative evangelicals who take a similar stance, though not perhaps large numbers in the States.

    Well then Ken, you may be struggling against the tide of a changing meaning to the word, if that’s truly all you see to it. There comes a point where you have to recognize a term has gone south, carried away by the irresponsible who use it, like “fundamentalism”- the word can’t be rescued from what it has come to symbolize.

  328. siteseer wrote:

    I actually had a pastor who used to preach, “you shy people need to get a new personality,” since God’s most important goal is for us to all go soul-winning door to door and he can’t use us shy people, you know.

    “SELL THAT FIRE INSURANCE!”

  329. @ Ken:

    Ken, all gender complementarianism comes from the same underlying, incorrect assumptions about women and from the same incorrect biblical interpretations.

    That some comps don’t put as many restrictions on women as others do, or that I recognize this as being true, is not a point for you to brag or cheer about.
    Rather, it is, I believe, indicative of how flawed and wrong your position is.

    See also this somewhat related post by me, on another thread:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-3/#comment-230335

  330. Daisy wrote:

    That some comps don’t put as many restrictions on women as others do, or that I recognize this as being true, is not a point for you to brag or cheer about.

    Daisy the point is whether God, speaking through the apostle, has imposed some restrictions. What I think, or what you think is in the end irrelevant!

    And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

    We can pray to have these gifts, but cannot appoint ourselves to have them. The Spirit decides this, not us. Similarly, the circumstances in which a woman may or may not exercise gift number 3 is also by divine appointment.

    As for bragging and cheering, the discussion here ought to be an in-house discussion amongst friends, and this becomes pointless if winning the argument takes priority over thinking and mulling things over. The classic example is cessationalists of the Team Pyro variety who won’t even consider the opposing view they are so absolutely certain they are right.

  331. 400!

    I cannot read the title of this thread without thinking:

    “SURRRRRRGES! IN PASTOR’S AAAAAAAAREAS!”

  332. Ken wrote:

    Similarly, the circumstances in which a woman may or may not exercise gift number 3 is also by divine appointment.

    There is no ‘divinely appointed’ circumstance where a man can exercise his gift where a woman cannot. This circumstance doesn’t exist in the scriptures. It is imposed on scriptures by misguided interpretation. That’s all.

    401

  333. Mara wrote:

    There is no ‘divinely appointed’ circumstance where a man can exercise his gift where a woman cannot.

    During the aftermath of the Iraq War, I remember a posting on a similar subject from an Iraqi Muslim blogger re the Taliban types:

    “What do they expect of me? That I spend every day face down at Prayer in the Mosque while my wife languishes in a locked harem? What?”

  334. Ken wrote:

    We can pray to have these gifts, but cannot appoint ourselves to have them. The Spirit decides this, not us. Similarly, the circumstances in which a woman may or may not exercise gift number 3 is also by divine appointment.

    The Holy Spirit does not distribute gifts or talents based on gender.

  335. Mara wrote:

    There is no ‘divinely appointed’ circumstance where a man can exercise his gift where a woman cannot. This circumstance doesn’t exist in the scriptures. It is imposed on scriptures by misguided interpretation. That’s all.

    I agree.