Kevin Giles on Complementarians Who Now Reject Wayne Grudem’s View of The Trinity

"Powerful complementarians who a year ago were enthusiastically teaching the complementarian doctrine of a hierarchical ordered Trinity and confidently grounding women’s subordination in divine life are now saying they reject this teaching."

Kevin Giles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra#/media/File:Triquetra-Vesica.svg

Interlaced Triquetra

As I write this post, I am terribly concerned about Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall tonight as a Category 4 hurricane over the northern end of San Jose Island between Port Aransas and Port O'Connor at 10 p.m. local time. It had sustained winds of about 130 mph and stronger gusts, according to the National Weather Service. At the time, the storm's eye was 30 miles away from the coastal city of Corpus Christi, Texas. The storm surge could cause floodwaters to reach 6 to 12 feet above ground level along the coast, according to the National Hurricane Center. As much as three feet of rain could fall in the hardest-hit areas. Please join me in praying for those who are in the path of the hurricane. May those who chose not to evacuate be protected from this fierce act of nature.

*******************************

There is so much information to share about the current debate regarding the Trinity, and I am determined to discuss as much of it as possible, albeit in bite-size pieces. The Trinity is a complicated concept to grasp, and it's unfortunate that some theologians have come up with a 'systematic' way to understand it. And that leads me to Wayne Grudem, who in 1994 published his very own 'systematic theology'.

From what we understand, Grudem's Systematic Theology (link) has been an extremely important textbook at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) and possibly others. If I am not mistaken, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary uses Bible Doctrine (Grudem's condensed Systematic Theology) as a textbook. Al Mohler became president of SBTS in 1993, and it wouldn't surprise us if this seminary was one of the early users of Grudem's Systematic Theology (since it was published just a year after Mohler's rise to power). Can there be any doubt that this is the source for the Trinity confusion that has occurred?

Let's go to the source and see what Grudem has to say about the Trinity. Beginning on page 248, Grudem discusses the distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Here is the pertinent excerpt about subordination from page 249:

Thus, while the persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, they nonetheless differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and Holy Spirit are equal in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.

Moreover, these differences in role are not temporary but last forever…

Then on page 251 of his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem elaborates on this subordination within (see excerpt below).

This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase "ontological equality but economic subordination," where the word ontological means "being." Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say "equal in being but subordinate in role." Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally "Father" and the Son is not eternally "Son." This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.

This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church's doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was "begotten of the Father before all ages" and that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church's doctrine of the Trinity… [emphasis mine]"

Grudem goes on to provide an Application of Scripture, beginning on page 256. At the top of page 257 he explains:

In fact, in the relationship between man and woman in marriage we see also a picture of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity. Paul says, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). Here, just as the Father has authority over the Son in the Trinity, so the husband has authority over the wife in marriage. The husband's role is parallel to that of God the Father and the wife's role is parallel to that of God the Son. Moreover, just as Father and Son are equal in deity and importance and personhood, so the husband and wife are equal in humanity and importance in personhood. And, although it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, the gift of children within marriage, coming from both the father and the mother, and subject to the authority of both the father and the mother, is analogous to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son in the Trinity.

A decade or so ago I purchased Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology at the LifeWay bookstore on the SEBTS campus in good faith. I had no idea at the time that there were theological interpretations presented as the Gospel truth that were problematic. Once Dee and I began blogging and these problems came to light, I regretted buying Grudem's tome; however, now I find it helpful so that I can share with our readers verbatim what Grudem's Systematic Theology states.

Dee and I are deeply troubled that MANY impressionable seminary graduates (and others who have consulted his ST) have been indoctrinated since 1994 with Grudem's interpretation of the Trinity. Some 22 years later, Wayne Grudem and gang's interpretation of the Trinity was finally challenged by Bible scholars at last year's Evangelical Theological Society meeting.

We wrote a post last November about this ETS meeting and were grateful that "The Trinity" was the topic of the annual gathering. We kept waiting for news to trickle out about what had been discussed. Perhaps we missed it?

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Complementarian-Doctrine-Trinity/dp/1532618662At long last, Kevin Giles gives us the lowdown in his newly published book The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity. We are grateful that Giles has documented what occurred among Bible scholars regarding discussions involving "The Trinity" and we will have much more to say about this important book and the Christian community's reaction to it in an upcoming post.

Apparently, the leadership changes that have occurred with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) are related to what has happened regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity. (see CBMW posts below)

Owen Strachan Resigns as CBMW President (July 12, 2016)

CBMW Announcement: Denny Burk Named CBMW President (July 20, 2016)

In the wake of these significant changes in leadership, there was quite a bit of discussion over at Mortification of Spin, including this post:

What Denny Burk Could Do

It was fascinating reading all those related posts last year over on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals website by Aimee Byrd and Liam Goligher.

Now Kevin Giles gives us some insights into what really happened regarding discussions about "The Trinity" and these CBMW leadership changes. Here is an excerpt from the Kindle edition.

Added together, this is a very significant number of well-respected theologians who adamantly oppose the Grudem-Ware hierarchical doctrine of the Trinity. It seems that today there are very few evangelical or Reformed supporters of the complementarian hierarchically ordered doctrine of the Trinity. Even the leaders of the complementarian movement now will not endorse the Knight-Grudem-Ware doctrine of the Trinity.

Powerful complementarians who a year ago were enthusiastically teaching the complementarian doctrine of a hierarchical ordered Trinity and confidently grounding women’s subordination in divine life are now saying they reject this teaching.

Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, is a very good example. He has done an about-face. Three weeks after Grudem and Ware’s teaching on the Trinity was designated heretical by a large number of Reformed theologians, he said, “I do not share their [Grudem and Ware’s] proposals concerning the eternal submission of the Son.” 224

Similarly, J. Ligon Duncan, the Chancellor of the Reformed Theological Seminary, one time president and now a board member of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, who likewise until very recently confidently grounded women’s subordination in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, has retreated from this idea. In an almost hour-long lecture, “The Doctrine of the Trinity and Complementarians,” given in Houston on 12 November 2016, he sharply draws back from grounding the permanent subordination of women in a supposed eternal subordination of the Son. He says he now contrasts what he calls “pro-Nicene orthodoxy,” which he endorses, and the “unique view” of a hierarchically ordered Trinity taught by Grudem and Ware, which he says, the “classical Protestant confessions do not affirm.” 225

In this lecture he tells of the heated and extended debates that went on in June 2016 within the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In the end, he says, the council made the decision that the complementarian position does not demand belief in a hierarchically ordered Trinity. In other words, the council agreed that the case for permanent subordination does not necessarily involve belief in a supposed eternal subordination of the Son.

Following this decision by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the president at the time, Owen Strachan, resigned. For him, like his father-in-law Bruce Ware, and his friend and mentor Wayne Grudem, the Trinity argument is foundational to the complementarian position. When Owen Strachan resigned, and it was obvious that the complementarian ship was floundering, the board of Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood turned to Denny Burke [sic], inviting him to be president, and he accepted. Denny had for years been a fervent supporter of a hierarchically ordered Trinity and of the argument that women’s subordination is grounded in the life of God. 226

After becoming president he too abandoned Grudem and Ware’s doctrine of a hierarchically ordered Trinity. He says that, confronted by the pervasive rejection of the complementarian doctrine of the Trinity, [I have] done more reading on Nicene Trinitarianism in the last two months than I have ever done previously. It has been good for me, and I am thankful for God for it. . .  . [T] he controversy has been unpleasant, but I would not trade the growth that’s come from it for anything in the world. 227

He says, “I now believe in the whole Nicene package,” and he openly acknowledges that the complementarian doctrine of the Trinity cannot be reconciled with it. For this reason, he says, he therefore does not agree with “the specific formulations of Grudem and Ware,” “my friends.” Because he is now personally committed to the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity that excludes hierarchical ordering in the Trinity, he says, “I think it is good and right to leave behind the language of ‘subordination.’” 228

He also says, it has now become clear to me that to be a complementarian who believes in the subordination of women in terms of the Danvers Statement you do not have to be “reliant upon an analogy” between women and the Son. 229

This comment should be carefully noted. Burke reiterates what Ligon Duncan said. The post-June 2016 position of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, you can hold to Nicene orthodoxy, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian. This is a complete about-face by Denny Burke.

Giles, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity (Kindle Locations 1231-1269). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Much more to come on this important topic!


Comments

Kevin Giles on Complementarians Who Now Reject Wayne Grudem’s View of The Trinity — 466 Comments

  1. Second! Again!

    Couldn't sleep…checking on Hurricane Harvey news and praying for the many people that it affects.

  2. One thing that has always attracted me to the Christian religion is the interactions of the Trinity in equal service and Restoration/Justice reflected in the Trinity.That would take several pages to discuss. ESS is a means to an end to validate their subjugation of women which is far more important than the Person of God, grace, love and all that nonsense. Deep down to some of these folks is one value the ends justifies the means always and it always will.

  3. Good Morning From Fairyland.

    The trouble with all of you is that you’re all looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is that, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it, because you’ll spoil it!

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  4. 1987 – 1989: Danvers statement.
    1992: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
    1994: Systematic Theology.

    It seems that Grudem has devoted his career to justifying the subjugation of women. If not for that, would he just be another nobody?

  5. GMFS

    ION: Cricket

    James Anderson, who began the day on 493 test wickets, has removed Bishoo and Hope in a fine spell this morning, leaving the Windies (at the time of writing) on 54-3. Despite England’s rather poor total of 258 (of which Root and centurian Stokes contributed more than half), the match is finely poised on the second morning.

    IHTIH

  6. “it’s unfortunate that some theologians have come up with a ‘systematic’ way to understand it…”

    Huh? Kevin Giles is doing systematic theology. The problem is not being “systematic.” It’s whether you’re doing it well and responsibly. Pannenberg, Barth, Bloesch, Brunner, Schleiermacher, Bavinck — a rather diverse group of important systematic theologians. No one believes that “system” means closed or all-comprehensive, except perhaps some fundie theologians.

  7. GAFS

    ION: Cricket update

    The Windies are digging in (much as England did yesterday following their top-order collapse) with Hope and Braithwaite putting on 109 so far for the 4th wicket.

    IHTIH

  8. “Thus, while the persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, they nonetheless differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and Holy Spirit are equal in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.

    Moreover, these differences in role are not temporary but last forever…”

    Cheryl Schatz in her DVD , “The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future”, completely demolishes this declaration by Grudem using both Old and New Testament scripture. It is shocking. I had no idea, myself. There are many examples and she goes through quite a few of them. The Trinity often functions interchangeably.

    I really appreciate you guys doing this series on ESS. I am starting to think each subsequent generation will need to deal with this aberration.

  9. I find this section to be untenable:

    “But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.”

    Who says there has to be economic subordination for the Trinity to operate with inherent differences?! Grudem? It’s as if Grudem is telling God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit how they “must” function. His statements are really absurd.

    Feel free to tell me I’m off here, if I am 😉

  10. Grudem writes:

    “If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed”

    Eternity is both past and future. So where is Yahweh referred to as Father pertaining to the Trinity in the OT besides references to Him being “father of Israel”? As in a father to His people. I always go back to One True God and start there.

    Grudem uses many non sequiters.

  11. ” . . . you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, you can hold to Nicene orthodoxy, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian.”

    This is the sad conclusion the comp camp had come to? They need more months of study outside their bubble world.

  12. This is a great post. Some comments on a few of the statements Grudem makes:

    And, although it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture

    Whatever happened to “Sola Scriptura” among this YRR crowd? This is a huge red flag that all the YRRs should have pounced on years ago.

    coming from both the father and the mother, and subject to the authority of both the father and the mother, is analogous to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son in the Trinity.

    The “Filioque controversy” is pertinent here. While some would argue that this is mostly a Latin semantics issue, the Western church created a very real problem when it changed the Nicene creed by stating that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (in the original creed the Spirit proceeds only from the Father). The Eastern church considers this addition to be heresy, and apparently the Roman Catholic church agrees with this if the change was in the Greek. But it appears that in Latin it might not be heretical, and the change they made was in the Latin version. In any case, Grudem went took it into the heretical realm by taking it to the extreme that apparently goes beyond the Latin understanding and lands squarely in the territory the Easter church considers heresy.

    ontological equality but economic subordination

    This is word salad. An eternal subordination of any kind, by definition, is ontological.

  13. Aimed strictly at “Grungedom & Co.”:
    “The world will know you are my disciples by your macroagressions.” – From “Stuff Jesus Never Said”

    This guy seems so far off in the ditch it is unbelievable! Wonder if he spends as much time handing out glasses of water and ministering with hands that get dirty as he does pontificating and bloviating? Somehow, I doubt it.
    Double-puke.

  14. Grudem:

    “In fact, in the relationship between man and woman in marriage we see also a picture of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity. Paul says, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Here, just as the Father has authority over the Son in the Trinity, so the husband has authority over the wife in marriage. The husband’s role is parallel to that of God the Father and the wife’s role is parallel to that of God the Son”

    A problem with this one besides the most obvious is that Paul was not using the Chronology that would communicate “authority”. Grudem adds that in. God would be first. Not last. That should be an indicator that authority is not part of the subject matter.

    It’s a passage about head coverings in that culture for crying out loud. Some people may not be aware that Jewish men covered their heads in prayer. It signified their shame before God for their sin. Couple that with women covering for modesty (prositutes did not cover) and the fact that Jews and Gentiles are together because of Christ makes the issue more understandable. Substitute “Source” for Head and it makes more sense. As in the Greek “Kephale” communicated the head as the sources for life-feeding the body, seeing, hearing, etc. (they believed thinking came from the heart)

    The culminating verse to Pauls explanation and argument about head coverings is:

    11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

    (Btw, nefarious translators added “symbol of”. It’s not there. We know a woman has authority over her own head “because of the angels” referenced from chip 6)

    To make 1 Corinthians 11 about hierarchy in the Trinity is the absolute biggest stretch there is. It’s vile. It’s desperation and thousands of young minds full of mush believed it because they don’t do homework and just believe gurus. In fact, they believed it because if they didn’t it would automatically categorize them as liberal feminists who supported bra burning and homosexuality. The labeling worked. It always works.

  15. Quoting Grudem:

    In fact, in the relationship between man and woman in marriage we see also a picture of the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity.

    I’ve seen other bloggers point out that the Bible does not use human marriage to mirror the Trinity, so Christians shouldn’t be using it for this purpose, either.

    I just wanted to say that such a view, once more, manages to marginalize anyone who is not married.

    Grudem:
    “…between the Father and Son in the Trinity.”

    There is a third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Complementarians usually manage to leave Him out of these discussions, as though he doesn’t matter. I guess the Holy Spirit is too inconvenient.

  16. Grudem by way of the OP:

    Here, just as the Father has authority over the Son in the Trinity,

    I’ve read better refutations of this than I could write, but the members of the Trinity are all of one accord. As such, they don’t “exercise authority” over each other.

    Reading “authority” into English translations of biblical words like “head” (as complementarians often do) is a mis-reading.
    (Again, other bloggers have written about that better than I could, complete with word studies on koine Greek and the like, so I leave anyone to google for it.)

    Anyway. As I got into on my Daisy blog, even if I grant these premises to Grudemn, the Bible says that the Father gave all authority to the Son.(*)

    So, if the
    Father = married men, and
    Son (Jesus) = married women
    in this complementarian marriage Trinity equation,
    to be consistent, complementarians would have to teach that the husband should give all authority to wives.

    (*) Samples:

    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18)

    The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. (John 3:35)

    1 When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2 For You granted Him authority over all humanity, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. (John 17)

  17. We here in East Texas know there is a tropical system near by, winds of 20-25mph, off and on rain. The concern now is rainfall and flooding. Our son and daughter in law were concerned, their internet service in Kunming was down for 48hrs and finally were able to reach us this morning. It seems they are getting the remains of a typhoon in China and are actually getting worse weather there than here….It’s bad in the Corpus Christi area to San Antonio and it may stay under a flood advisory for the next 96 hrs.

  18. So, in all of these clarifications, has anyone had the courage to say that Grudem was wrong? That ST contains heresy?

    Their statements seem very vague, as if they are trying to avoid saying anything that would affect Book Sales.

  19. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    Creeds are interesting from a historical perspective and were usually political in nature but other than that, I don’t see the point. What you mention in your comment is just one example. People end up debating the creed. 🙂

  20. Someone should make a before/after video of these guys with video clips of them clearly expressing their old position juxtaposed w clips of their newer ones.

  21. Re:

    …in other words, the council agreed that the case for permanent subordination does not necessarily involve belief in a supposed eternal subordination of the Son.

    Following this decision by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the president at the time, Owen Strachan, resigned. For him, like his father-in-law Bruce Ware, and his friend and mentor Wayne Grudem, the Trinity argument is foundational to the complementarian position.

    Without such a basis, complementarians don’t have a basis which appears to have theological, biblical grounding on which to limit women based on their biological sex alone.

    Complementarians want to argue women are equal in being not in role, but it does not logically follow to then ban women from positions (or “roles”) such as preacher, teacher (or whatever), or say they don’t have equal say in marriage, based on the nature of their biological sex, which is a permanent (life time) thing.

    Author Rebecca Groothius, in her book “Good News For Women” does a much better job of explaining all this in that book.

    There is just no rationale for any church to ban women from doing or being anything, unless you can maybe prove that God designed women to be permanently subordinate to men in this life time, and to explain the why of it.

    And the Bible does not provide this rationale. The complementarian mucking around with the Trinity was supposed to provide this rationale.

    Re:

    He [Burke] also says, it has now become clear to me that to be a complementarian who believes in the subordination of women in terms of the Danvers Statement you do not have to be “reliant upon an analogy” between women and the Son. 229

    To defend complementarianism, when they cannot appeal to a hierarchical Trinity, they have to go back to the cherry-picking, mis-use of, and de-contextualiztion of the same 2, 3, or 4 clobber verses they’ve always used.

    But the intellectually honest complementarians realize those same clobber verses no longer hold up the complementarian position on many a topic (women preachers, etc), especially when scrutinzed by Christian gender egalitarian arguments.

    At this point, I’d say most complementarians are holding on to complementarianism out of sheer tradition, a fear of secular feminism invading church, and a smattering of unacknowledged sexism on their own parts.

    What it comes down to is that it just “bugs” complementarians, or they find it unsettling, to even think of a woman standing at a pulpit giving a sermon, or to think a wife should have equal say in a marriage, because it’s at odds with their secular culture “June Cleaver” marriages of yesteryear.

    They like to think their objections are all based on the Bible alone, but there’s a lot of unacknowledged secular notions of gender roles that colors their views of all this stuff.

  22. I know a lot of people think this is a win. But it’s a simpering win. A “make it go away” win. And it shows the true character of the players who led so many down a horrible heretical path for years. Instead of anyone losing their position within the gravy train, they simply move people around. My question is why anyone would trust what any of them teach or propose as truth, ever again?

    This is a foundational issue to get so very wrong and promote as truth….for years!

    Mohler is especially deceptive. This was not only on his watch at SBTS but he promoted those who traveled all over teaching it. To not accept it or to speak out against it, kept one out of the inner ring. So why is he still there? Burke was editor of the CBMW journal long ago and pretty much is a water carrier doing what he’s told.

    But note, they only responded when other Reformed “comps” went against them. They ignored everyone else for years.

  23. Lydia wrote:

    “Thus, while the persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, they nonetheless differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and Holy Spirit are equal in deity to God they Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.
    Moreover, these differences in role are not temporary but last forever…”
    – – – – – –
    Cheryl Schatz in her DVD , “The Trinity: Eternity Past to Eternity Future”, completely demolishes this declaration by Grudem using both Old and New Testament scripture. It is shocking. I had no idea, myself. There are many examples and she goes through quite a few of them. The Trinity often functions interchangeably.
    I really appreciate you guys doing this series on ESS. I am starting to think each subsequent generation will need to deal with this aberration.

    I’m sorry to harp on this, but you’ll notice that 99% of this complementarian hand-wringing over authority and roles and comparing women to Jesus, so complementarians can claim that permanent female subordination is biblical,

    Is they do this so because the male complementarians want to maintain that wives must answer to husbands the way a Private must snap to attention and salute a General.

    It’s all about allowing Christian husbands to maintain control and power over their wives, and if anyone points out this is contrary to what Christ taught (Christ said do NOT seek authority over each other),

    They can point to their Trinity of Hierarchy to say, “But no, we have biblical support! See, the Son submits to the Father for all time, so should it be with married women to their husbands!”

    I’m over 40 years old. I’m a woman who’s never been married. So maybe it’s easier for me to see that this whole thing is nothing more than an agenda of the complementarians to keep married women subordinate to their husbands.

    I don’t see complementarians addressing never-married women, or the divorced, or widows.

    The New Testament does not call single ladies to submit to any man; single women are not in submission to a husband – nor asked to be submitted to a father, grandpa, brother, or uncle (that would be more akin to Islam).

    I think singleness is a wrench in the complementarian machinery. Singleness works as a contrast or highlight to some of the problems with complementarianism.

  24. @ Daisy:
    Comp doctrine is on its last leg and they know it. The non ESS comps are going to have a harder time shoring “comp” up. The word has become meaningless because it was coined to deceive in the first place.

    The non ESS comps can’t use Patriarchy or their churches will empty. I expect to hear more about “leadership and servant leadership” to shore up their belief in the pecking order in marriage. They already have hierarchical church structures so it probably won’t be that hard. .

    I am thankful they chose the Trinity over comp, though.

  25. Bridget wrote:

    Who says there has to be economic subordination for the Trinity to operate with inherent differences?! Grudem? It’s as if Grudem is telling God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit how they “must” function. His statements are really absurd.
    Feel free to tell me I’m off here, if I am

    No, I think that’s a fair reading of it. Grudem wants to create a God in his own image (which is idolatry), rather than allow God to define who God is.

    But, remember, maintaining Perpetual Female Subordination and Male Hierarchy is the big goal with these guys.

    These types of complementarians are even willing to sacrifice God Himself on their altar. Their sexism and wanting to hold on to all the power runs very deep – they don’t want to share leadership or power, nope.

    But they want me to think (wink, wink) they really shucky darn sure do consider women as being equal in value to men! Sure they do, sure they do. Their actions tell me otherwise.

  26. @ Lydia:
    I completely agree.. Unfortunately, Christainity is littered with examples such as this…. part of the reason Christainity has a credibilty problem……

  27. @ Deb:
    I get pretty riled up. Please forgive in advance. Maybe if I relate that I have been surrounded by it for a very long time. It seeps in everywhere in church circles. No one recognized its name. It has a name! It became a universal truth without a label. It’s been maddening.

    Over time, people are relating to Christ differently without realizing it. God the Father became the star of the show with Jesus co-starring and the Holy Spirit making guest appearances now and then.

    WUT? Helloooo. Jesus was God in the flesh.

    The residue left from this teaching has permeated the church here. People don’t even know that they don’t know. It’s extremely difficult to explain to people.

  28. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    “ontological equality but economic subordination”

    This is word salad. An eternal subordination of any kind, by definition, is ontological.

    Thank you, yes.

    It’s also behind their “women are equal in value just not in role” genderfied Jim Crow theology.

    Also agree with your comment quoting Grudemn on how some point or another of his “is not explicitly taught int he Bible, but” and you said, “I thought these guys were sola scriptura”

    No, complementarians are not sola scriptura, not consistently. They are all the time reading their views in the text.

    Some of them, it’s a domino effect.

    They start out assuming ‘male headship’ (“head” being mentioned in the New Testament) must of course denote this, that, and the other,

    Then they claim to see headship in the creation account of Genesis, though it’s really note there,

    Then you end up with “soft complementarians” extrapolating things from “head” like,

    “Well, since ‘Male Head’ must obviously mean “boss over wife,” of course, this must also mean that God designed and gifted men to be better Family Leaders and decision makers…”

    So you end up with posts like the one I saw by the soft comp woman who said in a marriage, God gifted husbands with Special Leadership Abilities that women lack, so wives should happily and joyfully cave in and allow their husband to make “big” choices in the marriage, like when or where the couple moves, or if to have any children, or whatever.

    Never no mind that the Bible does not state anywhere that God endowed men with better talents or brains at making choices or leading families.

    But then 99% of complementarians run around screaming at how secular feminism is invading churches and influencing Christian women, which is not, they say, sola scriptura-ish at all, or taking the Bible seriously.
    They are really blind to their own tendencies in this area.

  29. Lydia wrote:

    I expect to hear more about “leadership and servant leadership” to shore up their belief in the pecking order in marriage.

    Agreed! However, they will then be forced to provide scriptural support for husbands to be leaders over their wives. None exists. So we can expect more “word salad.” (love that term)

  30. Daisy wrote:

    But, remember, maintaining Perpetual Female Subordination and Male Hierarchy is the big goal…

    In a way, I think it’s even more basic than that; they want a kingdom that is of this world and a king like all the other nations (to paraphrase ancient Israel’s demand of Samuel and, by extension, of God). Hence, how can I tell the difference between two people unless I know who’s got the power? Remember, their male underlings are (like women) “equal in value” too.

    That they can’t understand or comprehend a Trinity of Persons unless there’s a pecking order shows, not how the Trinity works, but how their own minds work. It’s all about power.

  31. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That they can’t understand or comprehend a Trinity of Persons unless there’s a pecking order shows, not how the Trinity works, but how their own minds work. It’s all about power.

    This is definitely observable in all areas of their lives.

  32. It’s amazing to me that these Biblical “scholars” are just now coming around to what the vast majority of regular Christians have always known from their own Bible study under guidance of the Holy Spirit … that there is one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are co-eternal and co-equal.

    If you can’t trust Grudem to get the basics of the Trinity right, you can’t trust his views about God’s plan of salvation, church governance, complementarity, and other theological drivers of the new reformation. His systematic treatment of select Bible passages is systemically wrong when compared to the whole of Scripture.

  33. Lydia wrote:

    Mohler is especially deceptive.

    The architects of SBC’s Conservative Resurgence found that out the hard way! A young Al Mohler was waiting patiently in the wings to advance a Calvinist Resurgence, and he quickly moved to the forefront once those nasty moderates and liberals who stood in his way were purged from the denomination. SBC has always been more theo-political than spiritual.

  34. Lydia wrote:

    But note, they only responded when other Reformed “comps” went against them. They ignored everyone else for years.

    That is part of my concern too.

    These guys are happy to ignore false teachings and what not, until someone else comes along and consistently shines a bright spot light on it.

    (I’m stunned that some complementarians were willing to go so far as to throw God Himself under their precious gender theology bus just to win an argument.)

    If I remember right, some lady complementarian bloggger or two (Aimee Byrd may have been one??) wrote a post or two about some of this over a years ago, calling attention (either this Trinitarian stuff, or how complementarians don’t deal well with domestic violence).

    This woman blogger or two kept appealing to some men (at CBMW? or where ever), and the men did not address them, until a male friend of theirs did a blog post saying,
    “Why are these complementarian men ignoring the questions of these complementarian women?”

    For all their propaganda about respecting and valuing women, complementarian actions speak otherwise.

    It took a man writing about a woman’s post for the other men to go finally look at the woman’s post and comment on it.

    I do not know why any woman remains in complementarianism when they can see first hand how they are treated by 99% of the men who profess complementarianism, and they are not treated as well as men are, nor taken as seriously.

  35. Bridget wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    That they can’t understand or comprehend a Trinity of Persons unless there’s a pecking order shows, not how the Trinity works, but how their own minds work. It’s all about power.
    This is definitely observable in all areas of their lives.

    That is the bottom line….power. Who has it, who gets it. All this power is limited to a select few. ( males of course )
    The vast numbers of sheeple, the masses, the peons, are subject to the teachings, whims, financial support of these Pharisees.

  36. Lydia wrote:

    Comp doctrine is on its last leg and they know it. The non ESS comps are going to have a harder time shoring “comp” up. The word has become meaningless because it was coined to deceive in the first place.
    The non ESS comps can’t use Patriarchy or their churches will empty. I expect to hear more about “leadership and servant leadership” to shore up their belief in the pecking order in marriage. They already have hierarchical church structures so it probably won’t be that hard. .

    All very true.

    You’ll notice complementarians don’t appeal to the Trinity in any way, shape, or form to try to tell never-married women like myself why I must to submit to some man, some where.

    They aren’t monkeying with the Trinity to argue that never-married, divorced, or widowed women must submit to men.

    It’s all about convincing married women it’s (supposedly) “biblical” for them to remain second class to a husband.

    That’s part of what makes all this look so silly and ridiculous.

    Why haven’t any of the complementarians said, “As Jesus is to married women, God the Father to married men, the Holy Spirit is to never-married adults…”

    But then, they don’t have any rationale or biblical text to point to in order to argue all single adults must submit to married couples, so.

  37. @ Daisy:

    And P.S. (follow up to my post to Lydia):

    Most complementarians haven’t noticed that demographics in the USA and many other nations have changed.

    More and more adults are staying single for life, or not marrying until much older.

    So you have all these never-married women with no spouses, making all this sexist gender complementarian “wives must submit” nonsense a moot point.

    The only “solution” I’ve seen from complementarians who notice the demographic shift is to-

    1 – yell and scream at today’s Christian teens to marry prior to their 21st birthday

    2 – shame singles for being single, and to write “scare” pieces falsely proclaiming that married people are healthier and happier than adult singles, and that adult singleness is pure misery.

    (By the way, those studies are biased. It’s not true that all married people are happier, healthier than singles – see work by Bella DePaulo at “Living Single” on the Psychology Today web site for her work. She’s repudiated a lot of those studies and assumptions.)

    Al Mohler is one of the few who’s noticed that more and more people are staying single, and all he does is go on to radio shows and write blog posts saying awful things about singles and singleness, etc.

    Insulting singles for being single, or blaming singles for being single, is not going to make marriage happen or happen faster or sooner.

    You’re not going to have any complementarian marriages taking place any more, because people just aren’t marrying, and women raised in this stuff (like I was) would now rather marry a Warlock, Buddhist, or New Ager than a complementarian Christian man.

    So, good luck to complementarians who are tilting at wind mills.
    You can’t have Christian complementarian wives submitting to their Christian complementarian husbands, when these people are not marrying, or the women are refusing to marry complementarian men.

  38. Victorious wrote:

    So we can expect more “word salad.” (love that term)

    I’ve also seen “word vomit” or “word barf” on other sites, also good terms. 🙂

  39. @ Max:
    Divide and conquer works. He just cleverly and with strategic patience divided who was left after the CR.

  40. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That they can’t understand or comprehend a Trinity of Persons unless there’s a pecking order shows, not how the Trinity works, but how their own minds work. It’s all about power.

    I’ve remarked on this a time or two in older threads (so I’m sorry to bore anyone by mentioning this again0, but a book I read on verbal abuse had a few chapters explaining that there are basically two different ways many people view relationships.

    The author used the phrase “Power Over” to describe one of them.

    You have some people who do view any and all relationships (even marriage, friendship) as being battles.

    These people assume everyone is out to get every one else, they assume everyone wants power and to rule over them and to rule over everyone else.

    So they are very controlling and combative in a relationship. They assume everyone else is this way.

    That was the first group, the Power Over group.

    Then you have a second group – I forget the author’s term, but let’s say this second group consists of “Mutualists.”

    The Mutualists are not interested in controlling other people, winning, having more power, or being in authority.

    They want genuine relationships and ones of equality and cooperation.

    I fall more into this second group (Mutualists).

    I found Group 1, the Power Hungry types, to be so foreign to my thinking and how I view relationships, I had to go back and re-read the author’s chapter or two on that topic several times over before it even began to sink in for me.

    There are sadly, and creepy enough, some people who cannot think of relationships in any other way but in terms of power and control.

    Once that finally sank in for me, I finally was sort of able to understand the few verbal abusers in my family who not only yell at me but who treat me as though I am an adversary to be defeated (especially true of my sister).

    I’ve always been puzzled why she acts like I’m an enemy, because I’m not, and I have no secret agenda against her or mean her harm, but she acts like I do.

    Very weird, until you read these books that explain other people don’t view relationships in the same way.

    Maybe that’s true for some church people and complementarians as well.

  41. @ Max:

    Grudem was trying to shoe-horn the Trinity into a support of his Male Hierarchy beliefs. The Trinity was to serve as a support for gender complementarianism.

    I don’t think Grudem actually cares about accuracy, truth, or being honest or faithful to what the Bible actually says about any topic.

  42. Did any of these guys get any kind of discipline due to preaching heresy for years? I can probably guess the answer.

    Also this is no surprise: the council agreed that the case for permanent subordination does not necessarily involve belief in a supposed eternal subordination of the Son. Well well well. As long as women are still subordinate then that’s okay then.

    I’ll still be over here being an uppity woman & part of the Jezebellion, & the one who sent my copy (regret spending that money now) of Grudem’s ST to the crusher in the boot of my old Corolla, as most of you know. I’ve removed almost all the books in my library that have links to this kind of evangelical theology to history, I have another round of book culling coming up this afternoon after moving all the books out of my lounge after sanding/staining/varnishing the floor. It’s time to sort & return them no. All such books found will be permanently removed from circulation, forever & ever, amen. The air feels so much clearer without them.

  43. @ Beakerj:
    You are right. Nada “church discipline” 😉

    . Mohler still reigns as the brilliant theological “scholar” atop SBTS. Who can remove him? His trustees are his. Every entity leader pledged allegiance to him. Thousands of minions at TGC and T4G proclaim him as great.

    Until the money dries up. But Russ Moore is working on that one….

  44. Daisy wrote:

    (Complementarians) aren’t monkeying with the Trinity to argue that never-married, divorced, or widowed women must submit to men.

    By the way, that the majority of complementarians are mis-using the doctrine of the Trinity to try to biblically prove that wives should be subordinate to husbands-
    I’m not sure how to explain what else bothers me about this, but I will give it a try-

    Would complementarians not have to actually argue from the Bible that there is something inherent in a MARRIED woman that makes a married woman have to be subordinate to a husband in this life time?

    Complementarians need to address this Trinity / Submission stuff in context of marriage v. singleness, because it seems inconsistent to me.

    I’m currently single. I’ve never been married. As a not-married woman, I am not expected by most (normal and sane) complementarians to submit to any man. I am a free agent, even in the wacky world of complementarianism.

    So, I am not comprehending, why things would instantly change my status, to all the sudden, I have to submit to some guy just because I marry him tomorrow?

    I fail to see how putting a wedding band on my finger or attending a wedding ceremony changes my very being or nature and thus makes me “have to” submit to some guy?

    I’ve only seen a tiny number of extreme complementarians (like the ones who support patriarchy) who argue that all women, regardless of marital status, must submit to all men every where, until or unless they marry. (But the New Testament does not teach this).

    But these extreme ones will say a not-married woman must submit to her father, uncle, brother or grandpa or whatever so long as she is single (very similar to Islam. Why are they copying Islam?).

    It doesn’t make sense to me to teach that a married woman must submit to her husband, when she was not expected to be submissive to him prior to marriage, nor expected to be submissive to any and all men while she was single.

    Any man a woman meets while she is single can possibly or potentially be a future husband for her, but she does not know for sure which guy she will marry should she marry.

    You cannot seriously ask or expect a non-married woman to sit there and submit to every guy she meets because there exists a possibility they could marry.

    Then you even have pastor Mark Driscoll who even said in a sermon or two that a woman should submit ONLY to her OWN husband, not to another woman’s husband, or to all men in general.

    See also,
    A Question for Complementarians from Ruth Tucker
    “When Does Submission Begin?”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/01/a-question-for-complementarians-from-ruth-tucker/

    There is something just very funky, weird, and amiss with saying or expecting a married lady to submit unilaterally to a dude but single women being scot-free.

    Getting married does not change a woman’s nature or being, it’s merely another “role” one takes on in life.

    Given the divorce rate in Christianity today (and God does allow for divorce), don’t anyone give me the lines about marriage being this high falutin’, mystical, spiritual state of for-ever, permanent “oneness” with another person, or that marriage is irrevocable, etc.

    The only comeback I can see is for some complementarians to argue this submission stuff is supposedly necessary because the husband needs to act as “tie breaker vote” in a dispute.

    But then some soft comps deny that this is the basis of complementariansm in their posts, even though they point to it too.

    In all my years of having disagreements with male relatives and male co-workers in secular places of employment, we managed to resolve disputes without pulling rank on each other, certainly not based on gender.

  45. Beakerj wrote:

    Did any of these guys get any kind of discipline due to preaching heresy for years? I can probably guess the answer.

    Yep. You probably can. But be assured that women who question the doctrines ate most likely disciplined and/or shunned . . .

  46. Daisy wrote:

    Grudem was trying to shoe-horn the Trinity into a support of his Male Hierarchy beliefs. The Trinity was to serve as a support for gender complementarianism.

    These New Calvinists just to love to oppress women, don’t they? What love is this?!

  47. Lydia wrote:

    Divide and conquer works. He just cleverly and with strategic patience divided who was left after the CR.

    It’s also so clear to the folks who have closely watch things unfold. Unfortunately, the average Southern Baptist still doesn’t have a clue and continue to bankroll a rebellion against their belief and practice. It’s the darnedest thing I’ve ever seen.

  48. Max wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Grudem was trying to shoe-horn the Trinity into a support of his Male Hierarchy beliefs. The Trinity was to serve as a support for gender complementarianism.
    These New Calvinists just to love to oppress women, don’t they? What love is this?!

    Jesus clearly stated there would be no marriage in heaven.
    All of this ESS stuff reads like a branch of Mormonism to me. Who knows Daisy maybe they’ll start suggesting polygamy is OK for single women.

  49. Mae wrote:

    Who knows Daisy maybe they’ll start suggesting polygamy is OK for single women.

    Mae wrote:

    Max wrote:
    Daisy wrote:
    Grudem was trying to shoe-horn the Trinity into a support of his Male Hierarchy beliefs. The Trinity was to serve as a support for gender complementarianism.
    These New Calvinists just to love to oppress women, don’t they? What love is this?!
    Jesus clearly stated there would be no marriage in heaven.
    All of this ESS stuff reads like a branch of Mormonism to me. Who knows Daisy maybe they’ll start suggesting polygamy is OK for single women.

    I’d rather stay single, and I bet most women would opt to stay single.

    I’m also okay at this point with marrying an atheist, Buddhist or anybody but a Christian, especially a complementarian one.

    The demographics are not working in favor of complementarian Christianity, which few of them have picked up on.

    The nation moves more and more singles, less marriages taking place. There are no women for any wanna-be complementarian men to marry to lord authority over.

    That is why Mohler (one of the few to notice) is screaming at today’s Christian teens it is a disgrace to stay single, and that they should marry before they reach 25.

  50. K.D. wrote:

    We here in East Texas know there is a tropical system near by, winds of 20-25mph, off and on rain. The concern now is rainfall and flooding.

    Hope all works out well for you and your family.

    I lived in Houston, Texas (and other areas on the Gulf Coast) for a long time and went through a few hurricanes.

    The storm itself is bad, as it rips off roofs and pulls up full grown trees and knocks down fences, but the electric can be off for days and days after, too. Which means no electricity, no television, no fridge. All stores are closed (can’t buy more food).

    The Gulf Coast is incredibly hot and humid, even into the month of September, and with no air conditioning, things are miserable there for days with no power.

    I’m watching the TV news coverage of Hurricane Harvey today, and the weather guys are saying this is unprecedented behavior for a hurricane. They’re getting lots more rain than ever.

    One weather lady said today the charts show the storm from Harvey will go back out over the gulf, then move up more north to Houston, and sit over Houston for awhile (which means even more rain there).

  51. MOHLER, DEVER, BURK, SCHREINER, KOSTENBERGER, DUNCAN, PIPER, HAMILTON, MOORE, MAHANEY, and all the other cowardly cowards have had foxhole conversions to Nicene orthodoxy ***now that they have been exposed.***

    I imagine the CBMW and 9Marks and other assorted Gospel Glitterati websites have been appropriately scrubbed of ESS content so that the above Cowardly Lions of the faith can have their revisionist Narrative be the new Truth. I have hard copies of a lot of those articles, and I imagine a lot of other people do, too. Not to mention the books out there. They really do think we are stupid.

  52. Daisy wrote:

    I’m watching the TV news coverage of Hurricane Harvey today, and the weather guys are saying this is unprecedented behavior for a hurricane. They’re getting lots more rain than ever.

    One weather lady said today the charts show the storm from Harvey will go back out over the gulf, then move up more north to Houston, and sit over Houston for awhile (which means even more rain there).

    Which will be interpreted (with wagging fingers) as GLOBAL WARMING! GLOBAL WARMING! GLOBAL WARMING! or (with fluttering hands and Christianese word salad) as GOD’S WRATH FOR FILL-IN-THE-BLANK!

  53. Gram3 wrote:

    I have hard copies of a lot of those articles, and I imagine a lot of other people do, too. Not to mention the books out there. They really do think we are stupid.

    As of now, Comrade, Oceania Has Always Been At Peace With Eurasia.

  54. Daisy wrote:

    The nation moves more and more singles, less marriages taking place. There are no women for any wanna-be complementarian men to marry to lord authority over.

    That’s what Quiverfull breeding programs (Christian Homeschooled, of course) are for.

  55. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Yes. It’s all about power. Which is why the cowardly Mohler was cleverly parsing his distancing from Grudem after 20 years.

    There is room for only One on the Iron Throne.

  56. Mae wrote:

    All of this ESS stuff reads like a branch of Mormonism to me. Who knows Daisy maybe they’ll start suggesting polygamy is OK for single women.

    Remember to always use the proper Code Words:
    “Plural Marriage” or “Biblical Marriage”.

  57. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Whatever happened to “Sola Scriptura” among this YRR crowd? This is a huge red flag that all the YRRs should have pounced on years ago.

    Something I noticed with YRRs who tried to argue with me is that many don’t really know the Bible all that well. They spend all their time reading people like Piper and Grudem. So when confronted with verses that don’t fit in their perfect little framework box, they will abruptly switch subjects to church fathers. Vice versa.

    I don’t think many of them even honestly realized they were doing it, because it’s so ingrained in that culture to just win the argument by any means. I also had several of them strongly imply that by not blindly accepting their words, I was “proving” that I was not Elect and didn’t have the Holy Spirit. I think they get told to make converts as forcefully as possible, but it’s really a manipulative system to find people who will just blindly obey. BTW–that’s another sign of a cult.

  58. Daisy wrote:

    But they want me to think (wink, wink) they really shucky darn sure do consider women as being equal in value to men! Sure they do, sure they do. Their actions tell me otherwise.

    Ware is open in his belief that women are made in the image of men, not God. And I think that’s what many of these guys really believe, even if they wouldn’t admit it. And Mohler has talked about “elite men” destined to lead over every one else. I think they are happy to subject men, too, as long as they are the ones in charge.

  59. GSD wrote:

    So, in all of these clarifications, has anyone had the courage to say that Grudem was wrong? That ST contains heresy?
    Their statements seem very vague, as if they are trying to avoid saying anything that would affect Book Sales.

    Goligher and Trueman have, even though they have Reformed backgrounds.

    As for the TGC/New Cal crowd, they are all very careful not to step on toes in their own crowd. I almost wonder if there’s some sort of blackmail going on in the background, maybe over publishing contracts or something.

  60. Denny had for years been a fervent supporter of a hierarchically ordered Trinity and of the argument that women’s subordination is grounded in the life of God. 226

    After becoming president he too abandoned Grudem and Ware’s doctrine of a hierarchically ordered Trinity. He says that, confronted by the pervasive rejection of the complementarian doctrine of the Trinity, [I have] done more reading on Nicene Trinitarianism in the last two months than I have ever done previously.

    So he fervently subordinated the Eternal Son without having studied the Nicene material well. I find that claim dubious, considering that he has a Th.M. from DTS, IIRC. That is not a pastor-track program, and I do know several guys and one woman who have completed a Th.M. at DTS. The claim may be technically true, but he certainly read enough while he was at DTS to know that ESS was not Nicene.

    So Denny Burk and the CBMW crew believe that male headship can be sustained without ESS. I would love to see that argument. I believe I can fit into size 2 jeans and do backflips. The difference, of course, is that Denny has an audience of young and older males who want to believe the line he is selling and are willing to suspend any doubt.

  61. Gram3 wrote:

    So Denny Burk and the CBMW crew believe that male headship can be sustained without ESS. I would love to see that argument. I believe I can fit into size 2 jeans and do backflips. The difference, of course, is that Denny has an audience of young and older males who want to believe the line he is selling and are willing to suspend any doubt.

    Well, they also believe that everybody should just believe everything they say and shut up and obey.

    I don’t think they’ve given up ESS. I think they are just pulling it back into the seminaries and letting the indoctrinated baby pastors indoctrinate everyone else, hoping for a shift in beliefs. And I’m sure there’s plans for some of those to go take over the professorships of dissenters. Probably view it as a calculated retreat, not a defeat.

  62. @ Gram3:
    Not so much stupid… those of us that think, and remember, are just the rebellious heathens. Years ago in my fundamentailst HS, when i challenged a speaker with a serious debat in which, to me, he had a weak argument/reason, he quoted old testiment verses that said do not argue with heathens… clearly, he had been trained to attack the character of the person, not position being debated. It is a common tactic almost universallly used by YEC when I debate them … it only takes a couple of back and forth till my faith is under attack, or at least I am considered a “compromiser”, which then leads to be “lukewarm” verses in the NT.
    In another words, many, many “Christain” leaders can not handle deep intellectual debate. Look at how the 9 Marks, gospel collision, and the other, similar blog sites do not allow comment, or remove stuff….

  63. Gram3 wrote:

    They really do think we are stupid.

    Yes. But they have a new generation to indoctrinate on the latest “Gospel” issues that were not important just a few years ago.

    Move on, nothing to see here.

    (After all that Driscoll and CJ Mahaney thing never really happened the way victims told it)

  64. @ ishy:

    This has been a real problem for the Seminary followers of these guys who get on blogs. The leaders never put themselves in a public situation where they are asked a lot of uncomfortable questions. Everything has been staged and scripted within their bubble.

    But, Then their sycophants go out and get on blogs and find their only defense is censoring and ad hominem. (You just can’t understand it)

    They were never really taught to take their beliefs to their logical conclusions. They never really thought through all the attributes of God. They were indoctrinated. That is one reason why they so heavily censored and moderated their blogs.

  65. @ ishy:
    Aimee Byrd gets the most credit. She would not let it go. But it took the men to get the men to be concerned that it might hurt their status in the Reformed world.

  66. ishy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    But they want me to think (wink, wink) they really shucky darn sure do consider women as being equal in value to men! Sure they do, sure they do. Their actions tell me otherwise.
    Ware is open in his belief that women are made in the image of men, not God. And I think that’s what many of these guys really believe, even if they wouldn’t admit it. And Mohler has talked about “elite men” destined to lead over every one else. I think they are happy to subject men, too, as long as they are the ones in charge.

    You bet that’s what they really believe.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    @ ishy:
    Aimee Byrd gets the most credit. She would not let it go. But it took the men to get the men to be concerned that it might hurt their status in the Reformed world.

    I agree. But I got the impression GSD was asking about people they might have considered “their own” who strongly went against them and Goligher and Trueman were the ones that came to mind. Being female, I doubt they consider Byrd one of their own.

  68. Mae wrote:

    Jesus clearly stated there would be no marriage in heaven.

    Clear to many I suppose, but then again I don’t don’t subscribe to the Christian view of “heaven”. My hope is in Olam-Ha-Ba (Jewish version of ‘heaven’) where the fleshly delights of this life are resurrected and enhanced in the afterlife.

  69. Had to go fetch my copy of Grudem’s ST off the bookshelf. Fun fact is that I received my copy from a woman who got her M.Div. from TEDS. Every time I see it I think of Beakerj and “Wheelie Bin Ministries.”

    Anyway, page 56 has the weird “Application” section. Sure enough, he starts out with Genesis 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11. It is as if Grudem starts with his ideal of human relationships and then interprets intra-Trinitarian relationships based on that. He says in the last line of the first paragraph of page 257, “And although not it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, the gift of children within marriage, coming from both the father and the mother, and subject to the authority of both father and mother, is analogous to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son in the Trinity.”

    This Garbage is why I put those names in capslock. All of the young men and women who have been taught this spew, including the young man who, in sincerity, showed up in the thread yesterday, are victims of a LIE that is not Conservative theology. It is not what they have been told it is. It is not Biblical. It isn’t faithful to the text. It isn’t being obedient. It is being disobedient because it is substituting man’s word for God’s Word. That is IDOLATRY.

    I hope I am not being too blunt.

  70. Muff Potter wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    Jesus clearly stated there would be no marriage in heaven.
    Clear to many I suppose, but then again I don’t don’t subscribe to the Christian view of “heaven”. My hope is in Olam-Ha-Ba (Jewish version of ‘heaven’) where the fleshly delights of this life are resurrected and enhanced in the afterlife.

    Well, that is a hope I guess. Is marriage mentioned in, Olam-Ha-Ba?

  71. Lydia wrote:

    Mohler is especially deceptive. This was not only on his watch at SBTS but he promoted those who traveled all over teaching it. To not accept it or to speak out against it, kept one out of the inner ring. So why is he still there? Burke was editor of the CBMW journal long ago and pretty much is a water carrier doing what he’s told.

    Indeed. This is a character issue, just like the Dever and Mahaney debacle was a character issue. What will the Men of God at these Institutions supposedly training future proclaimers of the Gospel do? Will there be proclamations of repentance? Nope. Crickets and airbrushes. Mohler will be there until he is buried with full denomination honors on the SBTS campus with a granite monument. Inside the chapel.

  72. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    It seems that Grudem has devoted his career to justifying the subjugation of women. If not for that, would he just be another nobody?

    As much as I go off on him, I think he is a tragic figure. The answer to your question is that he has clearly *focused* his academic life on the topic of Female Subordination and ESS which supports it. A bigger and deeper question is why he has chosen to use his intellectual talents on such a vain pursuit which has brought intellectual shame on him at this stage of his life. That is very sad.

    However, that is not as bad, IMO, as the Mohlers and the Burks who rode the ESS as if God wrote it on tablets of stone at Sinai and then broke those tablets when ESS became no longer respectable. Those men cannot be trusted. At least people know where Grudem and Ware and Owen stand.

  73. Daisy wrote:

    I do not know why any woman remains in complementarianism when they can see first hand how they are treated by 99% of the men who profess complementarianism, and they are not treated as well as men are, nor taken as seriously.

    Having been in some Complementarian churches of varying degrees of softness/hardness, women have good and godly husbands who are Christlike or hope to meet good and godly husbands who are Christlike or who want their kids to meet other kids who are good and godly and Christlike. There are no guarantees, but that is the hope.

  74. Dave Miller makes these points in a Comment:

    “I am trying to make the following assertions:

    1) That the doctrine of ESS was not developed as a complementarian underpinning, but was developed over the years as a means of expressing the relationships within the Trinity long before the current Gender wars.

    I do not know if you and Dr. McKinion are right about the disconnect between modern and ancient ESS. I also concede that the term ESS is more modern and might not accurately describe the earlier views. That is not the point I am making.

    2) That the idea that in the Godhead there is both essential equality and “economic subordination” is not a new theological development. Those two aspects – essential unity but differentiation of roles do seem to be a pretty consistent framework, even if you do not buy into every aspect of Grudem’s treatment of it.”

    My point? This is a small church pastor in Iowa who blogs to other church pastors. This post was 2011. This stuff had permeated the SBC for years.

    Wonder what these pastors are all thinking now. Most likely glad Mohler provided cover by calling ESS an “option” although claiming he never bought into it. That was news to me. He certainly embraced and promoted it at southern seminary.

  75. Beakerj wrote:

    Grudem’s ST to the crusher in the boot of my old Corolla

    I thought you gave it to Wheelie Bin. I mis-remembered.

  76. @ Gram3:
    I agree, and if one really tests different “evangelical” and fundamentalist concepts one will find a goid number with idolatrous aspects

  77. @ Lydia:
    The one thing true in the article is that ESS is not modern. It was what got Origen branded as a hereric, and it was a foundational belief of Arianism. No, it is not new.

  78. Lydia wrote:

    Russ Moore is working on that one….

    He is cultivating the Millennials with SJW. I think his Patriarchy paper for ETS (2006?) will be intentionally forgottenized.

  79. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    He believes it. It’s not “new” so it’s not bad. Mohler threw him and thousands like him under the bus. Perhaps the article will be gone from SBCvoices soon and we can all pretend none of it ever happened.. Read while you can. SBC at its finest hour. (Snarc)

  80. @ Gram3:
    I can’t find the Henry Institute article that usually came up with key words. Maybe Google sanitized it for him? 🙂

  81. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Indeed

    http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-the-historic-doctrine-of-the-church/

    Nice of Pravda to put everything in the title so I don’t need to click. Yeah, I had some SBTS pups say that to me about ESS. I gave them my best head tilted, forehead raised, wide-eyed, “you do not seriously want me to believe that, do you?” look. I had not been able to use that look in such a long time since my youngest was a pup. The pups seriously were surprised that their degrees did not command my immediate capitulation. Imagine that!

  82. Mae wrote:

    Is marriage mentioned in, Olam-Ha-Ba?

    Dunno about marriage as a specific. What I do know is that Judaism offers a freedom of thought that Christian dogmatists will just not cotton to.
    Here’s a link on Olam-Ha-Ba and the Jewish perspective:
    http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

  83. He also says, it has now become clear to me that to be a complementarian who believes in the subordination of women in terms of the Danvers Statement you do not have to be “reliant upon an analogy” between women and the Son. 229

    Gee, Thanks Denny.

    Now that you’ve ‘done a little reading’ and realized that you were talking out of your you know what before, I’m glad you’ve found plenty of other reasons for me to be subordinate. I’m sure none of those reasons have anything to do with making you feel super special. Just let me know when you’ve decided how subordinate women should be and why and i’ll get right on that. Any. Minute. Now.

  84. If a young, enthusiastic man goes off to seminary and is taught something that diminishes Jesus in any way, he has only himself to blame for following such foolishness and heresy. It doesn’t matter how exalted the guru is. One of the major points of the New Testament was that authority proclaimed by leaders (such as that claimed by the individuals who insisted that circumcision was a requisite to serving the Lord) should not be regarded at all if they teach thing contrary to the Bible or the leading of the Holy Spirit (John made the latter point in I John 2:27, that not only do we not need to follow people like Grudem and their systematic theologies, but that we don’t even need teachers in the first place if we have the Holy Spirit). If they had the Holy Spirit, those young seminarians ought to have been screaming “No, a thousand times no” to this.

    The greater blame rests on the shoulders of theologians so-called such as Grudem and leaders so-called such as Mohler, but at some point, even if you’re a first year nobody in seminary, if you don’t have the sense to reject these lies, I reserve the right to question whether you’re not just another fraud.

  85. Lydia wrote:

    The culminating verse to Pauls explanation and argument about head coverings is:
    11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

    A man at church talked about how Paul ordered his letters and I find that makes all of this make so much more sense. He meanders around, almost thinking out loud, and then he ends with some conclusion. This is a letter, not a series of separate laws! He builds on things, you can’t just pull out a verse and slap it down.

  86. Daisy wrote:

    There is a third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Complementarians usually manage to leave Him out of these discussions, as though he doesn’t matter.

    Or her.

    I can't help but think if you were creating a 'family' as Grudem seems to try to do, mother father and son makes a whole lot more sense than father, son….some more children?

  87. @ Lydia:

    When one hangs out with a different subculture one quickly picks up on differences even when the same words are said. Things can have a different feel, so to speak. In my experience the feel in one prominent subculture feels more like seeing Jesus as God, and the feel in Baptist world feels more like seeing Jesus as Son of God. Never mind that either statement is true, there is a different feel.

    This can be illustrated by the fact that Baptists do not tend to refer to Mary as the Mother of God, though they would agree with the term God-bearer, while meanwhile look what the one subculture has done with Mary. This though they both would agree about the incarnation. The feel is different.

    It seems to me therefore that something akin to ESS would find fertile ground in Baptist usage, and perhaps something similar might pop up once ESS itself has been discredited. I don’t see Baptists dropping the ‘Son of’ terminology/ understand or adopting the ‘Mother of’ terminology/ understanding in the ways that some other groups do. Different feel.

  88. I’m late to the party here, but anyway…

    Daisy said:

    “So you end up with posts like the one I saw by the soft comp woman who said in a marriage, God gifted husbands with Special Leadership Abilities that women lack, so wives should happily and joyfully cave in and allow their husband to make “big” choices in the marriage, like when or where the couple moves, or if to have any children, or whatever.

    Never no mind that the Bible does not state anywhere that God endowed men with better talents or brains at making choices or leading families.”

    I’ve seen some men like Joey Pipa (PCA) interpret Genesis 3 and certain texts of Paul’s to mean that all women are more easily deceived than men, even before the fall, which is why they must be silent in church, etc. I’ve never been able to read such an argument without interpreting it to mean that the entire female sex is less intelligent than the male sex. Especially when he words it like this:

    “A woman’s strength lies in her gentleness, compassion, and intuition. The family and the church need these things very much. But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.”

    https://josephpipa.com/leading-in-worship/

  89. Suppose for a moment that I don’t believe there’s anything special about the bible; it’s just another historical document, whose accuracy we should take with a pinch of salt at all times. This would make me a “liberal”, in league with statin.

    However, this is entirely unfair. I’m just as biblical as the evangelicals. Consider: We treat women as inferior whilst affirming that they are technically (or “ontologically”) equal. Well, the converse is also true. I affirm that the bible is a very very special and unique book. I just happen to treat it as though it weren’t. And because I affirm how special and important it is, it doesn’t matter whether I obey it or not.

  90. Lea wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    There is a third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Complementarians usually manage to leave Him out of these discussions, as though he doesn’t matter.

    Or her.

    In the (gendered) original languages, isn’t the word used for “Holy Spirit” a FEMININE noun?

  91. okrapod wrote:

    This can be illustrated by the fact that Baptists do not tend to refer to Mary as the Mother of God, though they would agree with the term God-bearer, while meanwhile look what the one subculture has done with Mary. This though they both would agree about the incarnation. The feel is different.

    Though we Catholics tend to obsess over St Mary (to the point it’s the most common way for a Catholic to flake out), the Reformation Wars flipped Protestants into either ignoring Mary or flat-out hatred. Guess if Enemy Christians were into Mary, We Have To Hate Her. Like requiring clergy to be single or married, another way to show Whose Side You Are On.

    And one thing Marian traditions did was provide a “city of refuge” for the feminine aspects of Christianity. Without a pull in that direction (with Mary as its figurehead), it would become all too easy to go Hypermasculine with God, from Comp to Dudebro to flat-out Rape Culture. (“Just like the Manosphere, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”)

    Emphasizing the feminine side of God through Mary acted as a counter to Male Supremacist Hypermasculinity as Godliness. Like damper rods keeping a nuclear reactor from Hypermasculinity Meltdown.

  92. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    The culminating verse to Pauls explanation and argument about head coverings is:
    11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
    A man at church talked about how Paul ordered his letters and I find that makes all of this make so much more sense. He meanders around, almost thinking out loud, and then he ends with some conclusion. This is a letter, not a series of separate laws! He builds on things, you can’t just pull out a verse and slap it down.

    It was very Jewish in nature, if you ever read ancient Jewish writings, they tend to meander—just a different way of thinking from the linear Greeks. That said, Paul does structure arguments like a brilliant lawyer or judge. Have read enough legal arguments in my day to read much of Paul’s work like that of some extraordinarily gifted judge.

  93. Gram3 wrote:

    The pups seriously were surprised that their degrees did not command my immediate capitulation. Imagine that!

    “B-b-b-ut You’re Just a WOMAN! You HAVE TO Bend the Knee to MEEEEEEE!”

  94. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    The one thing true in the article is that ESS is not modern. It was what got Origen branded as a hereric, and it was a foundational belief of Arianism. No, it is not new.

    “Nine out of ten Fresh New Ideas are really Old Mistakes. But to a generation that was not around the last time these Old Mistakes were made, they seem like Fresh New Ideas.”
    — G.K.Chesterton (from memory)

    To which I would add “What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”
    (To be followed eventually by “But How Were We To Know?”)

  95. Lydia wrote:

    Wonder what these pastors are all thinking now. Most likely glad Mohler provided cover by calling ESS an “option” although claiming he never bought into it. That was news to me. He certainly embraced and promoted it at southern seminary.

    Plausible Deniability now that it’s Jumped the Shark and is attracting serious Blowback.

  96. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Like damper rods keeping a nuclear reactor from Hypermasculinity Meltdown.

    <tangent>Strictly speaking, that would be control rods. Damper rods suppress physical movement; control rods are made of (and/or contain) chemical elements whose nuclei absorb neutrons that would otherwise sustain the fission reaction.

    IHTIH
    </tangent>

  97. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That they can’t understand or comprehend a Trinity of Persons unless there’s a pecking order shows, not how the Trinity works, but how their own minds work. It’s all about power.

    This level of thinking, or non thinking, is present when they explain thing by saying stuff like ‘but if two people have to choose a place to have lunch and no one is in charge, HOW will they choose???’

    As if that is anything but an INSANE thing to say!

  98. @ srs:

    “Someone should make a before/after video of these guys with video clips of them clearly expressing their old position juxtaposed w clips of their newer ones.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    video would be nice. in the interim, Rachel Miller at “A Daughter Of The Reformation” put together a nice collection of “before” written expressions of their old position. (i’m sure this is old news, though)

    https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-and-cbmw/#pastor#leadchange#ministry#gospel#church#gospel#leadership#churchlife#truth#love

  99. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I do think that anti-catholicism has played a part in the anti-Mary thinking in protestantism. But it looks to me like more than just about femaleness, or the feminine side of God as you said, because in protestantism there is also rejection of the idea of saints and the idea of prayers to saints including but not limited to Mary, and the saints are not exclusively female. So while male/female is part of it I also see a basically different feel about the relationship between God and man (generic). That is not far from questioning what it means to be both God and man (Jesus) at the same time, and what that may say about intra-trinity relationships.

    I have been wrong a few thousand times, so perhaps I misread this, but like I said the ‘feel’ of it seems quite different depending on the angle from which one views the whole matter.

  100. ishy wrote:

    …I got the impression GSD was asking about people they might have considered “their own” who strongly went against them and Goligher and Trueman were the ones that came to mind. Being female, I doubt they consider Byrd one of their own.

    Yes, you are correct. I was trying to be concise, and ended up being vague. By “everyone,” I meant the Gospel Glitterati, the T4G dude-bros, the Southern Seminary crowd. Those guys.

    There is a list of heroes that kept this issue alive, some within the Complementarian club. I listened to some of the Mortification of Spin episodes, and was struck by Truemann and especially Aimee Byrd. Man, she is sharp. Kevin Giles is another hero. And there are others.

  101. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    he had been trained to attack the character of the person, not position being debated. It is a common tactic

    I have spent a lot of time reading Complementarian “scholarship” mainly to try to figure out how “my team” could become so horribly corrupted when we are supposedly the ones who take the Bible seriously and all that. I soon learned that said “scholarship” is embarrassing for its tortured mangling of the text, fanciful eisegesis, and exhaustive use of every available logical fallacy. I was totally unprepared and shocked.

    As an example, since we are talking about Grudem and Ware, I once told a young student to highlight every instance of “clearly” or other emphatic that Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem use (because this is what I noticed in their writing) and then to apply a substantial discount to whatever follows the “clearly.” If they had sufficient evidence, they would not need to plaster “clearly” all over the place to cover their evidentiary lacunae. Uh oh. Gram3 used one of their Big Words that only men are allowed to use if men are in attendance.

  102. Law Prof wrote:

    If they had the Holy Spirit, those young seminarians ought to have been screaming “No, a thousand times no” to this.

    Amen! Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. And to think that hundreds of these indoctrinated, man-worshiping, spiritless young “pastors” have been released on American pulpits in recent years! Most of them heading to SBC churches, which will suffer greatly in coming years under their leadership.

    The best pastor I ever sat under was educated at two SBC seminaries, eventually receiving a doctorate in theology. He once told me that it took him 14 years to unlearn everything he had learned in seminary before he could be used by the Lord as a preacher and pastor. Seminary training is for nought if it is not taught and learned by the Spirit.

  103. ishy wrote:

    And Mohler has talked about “elite men” destined to lead over every one else.

    Brahmin Caste.
    Or Master Race.

  104. I think this entire issue is a distinction without a difference. Here’s what I mean. The Comps. who believed and taught ESS who have now abandoned it still hold to the subjugation of women, just like the Comps. who haven’t abandoned ESS.

    Just read Denny Burke’s words for yourself. In one breath Burke says: “I think it is good and right to leave behind the language of subordination.” p. 228 Then in another breath he says: “It has now become clear to me that to be a complementarian who believes in the subjugation of women in terms of the Danvers Statement you do not have to be “reliant upon an analogy” between women and the Son.” p. 229 You see that sleight of hand there? Burke qualifies his statement by adding subordination in terms of the Danvers Statement. It’s a distinction without a differences, folks!

    Burke still believes in the subordination of women regardless of whether or not he espouses ESS. And, he’s still buddies with the guys who still teach it. So, is ESS heresy or not? If it’s heresy, why is he buddies with the guys who still teach it? Me thinks it’s because they’re still united in what REALLY matters to them: the subordination of women.

  105. Max wrote:

    Amen! Education does not produce one ounce of revelation.

    Max.
    That all too easily becomes “Holy Nincompoop” Syndrome, where the more Stupid and Ignorant you are, the Godlier you become.

    Add “Can You Top This?”, “More Godly Than Thou”, and stir well and you have a Race for the Bottom.

  106. Lea wrote:

    This level of thinking, or non thinking, is present when they explain thing by saying stuff like ‘but if two people have to choose a place to have lunch and no one is in charge, HOW will they choose???’

    Because Somebody has to Hold the Whip and Somebody Else has to Feel the Whip.

    Any relationship based on anything other than Hold the Whip/Feel the Whip literally cannot exist.

  107. NJ wrote:

    I’m late to the party here, but anyway…
    Daisy said:
    “So you end up with posts like the one I saw by the soft comp woman who said in a marriage, God gifted husbands with Special Leadership Abilities that women lack, so wives should happily and joyfully cave in and allow their husband to make “big” choices in the marriage, like when or where the couple moves, or if to have any children, or whatever.
    Never no mind that the Bible does not state anywhere that God endowed men with better talents or brains at making choices or leading families.”
    I’ve seen some men like Joey Pipa (PCA) interpret Genesis 3 and certain texts of Paul’s to mean that all women are more easily deceived than men, even before the fall, which is why they must be silent in church, etc. I’ve never been able to read such an argument without interpreting it to mean that the entire female sex is less intelligent than the male sex. Especially when he words it like this:
    “A woman’s strength lies in her gentleness, compassion, and intuition. The family and the church need these things very much. But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.”
    https://josephpipa.com/leading-in-worship/

    A church like this would suffocate me spiritually and emotionally.
    No matter how they spin it, it still boils down to women being worse sinners then men. Women are viewed as an inferior
    creation of God.

  108. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That [unlearning one’s seminary education] all too easily becomes “Holy Nincompoop” Syndrome, where the more Stupid and Ignorant you are, the Godlier you become.

    I take Max’s pastor friend’s point, though. A certain number of years’ seminary education, then 14 years to unlearn it, would put him at least in his mid-30’s. At that point, given that he is capable of unlearning his seminary education, I’ll buy that he’s now both wise and experienced enough to begin the process of being a shepherd to others.

  109. Bridget wrote:

    ” . . . you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, you can hold to Nicene orthodoxy, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian.”
    This is the sad conclusion the comp camp had come to? They need more months of study outside their bubble world.

    Well, think about for a moment. If they hold to ESS, then they believe that the man (husband) is a figure for God the Father and the woman (wife) is a figure for Jesus. But, they must also believe in the Complementarian teaching that the husband is a figure for Jesus and the wife is a figure for the Church. So….which is it? It’s a conundrum for them. When does the husband function as Jesus and when does he function as God the Father? When does the wife function as the Church and when does she function as Jesus? Perhaps they came to realize how absurd these contradictions seem. They tangled themselves into a pretzel with their theology all because they absolutely MUST subordinate women. Their true colors have been exposed for anyone who has eyes to see.

  110. @ Gram3:
    The YEC “scholarship” is just as bad, if not worse. As a practicing scientist/engineer that publishes, makes presentations, and writes grant propsals, I could never get away with the weak scholarship that these people do..

  111. Daisy wrote:

    As I got into on my Daisy blog, even if I grant these premises to Grudemn, the Bible says that the Father gave all authority to the Son.(*)
    So, if the
    Father = married men, and
    Son (Jesus) = married women
    in this complementarian marriage Trinity equation,
    to be consistent, complementarians would have to teach that the husband should give all authority to wives.
    (*) Samples:
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18)
    The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. (John 3:35)
    1 When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2 For You granted Him authority over all humanity, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. (John 17)

    Yepper, Daisy. What a conundrum. Maybe these guys retracted their stance on ESS when they began to realize the implications of the wife being a figure for Jesus. LoL! This stuff is laughable. They backed themselves into a corner due to their fixation on Gender Roles.

  112. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    HUG, I’m not opposed to education … I even have some! It would probably amaze you just how educated this nincompoop is! On the other hand, I have known many highly educated people in my life – and in the church – who have no spiritual understanding. There’s a difference between knowledge and understanding. Scripture puts it this way:

    “But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with — they just don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things. The spiritual man, on the other hand, has an insight into the meaning of everything, though his insight may baffle the man of the world. This is because the former is sharing in God’s wisdom, and ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ Incredible as it may sound, we who are spiritual have the very thoughts of Christ!” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

    The point that Law Prof made in an upstream comment “that we don’t even need teachers in the first place if we have the Holy Spirit”, I agree with. If a “pastor” graduates at the top of his seminary class, but does not have the Holy Spirit, his education and ministry is for nought in the Kingdom of God. I was once a member of a Southern Baptist church in which the pastor – SBC seminary trained, with multiple years in the minstry – stood before the congregation and confessed that he did not know the Lord. He had been preaching for years by the sheer power of his natural ability to put a sermon together. We were blessed to see him kneel in prayer, accept Christ as Savior, and be baptized. Whew! He was a much better preacher from that point on!

  113. Lydia wrote:

    I know a lot of people think this is a win. But it’s a simpering win. A “make it go away” win. And it shows the true character of the players who led so many down a horrible heretical path for years. Instead of anyone losing their position within the gravy train, they simply move people around. My question is why anyone would trust what any of them teach or propose as truth, ever again?

    You are right. Why would anyone listen to them after all the backtracking and excuses they make? Right about now I can hear these guys saying, “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

  114. @ okrapod:
    Strange. I can see where you are coming from. Would you put Prebyterans (OPC/ETS) into the mix with the Son of God rendering since that is basically where ESS was resurrected.

    (I did not hear Jesus referred to that way. It’s odd to my ear. I did tend to hear Jesus and the Holy Spirit referred to a lot.)

  115. Max wrote:

    I was once a member of a Southern Baptist church in which the pastor – SBC seminary trained, with multiple years in the minstry – stood before the congregation and confessed that he did not know the Lord. He had been preaching for years by the sheer power of his natural ability to put a sermon together. We were blessed to see him kneel in prayer, accept Christ as Savior, and be baptized. Whew! He was a much better preacher from that point on!

    I think a lot of that rides on the fact that the SBC seminaries view being highly academic as being the proper way to train pastors. It’s all about learning to write a sermon. Even going before the big turnover, SEBTS had very little in the way of preparing people to deal with other people, which is the real key to ministry. I took one class in counseling, and it was mostly theory. I am not counting my missions classes, because they were quite practical in that respect, but I don’t think MDivs had to take any missions classes.

    And I don’t remember there being a lot on how to actually study the Bible, either. I learned Greek, took Hebrew, did lots of church history and theology, read all kinds of journal articles and textbooks–but I can’t remember a single class that focused on how to read and understand Scripture. It was very much like the New Cals teach today, that you should just read about Bible, but the focus was academic journals at the time.

  116. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I think Okrapod got this right. It’s not really anti Mary. It’s anti “special people elevated as saints over others”.

    I was taught all believers are ‘saints’. All believers are priests. Different angle. But then we were really not very Protestant, either, when you get down to it.

    I had a Catholic colleague many moons ago who explained it to me like this: Think of the saints as Gods management team. 🙂

  117. ishy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Was Grudem at Danvers? Anyone know?
    Yes.

    Hee. Hee. Denny just transferred his beliefs from Grudem to Grudem and others.

  118. Max wrote:

    Ah…which side should MacArthur butter his bread on? Remember, it’s about position, power, authority, peer pressure and acceptance.

  119. Gram3 wrote:

    So Denny Burk and the CBMW crew believe that male headship can be sustained without ESS. I would love to see that argument. I believe I can fit into size 2 jeans and do backflips. The difference, of course, is that Denny has an audience of young and older males who want to believe the line he is selling and are willing to suspend any doubt.

    I was just saying above in some other post that because complementarianism cannot really be supported via the Bible alone, that it’s being held to now because it’s tradition, and out of fear (fear of turning into a liberal feminist).

    (In the complementarian world, there’s only two possibilities: either you are complementarian, or you are a liberal feminist. There is no possible third category or other possibilities.)

  120. I am a Complimentarian. (I try to compliment my wife often and we have been together 42 years.)

  121. NJ wrote:

    “A woman’s strength lies in her gentleness, compassion, and intuition. The family and the church need these things very much. But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.”
    https://josephpipa.com/leading-in-worship/

    How does that dude (if he does) explain away all the male false preachers and the men who serve those false preachers and/or who accept the false teachings of those false preacher men?

    (Such as, but not limited to, Mark Driscoll, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn?)

  122. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Without a pull in that direction (with Mary as its figurehead), it would become all too easy to go Hypermasculine with God, from Comp to Dudebro to flat-out Rape Culture. (“Just like the Manosphere, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”)

    Complementarianism leaves no room for women or what is considered feminine, or anything feminine is devalued

    One result of the masculinization of Christianity that I read of a couple of years ago is that some Christian women are dumping the Christian faith to get involved in Wicca or Neo-Paganism (any religion that affirms womanhood rather than devalues or marginalizes it).

    Christians are expected to emulate Jesus of Nazareth, who displayed the entire variation of human emotions and traits – he had traits we’d consider masculine and feminine.

    Women are not asked, in the Bible, to only emulate the soft, gentle side of Jesus.

    I’ve read that one of the main reasons Christianity was so very popular from the start is precisely because it appealed to the marginalized of its day, slaves and women.

    It’s so sad that the “Manly Men” type of Christians today want to stamp out the qualities that make Christianity appealing to so many.

    Complementarians are so obsessed with winning more male converts, they are willing to re-cast Christianity, and at the expense of women. They don’t care if women are turned off by the Macho Christianity or dump the faith to go into paganism.

  123. Lea wrote:

    but if two people have to choose a place to have lunch and no one is in charge, HOW will they choose???’

    I managed to get through disagreements with male co-workers at jobs and in college by compromise. Nobody felt the need to bring up their biological sex to try to settle things. I don’t see why what works in working relationships or friendships cannot work in a marriage.

  124. Bottom-line for me. Grudem’s view of the Trinity is a radical departure from Biblical Christianity. His theologian buddies should have called him out on it long ago. He is diminishing Jesus to justify subordinating female believers. Dangerous ground, indeed. Heresy is defined as “an opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine” … ESS fits this definition.

  125. drstevej wrote:

    I am a Complimentarian. (I try to compliment my wife often and we have been together 42 years.)

    I have resembled that remark for 47 years. For you youngsters, the most effective way to remember your wedding anniversary is to forget it once!

  126. Mae wrote:

    But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.

    I think that ole boy has not known many women. i am convinced of just the opposite. When I was a nursing student there was ‘mingling’ set up between us and some seminary students, the idea being that it was a good idea for seminary students to marry a nurse. I am not making this up. So I mingled a tad but was not all that interested. Here is the punch line. I found them to be rather dim lights on the Christmas tree and at the same time egotistical. That would have been a problem. Maybe that is why good ole boy there wants to see women as mentally weak-or else he might be afraid to mingle?

  127. Max wrote:

    Grudem’s view of the Trinity is a radical departure from Biblical Christianity.

    Oh, and another thing. For those of you trolling this blog who feel like you must fall in line as a complementarian because you are a New Calvinist, it would be wise not to base your position on Grudem’s interpretation of the Holy Trinity. It would be better to distort other Scriptures to defend your un-Biblical treatment of women, than to diminish Jesus. The Godhead doesn’t look too favorably on that.

  128. Max wrote:

    It would be better to distort other Scriptures to defend your un-Biblical treatment of women, than to diminish Jesus. The Godhead doesn’t look too favorably on that.

    I love that comment.

  129. @ okrapod:
    I bet they were, “dim lights on the Christmas tree “, compared to you. Good on you putting a kibosh on the mingling. Bet they never got why you weren’t interested in them.

  130. Darlene wrote:

    Me thinks it’s because they’re still united in what REALLY matters to them: the subordination of women.

    Per some of my other posts above drawing a differentiation between Single Vs Married women, I’d like for Burke and other complementarians to qualify what type of women they are thinking of.

    There are no commands in the New Testament advising or asking not-married women to submit or be subordinate, only married women.

    How does Burke or guys like him go from the Biblical text asking MARRIED women to submit to their husbands, to suddenly saying ALL women (even single, widows, and divorced?) must submit to men too.

  131. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That all too easily becomes “Holy Nincompoop” Syndrome, where the more Stupid and Ignorant you are, the Godlier you become.
    Add “Can You Top This?”, “More Godly Than Thou”, and stir well and you have a Race for the Bottom.

    This thinking is very common among Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, especially the ones who are so very weirdly devoted to defending King James Version Onlyism.

  132. Darlene wrote:

    If they hold to ESS, then they believe that the man (husband) is a figure for God the Father and the woman (wife) is a figure for Jesus.

    For those that believe in that, I’d like to know why they don’t carry the analogy further, all the way, and have the Father-God-Husband figure give all authority to the Jesus-Wife figure?

    As in:

    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18)

    “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. For You granted Him authority over all humanity, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. (John 17)

    I

  133. Darlene wrote:

    Burke still believes in the subordination of women regardless of whether or not he espouses ESS. And, he’s still buddies with the guys who still teach it. So, is ESS heresy or not? If it’s heresy, why is he buddies with the guys who still teach it? Me thinks it’s because they’re still united in what REALLY matters to them: the subordination of women.

    That is the bottom line. I don’t think anyone is going to use the “H” word, and certainly not any of the Gospel Glitterati. He says Danvers is not dependent on ESS. Well,I’m not sure Denny had entered high school when Danvers came from the finger of God, but I do not believe he is correct.

    When the Eternal Functional Subordination Roles are gone, the mapping trick of the Son to Females in 1 Corinthians 11 no longer works. And if that mapping doesn’t work, then the other hierarchical “headship” mapping falls apart as well, and they *know* it. Denny (and all of the other Gospel Glitterati who bet everything on ESS) either does not realize that (highly unlikely) or does realize it and is hoping to ride the wave as long as possible. Putting myself in the boardrooms at Crossway and elsewhere affected by this, I think the wave idea makes the most sense. They bet the bank on ESS and lost big time.

    How, then, to salvage the dignities and dollars? Pretend it doesn’t really matter after all and, “after further extensive review, we see the nuanced and finer points we missed.” Write some new books on new and exciting topics. Or gradually change the meaning of “headship” so that it is less hierarchical without admitting it. That way nobody has to recall any product or disavow any authors or friends. Neat and tidy.

  134. @ Mae:

    Well, it was mutual. They weren’t interested in me either, so it was no big deal. Know what I actually married? An old Baylor boy who had been a high school history teacher in a former life. We used to sit and talk hours on end. He liked to tell the other side of the story on all things historical, and I just ate that up. It was the best of times and eventually the worst of times, but it was surely interesting. It was light years better than listening to seminary students plan what the were going to do when God revealed to them some new revelation known only to them. They actually did that. Good grief.

    But I did learn something. There used to be a restaurant in Louisville called Pryors and we would hang out there some. They put bowls of biscuits on the table with honey bottles. I had no idea that honey went on biscuits prior to that. It is really awesomely good. At my house nobody made biscuits. Corn bread and yeast rolls and that was it. There is usually something good that one can salvage from some situation.

    So. when people talk about seminary experience I think biscuits with honey. I gather that is a lot better memory than some folks have.

  135. Max wrote:

    It would be better to distort other Scriptures to defend your un-Biblical treatment of women, than to diminish Jesus.

    “But it was the Father’s good and beautiful plan to glorify Himself and His Son through His Son’s loving and willing and gracious obedience to His Father.”

    We have had conversations that went something like this.

  136. @ Daisy:

    “…in other words, the council agreed that the case for permanent subordination does not necessarily involve belief in a supposed eternal subordination of the Son.”–Kevin Giles
    ————–

    Daisy said, “Without such a basis, complementarians don’t have a basis which appears to have theological, biblical grounding on which to limit women based on their biological sex alone…..

    …There is just no rationale for any church to ban women from doing or being anything, …

    And the Bible does not provide this rationale. The complementarian mucking around with the Trinity was supposed to provide this rationale…

    …At this point, I’d say most complementarians are holding on to complementarianism out of sheer tradition, a fear of secular feminism invading church, and a smattering of unacknowledged sexism on their own parts.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I mean, we always knew CBMW and their doctrine invention called Complementarianism were as vital as Father Sarducci’s “Mr. Tea”.

    it will be ever more plain to everyone now.

    I’m certain CBMW & co. will be very surprised by the legacy they are ending up with (if they aren’t already).

  137. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Though we Catholics tend to obsess over St Mary (to the point it’s the most common way for a Catholic to flake out), the Reformation Wars flipped Protestants into either ignoring Mary or flat-out hatred.

    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.

  138. Law Prof wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Lydia wrote:
    The culminating verse to Pauls explanation and argument about head coverings is:
    11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
    A man at church talked about how Paul ordered his letters and I find that makes all of this make so much more sense. He meanders around, almost thinking out loud, and then he ends with some conclusion. This is a letter, not a series of separate laws! He builds on things, you can’t just pull out a verse and slap it down.
    It was very Jewish in nature, if you ever read ancient Jewish writings, they tend to meander—just a different way of thinking from the linear Greeks. That said, Paul does structure arguments like a brilliant lawyer or judge. Have read enough legal arguments in my day to read much of Paul’s work like that of some extraordinarily gifted judge.

    I didn’t mean to focus on the meandering to the point of discounting the structure. I absolutely agree. I find that thinking about the way Paul lays out his points makes the whole thing work so much better. It’s meandering with purpose.

  139. @ Gram3:

    “They bet the bank on ESS and lost big time.

    How, then, to salvage the dignities and dollars? Pretend it doesn’t really matter after all and, “after further extensive review, we see the nuanced and finer points we missed.” Write some new books on new and exciting topics. Or gradually change the meaning of “headship” so that it is less hierarchical without admitting it.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i certainly hope truth tellers and historians will be continually blowing the integrity whistle & setting the record straight.

    as befits all sneaky snakes, especially christian ones.

  140. @ Lydia:

    “I know a lot of people think this is a win.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    a win…. how could they truly see this as a win?

    I remember keeping tabs on what was happening at the ETS annual meeting last November. And afterwards…. nothing. silence. as if it had been a non-event. (maybe i wasn’t looking in the right places)

    but of course it was an event of great consequence.

    but i got the distinct impression that those who typically monopolize the mike saw their champions lying there on the battlefield all bloodied. i got the impression that they abandoned their champions & left them there, retreating in embarrassment to nurse their own wounds to their egos.

    and then made a bee-line for the strategy rooms to do damage control on their reputations and revenue streams. all their castles.

    what a pathetic lot. The great ball-less wonders.

  141. Lea wrote:

    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to allege outright hatred, but during my time in country with Calvary Chapel, the big honchos never missed a chance to lessen her ‘role’ and relegate her to a kind of nothing ‘specialness’ so to speak.

  142. Daisy wrote:

    NJ wrote:
    “A woman’s strength lies in her gentleness, compassion, and intuition. The family and the church need these things very much. But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.”
    https://josephpipa.com/leading-in-worship/
    How does that dude (if he does) explain away all the male false preachers and the men who serve those false preachers and/or who accept the false teachings of those false preacher men?
    (Such as, but not limited to, Mark Driscoll, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn?)

    The Complementarians are all about categorizing the genders. Don’t you know that, Daisy? Wink. Wink. Men are fill-in-the-blank. Women are fill-in-the-blank. They do it to the nth Degree – even down to what jobs men should do at home and what jobs women should do at home.

    If you listen closely to Joseph Pipa’s words, you will recognize it as patronizing drivel. How does his church need women’s “gentleness, compassion and intuition” as he says? Are they allowed to give their input in decision making or asked their opinions as to how the church can improve? Just exactly how are these strengths of women used in Pipa’s church? To cook the dinners during men’s conferences, serve coffee and clean up the kitchen?

  143. elastigirl wrote:

    what a pathetic lot. The great ball-less wonders

    I get the impression they all slinked back to their mini kingdoms to have their egos stroked by their wimmen folk and to lick their wounds.

  144. @ Deb:

    “I am angered by it!”
    +++++++++++++++++

    so am i.

    (i’m crawling out from under a rock of caregiving, so in the interest of adjusting to the light of day & trying to sharpen my mind:)

    if i were to dissect why I’m angry:

    preservation of male power
    preservation of fragile ego
    preservation of acquired personal power
    preservation of acquired personal significance
    preservation of reputations
    preservation of revenue streams
    preservation of careers
    preservation of standing amongst one’s peers, let alone one’s idols

    fear of losing all these things

    at the cost of women’s freedom, dignity, agency, opportunities, voice, safety

    at the cost of integrity
    (they either kept themselves ignorant about the flaws of ESS, or else are lying about their change of perspective now)

    at the cost of reducing Jesus and Holy Spirit

    ….I’m tracking right?

  145. @ Lydia:

    “Comp doctrine is on its last leg and they know it.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    i consider this evolution of human intelligence in action. it was only a matter of time until the whirring of comp machinery wound down.

    Survival of the fittest applies to ideas as well as life forms.

    Yeah, limit the freedom & potential of half the world. what a good idea. 😐

  146. @ Bridget:

    “Who says there has to be economic subordination for the Trinity to operate with inherent differences?! Grudem? It’s as if Grudem is telling God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit how they “must” function.”
    +++++++++++++++

    well, complementarian apologists all have this hand-held sign that they keep in their back pocket that says “WAYNE GRUDEM” in bold letters. All they have to do is whip it out and flash it.

    i think it was assumed God had one, too.

  147. @ Lydia:

    “Over time, people are relating to Christ differently without realizing it. God the Father became the star of the show with Jesus co-starring and the Holy Spirit making guest appearances now and then.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    i think this ESS jazz suits another purpose:

    not only protects men from the threat of women’s capability and intelligence but also from the threat of Jesus stealing their limelight.

  148. Lydia wrote:

    @ Max:
    Divide and conquer works. He just cleverly and with strategic patience divided who was left after the CR.

    Sociopaths after Power tend to think and plan 20-30-50 chess moves ahead.
    They don’t have lives to get in the way of Plotting.

  149. Lydia wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    Because Danvers is Holy Writ.

    So was Late Great Planet Earth and Atlas Shrugged in their day!

  150. @ Daisy:

    “You’ll notice complementarians don’t appeal to the Trinity in any way, shape, or form to try to tell never-married women like myself why I must to submit to some man, some where.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    judging from what i read in RBMW and other choice tidbits from complementarian spokespeople, my sense is that this was a bridge too far. but only because they wouldn’t be able to justify it.

    some may make protestations that it’s only for marriages and in the church, yet other things they have said indicate the contrary.

    (daisy, i know the point you were making was different from the one i’m making here)

  151. Lydia wrote:

    I had a Catholic colleague many moons ago who explained it to me like this: Think of the saints as Gods management team.

    I look on canonized saints as Officially Recognized Heroes of the Faith.

    “Why should the pagans have all the heroes?”
    A.D. The Miniseries

  152. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve read that one of the main reasons Christianity was so very popular from the start is precisely because it appealed to the marginalized of its day, slaves and women.

    Sometimes the only thing that gives this loser hope is that that Rabbi from Nazareth preferentially hung out with the freaks and losers, snubbing the Righteous God Squadders.

  153. okrapod wrote:

    Here is the punch line. I found them to be rather dim lights on the Christmas tree and at the same time egotistical.

    Those two traits DO tend to go together…

  154. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to allege outright hatred, but during my time in country with Calvary Chapel, the big honchos never missed a chance to lessen her ‘role’ and relegate her to a kind of nothing ‘specialness’ so to speak.

    Guess what group DEFINED Non-Denom Born-Again Christianity in my area…

    “NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CALVARY CHAPEL” in all but name.

  155. Ken F: The Filioque is a safeguard against Arianism. The very same Arianism these complementation guys are embracing.

    Moreover, many Orthodox scholars agree that the Filioque should pose no barrier to reunion, as it can be understood as “THROUGH the Son.” Most now agree that the original misunderstanding was semantic, not theological — a function of the differences between Latin and Greek and the translation difficulties attendant thereto.

  156. @ Gram3:

    “MOHLER, DEVER, BURK, SCHREINER, KOSTENBERGER, DUNCAN, PIPER, HAMILTON, MOORE, MAHANEY, and all the other cowardly cowards have had foxhole conversions to Nicene orthodoxy ***now that they have been exposed.***”
    +++++++++++++++++

    have all of them made public statements indicating such a conversion? i’ve read Denny Burke’s.

  157. Daisy wrote:

    You’ll notice complementarians don’t appeal to the Trinity in any way, shape, or form to try to tell never-married women like myself why I must to submit to some man, some where.
    They aren’t monkeying with the Trinity to argue that never-married, divorced, or widowed women must submit to men.

    I’d take that a step further and say it’s about convincing their own wives that they are subordinate and must act as servants. But they do use this submission argument at the level of pastors to peons, too. If submission of wife to husband is absolute, so must should peons submit absolutely to pastors and elders. Nevermind that “to act like a robot” isn’t the definition of hupatasso–it’s more like “cooperate”. And that whole passage on submission starts with “Submit to one another”.

    They do have another tactic for singles women, though. It’s to shun them and treat them like little kids to the point of feeling like they won’t be adults until they get married. None of this is really based on Scripture anyway, so they can just adapt their techniques to pressure everyone to conform.

  158. Lea wrote:

    I didn’t mean to focus on the meandering to the point of discounting the structure. I absolutely agree. I find that thinking about the way Paul lays out his points makes the whole thing work so much better. It’s meandering with purpose.

    No need for explanation, saying something meanders isn’t really running it down, and I didn’t consider that you were discounting the Bible, just observing something that’s pretty clearly the case. So no problem.

    Much of the Bible reads like a stream of conscience, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, it’s sometimes put together without regard to chronological order. But of course, so what? What cosmic force declared that the western linear way of thinking is the only right way of thinking? Frankly, I prefer the Hebrew way.

  159. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I’ve read that one of the main reasons Christianity was so very popular from the start is precisely because it appealed to the marginalized of its day, slaves and women.
    Sometimes the only thing that gives this loser hope is that that Rabbi from Nazareth preferentially hung out with the freaks and losers, snubbing the Righteous God Squadders.

    More like He went after the “Righteous God Squadders” with a fury and took them and their arguments apart very publicly and in a manner that left them speechless, humiliated and furious.

  160. @ elastigirl:
    A big deal to a lot of these stage Christians with large followings is “legacy”. That is why what they promoted as truth for so long cannot be considered heresy but ‘just another option’. I think they got off easy.

  161. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.
    I wouldn’t go so far as to allege outright hatred, but during my time in country with Calvary Chapel, the big honchos never missed a chance to lessen her ‘role’ and relegate her to a kind of nothing ‘specialness’ so to speak.

    I have never understood the anti Mary charge. It was like being accused of something that you never were but some insist on it. I didn’t grow up around statues of anybody at church not even Jesus. What others choose to do is their business.

    Jesus himself lessened any exhaled role to some degree:

    46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

    48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

    I hope someday we can put the anti Mary charge to bed. She did the will of the Father.

  162. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I’ve read that one of the main reasons Christianity was so very popular from the start is precisely because it appealed to the marginalized of its day, slaves and women.
    Sometimes the only thing that gives this loser hope is that that Rabbi from Nazareth preferentially hung out with the freaks and losers, snubbing the Righteous God Squadders.

    Which is exactly why I find love and comfort when reading the Gospels. I fit right in.

  163. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.
    I wouldn’t go so far as to allege outright hatred, but during my time in country with Calvary Chapel, the big honchos never missed a chance to lessen her ‘role’ and relegate her to a kind of nothing ‘specialness’ so to speak.

    I kind of grew up with that. Mostly I think because of an anti Catholicism bent.

    The home town I grew up in Catholics were the majority. About every fifth home had an illuminated statue of Mary in the backyard. ( this was common in
    the 50’s ) Anyway, my parents always made a big deal about not worshipping idols. That access to God was available to anyone without going through Mary.

    I understand why my parents felt under siege at that time, by Catholicism, and their urgency to keep their protestant faith paramount in teaching we youngsters the faith.

    It was a different time and place back then.

  164. Lydia wrote:

    Jesus himself lessened any exhaled role to some degree:

    Yes, and then there is Luke 11: 27-28 where the woman praised Mary for being the biological mother of Jesus, and Jesus corrected her.

    I do not think that anybody hates Mary herself, but I do think that some people think that the admiration of Mary can get carried too far and may even smack of near idolatry in some cases. For those at some of the farther levels of Marian devotion this might look like hating Mary.

    And then there is the idea of intercession. Does one have direct access to God or does one need a human intercessor, either Mary or one of the saints? And if one does not actually need an intermediary would it be acceptable to choose to go through an intermediary none the less? The latter idea is what they told us in RCIA-optional use of intercessors either living persons (please pray for me) or else Mary and the saints.

    Or would that be like be saying thanks but no thanks to God’s offer of direct access to the throne of Grace?

    I don’t remotely hate or dislike Mary, but I do feel like I would want her to step aside when I needed to talk to her Son. Since there is nothing in scripture that would indicate that she would have a problem with that, then I have no need to ‘hate’ her or even dismiss her contribution to the incarnation. Like you said, and like Jesus seemed to be saying-she did the will of God.

  165. Law Prof wrote:

    Much of the Bible reads like a stream of conscience, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, it’s sometimes put together without regard to chronological order. But of course, so what? What cosmic force declared that the western linear way of thinking is the only right way of thinking? Frankly, I prefer the Hebrew way.

    Much of it makes sense to me when I look at it as a book about the relationship of humans with God and each other. Meandering and stream of consciousness make perfect sense in that context. It’s a collection of mostly stories about people who have encountered God, how their relationship with God played out with those around them, and what results that had on the world and on their descendants.

    I think losing the perspective of relationships causes a lot of distortions to Scripture, such as those we see with the New Cals. They have a very Western perspective of everything being about them individually and everything having to be ordered so it makes sense to them. I don’t think our brains are even capable of perfect understanding as we are now. And I think God would rather we admit we didn’t know something than trying to make something fit a framework that God never designed in the first place. Frameworks are too small for Him–they are a very human construct.

  166. @ Law Prof:

    Oh the irony that Jesus Christ was quite harsh with the ‘religious leaders’ of His own tribe but not the Roman Pagan occupiers or the lowly nobodies.

  167. Lydia wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    Oh the irony that Jesus Christ was quite harsh with the ‘religious leaders’ of His own tribe but not the Roman Pagan occupiers or the lowly nobodies.

    He loved the loveless. Those who lived a life of burdens and obstacles.

  168. Mae wrote:

    He loved the loveless. Those who lived a life of burdens and obstacles.

    ……and discrimination, and pain.

  169. ION: Cricket

    So, in a big reversal of fortune from the first Test, the Windies were finally dismissed for 427 – a first-innings lead of 169.

    In reply, at the time of writing, England are 31-0 after 12 overs; Cook is on 5 and Stoneman on 21. Bit of a disparity in strike-rate there… but, given that we’d already lost 3 wickets by this stage in the first innings, conditions clearly are more conducive to batting the noo than they were.

    IHTIH

  170. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    He loved the loveless. Those who lived a life of burdens and obstacles.
    ……and discrimination, and pain.

    I said something similar to Father S about the scars that one accumulates, on the occasion of his own recent acquiring of one more scar, and he said that he thinks the scars are from the splinters of the cross that we are all required to bear. Good thought. Easier to look at it that way.

    And no I am not talking about sovereignty as the Calvinists see it, not at all, but rather about inevitability in a fallen world; about God in Christ subjecting Himself to our inevitabilities as a redemptive act and thus sanctifying our ‘cross’ so to speak. Just one more way to look at it-only a small part of the issue.

  171. @ okrapod:
    Yes, unlike the Puritan teaching, we don’t need to seek suffering for purification. We also don’t need to blame God or insist it’s for His Glory or even that He orchestrates it for good. Sometimes there is no good from it.

    Suffering finds us in this fallen world. We are tasked with trying to alleviate it as much of it as possible in our little corners of the world.

  172. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Yes, unlike the Puritan teaching, we don’t need to seek suffering for purification. We also don’t need to blame God or insist it’s for His Glory or even that He orchestrates it for good. Sometimes there is no good from it.
    Suffering finds us in this fallen world. We are tasked with trying to alleviate it as much of it as possible in our little corners of the world.

    Amen.

  173. okrapod wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
    Mae wrote:
    He loved the loveless. Those who lived a life of burdens and obstacles.
    ……and discrimination, and pain.
    I said something similar to Father S about the scars that one accumulates, on the occasion of his own recent acquiring of one more scar, and he said that he thinks the scars are from the splinters of the cross that we are all required to bear. Good thought. Easier to look at it that way.
    And no I am not talking about sovereignty as the Calvinists see it, not at all, but rather about inevitability in a fallen world; about God in Christ subjecting Himself to our inevitabilities as a redemptive act and thus sanctifying our ‘cross’ so to speak. Just one more way to look at it-only a small part of the issue.

    I like these thoughts.
    Jesus knows the scars we’ve all accumulated. He is our brother, as He suffered as we do in His own human walk on the this earth.

  174. @ Lydia:

    That is how I see it. And since Jesus taught and healed and exorcised, all of which was combatting the sufferings of ignorance and sickness and evil, how on earth people would think anything other than what you have said is a mystery to me.

    I think we have missed part of the message of the interface between take up your cross on the one hand and take my yoke upon you on the other hand. We miss the pronouns. ‘Your’ cross but ‘my’ yoke. We end up thinking that Jesus is saying that He will limit our options with some yoke and then lay some cross on us. Not so if the pronouns mean anything. The yoke is a way to share the burden, and his comment about lightness is within the context of shared burden, saying yoke with me and I will pull the burden with you such that it will be easy/light to you. And he did not say hold still while I burden you with some cross, but rather identified our cross as ours and then he said follow me and do it how I do it-as in follow the way I do it. Putting the two together it would be do it the way that I show you and let me help you do it.

    That is so not the idea that God inflicts suffering. It is consistent with the idea that God recognizes struggle and suffering and burdens and shares it all with us even at our level. Hence God-with-us. With, not against.

    Taken then to the evident conclusion one might say that those things which God has taken upon himself including suffering and sin and even death are ultimately destroyed since they cannot continue to exist in the presence of God. And ta-da there you have Christianity in the form of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. The solution to the problem, not the cause of the problem.

    So you tell me, how do the Calvinistas not think this? I think Max is correct. Some of them may not know Jesus, may never have stood in HIs presence so to speak and been overwhelmed by it all, may have thought that He frowned when some of us thought that He smiled. Maybe even have winked.

  175. A note here on the higher thinking theology challenged in this post:

    EICD = Elite Institution Cognitive Disorder, according to Malcolm Gladwell at a Google Zeitgeist Conference, is the mistaken belief that attending the most elite institution that you can get into is always in your best interest.

    Thinking here about Elite Theology Cognitive Disorder – the mistaken belief that the most esoteric and far-fetched theology of the religious leaders of the elite (such as those Jesus dealt with in His day and who eventually did Him in, for three days only, however) is always in one’s own best interest.

  176. okrapod wrote:

    The yoke is a way to share the burden, and his comment about lightness is within the context of shared burden, saying yoke with me and I will pull the burden with you such that it will be easy/light to you.

    Beautifully said. Outstanding insight.

  177. JYJames wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    The yoke is a way to share the burden, and his comment about lightness is within the context of shared burden, saying yoke with me and I will pull the burden with you such that it will be easy/light to you.
    Beautifully said. Outstanding insight.

    Absolutely agree. So well stated okrapod.

  178. @ okrapod:
    Hmm. I am reluctant to go there but will say this. I have a family member on hospice who is so old everyone he ever knew is dead. That includes pastor/church friends, etc, who believed in the same Jesus he did. at a discussion about the service, we were all in agreement: No pastor. Why? Because there are so few left who get it. Especially here. And we don’t want to take the chance. And the person would be appalled that anyone would either blame God, God inflicts suffering or to even glorify suffering as an instrument for good, or use the occasion to promote any such thinking. It’s been a relief. An memorial to a simple honorable man.

    We are sticking with his fav old hymns, memories of his personal dedication to Christ and family. And I will see him again one day. That is what must be Glorified: Death is conquered.

  179. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Moreover, many Orthodox scholars agree that the Filioque should pose no barrier to reunion, as it can be understood as “THROUGH the Son.” Most now agree that the original misunderstanding was semantic, not theological — a function of the differences between Latin and Greek and the translation difficulties attendant thereto.

    Thanks. This is something I just learned very recently. I still need to look at this more to understand how big of a deal it is. To sustain a schism for 1000 years it must be a bit more than just a semantic disagreement. In any case, Grudem departs from both the EO and RC perspective by making it sound like he believes the Holy Spirit is some kind of subordinated offspring of the Father and the Son. In a similar way that his BFF Piper is a 7-point Calvinist, it appears that Grudem went beyond simple ESS to also subordinate the Spirit. I’m not sure what that is called. Eternal subordination of the Spirit to the eternally subordinated Son? ESotSttESS? Does it make him a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit? Why has this analogy of his not gotten more attention?

  180. @ Lydia:
    Looked at the link. IMHO, a travesty to the Biblical account of how sin, death, disease actually came into our world. Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri, emphasized taking a close look at the first 11 chapters of Genesis to find answers to some of the larger than life questions. The rest of the Bible helps, too.

    Satan quoted the Bible to Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus used the Bible to answer back.

  181. @ Lydia:

    Totally understand. Our mother was 98 when she passed. All her siblings and friends were gone.
    We had a simple service, in the funeral home chapel. No clergy from her old church took any of the service. We had a few testimonies from grandchildren, and my hubby gave a word about the Jesus my mother hoped in.
    We had lots of pictures, and sang two old timely hymns. Lovely memorial.

  182. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    That’s a good question! I was around the blogosphere when many non Reformed were freaking about ESS and my take is we were simply focused on Jesus Christ, His Incarnation and Who he was in eternity past and who he will be eternity future. The whole thing was a lot to take in because it was much more mainstreamed than anyone really thought. I did ask quite a bit who they thought the Holy Spirit reported to, Jesus or the Father? I don’t know if that counts or not. 🙂 The only answer I ever received was crickets.

  183. Lydia wrote:

    The only answer I ever received was crickets.

    Speaking of which, England are struggling somewhat at 149-3, still 22 behind.

  184. Mae wrote:

    I understand why my parents felt under siege at that time, by Catholicism, and their urgency to keep their protestant faith paramount in teaching we youngsters the faith.

    It was a different time and place back then.

    Yes, Mae, it was a different time back then – even in the 60’s & 70’s. The first neighborhood I grew up in till the age of ten was very mixed as far as religious beliefs go. My family, which was atheist/agnostic fit right in. After that we moved to a neighborhood that was mostly Catholic, with the Catholic parish a block away. I remember the tension quite well between Catholics and non-Catholics. There was even a tension between public school students and Catholic students when we would encounter each other on the way home from school.

    What I can say is this: I’m so glad things have changed for the better in this regard. Life was not rosy back in the supposed Good Ole Days.

  185. @ Lydia:

    It’s mixed. Although Scotland do play cricket, it’s not as big up here as down south; anyway, I follow the English cricket team when it comes to internationals. So, “we” means England here. But I’ve lived here for more than half my life, and nearly all my adult life; so when Scotland play England (say, at fitba’) I have split loyalties!

  186. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Is this good or bad? You are English living in Scotland so not sure.

    Lydia, are you sure? If memory serves, I’m thinking Nick is Scottish.

  187. P.S. it’s mixed because, although England have scraped into the lead now (we closed on 171-3, 2 runs ahead), you’d have to say the Windies are on top. Though it could still go either way; batting 4th is always comparatively hard as the pitch wears, and if England – who bat a long way down – can string together a few partnerships, it could yet go either way.

  188. Darlene wrote:

    Lydia, are you sure? If memory serves, I’m thinking Nick is Scottish.

    Our comments passed in transit!

    I’m English, resident in Scotland. Lesley is likewise. But both the weans were born here and both consider themselves Scottish; we’re quite happy with that.

  189. One of my favourite fitba’ chants of all time occurred during a recent competitive fixture between Scotland and Wales. The Scottish fans started chanting at the Welsh: We hate the English more than you!

    In context, that is funny.

  190. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Ok then. Go England!

    Huzzah!

    But as a lover of the game – with, so to speak, a neutral hat on – it’s nice to see a more competitive match. A lot of our recent Test matches have been either crushing wins or crushing defeats; one side or the other has played woefully, IOW. This time around, there’s been some good cricket all round.

  191. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Yes, unlike the Puritan teaching, we don’t need to seek suffering for purification. We also don’t need to blame God or insist it’s for His Glory or even that He orchestrates it for good. Sometimes there is no good from it.

    Suffering finds us in this fallen world. We are tasked with trying to alleviate it as much of it as possible in our little corners of the world.

    This reminds me of the discussion on a Calvinist Facebook site the other day. Someone asked if we should teach our children about self-esteem. The conversation that ensued was quite disturbing. Worm theology on steroids. I responded assertively against any notions of worm theology and was sharply rebuked. Basically, the thinking among the majority of Calvinists on that site is that we are to think of ourselves as worthless. No Thanks… been-there-done-that in my former cult. It’s a breeding ground for abuse.

  192. Lydia wrote:

    Oh the irony that Jesus Christ was quite harsh with the ‘religious leaders’ of His own tribe but not the Roman Pagan occupiers or the lowly nobodies.

    It’s completely lost on the “religious leaders” of today. . .

  193. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    Lydia, are you sure? If memory serves, I’m thinking Nick is Scottish.

    Our comments passed in transit!

    I’m English, resident in Scotland. Lesley is likewise. But both the weans were born here and both consider themselves Scottish; we’re quite happy with that.

    I’m of Scottish descent on my father’s side. I grew up hearing that Scottish folks are tight with money. Not sure how that started because my Dad was quite liberal in his spending habits.

  194. @ Darlene:
    It’s death to teens. But what I found out is that the teens who want to go into Ministry or the teens who are related to the leaders don’t seem to have much problem with it. They see a future despite being worms.

    What’s the common denominator? hope. They saw a future despite being called worms and the others who were paying serious attention to the teaching, did not.

    That is why we focus on Hope and where we want to go and our part in getting there. Self esteem comes from the striving. They take the word pride and apply it to everything.

    I get a creepy sensation even thinking about that world of worms, fatalism, death.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    @ elastigirl:
    A big deal to a lot of these stage Christians with large followings is “legacy”. That is why what they promoted as truth for so long cannot be considered heresy but ‘just another option’. I think they got off easy.

    “Stage Christians” – that’s an interesting appellation. Some time ago I remember an interview with a rock star who spoke about the power he felt when he stepped upon the stage to perform. It was a power in which he could control the reactions & emotions of the crowd. I wonder if this is how many pastors feel when they step upon the “stage”.

    *Just a note here but I refuse to be part of any church where a pastor steps upon a stage. That kind of architecture in a house of worship is creepy to me.

  196. @ Darlene:
    My father immigrated from Scotland at age 12.
    He was frugal with, the “wants”, but very generous with the, necessities.

  197. Lydia wrote:

    @ Law Prof:

    Oh the irony that Jesus Christ was quite harsh with the ‘religious leaders’ of His own tribe but not the Roman Pagan occupiers or the lowly nobodies.

    And not women. No where that Jesus was harsh with women. Which is probably one of many reasons why women felt comfortable in His company.

  198. Darlene wrote:

    I wonder if this [having power] is how many pastors feel when they step upon the “stage”.

    It’s odd to think that I never noticed it at the time, but there was a regular kind of event at the religious business I was embedded in in Glasgow. It went like this.

    At every Sunday meeting, there was (as is not uncommon) a worship leader. This person would be responsible for leading the singing and music for the first half of the meeting, before the motivational speech that occupied the main part of the meeting. Except… what happened, every single week, was that the worship leader wasn’t really the worship leader. He/she would lead the singing right up until the point where the congregation had shaken out their cobwebs, the mood around the room had both quietened and intensified, and people were in that state of emotional arousal that is traditionally (and quite wrongly) called “the presence of God”.

    In other words, the congregation was warmed up and ready. And at THIS point, every single week, the CEO of the organisation would step forward and take the microphone. Then, HE would start leading. He’d sing something, and the congregation would repeat it after him; this would go on for as long as the emotional energy held up. When I was part of the music team, I did notice that it was impossible to establish or set any kind of musical rhythm. As soon as I did, the CEO would disrupt it; the band and the congregation alike must wait on, obey, and follow, him and him alone.

    Now, of course, I understand this perfectly.

  199. Lea wrote:

    I have no idea which sort of protestant churches ‘hate’ mary. I have never heard anything like that, personally.

    Nobody I’ve met “hates” Mary. But all Protestant churches I’ve been with ignore her, except at Christmas. Can’t have a baby Jesus without a mother.

    But, the Roman Catholic veneration of Mary is often criticized heavily in Protestant circles, and can look like hate. To many it looks like idolatry, mother-goddess worship, and differences about Mary become the breakdown in communication between Catholics and Protestants.

  200. elastigirl wrote:

    have all of them made public statements indicating such a conversion?

    That is a good question. Ware and Grudem said that they accept eternal generation, I believe. The others I have not checked, though I assume the ones who are on the payroll of the SBC have come into compliance with Mohler. Piper? Who knows.

  201. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nick: That worship style that you describe in your former church reminds me of the expression: whipping them into shape – metaphorically speaking of course.
    I’ve attended worship services like that and there’s this sense that people are being overcome by the emotions of the crowd…and anyone who resists, resists God Himself. I recall the first time I became aware of this and didn’t fall into lock step with the crowd.

  202. Darlene wrote:

    Lots of Guilt Tripping in that article of Piper’s.

    And guilt tripping already vulnerable people who ate dealing with cancer! Sickening.

  203. Gram3 wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    have all of them made public statements indicating such a conversion?

    That is a good question. Ware and Grudem said that they accept eternal generation, I believe. The others I have not checked, though I assume the ones who are on the payroll of the SBC have come into compliance with Mohler. Piper? Who knows.

    Perhaps they’re waiting to see on which side they will butter their bread – which side will benefit them the most & help them to retain their jobs.

  204. @ Darlene:

    Much has been written about “Jesus my boyfriend” songs. Thing is, there is a place for emotionally-engaged singing. Emotional self-control points both ways, after all; and sometimes it takes an effort to sing joyfully to God our strength.

    One of my favourite scribshers, for its thought-provoking implications, is from Hebrews:

    the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword… dividing soul and spirit

    It quietly implies that there is, or can be, a very fine dividing line between soul and spirit. And thus, a very subtle and easily-missed distinction between a gathering of believers that is actively resonating together with what the Holy Spirit is saying, in real time, and a bunch of people “ministering to themselves” emotionally. They can look practically – maybe literally – identical to the casual observer.

    Long story short, I was at a training day kind of gathering at Thornliebank Parish Church on the south side of Glasgow once. And there was something about it… at a certain point, the two lassies who were leading the day introduced themselves and explain what we’d be doing. They both referred to the atmosphere among us in contrasting ways. One said words to the effect of: we could just keep worshipping all day, couldn’t we?. My heart sank, as it always does when anybody says that. The other said, I love coming here… you can tell the Holy Spirit is welcome here.

    The second expressed what I was thinking so well I’ve never forgotten it.

  205. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    it appears that Grudem went beyond simple ESS to also subordinate the Spirit. I’m not sure what that is called. Eternal subordination of the Spirit to the eternally subordinated Son? ESotSttESS? Does it make him a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit? Why has this analogy of his not gotten more attention?

    George Knight III published his paper back in the 70’s. It has been out there, but it has been the under-the-table rationale. I suspect it had not received more attention because it had been useful in maintaining the status quo of of a clergy reserved for males. However, that became no longer possible last year, and some confessional Reformed women and then some confessional Reformed men began asking inconvenient questions. Finally.

  206. @ Darlene:
    I am familiar with the seeker mega world back rooms and I can promise you those guys pretty much have contempt for that huge audience who pays them so well. That was a shock to me.

  207. Darlene wrote:

    “Stage Christians” – that’s an interesting appellation. Some time ago I remember an interview with a rock star who spoke about the power he felt when he stepped upon the stage to perform. It was a power in which he could control the reactions & emotions of the crowd. I wonder if this is how many pastors feel when they step upon the “stage”.

    Of course this is how so many of them feel. When I used to take the stage to speak to groups of Christians, it’s how I felt (and a young lawyer with a well-trained tongue and a stage presence will get their chances in the church world, even without theological training). And I was going to go to seminary and add an M.Div. to the law degree, and darn it, I’d never seen anyone in the ministry, even the big names, who could hold a crowd in their hands like I could–I was going to be Something Big! But even with that repulsive attitude, it’s not like there was a consciously thought of “How can I manipulate these schmucks today?”, it was more like I got such enjoyment out the ability to get people worked up emotionally “for Jesus” (it wasn’t really for Jesus so much as it was for my own “passionate words” about Him) that I confused that carnal sort of pleasure with the joy of the Holy Spirit and the love of fellow man. I’d mount the stage when I got the chance to speak and tell tear-jerking stories, get all shaky-voiced sometimes, lower the voice and slow it down at the end and look them in the eyes and know they were all hanging on the edge of their seats–and I enjoyed the living daylights out of it and even though I could cite scripture just fine, the whole thing had very little to do with Jesus. Got angry one time when an older and wiser man who’d caught my vibe said (or prophesied?) that the true ministry God was going to do through me would have nothing to do with the limelight, but would be a quiet one to my children. Hated him for saying that!

    But 20 years on, time has shown he was dead right; I see that same, ugly “look at me” spirit in so many of the big names. Some of them may be farther along the road to destructiveness than even I was, probably some of them know full well what they’re doing, know full well they’re manipulating, know full well it’s all about them–and could not care less.

  208. Bridget wrote:

    I get the impression they all slinked back to their mini kingdoms to have their egos stroked by their wimmen folk and to lick their wounds.

    Likely there were many meetings and teleconferences to strategize how to nuance their new position on the Trinity *and* on the subordination of women. They have a big problem, and I think that is why CBMW had been in a publishing pause while they figure out how Danvers can work without ESS.

    This, of course, is SOP for public relations for crisis management. Issue a statement, go silent (Denny stopped taking comments because Busy), and then go live again with the new message. I think that is what will happen with CBMW. The new message will be a softer form. George Knight III will probably resign (if he has not already), along with Grudem and probably Piper, Ware and Owen. Quietly, of course.

    This, of course, should not be SOP for a teaching ministry of the Word of God. When men who purport to teach that Word have discovered they were mistaken, they should forthrightly admit that mistake, and then they should correct that mistake along with the implications of said mistake. That did not happen, and that will not happen. Al Mohler and Denny Burk brought out their best Emily Litella.

  209. Lydia wrote:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/dont-waste-your-cancer
    Anyone remember this? Talk about heavy burdens being inflicted on the already suffering.

    It was this that sent Eagle over the edge – he gave it (book, booklet?) to his Mum when she had cancer, & it was a huge factor in all the issues he had with God afterwards. All sorted now afaik, but it was precisely this delightful sermon from JP that showed up that form of evangelicalism for the morally dubious waste of time it is.

  210. Mae wrote:

    I’ve heard this many times now about Neo Cals abandoning the faith altogether. It’s hard for me to understand fully why they end up giving up on God. It is very troubling.

    Their god is not all that relatable. If they never had a relationship with god in the first place, it’s easier to walk away. And a lot of them are troubled by the idea of a god who creates thinking, feeling, talented, amazing beings with the express purpose of condemning them to eternal torment.

    It is easier to turn your back on belief than to choose to believe in a god like that. And if that is the god you’ve been taught? Then you’ve received an inoculation, of sorts (vaccination?) against believing in any god. Even one who is said to be “loving”.

    After all, the calvinist god is said to be “loving”. He so loved a tiny portion of humanity that he graciously made a way for them not to be condemned to eternal torment like the vast majority of humanity.

    With a “Friend” like this, who needs an enemy?

  211. Off the topic, but remember Houston area in your prayers this evening. The tropical storm is going back into the Gulf and looks like will go back ashore into Houston or Beaumont- Pt Arthur area.
    They are saying 5-10 inches additional rains tonight alone.

  212. refugee wrote:

    After all, the calvinist god is said to be “loving”. He so loved a tiny portion of humanity that he graciously made a way for them not to be condemned to eternal torment…

    … to which they were otherwise condemned because “god” hates them for being born.

  213. Law Prof wrote:

    …the true ministry God was going to do through me would have nothing to do with the limelight, but would be a quiet one to my children.

    He forgot to mention your quiet ministry to the kids [young and not-so-young] here on TWW.

  214. @ Law Prof:
    Now, think what it is like when you cook up “ESS”! You could end up like Calvin!, your name rembered 100s of years later!! Unfortunately, the system finally got wise to ESS!

  215. Darlene wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/dont-waste-your-cancer

    Anyone remember this? Talk about heavy burdens being inflicted on the already suffering.
    Lots of Guilt Tripping in that article of Piper’s.

    For sure. Especially we who have cancer of the more serious, incurable kind.
    I understand he had cancer but for the majority of men affected, prostate cancer is very curable. I suspect he wrote this after he had the cure.
    I’d respect his opinion more if he actually did face incurable cancer in the face. As it is, I think he used his cancer to lecture the less fortunate, as if he were in the same shoes as them.
    Phony, miserable jerk.

  216. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    refugee wrote:
    After all, the calvinist god is said to be “loving”. He so loved a tiny portion of humanity that he graciously made a way for them not to be condemned to eternal torment…
    … to which they were otherwise condemned because “god” hates them for being born.

    Such a miserable, hopeless theology. Brings not a whiff of comfort humanity.

  217. Beakerj wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    If memory serves, I’m thinking Nick is Scottish.

    Nick is an Englishman abroad.

    Beakerj: Are you Scottish?

  218. okrapod wrote:

    So you tell me, how do the Calvinistas not think this? I think Max is correct. Some of them may not know Jesus, may never have stood in HIs presence so to speak and been overwhelmed by it all, may have thought that He frowned when some of us thought that He smiled. Maybe even have winked.

    Ware’s book Father, Son, & Holy Spirit is one place where you can find a clue to the mentality. The Son is a diminished Person, and the Father is Supreme. Yes, Ware does use that language. So, what is the point of the incarnation? Ware says to pray to the Father, not to the Son. What does it matter if Jesus wept? Or laughed with his siblings or friends? He cannot truly represent us God Incarnate. How awful to miss the amazing truth that God became flesh and tabernacled among us. And for what? Seems like another Esau deal to me.

    The Calvinistas believe in an abstract “Christ” who is not a human being that I would recognize. Sometimes it is even worse and they talk only about an idea, the “gospel” that saves. That really came home to me when I experienced it in the person of a particular Calvinista who was as cold as ice yet had the talking points down, backward and forward. At first I dismissed what I perceived as coldness, but then I saw the effects in his family, in the church, the staff, and personally. It was truly frightening to see how he could turn the superficial charm on.

    I do not mean to say that all people caught up in the YRR movement or all of the churches believe this, because they don’t. But this is the flaw, IMO, that causes much of the disconnect and grief that people experience because they do not know that their identity is In Christ and not In Piper or In Mohler or In Complementarianism or even In Bible.

  219. refugee wrote:

    And a lot of them are troubled by the idea of a god who creates thinking, feeling, talented, amazing beings with the express purpose of condemning them to eternal torment.

    That torment all being for the glory of that god, of course. Makes me think of Piper’s stupid motto: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” If Piper really believed that, he would not belive in a god that purposefully sends the vast majority of humanity to conscious eternal torment, because that would minimize his god’s glory. Or, he could belive that such torment is most safisfying. Bottom line is Piper is an inconsistent mess who is destroying lives and Grudem is his BFF.

  220. Darlene wrote:

    Beakerj: Are you Scottish?

    I’m half-English & half-Irish. Best described as having a beautiful English accent & a beautiful Irish personality. Ha.

    (The joke regarding Nick is that for the true Englishman everywhere but England is abroad).

  221. @ Gram3:

    The Christmas after I bought this house I got a Christmas card from the realtor. There was a drawing of a row of cute little houses, some snow and such, and one of the houses was all lit up-had all the lights on inside the house. The card said: ‘The Word was made flesh and moved into the neighborhood.’

    What a pity when people miss that idea.

  222. @ Gram3:

    I noticed Owen is at Carl Henry Institute. Which, if I am not mistaken, is another cubicle at SBTS down from CBMW.

  223. @ Gram3:
    I forgot about Wares “don’t pray to Jesus’. He spoke somewhere using parts of the book and that was the big takeaway everyone remembered. It’s hard to believe now he lasted this long.

    But I look back and think the biggest danger is when things like this don’t shock anymore. It’s like a desensitization to bad and those with the gravitas to speak up, don’t.

  224. I just did a search at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on trinity, ESS, Eternal submission, etc, and no hits on ESS.. It is as if it never existed…
    In science, when a new theory, or even more a new law comes along, we do not forget/erase the old one… in fact, even if it is “wrong” we typically use it as a good tool to teach from… hummm, are they trying to hid something??

  225. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    it appears that Grudem went beyond simple ESS to also subordinate the Spirit … Does it make him a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit?

    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy (every evil, abusive, injurious speaking, or indignity against sacred things) can be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not and cannot be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Spirit, the Holy One, will not be forgiven, either in this world and age or in the world and age to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32)

    To subordinate the Holy Spirit is to engage in “injurious speaking” … to diminish either the Son or the Spirit by eisegesis of Scripture to support your pet theology and personal agenda is to speak against the Godhead. One is treading in the dangerous waters of unpardonable sin.

  226. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    are they trying to hid something??

    Sure they are! It’s bad for the movement! If the New Calvinist elite were smart, they would send Grudem and Ware on very long sabbaticals.

  227. Lydia wrote:

    @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
    And all it took to make it go away was for some Presbyterian comp pastors to criticize it publicly. That just amazes me.

    They’re scared of what here? Being caught? Seeming less than scholarly? I think this says everything has to be in the open. Anyone who tries to keep these things quiet and behind closed doors can’t be trusted.

    Btw, about to watch game of thrones, even though comp hero Kevin deyoung told me not to. Horrid.

  228. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:

    I noticed Owen is at Carl Henry Institute. Which, if I am not mistaken, is another cubicle at SBTS down from CBMW.

    Lydia, Gram3:. How do you two keep tabs on all of these NeoCal gurus? Are you secret agents working for some classified, covert entity? 🙂

  229. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I forgot about Wares “don’t pray to Jesus’. He spoke somewhere using parts of the book and that was the big takeaway everyone remembered.

    Ware is not the only one who has taught that Christians shouldn’t pray directly to Jesus. I heard that quite a few times during my days as an Evangelical. Not only that, but I attended a couple of churches where this was the case. Looking back on it, I think how absurd it is that anyone would believe that we shouldn’t pray directly to the. King of Kings and Lord of Lord’s.

  230. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    I just did a search at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on trinity, ESS, Eternal submission, etc, and no hits on ESS.. It is as if it never existed…

    There’s always the Way back Machine. Does anything ever truly get scrubbed from the Internet?

    What deceptive practices these NeoCals resort to. They must regard their followers as dumb sheep that won’t notice. Or worse yet, that won’t care.

  231. Lydia wrote:

    @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
    And all it took to make it go away was for some Presbyterian comp pastors to criticize it publicly. That just amazes me.

    Don’t put it past them to cart out the ESS should the tide change and it works in their favor.

  232. @ Max:

    Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote: “are they trying to hid something??”

    Max said: “Sure they are! It’s bad for the movement! If the New Calvinist elite were smart, they would send Grudem and Ware on very long sabbaticals.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm…. so much intrigue…. i’m still trying to understand it all….

    so, until the ETS meeting last November (and even throughout the trinity controversy in the months prior) Wayne Grudem & ESS were good for the movement.

    That’s an understatement. Wayne Grudem was their Einstein, and ESS was their law of physics.

    it even seemed to me they were gearing up for the ETS annual meeting with their pompoms and popcorn to watch & celebrate the debates as if it was the ultimate championship event, and their victory was a foregone conclusion.

    then all of a sudden….. poof. some men spoke their disagreement, others chimed in with their yes & amen, and that was that.

    (these must have been some men!) (what made them so?)

    but it was kind of a silent poof. many months of silence seem to have gone by — although this conversation is happening now in multiple places (Scot McKight’s Jesus Creed, here, elsewhere?)

    i’m glad this is happening.

    but…. what happened, exactly?

    (yes, i’ve read the post, and i’ve read many things on Mortification of Spin and elsewhere as they were happening in the last year & 1/2.)

    i know what happened…. i’m just bemused as to why and how it happened.

  233. Lydia wrote:

    I forgot about Wares “don’t pray to Jesus’.

    Remember when David Platt called a “sinner’s prayer” superstitious?! New Calvinism is a different gospel for sure.

  234. Darlene wrote:

    Ware is not the only one who has taught that Christians shouldn’t pray directly to Jesus.

    These New Calvinists have come up with some strange things. I personally heard a young reformed SBC church planter in my area say that Christians should not claim Philippians 4:13 for themselves: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” He said that “me” in that verse applied only to Paul!

  235. Lydia wrote:

    I noticed Owen is at Carl Henry Institute. Which, if I am not mistaken, is another cubicle at SBTS down from CBMW.

    Back from his exile in Kansas City to Jerusalem on the Ohio! That’s what happens when you are the son-in-law of Bruce Ware.

  236. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    I just did a search at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on trinity, ESS, Eternal submission, etc, and no hits on ESS.. It is as if it never existed…

    They have scrubbed it. CBMW under Denny Burk is re-writing their history. They are not correcting the record and apologizing for teaching error. They are covering up for teaching what is arguably heresy. Though they have removed the articles which explicitly teach the ESS doctrine, the journals still have the doctrine embedded in the articles. And, of course, Grudem’s books and Ware’s books and Owen’s books and many SBC faculty publications have ESS embedded in them. Mohler owns this.

  237. Darlene wrote:

    Lydia, Gram3:. How do you two keep tabs on all of these NeoCal gurus? Are you secret agents working for some classified, covert entity?

    AFAIK I do not know Lydia, but maybe I do! For various reasons, I know and have known a number of people who know other people in various Baptist, Presby and Evangelical places.

  238. Gram3 wrote:

    Mohler owns this.

    “It is with a single man that error usually commences.” (Al Mohler, SBTS Convocation Address, Aug. 31, 1993).

  239. Thankful we don’t have to rely on these guys for truth. God and His Word reaching out to His faithful are good enough, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, laterally, equally. Reminded of how Enoch walked with God.

  240. Darlene wrote:

    Looking back on it, I think how absurd it is that anyone would believe that we shouldn’t pray directly to the. King of Kings and Lord of Lord’s.

    It makes no sense at all does it? Jesus’ name is above all names and all titles, and because some guy says it’s not proper to beseech him directly, all are supposed to fall in line with what said guy(s) say?
    My reply to said guy(s) would be quite colorful I assure you…

  241. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    She is a Gilda Radner character. Lots of youtubes. If I explain, it will ruin it.

    Why are people so up in arms about violins on television?

    (Never mind.)

  242. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    what is it about these Presbyterian comp pastors that made them so… impactful? Anyone know?

    Maybe because they were men?

    (Sorry, just idle speculation.)

    BTW, praying for those in Texas.

  243. @ elastigirl:
    I honestly think there was some crumbling already going on within the movement. Always remember, there are those who are easily disposable and those who aren’t for various reasons.

  244. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m just bemused as to why and how it happened.

    I think it is a safe bet that some men like Scot McKnight and Carl Trueman and some other influential men in ETS have had enough of the political shenanigans of the ESS ideologues. ESS is part of an ideology, which is quite apparent to all of us who have confronted anyone who is part of the System. That is not to say that these men are not concerned about the doctrinal issues. I think they were primarily concerned that the ESS Party was about to take control of the ETS which is supposed to be a broad-based organization, and the ESS Party wanted to turn it into a Party resource. That would have been disastrous.

    It is also possible that these Reformed men were seeing that ESS was infiltrating their own churches, and they needed to take a strong and unequivocal stand before it became unrecoverable.

    The most likely thing is all of the above plus some very human factors behind the scenes which we will probably never know.

  245. @ Darlene:
    I don’t think it will go away. It’s already ingrained. Most of these young guys in pulpits are teaching its tenants without even knowing it has a name. That is how indoctrination works. It’s the normal.

  246. @ elastigirl:

    Thank you, Lydia and Gram3 for your responses.

    Was this the tipping point?

    “Todd pulled his original post about Burk’s article: the relentless behind-the-scenes attacks are tiring and discouraging, aimed at one thing and one thing only – closing down any discussion of the errors that are rampant on the doctrine of God. Not everyone can put up with them. I know the toll such attacks have taken on Todd in the past. But somebody will have to take a stand at some point or the situation really is lost — theologically and, as is increasingly apparent, ethically.”

    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/in-the-end-it-all-comes-down-to-this#.V-WBvvArKhc

  247. @ elastigirl:

    and there’s more, of course:

    Todd Pruitt:
    “I learned a lesson today. It was a lesson I was warned of: Be very careful about taking on men with powerful friends.

    I made the decision to take down my post critiquing Denny Burk’s article on Philippians 2:6…..

    Now, none of Denny’s correspondence with me was inappropriate in any way. I wish however that I could say the same thing about his defenders.”

    If any of the men from various organizations who expressed to me their concerns about Denny’s article want to give it a try, my blessings. But some of you will wind up in some truly hot water if you do.

    I grieve over the state of modern reformed(ish) evangelicalism. Quite frankly it looks more and more like a racket to me. Power has been concentrated in the hands of a very few and they all happen to be friends. Mess with one of their family and it’s only a matter of time before Clemenza is sent out searching for you.”

    http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/another-follow-up-on-my-post-concerning-denny-burks-article#.WaOxByiGNPb

  248. @ refugee:

    indeed.

    the comp movement and its spokespeople deserve the embarrassing and shameful legacy they are ending up with.

  249. Lydia wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    I live at ground zero for YRR. You can’t swing a dead cat in a Starbucks without hitting one.

    Same was true where I used to live, even after I got out of seminary. And you don’t have to go looking for them. They find you, follow you around, and argue until they pass out.

    Thankfully, where I live now seems to have as many egalitarian churches as complementarian ones, though there are a couple New Cal churches. It does make a difference.

  250. @ elastigirl:

    I don’t know why people are so impressed with those guys. The deebs show more courage in one month than they have in their entire career. Trueman never walked back his participation in exonerating CJ Mahaney but vaguely wrote abut ‘celebrities’ and so on. So there are your great men of God taking down post on serious error about the Trinity because ‘they are mean’!!!

    They are part of the problem in the Christian Industrial Complex. Wimps.

  251. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    In the two Byzantine rite parishes I have attended (Melchite and Russian Catholic) the creed is said without the filoque. These are Eastern churches in full communion with Rome. So Rome itself allows the difference in the Creed. I think for all intents and purposes the filoque is no longer considered a major issue dividing Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches for the reason you mentioned. Obviously there are other issues of division.

  252. @ Lea:
    I think personally the Eastern Church gets it pretty much right about Mary. She’s greatly honored, her, intercession is requested, but in the Orthodox churches at least, ideas such as the immaculate conception and assumption are left vague and undefined. I don’t think there are a lot of official appearances of Mary either.

  253. @ Lydia:
    Ok, so that was mean. But let’s walk this back. Everything we are discussing happened because of comp doctrine. That is the reason for ESS. The entire situation is because of comp.

    Now, what is the foundation of comp doctrine? Men are to be the ‘spiritual leaders’. They are to do the teaching. They are to lead women in spiritual matters first and foremost. God designed it that way, right?

    Yet here we have huge heretical error and the MEN who are the spiritual leaders do what? They delete posts dealing with the error because the heretical ‘spiritual leaders’ are ‘mean’ to them. You can’t make this stuff up!

    Perfect example of why comp doctrine is a complete sham all the way around. The great spiritual leaders cannot withstand the onslaught when they write about error. Yet, they are to be the leaders of women.

    Ironically, the egalitarian, Giles, shows more courage dealing with serious error than comp men!

    If that isn’t the perfect irony and example of the sham of comp doctrine, I don’t know what is.

  254. @ Lydia:
    Yup…. and they still want us all to believe them without question. And they wonder why people are becoming “dones”?

  255. Lydia wrote:

    Everything we are discussing happened because of comp doctrine. That is the reason for ESS. The entire situation is because of comp.
    Now, what is the foundation of comp doctrine? Men are to be the ‘spiritual leaders’. They are to do the teaching. They are to lead women in spiritual matters first and foremost. God designed it that way, right?
    Yet here we have huge heretical error and the MEN who are the spiritual leaders do what? They delete posts dealing with the error because the heretical ‘spiritual leaders’ are ‘mean’ to them. You can’t make this stuff up!
    Perfect example of why comp doctrine is a complete sham all the way around. The great spiritual leaders cannot withstand the onslaught when they write about error. Yet, they are to be the leaders of women.
    Ironically, the egalitarian, Giles, shows more courage dealing with serious error than comp men!
    If that isn’t the perfect irony and example of the sham of comp doctrine, I don’t know what is.

    Very profound.

    Though, I would add that if they just stayed with “spiritual leaders” like most comps, they probably wouldn’t get the pushback that they do. ESS basically declared them on a level of authority on earth with God, though they tried real hard to keep everyone from noticing that. And then all the stuff about how women are supposed to submit absolutely and provide every earthly pleasure for their spouses on demand.

    In a group I’m in, several of us pointed out the ego of that kind of belief and one person got very offended we would call them arrogant. But I don’t think that kind of belief can stem from any sense of doing what is right. Can you?

  256. Oh, and what about this comparison of marriage to the Trinity? Based on a single verse about the church being Christ’s bride as far as I can tell. And that makes hierarchy in marriage “equal to the gospel”? Seriously some of the poorest logic ever.

    In what I’ve read from Ware, he is very specific on how God the Father should have authority over Jesus and how Jesus is supposed to submit absolutely to the Father. But when he correlates this to marriage, it’s very vague. Something like “This grand and wondrous picture of the Trinity is how marriage should aspire”. Not much on why or how it would correlate. Very little on what that kind of authority means when it comes to marriage or why men would have that authority when it seems to usurp on God’s authority in lots of other verses.

  257. GMFS

    Cricket:

    Root’s gone for 72, with England currently on 223-4; with the first-innings deficit, they are effectively 54-4. A big middle-order innings, or a flurry of wickets, could yet turn the match; Windies remain on top, but it’s not over yet. In contrast to the first Test, where it was effectively over by the end of day 2; overall, this is better for the sport.

    IHTIH

  258. Lydia wrote:

    Everything we are discussing happened because of comp doctrine. That is the reason for ESS. The entire situation is because of comp.

    Sigh. Again I feel the need to blurt out some inflammatory statement. In my opinion it is true and needs said, inflammatory or not.

    Comp doctrine is poorly grounded in religion, but is an obvious social theory position. Comp-ism, religiously connected or not, is an historic position in humanity-Christian or not. Female subjugation is not dependent on comp theology. The theology is a poor facade for an ages old idea.

    And then there is biology. Consider the other primates, and then let’s talk about biological expressions of female subjugation.

    Trying to talk about comp-ism while not talking about social theory (the forbidden ‘p’ word) and not talking about biology and not talking about money or power and not talking about DSM perversion and who knows what all else would be pointless and useless.

    Here is what bothers me. People will go to frightening extremes over social theory driven by the other factors I have mentioned; the morning news reminds us daily of this. And social theory drunk on religion is worse. Once more we have times that try men’s souls, in the church and out.

  259. @ ishy:
    Thinking you have some “new”, better, view of the Trinity, after 2,000 years of people trying to figure it out is the deffinition of arrogance! How can we finite humans understand such eternal concepts. I still have trouble contemplating “infinity” in a mathamtical sence and I use it almost ever day!

  260. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    Thinking you have some “new”, better, view of the Trinity, after 2,000 years of people trying to figure it out is the deffinition of arrogance! How can we finite humans understand such eternal concepts. I still have trouble contemplating “infinity” in a mathamtical sence and I use it almost ever day!

    And how about their “permanent” ESV?

    Though, I think there is a lot of ego, but a lot of insecurity as well. They turned about face as soon as being being called out on ESS. They are terrified that their followers will see logical, rational responses which call out their huge inconsistencies, so they delete contrary comments. Most of their churches avoid talking about Jesus entirely so nobody might get any ideas that He is actually equal to God the Father!

  261. Gram3 wrote:

    It is also possible that these Reformed men were seeing that ESS was infiltrating their own churches

    I have seen a few (rather infuriating) articles about how pastors shouldn’t just ignore the womens ministry, because they need to make sure they are teaching ‘sound doctrine’. It occurs to me that ESS has filtered through some of these books directed at women and their roles and all that nonsense and THAT is what really needed to be filtered out but was unlikely to happen unless there was a public knockdown. Of course, whether it happens now remains to be seen.

    And reading the above, I’m not sure I fully expressed how completely unimpressed with these supposed pastors discernment and the likelihood that they would actually be helpful to their womens ministries, which they were apparently completely ignoring before all these ‘helpful’ articles.

  262. Lydia wrote:

    @ elastigirl:
    I don’t know why people are so impressed with those guys. The deebs show more courage in one month than they have in their entire career.

    In that article she linked Todd said he doesn’t have thick skin.

    Do they have any idea how thick a woman’s skin has to be deal with some of these teachings? Some of these men?

    Grow up.

  263. ishy wrote:

    And how about their “permanent” ESV?

    Though, I think there is a lot of ego, but a lot of insecurity as well. They turned about face as soon as being being called out on ESS.

    How can these Calvinists claim to believe in God's sovereignty when they keep changing their theological positions?

    I absolutely do believe in God's sovereignty, but I'm not flip-flopping on my beliefs like they have done when called on the carpet. 😉

  264. ishy wrote:

    Seriously some of the poorest logic ever.

    Kind of on the line of the holy spirit being like a child of…a father and son? The holy spirit is their grandchild? Or Father and Son are married?

    The whole thing is just stupid.

  265. They can change their theology without changing their minds because they don’t care; it only looks like it is about theology. It is really a game of king-on-the-hill. They are willing to try to knock Jesus off the top of the hill in order to get to the top themselves. That would be even if all they get to look down on from their top is people they at least partially despise.

    Quote from the garden to the effect that you too can be like God, in this case only if you are willing to re-characterize God and make God in your own image. The original temptation, the original fall of man, except with a DMin or PhD to hide what it really is.

    Like Gram3 says, I hope this is not too blunt.

  266. Quoting from the article:

    “This comment should be carefully noted. Burke reiterates what Ligon Duncan said. The post-June 2016 position of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, you can hold to Nicene orthodoxy, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian. This is a complete about-face by Denny Burke.”

    Perhaps I’m not getting it, but I seem to gather from this article that they can still cling to the notion that women should be doormats, but they no longer have to justify it by using the nature of the Trinity. I don’t think that’s necessarily progress! The New Testament points out time and again that all are equal in His sight. It’s a shame we still can’t get that straight even after 2,000 years! I don’t believe the nature of the Trinity is necessarily ours to know completely, but Jesus told us EXACTLY how we ought to treat one another!

  267. Deb wrote:

    Dee and I know a pastor who once told a congregant:

    “I am the parent, and you are the child.”

    How utterly STOOPID!

    Well, you know how the New Calvinists talk about everything being “gospel-centered” (gospel-centered coffee, etc.)? A young reformer at an SBC church plant down the road from me tells his flock that “‘I’ am the gospel”! These folks have drifted so far from the true Gospel, that they don’t even know how to preach it!

  268. Deb wrote:

    I absolutely do believe in God’s sovereignty, but I’m not flip-flopping on my beliefs like they have done when called on the carpet.

    I can’t help but wonder how convinced they were that everyone would be so enchanted with them that they’d fall all over themselves in agreement. I guess they do get that kind of response from the YRR, but why would they think academics would do so?

    Though I am still convinced this is a strategic retreat, and not really a flip-flop. I’m pretty sure they are planning how they can replace every critic with one of their own so nobody will be left to argue. Still think it’s a dumb plan, but that seems to be how Mohler and friends operate.

  269. Lea wrote:

    I have seen a few (rather infuriating) articles about how pastors shouldn’t just ignore the womens ministry,

    And, “women’s ministries” have to be completely separate entities – no mixing and mingling……… can’t let the wimmenfolk get the crazy idea that they are on par with the men ‘o gawd.

  270. Lydia wrote:

    Platt made it a “cause” like it is a terrible sin that must be eradicated. I am serious. OTT.

    Yep, he wanted to boot the “sinner’s prayer” out of SBC life and was rewarded with the crown to lead SBC’s international mission program which for 150+ years has endeavored to lead sinners to prayer around the world. Go figure!

  271. Max wrote:

    A young reformer at an SBC church plant down the road from me tells his flock that “‘I’ am the gospel”! These folks have drifted so far from the true Gospel, that they don’t even know how to preach it!

    WOW! Speaking of heresy…that would be it!
    “The Great I Am” IS the Gospel and no one else! 🙂

  272. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    And, “women’s ministries” have to be completely separate entities – no mixing and mingling………

    I have pretty mixed feelings about womens ministries…I don’t mind them existing (or even the occasional fancy tea) but that shouldn’t be the only thing available.

  273. Lydia wrote:

    I forgot about Wares “don’t pray to Jesus’. He spoke somewhere using parts of the book and that was the big takeaway everyone remembered. It’s hard to believe now he lasted this long.
    But I look back and think the biggest danger is when things like this don’t shock anymore. It’s like a desensitization to bad and those with the gravitas to speak up, don’t.

    I reckon Hebrews 4:14-16 doesn’t appear in Ware’s bible?!? Maybe it was left out of the “ESV Permanent Text Edition!” 😉

  274. Lydia wrote:

    I live at ground zero for YRR. You can’t swing a dead cat in a Starbucks without hitting one.

    I’ve thought about swinging a dead cat at some of them (but then I repented). In coffee shops across America, you will find New Calvinists tweeting their lives away … and those are the pastors! Try getting one of them to visit the sick in hospitals, pray with invalids in nursing homes, or just getting to know their church members … it ain’t going to happen – this new breed of “pastors” don’t do that! They would rather hide out in cyberspace and show up on Sunday morning to preach a sermon borrowed off Piper, then disappear again. Some of them are probably sipping on an espresso and reading TWW this morning, thanking God that they aren’t like us.

  275. Lydia wrote:

    Everything we are discussing happened because of comp doctrine. That is the reason for ESS. The entire situation is because of comp.

    ESS – Essentially Sneaky Slavery

  276. @ Gram3:

    “I think they were primarily concerned that the ESS Party was about to take control of the ETS which is supposed to be a broad-based organization, and the ESS Party wanted to turn it into a Party resource.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    i think this little gem is relevant:

    from Wayne Grudem’s Personal Reflections, 2007, in the Journal

    “I would encourage younger pastors and scholars who support CBMW in the following ways:

    (1) <b<Play offense and not just defense. ETS is an excellent place for many young scholars to do that, and so are denominational study groups and public presentations. More complementarians need to write clear answers, and to participate in public debates, to show the incorrectness of arguments put forth by influential egalitarians like Kevin Giles, Sarah Sumner, William Webb, and others.

  277. darn, the bolding didn’t work.

    (1) Play offense and not just defense. ETS is an excellent place for many young scholars to do that

  278. elastigirl wrote:

    to show the incorrectness of arguments put forth by influential egalitarians like Kevin Giles, Sarah Sumner,

    First thought, ha.
    Second thought, who is Sarah Sumner? Because I think I like her already.

  279. Max wrote:

    those are the pastors! Try getting one of them to visit the sick in hospitals, pray with invalids in nursing homes, or just getting to know their church members … it ain’t going to happen –

    When visiting the church where I am now a member, someone told me the pastor visited the sick in hospitals almost every day. It almost instantly made me want to become a member. That was such a key indicator of the kind of character she has and the kind of character I want to see in a pastor.

  280. ishy wrote:

    When visiting the church where I am now a member, someone told me the pastor visited the sick in hospitals almost every day. It almost instantly made me want to become a member.

    “Religion that is pure and genuine in the sight of God the Father will show itself by such things as visiting orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world.” (James 1:27)

    In the 21st century American church, young pastors appear to be more contaminated by the world than pure and genuine care for folks in their distress.

  281. ishy wrote:

    That was such a key indicator of the kind of character she has and the kind of character I want to see in a pastor.

    She? You obviously don’t attend a Bible believing church, if you did, they wouldn’t have a woman in the pulpit. You need to repent, get right with Jeezus, find a Bible believing church and get rapture ready!

  282. okrapod wrote:

    Comp doctrine is poorly grounded in religion, but is an obvious social theory position.

    That is true, and that is Genesis 3 being played out in history just as God said it would. Female Subordinationists take that as being merely a corruption of God’s “Good and Beautiful Plan” of males being the Leader and Females being the joyful submitter. Despite no evidence of hierarchy in the text, they assume it into existence ex nihilo.Let there be hierarchy.

    That is exactly why it was necessary to invent ESS. The social theory of *essential female inferiority* was disappearing in the West, at least formally, and pressure was rising to ordain females, even in conservative churches. It is all in the PCA archives. We have one or two PCA pastor readers who can find George Knight III’s work there back in the 70’s when the baby PCA was facing pressure from its own members to ordain women. Because the broader culture has moved beyond essential female inferiority, the Female Subordinationists cannot use that idea explicitly. That is why they will use language like “equal in dignity, value and worth” before they start talking about the fine print of subordination, which is quite different from what the text of the Bible actually says. That is what makes Real Conservatives like me raise the red card and throw the flag down. These guys are False Conservatives.

  283. Injun Joe wrote:

    She? You obviously don’t attend a Bible believing church, if you did, they wouldn’t have a woman in the pulpit. You need to repent, get right with Jeezus, find a Bible believing church and get rapture ready!

    Want to exegete the Greek on that? Because that “Bible-believing church” probably has no idea what the Bible really says. Many translations are quite faithful to the Greek until they get to passages on women. It’s very strange. I mean, the first evangelist was a woman. Junia was an apostle. Priscilla was elder of the church of Rome and likely the writer of Hebrews. The word “elder” is an adjective that can be both masculine and feminine and both are used in Titus. And Greek often uses the masculine to mean both male and female. That’s how most languages have developed in history.

    Oh, and “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord” isn’t in the original texts.

    From my experience in a complementarian college and seminary, the egalitarians who actually study what the Bible really says, instead of relying on culture to inform their Bible.

  284. Gram3 wrote:

    the broader culture has moved beyond essential female inferiority

    Heck, Jesus took the lead on that 2,000 years ago when He said “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)

    Grudem’s attempt to erase the gains made by the Church of the Living God in gender roles by belittling Jesus is nothing but a theo-social experiment to retreat to an archaic way of looking at human relationships simply to fit his everybody-is-subordinate-but-me doctrine.

  285. Lea wrote:

    Kind of on the line of the holy spirit being like a child of…a father and son? The holy spirit is their grandchild? Or Father and Son are married?

    The whole thing is just stupid.

    Well, it is when you stop to *think* about it, and when you think about it in the right direction. What happens too often, IMO, is that people, especially young people, get caught up in Spiritually Mystical Pseudo-thinking such that Grudem’s application of marriage to the Trinity can make sense. Grudem’s desired pattern for marriage is mapped to the Trinity (subordination between the parties) which is then used as the ultimate Clobber Model for every married pewpeon. That is not something rational, thinking people would do unless there is something else compelling the process, IMO.

    Then there is Bruce Ware who says that the relationship between the Father and the Son *must* be characterized by authority because that is what characterizes the human father/son relationship. It is migraine-inducing stuff, but the seminary guys eat it up, and I hope they all obey their fathers even though they are adults. Mohler owns this mess.

  286. elastigirl wrote:

    from Wayne Grudem’s Personal Reflections, 2007, in the Journal
    “I would encourage younger pastors and scholars who support CBMW in the following ways:
    (1) <b<Play offense and not just defense.

    It seems apparent that Grudem and Mohler and Burk and Ware and the other affiliated men are primarily concerned with political power and not with presenting their views through scholarship and debate.

  287. Gram3 wrote:

    Mohler owns this mess.

    Yep, accountability floats up. If you are going to ordain yourself as SBC Pope, you have to live with the errors your followers serve up.

  288. Gram3 wrote:

    It seems apparent that Grudem and Mohler and Burk and Ware and the other affiliated men are primarily concerned with political power and not with presenting their views through scholarship and debate.

    Well, I’m not a scholar or the son of a scholar, but it’s apparent these men are not very smart! These theo-political ladder-climbers have their eyes focused on reaching the top of the mountain, but have taken their eyes off Jesus.

  289. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Makes me think of Piper’s stupid motto: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.”

    Piper’s motto would not be well received by the Jewish poets who wrote many of the Psalms of Lament by getting in God’s face. I wonder if they’d have some colorful replies for Mr. Piper?

  290. @ okrapod:

    I hear ya. And comp “doctrine” in the form of Davners was a response to the culture. People tend to “overcorrect” and we are seeing that in our culture now in a very “in your face” way.

    The irony? The doctrine changed the focus so intensely that women were LESS free to function in many churches AFTER Danvers. Sheesh, my mom, aunts and even my grandmother who was in her 70’s when I was born, functioned in any way they wanted in SBC churches. Yes, they taught men. No one cared. They were Deacons, Music Ministers, etc. The drastic change was overwhelming to me as a young women.

    The constant mantra of “women want to be men” was the response to any disagreement with comp doctrine. I am of the position that women cannot be men and men cannot be women, biologically. I am not a “supporter” of that belief.

    When it comes to brains and the spiritual I think we need to look at individuals not genders. You might be in a category of 25% of women who love the sciences, for example. Or another women might be one of the 30% attracted to trades like mechanic or welder. I am just not seeing the big deal. I think of women who serve in the IDF because it is mandated.

    When it comes to the “spiritual”, I am trying my best to understand the huge differences. I don’t get it.

  291. Deb wrote:

    @ Lea:

    Dee and I know a pastor who once told a congregant:

    “I am the parent, and you are the child.”

    How utterly STOOPID!

    RUN!!!!

  292. @ Root 66:

    Bingo! Note how they spin it:

    The post-June 2016 position of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that **** you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity****

    Gee. I have freedom not to believe in a…..

    , *****you can hold to Nicene orthodox****y, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian.

    This is a complete about-face by Denny Burke.”

    Nope its not really an about face. Its a reordering of what you can do. You know have freedom to only believe Nicene.

    Note how they keep their position. No apology. No admitting they were teaching error. No shame. Now, they have decided WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY TAUGHT BEFORE.

    The arrogance is suffocating.

  293. @ Root 66:

    I finally got to the point I won’t discuss scripture with them. I don’t read it with the determinist/anti woman/lesser Jesus filter— so what is the point?

  294. @ elastigirl:

    Maybe ESS was just a bridge too far for SOME of the comp attendees and presenters at ETS? But the timing still bothers me. ESS has been out there for a long time. Its not been a big secret for the bookish types. Its been on stages at conferences for years.

    I simply find it interesting it became a big thing as the YRR movement is in decline. After all the scandals, etc.

  295. Gram3 wrote:

    These guys are False Conservatives.

    Yes they are. There are words to describe their kind, some good old southern words. Redneck. Privilege (male) but also racial. Good ole boy. Some political words which I will not mention but which used to be perfectly good words. Predator. Intellectually challenged. Loser; how about loser; I really like that; it is my new favorite vocabulary word. Why loser? Because in the end God wins and they lose. You betcha.

  296. @ ishy:

    As a kid, church members in the hospital had constant visitors from church and staff. I was in the hospital in high school and it was grand central station from my moms church friends and staff. It was just something you did. Its something I still do with my kids who are still attached to the seniors from our former church. We also do funerals. Respect. Honor. It’s timeless.

  297. @ Lydia:

    Okay, history here. When I was a student nurse hospital visitation was strictly limited to only a few hours and only visitors who had a reason to be there, mostly family and the pastor. And usually only one at a time at the bedside and then for a very short period of time. Other folks sent flowers and cards. Then this all changed, I am thinking partly because we had more antibiotics and were not as cautious about infections, and partly because the culture changed. Also hospitals had their own chaplains, including KBH, so the pastor need only show up for 5 minutes once and that would suffice. The hospital did not look kindly to every Tom, Dick and Harry pastor showing up because some of them were problematic and there was no way to weed out the problem pastors.

    It was a different idea of hospital visitation.

  298. @ Lydia:

    not a good wave to ride anymore to propel oneself, i guess.

    these people are such a disappointment — no, that doesn’t quite ring the bell…. is there a stronger way to say this?

    how i’d love to be wealthy and fund enormous billboards in many key places with all kinds of piercing statements. (and pictures)

  299. Lydia wrote:

    The constant mantra of “women want to be men”

    This seems rather freudian to me anyways.

    Of course, I am of the opinion that what makes a woman is who she is, not what she does. This idea seems absolutely absurd to me, that having a job, or wanting to be treated like an adult or an equal equates somehow to ‘like a man’. I think it would take a man to come up with that stupid idea in the first place!

  300. @ Lea:

    The pre-calvinista terminology used to be p—- envy, and it was casually used even in off the record medical circles-back when.

    Of course that was when childhood schizophrenia was a popular diagnosis and the condition was blamed on maternal rejection of the child. And we used electroconvulsive therapy, aka shock treatments, for involutional depression which was thought to be caused by menopause. That is not far from hysteria being named that because of the ancient idea that a wandering uterus caused mental illness in women.

    You think these theologians are far out? The tales I could tell!

  301. Clarification of my comment at 1:34. KBH is Kentucky Baptist Hospital. Sorry for the initials.

  302. Lydia wrote:

    the YRR movement is in decline

    It is?! That news hasn’t made it to my neck of the woods yet. The YRR churches here are busting at the seams … they are darn near the only churches that Generations X, Y, and Z will go to.

  303. I have a master’s degree in theology. Grudem’s argument that there cannot be any distinction or uniqueness in each person of the trinity without some kind of subordination is flat our ridiculous. It’s exactly the kind of heresy that got hashed out in the first 500 years of the church. Anyone who has read their patristics and early theological formation of the church knows this. That’s clearly why the ESS position got panned so badly. In terms of academic theology, it’s at best a bad joke.

    And this is the systematic theology that SBC and others are being fed? Good grief. No wonder things are such a mess.

  304. So they make the argument that subordination of a wife in marriage is analogous to their (heretical) idea of a hierarchical trinity.

    But then when, oops, it’s suddenly OK to believe in the correct (co-equal, no “economic subordination”) view of the trinity, it’s somehow not OK to carry that idea over to marriage.

    Yeah, that’s consistent. Somebody’s got some explaining to do.

  305. okrapod wrote:

    Because in the end God wins and they lose. You betcha.

    I think you are correct that they are fighting to be King of the Hill. They may succeed in that quest (while maiming many, many people in the process), but they will not prevail. Their true agenda has been revealed. Consider:

    For years they said the Eternal Son is subordinate to the Eternal Father.
    Then they had an epiphany and said the Eternal Son is not subordinate to the Eternal Father.

    If any young SBC pastors or seminarians are reading, let the weight of that sink in.

    As if this is a trivial change in a minor point of doctrine. For crying out loud! This is the Doctrine of God! What were these men smoking instead of reading while they were at seminary??? And since then when they were doing their doctoral work??? And since then while they were teaching and studying and interacting with others??? This is simply not credible.

    “Some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.” – George Orwell

  306. John wrote:

    Yeah, that’s consistent. Somebody’s got some explaining to do.

    They do not worry about consistency. So far, they haven’t explained how Danvers subordination works without ESS. CBMW is in a publishing pause while they work out that problem. Since Danvers was written around ESS, that is going to be problematic.

  307. Deb wrote:

    @ Lea:

    Dee and I know a pastor who once told a congregant:

    “I am the parent, and you are the child.”

    How utterly STOOPID!

    Not only STUPID, but seriously warped thinking. I wonder if he spoke the same way to his wife.

  308. @ okrapod:
    I remember visitors hours. Out by 9. It seemed to depend on the illness and room situation. My dad was in hospital for cateracts when I was small.

    I was in for mono as a teen. They let lots of people in during visitors hours.

  309. @ Max</@ Max:
    We were just talking about this! My daughter remarked how many little boys are holding doors open now at stores, etc. She makes a big deal thank you to them. Maybe it’s making a comeback?

  310. DEW wrote:

    @ Lea:
    I think personally the Eastern Church gets it pretty much right about Mary. She’s greatly honored, her, intercession is requested, but in the Orthodox churches at least, ideas such as the immaculate conception and assumption are left vague and undefined. I don’t think there are a lot of official appearances of Mary either.

    Overall I would agree with you, DEW. Although there are pockets if Orthodox who take Mary’s role to an extreme. Any religious faith tradition can be abused/misused when human beings are involved. 🙂

  311. okrapod wrote:

    Clarification of my comment at 1:34. KBH is Kentucky Baptist Hospital. Sorry for the initials.

    By the time I was a pre teen that was St Anthony’s with no nursing school and Baptist Hospital rebuilt in the burbs.

  312. Lydia wrote:

    We were just talking about this! My daughter remarked how many little boys are holding doors open now at stores, etc. She makes a big deal thank you to them. Maybe it’s making a comeback?

    I bet it’s the children of all those New Calvinists in Louisville! 🙂

  313. @ Gram3:
    I learned something else from my time in the trenches. If you are told over and over how either brilliant/humble/nice some pastor or guru is, beware. There is an intentional reciprocity of promotion that is downright strategic.

  314. @ Gram3:
    I learned something else from my time in the trenches. If you are told over and over how either brilliant/humble/nice some pastor or guru is, beware. There is an intentional reciprocity of promotion that is downright strategic.@ Max:
    Predestined to open doors….

  315. Lydia wrote:

    At the top.

    I predicted years ago that the movement would eventually implode as the big dogs vied for position and started biting each other … too small a bubble to hold that much pride.

  316. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Yup…. and they still want us all to believe them without question. And they wonder why people are becoming “dones”?

    And these Comp men have the audacity tell women they are unfit to teach and unfit for X, Y & Z roles in the home and church because they are easily prone to deception. Meanwhile, nearly the whole lot of the NeoCal gurus and their followers are taken in by the ESS teaching & buy it hook, line and sinker. But oh no, they aren’t easily deceived like the wimmin folk. Pinocchio’s nose keeps growing on these NeoCal’s noses and few in their camp seem to notice.

  317. ishy wrote:

    Oh, and what about this comparison of marriage to the Trinity? Based on a single verse about the church being Christ’s bride as far as I can tell.

    The only problem with this is they can’t make it work. Because ESS likens the husband to God the Father and the wife to Jesus. But Comp. doctrine likens the husband to Jesus and the wife to the church. So which is it? Is hubby God or Jesus? Is wifey Jesus or the church?

    I’m just waiting for the time when some nutcase teaches that wives should pray to their husbands. Who knows? Maybe someone already has. I’d just like to know when husbands are going to start walking on water and performing miracles. 🙂

    This is the sort of thing that can happen when analogies are understood literally. When mysteries are defined concretely. You can play with the text and convince mere men that they are God.

  318. Lydia wrote:

    Nope its not really an about face. Its a reordering of what you can do. You know have freedom to only believe Nicene.
    Note how they keep their position. No apology. No admitting they were teaching error. No shame. Now, they have decided WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY TAUGHT BEFORE.
    The arrogance is suffocating.

    Gee whiz, I’m so glad we have their permission to believe that! <> Arrogance is NOT one of the fruit of the Spirit, if I recall correctly. Love, humility, and self-sacrifice is really what makes the world sit up and take notice. And as much as they try to convince us otherwise, I don’t see any of those traits in the CBMW/YRR/Neo-Cal camps (And yes, I’m lumping them all together!) I hope they soon tire of destroying churches–we’re liable to run out!

    If nothing else, I want our own church’s experience with a reckless, arrogant and deceptive YRR pastor to help us reach out into the church community and minister to those crushed and broken by this dreadful ‘movement’!

  319. Lea wrote:

    I have seen a few (rather infuriating) articles about how pastors shouldn’t just ignore the womens ministry, because they need to make sure they are teaching ‘sound doctrine’.

    These wimmenfolk can’t be left to their own devices, didn’t ya know. They just might be deceived. 🙂

    So…what was once declared ‘sound’ doctrine by ESS proponents is now heresy?? I suppose those easily deceived pastors will have to inform their wimmin that ESS is bogus. And they must make sure that the ladies turn in all books, pamphlets, & teaching material which promotes ESS. I suppose they’ll be betting on the wimmenfolk not noticing the inherent problems with Complementarianism.

  320. okrapod wrote:

    They can change their theology without changing their minds because they don’t care; it only looks like it is about theology. It is really a game of king-on-the-hill. They are willing to try to knock Jesus off the top of the hill in order to get to the top themselves. That would be even if all they get to look down on from their top is people they at least partially despise.

    Quote from the garden to the effect that you too can be like God, in this case only if you are willing to re-characterize God and make God in your own image. The original temptation, the original fall of man, except with a DMin or PhD to hide what it really is.

    Like Gram3 says, I hope this is not too blunt.

    Superb analysis, Okrapod! It’s not about theology at all, is it? Or truth, or integrity, or honesty, or anything resembling Christlikeness. It’s really about power and authority and who can acquire it for themselves.

  321. Root 66 wrote:

    Quoting from the article:

    “This comment should be carefully noted. Burke reiterates what Ligon Duncan said. The post-June 2016 position of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that you do not have to believe in a hierarchically ordered Trinity, you can hold to Nicene orthodoxy, which excludes hierarchical ordering in the immanent Trinity, and still be a complementarian. This is a complete about-face by Denny Burke.”

    Perhaps I’m not getting it, but I seem to gather from this article that they can still cling to the notion that women should be doormats, but they no longer have to justify it by using the nature of the Trinity. I don’t think that’s necessarily progress!

    Something else I noticed is that they don’t have to flat out deny ESS. So, it’s heresy but they can still believe it anyway. Does this even make sense? Of course not! But it allows them to remain buddies with Grudem, Knight, Ware, Strachen & anyone else that subscribes to ESS. And they still get to teach (errr pontificate) at each other’s conferences. They can all have their cake and eat it too. Nice arrangement for the guys. But the women remain just as subjugated as ever.

  322. ishy wrote:

    Oh, and “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord” isn’t in the original texts.

    Is, so who added it and when? Just curious because I’ve never heard this before. And do you have any reputable links?

  323. Lydia wrote:

    @ Root 66:

    I finally got to the point I won’t discuss scripture with them. I don’t read it with the determinist/anti woman/lesser Jesus filter— so what is the point?

    Lydia, I haven’t learned this lesson yet. I have the hope that maybe just one NeoCal will come to see the error of their ways. 🙂

  324. Deb wrote:

    Dee and I know a pastor who once told a congregant:
    “I am the parent, and you are the child.”

    I hope that congregant sent the pastor a bill for his/her living expenses (food, housing, healthcare, transportation, education, entertainment, etc.), since these are the types of things that parents pay for. Oh, wait. The money probably flows in the other direction, which makes that pastor the child.

  325. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    We were just talking about this! My daughter remarked how many little boys are holding doors open now at stores, etc. She makes a big deal thank you to them. Maybe it’s making a comeback?

    I bet it’s the children of all those New Calvinists in Louisville!

    Well…I’ve opened doors for men and women, and men and women have opened doors for me. I rather fancy that arrangement.

  326. Darlene wrote:

    Well…I’ve opened doors for men and women, and men and women have opened doors for me.

    This is true. And I haven’t particularly noticed a difference in age, I’ve had young teenagers and old men open doors. Bless em. And I open doors too. (although I do live in the south, so men make a special effort, which they do not as much in other parts of the country in my experience).

  327. @ Darlene:
    I guess I saw that it boils down to your view of the very character of and attributes of God which are reflected in Jesus Christ. It’s like they are talking about Thor or Zues.

  328. @ Darlene:
    Not really that surprising…. look at the history of the church… many, many examples of people/groups majoring on the minors, or in this case flirting with heresy, so that they can puff themselves up, or maintain their power /authority…
    I think the key here is to keep the pressure on…. and not “everone” sweep their past postions under the rug…. as far as I am concerned, I have NO respect for these “bro’s” opinion of much of anything….. they “shot their wad”, and missed! Big time…

  329. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    Not really that surprising…. look at the history of the church… many, many examples of people/groups majoring on the minors, or in this case flirting with heresy, so that they can puff themselves up, or maintain their power /authority…
    I think the key here is to keep the pressure on…. and not “everone” sweep their past postions under the rug…. as far as I am concerned, I have NO respect for these “bro’s” opinion of much of anything….. they “shot their wad”, and missed! Big time…

    After reading Lise’s testimony of the abuse which took place at PBC, I couldn’t help but think of the consequences of letting deceit, sweeping things under the rug, produces.
    These pastors, these leaders, are leading people astray from the truth. Too diminish the preeminence , sovereignty of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit , is no small heresy.
    We must keep the pressure on these men to recant, apologize for leading people astray. Until that happens more people will be adversely affected in their spiritual walk.

  330. Lydia wrote:

    The pastor is an employee.

    In an elder-rule church, the pastor is less of an “employee” than in a church with congregational governance. That’s why these young reformers love elder church polity, especially when they get to pick their yes-men elder team. They are essentially immune from correction and rebuke by the church. A lot of SBC-YRR church planters had fathers, grandfathers, and other family who were pastors at traditional Southern Baptist churches. They learned they don’t want to put themselves at the mercy of ungodly deacon boards and un-spiritual folks in the pew (some of the meanest people on the planet are church members). On one hand, I can appreciate that; I’ve seen churches get downright mean in the way they treat their pastors (including the one that my son-in-law just “resigned” from). But on the flip-side of that coin, these New Calvinists are taking advantage of elder-rule to bring in errant doctrine. When that happens in a traditional church takeover, church members can’t fire their “employee”; they are usually forced to leave themselves.

  331. Max wrote:

    In an elder-rule church, the pastor is less of an “employee” than in a church with congregational governance.

    Not all elder led churches are the same. Some nominate elders, vote, etc. Wide range. Some deacon/congregational churches are more iron fist ruled by their pastor than elder led.

  332. Lea wrote:

    Not all elder led churches are the same.

    Agreed. I certainly didn’t mean to cast doubt on all elder “led” churches. I used the term elder “rule” because, in my mind, there is a difference. What we are seeing unfold in SBC-YRR church plants are more “rule” than “led”. A 20-30 year old pastor plants a church and then hand-picks his “elder” team in their 20s-30s, none of which have experience leading a church. They are protective of each other and rule, rather than lead their congregations.

  333. As someone who grew up before spellcheck and who therefore actually learned to spell and to notice misspellings, I have to point out that Dee and/or Kevin managed to misspell Denny Burk’s surname every time it was used. Doesn’t anyone proofread anymore? It’s because of digital tools like spellcheck that so much posted and even printed material is increasingly full of misspellings and the laughable misuse of homonyms. I’m currently reading a published work on Calvinism that talks about “baring” witness when “bearing” witness is meant. No, Christians have not suddenly started undressing to testify of the Lord (I hope).

    And, if you grew up on TV rather than books, you never saw two such homonyms spelled differently in print, and realized they were two different words. Spellcheck won’t help if you don’t know you’re using the wrong word. And no, I’m not a Luddite, I’m a former IT guy myself. It just so happens that Information is often the enemy of Knowledge.

    The next brain skill to die is geography, especially map reading, now that Google Maps/GPS spoon-feeds you your directions. No one under 30 will know whether one place is North/South/East or West of another place, because they’ve never had to use a map to figure out where two different cities are actually located on Planet Earth (you know, the real one, not the virtual version).

    Eventually young people will have so little sense of the world that they’ll happily go along with the Al Mohlers of the world and their 6000-year-old universes. At least they’ll have an excuse; I don’t know what Mohler’s problem is, besides wanting to make Christianity untenable for anyone who cares about actually living in the real, vast, ancient, awe-inspiring, humbling universe we have, rather than the toy universe he prefers. I suppose it’s all part of the New Calvinism; give us a physical universe, a Bible, a Systematic Theology, simplistic ideas about men and women, and a God which are all easy to get our shrinking brains around, and thus easy for us to control. The best thing C.S. Lewis ever wrote about God (Aslan) was: “He’s not a tame lion, you know.”

    Lewis was a truly educated man, and thus was humble before God and the universe in a way the current Big Dogs will never understand, no matter how much they claim to love Lewis. Compared to Lewis, they’re whimpering, slobbering puppies, who’ve mistaken themselves for the Alpha male.

    How does this all fit together? When you know (and love) how to do a seemingly simple thing like spell the English language, you realize that mastering even this one skill is the work of a lifetime; and you learn humility before the truly difficult problems of life, like who is God and what does He want of us. If all that seems easy to you, consider (for example) that the same Bible that commands us to love our enemies also recommends that we smash the skulls of our enemies’ children against the rocks. When you think you’ve got the Big Problems licked it’s because you’re really so unequal to the task that you have no idea of your real position in this world.

    If I misspelled anything above, please let me know. I’m 55, Ivy League-educated, and still trying to learn.

  334. Max wrote:

    I predicted years ago that the movement would eventually implode as the big dogs vied for position and started biting each other

    Where I’m from (Northeastern Wisconsin), our lakes have a very predatory and voracious fish, Northern Pike. When they consume all their normal prey (usually other fish species), they begin to cannibalize each other and the cycle starts anew…

  335. Codon wrote:

    As someone who grew up before spellcheck and who therefore actually learned to spell and to notice misspellings, I have to point out that Dee and/or Kevin managed to misspell Denny Burk’s surname every time it was used. Doesn’t anyone proofread anymore?

    I know how to spell Denny’s surname and have typed it correctly each and every time I have ever posted about him. In this post, we are quoting Kevin Giles, who apparently adds an ‘e’ to Denny’s name.

    As a Duke grad who majored in English, I’m a stickler for correct spelling; however, I do know that when something is quoted, it is wrong to change anything. As an Ivy League grad, you should know that. 

    I guess I could have added [sic] after the first misspelling; however, I’m not gonna get distracted by Giles’ spelling error. He has written something that is very important!

  336. Hi Deb, yes, I thought you should have inserted “[sic]” into Kevin’s text. No matter, I’m thrilled that you majored in English at Duke (really) and am a huge fan of your site and your and Dee’s old-school concern for facts, proper sourcing, and accuracy in all you do. I just needed an excuse to launch a 300-yard rant today, forgive me for using your post as a convenient tee.

    And yes, the content is much more important than the spelling. In all the lunacy around complementarianism/Calvinism/ESS these days, it was refreshing, even a little shocking, to hear of some of the players actually taking a tiny step back toward reason and the counsel of history, namely the time-tested Nicene Creed.

    Duke’s basketball team and the amazing Coach K (talk about a stickler for excellence) can kick my alma mater’s team’s ass any old day, and I humbly respect that…

    Keep up the good work!

  337. Codon wrote:

    Hi Deb, yes, I thought you should have inserted “[sic]” into Kevin’s text.

    Per your recommendation, I'm adding [sic] after the first misspelling of Burk's name. I thought your rant was thought-provoking. Want to write a guest post for us sometime regarding your concerns?

  338. Deb wrote:

    I thought your rant was thought-provoking. Want to write a guest post for us sometime regarding your concerns?

    I’d love to write something for you – was there something in particular in my ravings you thought worth my elaborating on? (Now there’s an awkward sentence…)

  339. Injun Joe wrote:

    When they consume all their normal prey (usually other fish species), they begin to cannibalize each other and the cycle starts anew…

    Injun Joe, you’ve just described the Southern Baptist Convention. Always fighting about something – this time it is Calvinism. The ruling parties come and go as the stronger man and his doctrine survives. Your Northern Pike predator/prey story and Southern Baptists remind me of a Scripture:

    “If you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.” (Galatians 5:15)

  340. @ Codon:

    hi, Codon. i loved your 300-yard rant. a pleasure to read.

    although the next brain skill to die is actually conversation in the car. as soon as my teen age kids & their friends enter a car their ability to create conversation is somehow vacuum suctioned into their i-phone screens. “How was your day?”… they can’t figure out what to do that one (after they get over the shock).

    i hope you chime in often!

  341. @ Codon:

    i thought “give us a physical universe, a Bible, a Systematic Theology, simplistic ideas about men and women, and a God which are all easy to get our shrinking brains around, and thus easy for us to control” could be a catalyst for tangents galore.

    control, certainty, predictability, fear (being terrified of fear)

    uncertainty, mystery, unknowns, faith, fear (being ok with fear)

  342. Codon wrote:

    was there something in particular in my ravings you thought worth my elaborating on? (Now there’s an awkward sentence…)

    Forgive the intrusion, but yeah, you could further explicate your allusion to the dead brain skills that have been replaced with an over reliance on high technology. And why it is that kids no longer do geometric construction with compass and straight edge (no graduations or units of any kind) while the powers that be favor i-pads and other trendy gizmos…

  343. Law Prof wrote:

    Much of the Bible reads like a stream of conscience, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, it’s sometimes put together without regard to chronological order. But of course, so what?

    Type example: Book of Revelation, trippy imagery and parallelism for emphasis taken as a straight chronological checklist of Event, Event, Event, Fact, Fact, Fact, Check, Check, Check.

    What cosmic force declared that the western linear way of thinking is the only right way of thinking? Frankly, I prefer the Hebrew way.

    So it was put together by minds like mine, wandering or jumping all over the place running down connection after connection.

    Like the Grateful Dead: “What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been…”

  344. Injun Joe wrote:

    Max wrote:
    I predicted years ago that the movement would eventually implode as the big dogs vied for position and started biting each other

    Where I’m from (Northeastern Wisconsin), our lakes have a very predatory and voracious fish, Northern Pike. When they consume all their normal prey (usually other fish species), they begin to cannibalize each other and the cycle starts anew…

    What do predators eat when they’ve killed off all the prey?

  345. @ elastigirl:
    Thanks, Elastigirl!

    I (sadly) don’t have kids and only hear secondhand of the difficulties millenials have with actual conversation – I hear of it from my CEO brother, who despairs of finding young people to hire who can make eye contact and respond in an organized series of complete sentences.

    Speaking of which—

    Do any of you watch Matt Chandler’s sermons on YouTube? I simply cannot follow his train of thought half the time, and I’m wondering if it’s this text-driven culture, even though he’s a little too old to be a millenial, isn’t he? Am I just too old or is it that he talks like people text? (or both, I suppose). I notice that a lot of his thoughts are exclamations and sentence fragments, not actual sentences, and he jumps from one witty cultural reference to another so unpredictably (to me, anyway) that I get mental whiplash. He does have wit, I’ll give him that.

    The guy certainly also has zeal and commitment (none of which helped his judgement in the Karen Hinkley fiasco), but I still wonder how he ever got hired to a big Baptist church — some men with gray hairs must have been on hand when he showed up there to “preach with a view to a calling” (I’m not a Southern Baptist, so I’m trying to paraphrase the lingo in their hiring process). If there were any oldsters on the search committee, I’m amazed they made heads or tails of his disjointed style. What do “y’all” think? (that’s all the “Southern” I know, being from the evil, secular Northeast).

    I know that wasn’t much of a rant, I’ll try to do better (I mean worse) next time…

  346. @ Deb:
    He has one of these names I have seen spelled differently depending on the writer. I see an e added to his last name quite a bit.

  347. Lydia wrote:

    Did anyone see the “Nashville Statement”?

    Yeah, it reads a lot like The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
    What does it accomplish? Remember ESS? More of the same but in the direction of sekshul stuff…

  348. Lydia wrote:

    Did anyone see the “Nashville Statement”?

    I heard about it but didn’t read it. I did read Aimee talking about how useless it was, but I can’t tell why she would think it would be anything but! These men have an agenda and they’re not really going to change until they are made to change, or ignored by all good society. I don’t see anything useful coming out of them except perhaps for a complete about face, filled with apologies.

  349. @ Lydia:

    Nashville Statement — it strikes me as a surrogate raison d’etre.

    they invented a culture war (gender roles = the gospel) with an invented weapon (ESS). Their weapon is now a flaccid nothing. They look silly. They need something to deflect attention away from this.

    The empire they built, complete with revenue and personal power and on which they’ve staked their reputations, is too much to lose.

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism. like terrorists. and suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    they are using vulnerable members of society to save face, money, and power.

    CBMW makes me sick. they are utterly loathsome.

  350. @ Lydia:

    what i really think is clearing customs.

    thesis statement: CBMW is co-opting fear of LGBTQ to revive their organization.

    taking advantage of vulnerable members of society to deflect from their own failures, to save face, to inject some heroism into their organization, to protect their power, revenue, personal significance, reputations…

    i”m utterly disgusted.

  351. Lydia wrote:

    https://cbmw.org/topics/news-and-announcements/cbmw-releases-coalition-statement-on-biblical-sexuality/

    Did anyone see the “Nashville Statement”?
    What on earth does this accomplish? Just more of rushing to be on “sides”. Saving face with their cronies after ESS? Deflecting from ESS?

    Don’t you just love it had to be issued as the, “Nashville statement”, a “manifesto”.
    It’s as if they are issuing an edict of grand importance to all the church. Like a statement from Rome. Argh!

  352. @ Mae:
    They think that way. I think this was a deflection response to the problems of the last year for ERLC and CBMW to rally the troops. But if you are reading twitter threads, it’s having no such impact. As Denny told one media pundit who was looking for the big aha, ‘it’s only to affirm ancient beliefs’.

    Hey, important people signed a statement. Aren’t they brave? Sigh.

  353. Mae wrote:

    Don’t you just love it had to be issued as the, “Nashville statement”, a “manifesto”.
    It’s as if they are issuing an edict of grand importance to all the church. Like a statement from Rome. Argh!

    In light of the other statements issued by these groups, I’m having nothing to do with it . . . they sound like pompous know-it-alls trying to make a name for themselves.

  354. elastigirl wrote:

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism.

    And this is all I’ve seen remarked on in the news I’ve read.

  355. @ Bridget:

    As time goes by, signing will be seen as a litmus test. If you don’t sign, it means you affirm the opposite. Labeling. Group identity politics. The divide conquer tactics out there get old.

  356. Bridget wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    Don’t you just love it had to be issued as the, “Nashville statement”, a “manifesto”.
    It’s as if they are issuing an edict of grand importance to all the church. Like a statement from Rome. Argh!
    In light of the other statements issued by these groups, I’m having nothing to do with it . . . they sound like pompous know-it-alls trying to make a name for themselves.

    Exactly.
    And why is this grand manifesto necessary? Shouldn’t this be a matter for the individual believer to sort through?
    We discuss this at my church in small groups. There is no policy in place. That is just fine with me.

  357. Lydia wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    As time goes by, signing will be seen as a litmus test. If you don’t sign, it means you affirm the opposite. Labeling. Group identity politics. The divide conquer tactics out there get old.

    All the stuff related to the ‘divine differences’ between men and women are vague. They will be used to clobber women over the head with their ‘roles’, based on nothing. I haven’t seen that addressed publically at all. I think people are skimming over it to go to the other stuff.

    When the rubber meets the road, for all their talk of how sex should only occur within specifically approved marriages, the pastors with ‘moral failure’ are going to be the ones getting a pass and the women and LGBT are going to bear the brunt of this statement. Did someone say it was even signed by CJ??? Heavens.

  358. Okay, so I read the Nashville statement. I had never heard about it except from you all. One of the ideas that I get is that they are trying to define Christianity as what they believe, how they understand scripture, what the shibboleths are for sounding like a real Christian, and how to differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

    They may also being trying to put on paper their position as one tool that perhaps people can use for defense when they are accused of economic bias (bakers and photographers and florists) and which they can use as evidence that this position is in fact an accepted religious position-first amendment stuff. Also if churches come under IRS investigation at some point and their tax advantages are threatened unless the do gay marriages or have women in the pulpit or get involved in unapproved potties and pronouns, then they have something to establish that this is indeed a religious position.

    Whether or not it is a good religious position is an altogether different question, and not what I am talking about. I am just saying that there may be value in putting stuff in writing.

  359. Lydia wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    As time goes by, signing will be seen as a litmus test. If you don’t sign, it means you affirm the opposite. Labeling. Group identity politics.

    WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
    US OR THEM?
    US OR THEM?
    US OR THEM?

  360. Lydia wrote:

    Hey, important people signed a statement. Aren’t they brave?

    I see that they are promoting the “Nashville Statement” as “an evangelical coalition statement on biblical sexuality.” Let’s be clear here, this is a Calvinist coalition of reformed who’s who, not an endorsement by the American evangelical community at large. Having said that, I agree with most of the Statement. Article 14 is confusing though; it doesn’t read like typical reformed soteriology! https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

  361. Mae wrote:

    And why is this grand manifesto necessary?

    Because they could not get traction with ESS as a way to subordinate women. This statement is not about LBGT. It’s just a different approach to suppress women in church.

  362. Max wrote:

    Having said that, I agree with most of the Statement.

    I don’t, though there is some good in it. I think they start from a deficient and misguided approach to scripture, and for me that approach is worse than any differences on specific issues.

    There is the assumption that scripture is a biological or medical text when in fact biological and medical things in scripture are often treated as religious issues. Like houses which have leprosy and like the role of priests in medical issues.

    There is the assumption that biological and medical issues of that day as compared to the same issues of today would have the same outcomes, which is not true. Today the woman with an issue of blood would be healed by her gyn, not by a religious practitioner. Similarly, people with non-specific genitalia would be patients, not necessarily people for whom nothing could be done.

    There is the assumption that where scripture is silent they have the right to pontificate-adding to scripture partly by getting into what they think is going on in the mind of God. One way to do this is to assume that if one has identified one idea in the mind of God then the divine revelation of that one idea is at the same time the totality of God’s thinking on the matter. In other words, if there had been more to it than that then God would have told us. Never mind that scripture itself says that in latter times knowledge would increase.

    There is also the assumption that those who are not under the law are in fact judged by the law, and that those who do not know Christ are judged as if they did, when there is evidence in scripture to the contrary.

    They treat homosexuality and transgenderism (gender dysphoria) as the same sort/kind of thing, whereas scripture speaks of one but not the other and whereas the DSM considers one a diagnosis of a condition but not the other one. So when they treat them the same, they adhere neither to scripture nor science at this point.

    Do not misunderstand. I personally believe and practice a rather severe, in some minds, lifestyle of sexual behavior, or more precisely lack thereof. What I disagree with in the Nashville statement is that I think it is poor religion and poor science in its core assumptions.

  363. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This statement is not about LBGT. It’s just a different approach to suppress women in church.

    Yes. {Although it’s probably also about LGBT, its just they still feel firm enough on that to not need a statement imo.}

    Max, you need to read past what is said (although I don’t agree with a lot of the text either) to what isn’t said. What are these ‘divine differences’? How does this separate but equal thing express itself? And what about #10?

  364. Max wrote:

    Let’s be clear here, this is a Calvinist coalition of reformed who’s who, not an endorsement by the American evangelical community at large

    I saw three or four women’s signatures on the endorsement. That’s quite a few for them.

  365. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    “This statement is not about LBGT. It’s just a different approach to suppress women in church.”
    ++++++++++++++

    i agree insofar as it is simply a convenient high-profile vehicle for CBMW to exploit for revitalizing their organization, and keep their original objective (subjugation of women).

    it is not without impact to LBGT individuals, however. the statement, to me, feels like a calls to arms, so to speak.

    (but by now i’m sure i’m repeating myself. i’m so angry…)

  366. elastigirl wrote:

    (but by now i’m sure i’m repeating myself. i’m so angry…)

    I’m not sure if I’m angry, resigned or just happy to be long out of this type of church.

  367. @ okrapod:
    Very good points from a needed perspective,

    I tend to see the statement as political in nature. Political in the sense of how humans interact and position themselves. I think there were two major reasons for this statement and it’s timing.

    1. ERLC
    2. CBMW

    They got together and are using this statement to rally the troops on subjects most can agree on and deflect the credibility problems both have because both organizations have been in a bit of trouble.

    It reeks of manipulation to me. OTOH, I am not a big fan of any of these type statements anyway. I’m trying to figure out why what they think or claim, should be important to me. So what if they affirm certain things? Is it because they think they are important and influence? So let’s just their forget 20 years of ESS? Right.

  368. Lea wrote:

    Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
    This statement is not about LBGT. It’s just a different approach to suppress women in church.
    Yes. {Although it’s probably also about LGBT, its just they still feel firm enough on that to not need a statement imo.}
    Max, you need to read past what is said (although I don’t agree with a lot of the text either) to what isn’t said. What are these ‘divine differences’? How does this separate but equal thing express itself? And what about #10?

    I believe in biological divine differences while acknowledging there are hermaphrodites who need medical help. I read an article not too long ago that California is mulling over punishing people for getting pronouns wrong when talking to transgender people. At my kids AP school every single class started out with the kids introducing themselves and told her to let the class know what their preferred pronoun was. Guess what ? The teens hated it. Every class they were tolling their eyes, suggesting ‘it’. I did a little sleuth thing and found out it was mandated for the teachers to do that in a training program.

    Both sides go way overboard to the point of ridiculousness. Am I a bad person because I do not want my kindergartners curriculum to include transgender training? Or, am I a bad person because I don’t see spiritual or intellectual differences between men and women that are specifically masculine or feminine? At the same time there will always be a percentage of women who will enjoy certain jobs at that women won’t. Same for men.

    I am of the opinion that we are all individuals and should be treated as such. And I feel that way whether it’s a man or women, straight or gay or black or white. I am so weary of the group identity and group think.

    It’s a divide and conquer tactic.

  369. elastigirl wrote:

    it is not without impact to LBGT individuals, however. the statement, to me, feels like a calls to arms, so to speak.

    Righteous masses of True Believers can get by without a God, but they HAVE to have a Devil.
    And accompanying Witches to be smelled out.

  370. So the question may be what ya gonna do when they pass the paper around and tell you to sign it.

    In the church? On the job? When it is a permission slip for your kid? Or an application form for whatever-like maybe getting a kid in a certain school or accepting a scholarship perhaps? When the judge wants to see something in writing on the parenting agreement? When you have to choose sides and you can’t in good conscience go all the way with either side. Sounds kind of familiar to me.

    ‘They’ won’t do that? Of course they will, the more extreme radicals on both sides would like to see that happen, just as soon as they can get away with it.

    A lot of lawyers will make a lot of money in the meantime. Mamas, when you tell your kids they can’t be cowboys be sure to mention the law as an alternative opportunity.

  371. Lydia wrote:

    Both sides go way overboard to the point of ridiculousness.

    Double BINGO and a double AMEN Lyds. Both sides can get soooo Orwellian and completely miss the point that it’s entirely possible for mature humans to live in peace with one another without demanding lock-step ideological agreement in everything.

  372. @ Lydia:

    to strengthen resolve on who is “us” and who is “them” — culture war, all wars.

    perhaps these ‘arms’ are offensive weapons, to keep the enemy out.

    they assume the right to decide who is a legitimate “christian” and who is not. whoever agrees with them, of course.

  373. Lea wrote:

    Yes. {Although it’s probably also about LGBT, its just they still feel firm enough on that to not need a statement imo.}

    I believe they are only using the LGBT issue as a diversion. Of all the things they could rally around, why this? And why now? Statistically, the types of churches that would sign on to this probably have many more abused children and women in their congregations than people who are LGBT. Do they care more about this than they care about abuse?

    Many people (and fellowships) are going to be damaged by the fallout of this. I don’t believe the signers care all that much about LGBT issues. Rather, I think it’s a backdoor way to subordinate women now that ESS failed. See articles 3, 4, and 13, and this statement from the pre-amble: “his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female.” They are using the LGBT issue to solidify gender roles, which directly supports their goal to subordinate women. The people damaged by this new statement will be shrugged off as incidental collateral damage.

  374. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    It may be both. Our denom does not subordinate women what with women deacons and priests and bishops, though this has been an issue in the past. But now what with gay marriage and the opposition of the mother ship to what TEC is doing it seems evident that LGBTQ at least as it relates to marriage is a significant issue right on.

    I don’t know what the evangelicals are most upset about, but for some people these are both areas of concern.

  375. Lea wrote:

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism.
    And this is all I’ve seen remarked on in the news I’ve read.

    How many actual gay people or trans people do you think they’ve met? How many of those have they actually listened to with any respect for their felt experiences? whatever people think as to the rights & wrongs of LGBTQ issues there is no excuse for the generally appalling disrespect shown to members of this community unless they get with the programme. I manage a young persons LGBTQ project & I basically keep them away from most Christians for as long as I can – I don’t want them thinking that their behaviour is the most important thing about them.

  376. okrapod wrote:

    What I disagree with in the Nashville statement is that I think it is poor religion and poor science in its core assumptions.

    It also lacks both respect & compassion for anything other than their own interpretation of the Bible.

  377. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    Wow, those Twitter replies are fantastic. Plus this statement is endorsed by Wayne Grudem. Isn’t he a heretic who diminishes the position of Christ to prop up his own opinion? Why would we listen to him?

    They made this statement in order to prevent people working through this topic – so much easier just to lay down the party line & stop people thinking for themselves.

  378. okrapod wrote:

    @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    It may be both. Our denom does not subordinate women what with women deacons and priests and bishops, though this has been an issue in the past. But now what with gay marriage and the opposition of the mother ship to what TEC is doing it seems evident that LGBTQ at least as it relates to marriage is a significant issue right on.
    I don’t know what the evangelicals are most upset about, but for some people these are both areas of concern.

    Yes, subjects to ponder. I know in my church, LGBT marriage is a subject being discussed. The congregation is probably about 60/40 split against marriage. We as yet, have no policy.

  379. @ elastigirl:
    I do think voluntary organizations have rights to some exclusivity. That may gall us but the alternative is too big brother for me. I can voluntarily avoid and even criticize CBMW, the SBC and ERLC. I am thankful for that right. They can do the same. I am not attracted to groups or sides but specific issues within their context. I also think that people can start their own mixed groups. All this telling each other what to think, do, thought policing, PC is getting old. I like the arena of ideas but it’s getting harder and harder to have one.

    I am not really debating the statement because it’s irrelavent to me and it’s really the politics/timing behind it I find interesting. Like most creeds/statements of affirmation etc, it’s born out of politics. They have sent it to tons of media outlets. I have seen some comps on twitter saying they won’t sign it until they denounce ESS. Hee hee. One conservative media pundit related there was nothing new here, what’s the big deal? It’s going over, so fa, like a lead balloon except for the usual sycophants.

  380. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    I think it serves one purpose. To try and unify a very split SBC where the divide is getting wider and wider. They always define unity as conformity.

    Did you sign the statement, Comrade?

  381. Lydia wrote:

    So, it’s a win/win. Sigh.

    I was thinking the same thing. It will give ammo to those who want to make Christianity a hate crime.

  382. Lydia wrote:

    Who woulda thunk an old libertarian and an FDR Socialist would end up in the center? Lol!

    We’re kinda sorta like Ginsberg and Scalia. Partisan politics never got in the way of friendship and shared common values.

  383. elastigirl wrote:

    suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    Or so they think ………
    I’ve tangled with barn mice that were more viral (and relevant) than those guys!

  384. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    They are using the LGBT issue to solidify gender roles, which directly supports their goal to subordinate women.

    It’s a bit difficult to establish biblical marital hierarchy in a same-sex relationship.

  385. @ Lydia:

    ” as it goes over badly, they will be persecuted martyrs. So, it’s a win/win. Sigh.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    well, i see it as hastening the retreat into the cultural bunker. can’t be soon enough for the patriarchal farts to dissipate from our air.

    if they want to string noodles on yarn and make persecution crowns for each other more power to ’em.

  386. @ Beakerj:
    I believe Every “individual” should be treated with “do unto others…”. and I strive to live that way in a group identity oriented society.

    I do know a teen who was cruelly bullied and even sexually abused by 3 teen lesbians on an overnight trip for school. This teen, who I know well, was chosen to room with the 3 because she was always as easy to get along with anyone, loving and accepting. The worst? It could not be reported because of “special rights” rules in education and society has labeled them as always the victim group no matter what. The teen knew it would ruin her prospects to report it and she would not be believed. The lesbians, of course, know this, too. Society has created PC victims. Real victims often fall through the cracks.

    All this stuff works both ways. It’s why I am big on the “individual”. Not groups. And nothing I have said above means I agree with the statement or the signers. I hope we get past binary categories in my lifetime.

  387. Beakerj wrote:

    there is no excuse for the generally appalling disrespect shown to members of this community

    Of course not. But that’s not the only thing in this document. Women make up 50+% of most churches. They should be respected too. My issue is I don’t think these reports are catching the depth of this story, by making it only about one, decidedly smaller group. Of course, they added that clause about anyone who doesn’t treat gay people like dirt being nonchristians, which is also pretty heinous.

  388. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    It’s a bit difficult to establish biblical marital hierarchy in a same-sex relationship.

    Especially since one has to be the “Man” on top (“PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”) and the other has to be the “Woman” on the bottom (“Lie back and accept!”). Penetrator and Penetrated, just like before Torah.

  389. Lydia wrote:

    I do know a teen who was cruelly bullied and even sexually abused by 3 teen lesbians on an overnight trip for school. This teen, who I know well, was chosen to room with the 3 because she was always as easy to get along with anyone, loving and accepting. The worst? It could not be reported because of “special rights” rules in education and society has labeled them as always the victim group no matter what. The teen knew it would ruin her prospects to report it and she would not be believed. The lesbians, of course, know this, too.

    Said lesbians/Mean Girls knew how to Game the System.

    And this sort of crap just hardens attitudes and invites blowback.
    Remember the guys with the tiki torches in Charlotte a couple weeks ago?
    Us or Them.

  390. Lydia wrote:

    All this stuff works both ways. It’s why I am big on the “individual”. Not groups. And nothing I have said above means I agree with the statement or the signers. I hope we get past binary categories in my lifetime.

    Agreed.

  391. kin wrote:

    I saw three or four women’s signatures on the endorsement. That’s quite a few for them.

    Why do women count all of a sudden?? (Eye roll)

  392. I just read the book. Really enjoyed it. It explains the silence after last years ETS and also points to who put the Arian into ComplementARIAN. HA

  393. elastigirl wrote:

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism. like terrorists. and suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    Emphasis on VIRILE.
    Protecting their Precious Bodily Fluids — “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

  394. elastigirl wrote:

    although the next brain skill to die is actually conversation in the car. as soon as my teen age kids & their friends enter a car their ability to create conversation is somehow vacuum suctioned into their i-phone screens.

    i.e. The real reason behind the big push for self-driving cars.

  395. We did not approve one comment by a reader because it ended with a political statement. If that person would like to rewrite the comment, deleting the last sentence, we will approve it. We have decided not to go with political commentary on our blog. Too much controversy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *