(Updated)Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller Attacked by Real Life Calvinistas: Genevan Commons Current Members…Be Ashamed.

NGC 7027: Like a Metallic Jewel Bug in the Sky

(I made a mistake quite late last night 6.29) and said the names under the OPC letter were the names of those over at GC. I had made a shortlist of GC names and didn’t post them. I should never post so late at night since I am not thinking as clearly. I apologize.)

As most readers know, I am not Reformed in my thinking. This is not due to a  lack of reading and praying on the matter. In 2001, my family and I moved from Dallas to Raleigh. I had some time on my hands since I had no connections in the local church, etc. I decided, once and for all, to read extensively on the matter of Calvinism/ Reformed thinking. I even started a notebook in which I wrote the pros and cons of the theology. I read the typical thinkers of that time: Sproul, MacArthur, Grudem, Piper, Calvin (The Institutes), and others. I was truly open and, if truth be told, I really wanted to buy into the theology. I knew it would be easier for me to confess the TULIP (yes, I know that many Reformed thinkers reject that way of dumbing down their beliefs,), etc. No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.

However, I truly respected those who confessed the theology, believing that we have more in common than we have different. Oh, how naive I was! I believed this until I was introduced to the rise of the young, restless, and reformed Calvinists. I called them Calvinistas because it seemed to me they were involved in an all-out war to restore all churches to their peculiar brand of Reformed theology. They seemed to be warriors who were so self-absorbed that they were willing to stomp on those who didn’t march in their carefully constructed paths. Thankfully, I met Wade Burleson early on. He is a Reformed Baptist (yes, I know that some Reformed people claim one cannot be Baptist and Reformed but bear with me here.) Early on, I heard a sermon that he preached called *Don’t Let Your Theology Trump Your Love.* Here is one blog post he wrote on the matter. I have watched how he lives this out in his life, even when he is bitterly challenged. Both Todd Wilhelm and Wade Burleson are examples to me of relentless love and kindness

The weirdness I found when reading the original Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Muscular women are a no-no

But then, I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This book was all the rage and won all sorts of awards like *best Christian book.* The Calvinistas felt this book was so important to the world that they decided to make it free in a pdf.

And that is when I realized that my differences ran far deeper than predestination. Can you imagine a section by John Piper in which he discusses that women who are muscular have unsatisfying sex. Here is a Piper(apparently believing he is the Masters and Johnson of the Calvinist set) writing in his section of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood(RBMW). I wrote about it in this post.

“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.

But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.

The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”

Wayne Grudem’s gender rules.

Then there is the infamous *83 gender rules* by Wayne Grudem which spells out what a woman can and cannot do in the church.I wrote about it Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women. Here is an example. There are lots of lists in the post. Oh, did I forget to say this was in RBMW?

List 2 -Bible teaching ministries

1. Teaching Bible or theology in a theological seminary
5. Preaching (teaching the Bible) regularly to the whole church on Sunday mornings
6. Occasional preaching (teaching the Bible) to the whole church on Sunday mornings
7. Occasional Bible teaching at less formal meetings of the whole church (such as Sunday evening or at a mid-week service)
8. Bible teaching to an adult Sunday school class (both men and women members)
9. Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members)
10. Bible teaching to a college age Sunday school class
14. Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible
16. Writing or editing a study Bible intended primarily for women
17. Bible teaching to a women’s Sunday school class
19. Bible teaching to a junior high Sunday school class
22. Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures
23. Moderating a discussion in a small group Bible study (men and women members)
24. Reading Scripture aloud on Sunday morning
35. Singing hymns with the congregation (in this activity, sometimes we “teach” and exhort one another in some sense: Col. 3:16)
Here is where Grudem draws his line.

With regard to areas of Bible teaching, I would personally draw the line between points 10 and 11. Once again, I think there is a strong similarity between a home Bible study which is taught by a woman (item 9) and the local church meeting in a home in the ancient world. Therefore I do not think it would be appropriate for a woman to be the regular instructor in a home Bible study.

Enter Aimee Byrd with her book, Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Amazon describes it:

Do men and women benefit equally from God’s word? Are they equally responsible in sharpening one another in the faith and passing it down to the next generation? While radical feminists claim that the Bible is a hopelessly patriarchal construction by powerful men that oppresses women, evangelical churches simply reinforce this teaching when we constantly separate men and women, customizing women’s resources and studies according to a culturally based understanding of roles. Do we need men’s Bibles and women’s Bibles, or can the one, holy Bible guide us all? Is the Bible, God’s word, so male-centered and authored that women need to create their own resources to relate to it? No! And in it, we also learn from women. Women play an active role as witnesses to the faith, passing it on to the new generations.

…The troubling teaching under the rubric of “biblical manhood and womanhood” has thrived with the help of popular Biblicist interpretive methods. And Biblicist interpretive methods ironically flourish in our individualistic culture that works against the “traditional values” of family and community that the biblical manhood and womanhood movement is trying to uphold. This book helps to correct Biblicist trends in the church today, affirming that we do not read God’s word alone, we read it within our interpretive covenant communities–our churches.

Needless to say, she recognized that there were problems with the original RBMW and that is just not allowed in the Calvinista circles. Little did she know she was about to be Calvinized. (That’s what happens when the warrior Calvinistas go for blood. Been there myself.)

Aimee also disagreed with the Reformed powers that be on the Eternal Subordination of the Son which led to a new doctrine on the eternal subordination of all women to all men in eternity. (Can you imagine? And they wonder why attendance in church is declining?))

According to Julie Roys in Aimee Byrd, Cyberbullying & the Battle Over Manhood & Womanhood

In 2016, Byrd touched off what Christianity Today termed a “civil war” between complementarians over something termed the Eternal Subordination of the Son or ESS. ESS holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. And, drawing on the analogy of the Trinity, proponents of ESS argue that just as Jesus is subordinate to God, so women should be subordinate to men.

ESS is also promoted in the so-called “blue book” of the CBMW—“Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.”  (ed. note: uh oh…)

Aimee also published an earlier book Why Can’t We Be Friends?: Avoidance Is Not Purity. 

According to Amazon:

Society says we are merely sexual beings and should embrace this, and in the church we use this same view as an excuse to distrust and avoid each other! We shy away from healthy friendship, and even our siblingship in Christ, in the name of purity and reputation . . . but is this what we are called to do?

Aimee Byrd reminds us that the way to stand against culture is not by allowing it to drive us apart–it is by seeking the brother-and-sister closeness we are privileged to have as Christians. Here is a plan for true, godly friendship between the sexes that embraces the family we truly are in Christ and serves as the exact witness the watching world needs.

These boys believe that men and women cannot be friends without it becoming a sexualized thing. In the years that I worked, men and women had lunch meetings with one another, met in offices, and even traveled together. It was required for the job and it is actually possible to do this. Not everyone is Harvey Weinstein. Also, for all of the blather I’ve heard about pastors refusing to be alone with women, there still seems to be a fair amount of pastor failures.

And an outcry against Aimee began to build.

  • Aimee and Rachel are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC.) They practice traditional Reformed theology. For example, only men may serve as elders and deacons because one must be ordained to serve in those offices.
  • Aimee and Rachel agree with this mandate.
  • Women are occasionally allowed to teach classes in the church. This allowance varies from church to church.
  • Aimee spoke out against the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son which upset the typical Gospel boys: Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, Denny Burk
  • She said men and women the church could be friends.
  • And she disagreed with some of the assertions of RBMW.
  • CBMW was displeased. Those boys really loved the ESS.

She was removed from a podcast that she had done for years called The Mortification of Spin.

MOS included Aimee, Carl Truman and Todd Pruitt. This is a ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

The Mortification of Spin is a ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The Alliance is a coalition of pastors, scholars, and churchmen who hold the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith and who proclaim biblical doctrine in order to foster a Reformed awakening in today’s Church. Learn more about the Alliance at AllianceNet.org.

Apparently, Aimee miffed off some Calvinistas who believe in the *my highway of else* maxim. She wrote about this experience on her new website.

During this time, I was informed by our producer that she was notified not to book new recordings at this time and that they will be airing reruns of the Mortification of Spin. Then I noticed that they’ve discontinued my credentials to log in to post blog articles. While no reference was made to my future participation in the podcast, I later received an email from the Director in which they thanked me for the work I contributed for them and said that they “will strive to be gracious upon my exit.”  Technically, ACE has related to me as an independent contractor.  That’s all I really know.

Dee has something to say about this. Aimee was the lifeblood of MOS. Todd told me that she was the only one worth listening to. I concur. I am sitting here, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for Carl Truman or Todd Pruitt to makes some sort of public statement of support. Crickets…(Unless they have done so privately which doesn’t count in my book.) Todd Pruitt has closed his account on Twitter because he doesn’t like the negativity of the whole thing. I wonder if he was being held to account and doesn’t have the guts to face it?

I almost forgot. Carl Truman was involved in exonerating CJ Mahaney, along with Kevin DeYoung and Ray Ortland. Well, it appears we miffed off Todd Pruitt when we brought it up for conversation. Brent Detweiler wrote about it here: Todd Pruitt Defiantly Tells Readers at The Wartburg Watch that “Carl Trueman Does Not Owe Them Answers” Regarding His Vindication of C.J. Mahaney

In July 2011, Carl Trueman declared C.J. Mahaney qualified for ministry and a model of godliness to be followed by the Body of Christ.  In April 2016, he reversed course and declared Mahaney unqualified to be a church leader.

Deb Martin at The Wartburg Watch wrote about this radical reversal.  Readers by the hundreds wanted to know why Trueman changed his mind and how he viewed his previous vindication of Mahaney now.  They began to ask good questions.

In response, Trueman’s colleague and friend, Todd Pruitt charged, “Carl Trueman does not owe you answers.  And based upon the way some of these threads go I would discourage him from doing it.”  Throughout, Pruitt made wild and bizarre accusations against those asking questions and making comments.  Moreover, he accused them of slander when there was no slander.  Only legitimate and reasonable inquires and observations.

Despite his belligerence, no one at The Wartburg Watch responded in kind.  In fact, the moderators and most readers responded with kindness and patience.  Nevertheless, once Pruitt was done commenting on The Wartburg Watch, he took to his Facebook page and Twitter account and audaciously misrepresented what actually transpired during the blog conversation.  It was a genuine piece of slander.  Even worse, Pruitt made himself out to be a hero for bravely “answering objections on a grievance blog’s comment section.”  Rarely, have I seen such hubris and abuse.

Yep, I really liked Aimee Byrd a whole lot more than Pruitt and Truman.

So Aimee has managed to irritate a whole bunch of rigid, complementation men who didn’t get what she was saying. However, this provided me with an opportunity to show the difference between a Calvinist (Reformed) and a Calvinista. Aimee is Reformed and thoughtful. Todd Pruitt is a Calvinista along with the following men.

The Calvinistas have been spotted at the Genevan Commons.

The comments you are about to read are deeply disturbing. It is hard to see any love at all being exhibited by these men. Most of them are pastors or ordained church leaders which would include deacons and elders. Most of these men are members of the PCA and OPC. This is the part of the story that is deeply distressing.You see, when I think of a Reformed Baptist pastor I admire, I think of Wade Burleson. I cannot imagine him ever speaking in this fashion about anybody, even if he thought he was being protected by a  *members only* website. Wade Burleson often talks about not letting our theology trump our love. When Love Trumps Theology: The Moore Tornado

I was given access to some screenshots.





A comment expressing distaste of homosexuality.

A disturbing racial comment

These men will die to prevent feminism as they define it.


Is this enough for you to realize that the boys of the Genevan Commons are problematic? Would you want any of them as your pastor, even if you if you were Reformed and complementarian?

The OPC comes to the defense of Byrd.

Aimee posted AN OPEN LETTER FROM CONCERNED MINISTERS AND ELDERS IN THE OPC

We the undersigned, as ministers, elders, and members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), present and publish this open letter in order to express our deep concern with regard to many comments and posts which were published on the “Genevan Commons” Facebook group and which were recently made public.

Our concerns include these:

We are greatly concerned that members of our church, including Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller, along with others, have been subjected to disparaging comments which are “corrupt,” “foolish talking,” and “coarse jesting” (Eph 4:29; 5:5). Such words are never acceptable, and certainly not from officers of the church.
We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have sworn to be accountable to “their brethren in the Lord” (4th ministerial ordination vow), would attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy, as if “locker room talk” could somehow be exempted from the accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to privacy. Indeed, our Lord warns us that “whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops” (Luk 12:3).
We are greatly concerned about the overtly misogynistic tone of the critiques leveled at women authors, whom many Geneva Commons members have not honored as fellow image bearers (Gen 1:27), as fellow heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet 3:7), and as members of Christ’s body who are endowed with many glorious and useful gifts for the building up of the church (Eph 4:7). Rather than thoughtful critique, we are dismayed to find officers of the church deriding and mocking others. Such behavior is completely unacceptable towards our sisters in Christ. It is the opposite of love.
The ninth commandment forbids “undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others” (WLC 145); therefore, we cannot remain silent after the public revelation of such unedifying words.
Such sins are an outrage and are extremely grievous in the sight of God. They bring shame and reproach on the church of Jesus Christ, and they encourage a culture of disrespect and derision in the very body which is to be known for its love (John 13:35). Rather than honoring women the way that Christ has honored his precious bride, these men have encouraged each other (and indirectly, the rest of the church and the world now that these words are made public) to disparage women.

To be clear, we the undersigned do not believe all members of the Geneva Commons group to be engaged in these sins, nor are we endorsing the books which they have attacked.

Update: Last night I had planned to place a list of names of those over at GC. I didn’t and made a mistake saying these names under this letter were those individuals. I am so sorry

These OPC guys did the right thing.

Rachel Miller, another member of the OPC, has also been subjected to what I believe are dismissive and unloving comments by these men.

The boys think she is one of the feminists out to destroy their church.  She is also a member of the OPC and I have enjoyed getting to know her more recently. I may try to rite a separate post about her experiences. Here is a link to her blog A Daughter of the Reformation.

Julie Roys posted on Aimee’s story: Aimee Byrd, Cyberbullying & the Battle Over Manhood & Womanhood

She wrote an excellent post, as usual. It is well worth the read. The opinions in this post in no way represent the opinions of Rachel Miller and Aimee Bird. They are far nicer than me.

Finally, want to do something?


Comments

(Updated)Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller Attacked by Real Life Calvinistas: Genevan Commons Current Members…Be Ashamed. — 174 Comments

  1. Thank you, Dee! We need this post, everything neatly documented and organized. (I’m weighing in while waiting for someone else to jump start.)

    My background yonder on the mission field of Gospel & survival does not gift me with Reformed, 5 soleils, etc. I worked in Switzerland but we didn’t get to the Calvin legend. Moreover, as demonstrated in recent exchanges regarding theology, it passes me. Thanks for explaining your journey.

    However, agency, mutual respect, and boundaries are where my antennae are directed and there are lines crossed here with gravity, … whatever theology the offenders use to mount their hubris. This is not love.

    God bless Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller. May they pivot to a better place; may this be a promotion for each, upward & onward to higher ground.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  2. Well what logic do these guys have? Scripture mentions a woman submitting to her husband – as he loves and cares for her. It does NOT say she is to submit to ALL men in general. There is NO marriage in heaven!!!!! (Jesus said that by the way) so how would women then have to be “eternally submissive” in HEAVEN???????

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  3. A wise person whose name I do not recall said that one can tell something about a person’s quality by the quality of those who oppose him or her. Judging from the character of the remarks of the critics, I would assess that Aimee and Rachel are people of very high quality.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  4. Long-time reader, first time commenter (or maybe second?). I was in the OPC a long time, and would be fine with being in it again. No movement or group is monolithic, of course, but the OPC started in the 1930’s from a conflict between theological conservatives and theological liberals, so the OPC has tended to be much less likely to wade into culture war issues than have other denominations of a reformed stripe. With the passage of time, that distinction has eroded some, as was illustrated in 1998.

    In 1998, many pushed the OPC to take a position on women in the military. You can read the reports here, https://www.opc.org/GA/WomenInMilitary.html, but in the interest of time, go near the end (search for “177. PROTEST”) and read the short, but IMO good, protest. Note the names that signed the protest. This was from 2001, but you’ll see a lot of the names on that protest defending Aimee. Other signatories on Aimee’s defense are too young to have been around in 2001, but likely would have signed on as well.

    As a long-time, but now former listener to the podcast, I felt that if an audio program could just automatically skip Rev. Pruitt’s speaking part, it would save time and make for a better listening experience.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  5. Dee,

    First, the guys in Geneva Commons are jerks, no doubt about it.

    Second, I’m not looking to start a debate, but I have a question here:

    “No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.”

    I get your rejection of limited atonement as a Lutheran. But The Lutheran confessions affirm single predestination. I understand that Lutherans reject double predestination, but once you have single predestination, salvation is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or before. The number of the elect is fixed and can’t be added to or subtracted from, right?

    From my understanding, Lutherans are exhorted not to peer into the secret counsels of God regarding predestination but to seek God in Word and sacrament, knowing that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him in faith. But you can find the same exhortations not to peer into God’s secret counsels and to come to God in Word and sacrament and in other Reformed thinkers in Calvin.

    In fact, if you look at the Synod of Dort, election in Reformed theology is typically seen as God looking at all of fallen humanity, positively choosing some for salvation while passing over others and leaving them in their sins. That doesn’t seem at all substantially different than what the Lutheran confessions teach on the matter. The only difference I see is that the Reformed say that God’s passing over in some sense confirms the reprobate to hell whereas the Lutheran confessions do not affirm that.

    But set the issue of double predestination aside. If my reading of the Lutheran confessions and their doctrine of single predestination is correct, then in Lutheranism, if you aren’t elect, you aren’t going to be saved, and I would think that in Lutheranism God’s elective decree can’t be changed. In Reformed thought, if you aren’t elect you aren’t going to be saved, and God’s elective decree can’t be changed.

    What am I missing? How in Lutheranism is predestination not “a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before”?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  6. Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns
    Singing and making melody
    Giving thanks
    Being subject to one another

    Here’s a list of [url=http://www.smallgroupchurches.com/the-59-one-anothers-of-the-bible/] 59 “one-another” verses in the Bible. [/url]

    The mandate for mutual behavior of all Christians is obvious and the husband is not exempt from these.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  7. This was shocking to see played out as Aimee began to publish this stuff online. Just reprehensible misogynistic abuse, with levels of casual sexism that I associate with drunk men down the pub, not Pastors & other so-called Christian men on a message board.

    If you didn’t grow up with it, or have become aware of it if you did, you can hear the desire to dominate running throughout their criticisms. It doesn’t matter whether you believe that the Bible teaches a certain kind of structure in marriage, when both parties are emulating Christ’s character then serving the other, not putting them in their place is uppermost.

    And I haven’t seen Grudem’s list for ages. This form of reductionistic thinking about women is painful.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  8. Abigail: Well what logic do these guys have? Scripture mentions a woman submitting to her husband – as he loves and cares for her. It does NOT say she is to submit to ALL men in general. There is NO marriage in heaven!!!!! (Jesus said that by the way) so how would women then have to be “eternally submissive” in HEAVEN???????

    Because they think God thinks like them…that he hates women from eternity past to eternity future, just like they hate women. Sounds harsh…but I don’t think so. In fact, if I were able to carefully question these men, I imagine I’d find out that their loathing for women is unfathomably deep.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  9. Robert:
    ishy,

    But the antecedent verb is “submit.” Verse 22 has no verb, so you have to use the antecedent verb in v. 21. The debate is not whether the verb “submit” should be there but what it actually means in verse 22. That is where egalitarians and complementarians differ.

    It isn’t a verb. It’s a participle. The only verb in the chapter, and the only verb in the imperative, is in verse 1 “be filled” (with the Holy Spirit).

    Even if you take “submitting” from verse 21, that ties them together. It’s hard to argue that wives are to submit and husbands aren’t when you try take “submitting” from verse 21. The way many English translations change these verses is to put a period at the end of verse 21 (the whole chapter is one sentence) and then put a heading before verse 22 like it’s the start of a new section on marriage. I feel like that is very dishonest to the text.

    There’s another interpretation, which I think is perfectly valid, that Paul is quoting Roman household codes here and dropping or changing certain words. If that’s true, then the household codes say wives submit to your husbands and then Paul intentionally dropped that word.

    There are more interpretations, but most complementarian arguments that “wives submit and husbands don’t” base their arguments on the English text and not the Greek. Denny Burk is very upfront about the fact, though I don’t think it does him justice.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  10. After reading Aimee Byrd’s post on her own website, and the screenshots posted at https://gcscreenshots.wordpress.com/screenshots/, you want to ask the “Geneva commons” posters “What’s wrong with you guys?” But that is, of course, the altogether inappropriate question. The appropriate question is “What’s right with you guys?”. What’s wrong with them is glaringly obvious, and it’s difficult to know where to even begin.

    • Apart from the fact, that they treat someone who is a sister in the faith – I hope they can agree on that at least – like an enemy: didn’t Jesus (Heard of him?) say something about loving your enemies?

    • In any of the jobs I have had, behaviour like this would not have been tolerated.

    • Apart from the fact that the whole conversation is so teenage and male-puberty snarky, so partisan, so “We’re going to win at *any* price!” that the lack of intellectual and mental maturity is striking. (But that has always been a hallmark of some of these neo-cals and “complementarians” – remember Frank Turk, Phil Johnson, JD Hall?)

    • It’s becoming more and more obvious that “biblical manhood and womanhood” is actually about the men, not the women. They do not know how to be men without artificial “authority” to prop up their helpless little … egos.

    • The whole obsession with manhood in some parts of the American church and American society as a whole is very strange to me. What is it with these people? I have worked for male and female bosses, I’ve never had a problem taking instructions or orders from them, and I’ve never had a problem telling any of them – male and female – when they were wrong. Sometimes the consequences were a little unpleasant, but hey, we had some fun before and after that. I’ve never had to “prove” my manhood.

    • Why do men fear not being male enough so much? Why do the have to stress that they are real men? Why the plaid shirts, the SUVs, the guns, the “manly” outdoor clothes in inappropriate settings?

    WRT the current brouhaha:

    • After Aimee Byrd published some of the screenshots from the gcscreenshots website in her article, one Shane D. Anderson, who seems to be the instigator of the facebook group, left a comment on her website complaining that she had “doxxed” so many people. He used the word “doxxed”, but does not seem to know what it means. Dear Shane: “If you do not want your bad behaviour established over a longer period of time to become public, just resist! Don’t do it!”

    • Anderson also complained that some of the people whose names had been listed on the gcscreenshots website were minors. That makes the whole thing even worse. You know that minors are present and still indulge in this behaviour? What next? Start a secret facebook group for OPC pastors and elders (and those minors who aspire to these positions) to swap off-colour jokes?

    • Anderson then adds “If I lose my reputation in a worldly age for having opposed you, it’s no big deal, I live for the Lord Jesus, not the mob.” In reality, he seems to care more for his own sorry a** than for the minors whose names may have been inadvertently revealed. I say to him: “Shane, man up and repent and ask for forgiveness!”

    • Excusing one’s bad behaviour by saying “If I lose my reputation in a worldly age for having opposed you, it’s no big deal, I live for the Lord Jesus, not the mob.” seems to me to be a prime example of taking the Lord’s name in vain. Just sayin’.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  11. Gus: Apart from the fact, that they treat someone who is a sister in the faith – I hope they can agree on that at least – like an enemy: didn’t Jesus (Heard of him?) say something about loving your enemies?

    I doubt they do believe she’s a “sister”. My experience with many of these guys if that if you don’t toe their line entirely, particularly if you are female, then you are not elect, and therefore, an enemy.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  12. “I truly respected those who confessed the theology, believing that we have more in common than we have different. Oh, how naive I was!” (Dee)

    Millions of mainline (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists will someday wake up to their naivety in this regard. But that revelation will arrive too late – the Calvinistas already control the denomination (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, church planting and ‘replanting’ programs). The new reformers are out and about to change the belief and practice of the next generation of Southern Baptists – within 5-10 years, Calvinism will be the default theology of a once-great evangelistic denomination.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  13. “Needless to say, she (Aimee Byrd) recognized that there were problems with the original RBMW and that is just not allowed in the Calvinista circles. Little did she know she was about to be Calvinized. (That’s what happens when the warrior Calvinistas go for blood. Been there myself.)” (Dee)

    The warrior Calvinistas (that would be most of them) will not stop their oppression/persecution of female believers until their voices in church are completely silenced, any personal ministry they pursue is annihilated, and their spirits are crushed into total submission to authoritative men and their aberrant theology.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  14. “It is hard to see any love at all being exhibited by these men.” (Dee)

    I have been following the men, message, and method of New Calvinism from its inception. I have yet to hear anyone accuse them of being a loving bunch! Arrogance, not love, is the first descriptor which comes to mind.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  15. Dever/Mahaney/Mohler/Duncan were all on ‘the Council’ of this ‘Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ outfit for a number of years in the early 2000s, before their own T4G endeavor (and TGC) eclipsed it:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091228033808/http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID798774_CIID1920170,00.html

    (2009) “A council…chosen by the Board, serves as the strategic network and the public face of the Alliance”

    [as of 2020 there is no ‘Council’ listed on the website. A Board of Directors exists but they are not named on the website. I got this email response from the Alliance when I inquired about the board’s current members:

    “Per the Alliance’s IRS-990 filing found online:
    Ed Barnhill
    Jay Bruce
    Jay Volk
    Mike Cuzzolina
    Rick Phillips
    Bob Doll
    Michael Rogers
    Wendell McBurney”]

    https://julieroys.com/aimee-byrd-cyberbullying-the-battle-over-manhood-womanhood/

    “Byrd…received a private email from the chairman of the ACE board, asking for answers on the behalf of the board. But Byrd said she didn’t even know who was on the board. ‘It felt like a trap…I felt I was being given a trial by this unnamed jury’.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  16. The only one of the current board I’ve heard of is Rick Phillips (aka Richard D. Phillips, a TGC Council Member). He wrote a book on the “Masculine Mandate”.

    Phillips says has “long been an admirer of CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), though I am not formally associated with them”:

    https://www.theaquilareport.com/4-approaches-to-a-balanced-complementarianism/

    (Phillips denies women can publicly pray or read Scripture at church)

    more gender dogma from him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdnGWAp6TI0

    [26:37-28:03 Phillips explains his thing about no public praying by women during ‘worship services’ (says however that he’s let women publicly pray for their children during a midweek prayer meeting)]

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  17. The Alliance is credited as being a forerunner of T4G & TGC:

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/extra-ecclesial-gospel-partnerships/

    Kevin DeYoung: “T4G and TGC are distinct and prominent on the landscape of American evangelicalism, but they are not novel or unique. Other ministries share many of the same aims and inhabit the same theological universe of evangelical Calvinism. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE)…is something of a forerunner”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  18. Robert: “No matter how hard I tried, I could not overcome my concern regarding predestination (knowing it is a done deal for everyone since the beginning of time or even before) and limited atonement.”

    I freed myself from this stuff long ago.
    Sarah Connor makes way more sense than these Grand Poobahs of Religion:

    “The future is not set…
    There is no future but what me make for ourselves…”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  19. Don’t believe that the Genevan Commons group are just a band of radical Neo-Cals. IMO, most of the young reformers are bent this way; they are venomous defenders of their theological aberrations, and particularly hostile to female believers. For the life of me, I don’t understand why young women put up with this – they need to rise up en masse, declare “Enough is enough!”, and drag their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of the mess! In so doing, they might just rescue their souls.

    In the “Genevan Commons” of 16th century Geneva, the magisterial reformers ruled with an iron fist. Backed by enforcement of the magistrate, Calvin was tough on dissenters; failure to comply with his brand of theology resulted in exile, imprisonment, torture, and execution.

    Thank God that the Genevan Commons are tormenting women only in cyberspace! They are weak little men with big mouths, heading to eternal darkness while believing themselves to be the predestined elect. Repent or else!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  20. Robert: The debate is not whether the verb “submit” should be there but what it actually means in verse 22. That is where egalitarians and complementarians differ.

    I think Lewis Carroll had it pegged perfectly when he wrote:

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  21. ishy,

    The participle is from the verb hypotasso; it’s the antecedent. The wives have to be doing something to/toward their husbands; if not submitting, then what?

    I’m not interested in debating the specific meaning hypotasso here, because both complementarians and egalitarians can accept that it is the assumed but not stated term. Verse 24 confirms it when it draws the analogy of Christ’s submission, using the word, to the wives submission.

    If all Paul is doing is dropping out a word from a household code, then you have “wives, _________ your husband.” Maybe hypotasso doesn’t mean what complementarians says it means, but I don’t see how you can just drop it and have Paul saying anything to the wives. What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?

    Inserting the period isn’t dishonest. It might be wrong, but not dishonest. The original text has no punctuation. It’s reflecting the translator’s opinion of the flow of the text.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  22. In 2016, Byrd touched off what Christianity Today termed a “civil war” between complementarians over something termed the Eternal
    ..”Subordination of the Son or ESS. ESS holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. And, drawing on the analogy of the Trinity, proponents of ESS argue that just as Jesus is subordinate to God, so women should be subordinate to men.”..

    How does this statement differ from my belief in a future civil war in Heaven. Gender roles will just be another division line.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  23. The iteration of the heresy of ESS has been around since the early 1990s, at least; that’s when RBMW was first published.

    This is not simply a bad teaching – though it is that – but it is a real heresy: promulgating something about who Christ is and the Trinity that is not true, according to the early Church councils.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  24. Max: The warrior Calvinistas (that would be most of them) will not stop their oppression/persecution of female believers until their voices in church are completely silenced, any personal ministry they pursue is annihilated, and their spirits are crushed into total submission to authoritative men and their aberrant theology.

    Handmaid’s Tale for Real.
    Now to force it upon all those Heretics and Apostates in our Restored Reformed CHRISTIAN Nation.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  25. It is a shame that these pastors are so focused on women and keeping them submissive. If more of these pastors would focusing on preaching Christ crucified from a Trinitarian perspective maybe the religious pluralism, syncretism, and racism in our society would not be so prevalent. However, I assume that preaching for women to be submissive plays well to weak mean who lack a backbone and do not want to be challenged to have to think for themselves. Make no mistake, a lot of these calvinistas are syncretic and combine nationalism with religion and patriarchy, muddling all three. This processes loses focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  26. Robert: I’m not interested in debating the specific meaning hypotasso here, because both complementarians and egalitarians can accept that it is the assumed but not stated term.

    You seem to hinge your argument on this, but it’s not true. There are more interpretations. There are also always more than two sides.

    There is a very similar construction in English we use every year in church liturgy: “Unto you a child is given.” We use this construction in English sometimes, but it is a lot more common in Greek because cases can imply motion.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  27. dainca: The iteration of the heresy of ESS has been around since the early 1990s, at least; that’s when RBMW was first published.

    This is not simply a bad teaching – though it is that – but it is a real heresy: promulgating something about who Christ is and the Trinity that is not true, according to the early Church councils.

    I don’t doubt it, but it’s pretty much because the same people who came up with it are still around.

    I think ESS is less of a worry than what they are currently using, though. ESS is ridiculous enough that it was sidelined pretty quickly by even other conservative scholars. But they’ve started to push the theology that women are derivative to men, and therefore created to serve them. This theology is very similar to the theology of slaves that the SBC was founded on. With their insistence that the SBC has to return to its founding theology, returning to slave-owning theology is really concerning to me.

    Both theologies come from Bruce Ware, who I am sure still ties them together, but they are pretending outwardly they are not following ESS anymore even though I’m pretty sure it’s being taught at the SBC seminaries.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  28. Headless Unicorn Guy: Handmaid’s Tale for Real.
    Now to force it upon all those Heretics and Apostates in our Restored Reformed CHRISTIAN Nation.

    This is what really scares me. These men believe that the rest of humanity should be subordinate to them while half of humanity is subordinate to their followers. And I’ve met enough of these guys to know that they don’t seem to have consciences that overrides their egos.

    I think Atwood nailed their dream world entirely…

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  29. ishy: ESS is ridiculous enough that it was sidelined pretty quickly by even other conservative scholars. But they’ve started to push the theology that women are derivative to men, and therefore created to serve them.

    If you can get folks to believe that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God, it’s an easier jump to get them to believe that women are lesser beings than men (mere derivatives of their image).

    Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    Women, of course, are genuine 100% human beings created by Holy God who instructed Paul to write: “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).

    Eternal Subordination of the Son to God and Eternal Submission of Women to Men are false teachings … and those who proclaim it are false teachers. New Calvinism is dangerous to dabble in. Those of you who have been drawn into it, Jesus shouts from Heaven “Repent or else!”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  30. ishy: This is what really scares me. These men believe that the rest of humanity should be subordinate to them while half of humanity is subordinate to their followers.

    When you have someone whose ideal is Herrenvolk and Untermenschen, notice which category they always place themselves into. Always Holding the Whip, never feeling it.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  31. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    I really like Young’s exegesis. I’d been meaning to read more from him, particularly his views on universal reconciliation, but I was so exasperated with the world during quarantine that I avoided theology. So I just wandered over to his site and that was the topic of the most recent article. But! Wade wrote it! Wade did a good job of explaining Young’s view, though, particularly in constrasting it with Mohler/New Cals. I can speak their language fluently enough that I saw Young’s point easily. I haven’t read The Shack. I should put that on my list.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  32. Max: Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    The New-Calvinists will say they agree with this, but in practice they don’t. John MacArthur once gave a sermon on penal substitution where he said, “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” Apparently he did not recognize that his statement expresses his belief that Jesus is not God. Is that his ultimate realty?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  33. Aimee is a BRAVE lady. These type of guys are the majority report in the OPC. I’ve seen it first hand and am very glad to no longer be in the OPC.

    Sent alliance@alliancenet.org an email to express my disgust at how they have treated Aimee Byrd. Also purchased her latest book. Pray for her as the OPC will likely try to crush her and do nothing to the vile peacocks who are attacking her rather than interacting with her book.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  34. Ken F (aka Tweed): Max: Jesus, of course, ‘is’ God.

    The New-Calvinists will say they agree with this, but in practice they don’t.

    When I first became aware of New Calvinism sweeping through SBC, I listened to numerous sermon podcasts by SBC-YRR church planters in my area (to hear what made them tick). I sat with a 4-column pad of paper marked “God”, “Jesus”, “Holy Spirit”, “New Calvinist Icon” (Piper et. al). As the sermons progressed, I made a check mark when these names were mentioned. God received a lot of sermon time, Jesus was hardly mentioned, and the Holy Spirit received little recognition. Reformed icons got more sermon time than Jesus! They live in an upside down religious world. They’ve not only subordinated Jesus … they’ve darn near erased His name!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  35. Ken F (aka Tweed): You should also read his book “Eve.” It is the teachings of Katherine Bushnell turned into a novel.

    I put them both on my list. I love Katherine Bushnell. I’m reading Sacred Wounds by Teresa Pasquale right now. It’s very good, but a difficult read for me after all the church junk that led me here.

    I recently came across the concept of “bibliotherapy”. In some ways, I guess it’s similar to evangelical thought on the Bible fixing everything, but the key is to read outside your comfort zone and try to be open to what is discomfiting and why. I don’t feel like evangelicals read the Bible that way, but with strong preconceptions of what they think the Bible should say instead of what it does say. If they were, more of them would be preaching on greed and pride and helping the poor. They don’t have a practice of reading authors outside their belief framework, either, so they aren’t confronted with other perspectives.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  36. ishy: They don’t have a practice of reading authors outside their belief framework, either, so they aren’t confronted with other perspectives.

    That is one of their biggest weaknesses. I suppose I have fallen off the fence on the other side lately – quite a lot of coloring outside the lines. The odd thing is, some of things I have read that seemed way outside the lines were actually viable positions in ancient Christianity. So much for me trying to ne a rebel…

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  37. GM: As a long-time, but now former listener to the podcast, I felt that if an audio program could just automatically skip Rev. Pruitt’s speaking part, it would save time and make for a better listening experience.

    Haha! I totally agree with you. It seems Pruitt always got around to condemning social media as an evil thing, I guess podcasts and his Twitter excepted.

    He recently shut down his Twitter account, so he has excised that demon.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  38. Robert,

    “What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?”
    ++++++++++

    does it really matter??

    for the amount of time spent imagining all the many ways to shackle and silence a woman (except her sexual service) by replacing her humanity with ‘gendered thing’ and call it Jesus’ command, we all could have been working individually and together to help, comfort, heal, feed, support huge numbers of human beings and living things.

    what a ridiculous waste.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  39. Thanks Dee for saying nice things about some of us reformed folks!!

    Anyway… this is sick what these lightweights posted about Aimee. I am glad you exposed it. With all the things going on in the world today that you think we should be uniting around… these men have time to do this?
    I know that sometimes I can be a pain in the neck Calvinist, but at the very least I try to set my priorities the same way Jesus did when engaging others. It is sad that the simple rules of engagement seem to be ignored.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  40. George: I know that sometimes I can be a pain in the neck Calvinist

    Believe me George … there are plenty of pain in the neck non-Calvinists! As a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist for 70+ years (I’m a “Done” now), I worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists. I found them to be civil in their discourse and respectful of other expressions of faith. But this New Calvinist tribe is a totally different beast … they are an arrogant, aggressive, militant pain in the neck bunch! There is very little in their movement that is of God – one just doesn’t see His hand in it … no love.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  41. I am not reformed, but I have read quite a few posts by both Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller. Although I disagree with each of them on a few things, I believe we could disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal together. (Hey, I’ll do the cooking, in spite of the fact that I am what Gram3 would have called a mutualist!)
    I often enjoy reading their well thought out, educated posts.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  42. Bridget: I didn’t know Aimee had been kicked off MOS! Neither Carl T. nor Todd P. commented about it at all? Neither could/would stand up for her? But Carl T. could stood up (wrongly) for Mahaney whom he admitted he hardly knew?

    It makes me think of one of my woman heroes, Clarice Starling (from the pen of Thomas Harris).
    When the career jackals of the bureau (FBI) gathered against her and rent her limb from limb so to speak for the media fallout she generated from acting with courage and conviction, her boss meekly stood by in his own office and let them have their way.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  43. Ah the ESS, which I discovered during a quick Google search is actually the old Arianism heresy resurrected. It’s also one of the reasons the Orthodox Church rejects the filioque. 😉

    The issue of Lutheran views on predestination also caused me a lot of confusion many years ago when I was figuring out which denomination to follow. The hubby (LCMS) and a Lutheran blogger recognized single predestination as part of the doctrine; meanwhile, my sister-in-law insisted that there was no predestination in Lutheranism.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  44. Ava Aaronson: Nancy2(aka Kevlar): disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal together
    Sounds like NT living to me. But what do I know. How about y’all?

    I too have noticed how important shared meals seem to have been both in the Gospels and later. “Who you are willing to have table-fellowship with” was a big deal for Paul, as was the question of voluntary limitations on what one would eat in the presence of believers of weaker conscience.

    Which suggests that the comps are taking a completely wrong approach in their arguments with the egalitarians. They should be employing Paul’s appeal to “the law of love” — “you egalitarians may be easy in your consciences with your practices, but you are damaging ours. Our consciences have a more constrained conception of what is permitted by our liberty in Christ, and we appeal to you, for the sake of our own consciences, that you conform to our standards.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  45. Samuel Conner: “Who you are willing to have table-fellowship with”

    The GC remark that the women should meekly prepare food for the men reminds me of the behavior I have observed in an older generation of Koreans. The women prepare the meals for the men, but don’t partake while the men are eating. The GC remark has that feel for me — the women prepare the food, which is enjoyed by the men at the table. Are there women at the table too? It’s as if they don’t really belong at table-fellowship when men are present. I have no doubt that Paul would have strongly disagreed. He had too many female fellow-laborers.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  46. Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about. The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church. In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  47. Reading all of these things against women such Aimee Byrd, Julie Roys etc; has grieved my heart. It is disgusting to the core and demonic. As a man who loves Christ with all of his heart (not perfectly), it has sicken me. Being married and a father of two daughters, my desire is to model Christ likeness, that I may be an example to them. I will quote Ray Ortlund, I love Reformed theology but I hate the culture it creates. I am so angry that men who went to seminary, and graduated, privilege of being ordained for the work of our Lord and be abusive in word as they have. I hope they step down, and repent, and show the truth of what the Holy Spirit does in hearts that are contrite and broken before Him.
    It is disgusting when we as a church attack women because they decide to be weight lifters, or want to be athletic, or decide to have a career. I am sorry to say but I will not raise my daughters or teach my wife to be something that they are not. God has called me as a man to disciple my wife and children by being a mirror image of Christ, not preach nor teaching what other men think.
    I prayer for 1 Peter 4:17
    May God purge us, correct His bride, I see to many wolves lately who dress the costume of sheep
    God help us.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  48. John Piper is a strange little man. He would be hilarious if so many people didn’t listen to him.

    Research has shown that one of the few ways to increase bone density is weightlifting. This is especially important for anyone who is dealing with osteoporosis. Statistically this is more common in women.

    So, the question must be asked: is John Piper in favor of osteoporosis? Maybe he will do a podcast about it right after answering a question about whether a certain sex act is biblical (again, he’s a weird dude). Maybe Grudem will write a list of 99 ways you can fight osteoporosis without gaining muscle, or Kevin DeYoung will write 9 gospel-centered takeaways about femal powerlifters.

    Thesis: these people are the worst. Humans are almost infinitely variable. Stop trying to dictate what people do, especially on lifestyle issues that are actually a positive, like physical fitness.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  49. Robert: If all Paul is doing is dropping out a word from a household code, then you have “wives, _________ your husband.” Maybe hypotasso doesn’t mean what complementarians says it means, but I don’t see how you can just drop it and have Paul saying anything to the wives. What do you think Paul is telling wives to do?

    Inserting the period isn’t dishonest. It might be wrong, but not dishonest. The original text has no punctuation. It’s reflecting the translator’s opinion of the flow of the text.

    Paul is saying, coordinate with your husbands. Typically husbands and wives would maintain rival establishments.

    And in the other oft quoted example husbands were asked by Paul to honour their wives by sharing catechesis with them at home so they didn’t have to ask so many questions in big sessions (and show their husbands up).

    Life had been rough for women who had typically been in some peculiar cults. Paul is actually taking Roman life to new levels.

    Paul has been asked specific questions in prior correspondence. When Greek texts use the definite article it is not general at all – the opposite to French usage.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  50. Todd McCauley:
    Let’s just sum this up.All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors.This is what this debate has always been about.The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church.In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    Did you know that there are both male and female elders in Titus? Just because it’s translated “older women” doesn’t change that the words are the exactly same in Greek with masculine and feminine endings. So yes, the Bible is pretty clear in the original language who is to be an elder, and it’s not just men.

    But, it’s really not about the authority of Scripture, is it?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  51. drstevej: I did my PhD at an OPC seminary and I wash my wife’s clothes regularly.

    After getting my higher education, I received further instruction through the hardknocks of daily living and fighting devils in church. I do most of the cooking around here because I like to; something my dear wife truly appreciates. I’ve even been known to wash dishes and rock babies. We have a “complementarian” marriage; my wife’s spiritual gifts complement mine … it’s worked for over 50 years.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  52. Ricco: John Piper is a strange little man.

    Ahh, give him a break! He is just trying to save you from the tuna factory!

    “They’ll be happily swimming along. Your net of truth will entangle them. They will resist. Then they will see you saved them from the tuna factory. Put them in a new river.” (John Piper, Twitter, 06-17-2020)

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  53. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Young’s argument fails because he ignores Ephesians 5:24, which says that wives should submit to their husbands, using the verb hypotasso, just as Christ submits to the church. The missing verb in the contested verse is hypotasso, no doubt about it. The only question is what the verb means.

    Young also makes an error at the start of the video that the ESS also make, and that he assumes that we can make interTrinitarian relations the model for male-female relationships. We shouldn’t do that at all. Human beings are made in the image of God, but the interTrinitarian relations can’t be the model because divine personhood isn’t the same as human personhood. Father, Son, and Spirit have the same mind, will, and affections. I don’t have the same mind or affections with my wife or as any other human being for that matter.

    I would say that both complementarians and egalitarians need to restrict themselves to the analogies the Bible actually draws. In Eph. 5, it’s an analogy with the church—incarnate Christ relationship. It’s not an analogy with the eternal relations of origin in the Trinity. Complementarian ESS guys mess things up by imputing authority into the relations of origin. If egalitarians try to draw the parallel to make men and women functionally equivalent in every way based on the interTrinitarian relations, they will end up ultimately ignoring the order of priority of the persons to do so. Either way, Trinitarian doctrine is going to get messed up. It comes out in Young’s The Shack, where he basically presents a social Trinitarian view that borders on Tritheism. It’s a work of fiction, so maybe he’s not trying to do that, but I’ve read the book and that is what happens.

    In sum, if egalitarians are right, it’s not because we image interTrinitarian relations of origin. If complementarians are right, it’s not because we image interTrinitarian relations of origin. The missing verb in the Ephesians passage is certainly hypotasso, but that doesn’t prove complementarianism or disprove egalitarianism.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  54. dainca: HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human.

    Yeah, it’s like a semi-Arianism without going quite so far, at least on paper. And they often only bring Jesus up for this issue and atonement, so in a practical sense, it is Arianism.

    Though, I also think more should be said about the comparison of men to God the Father here. It’s not just comparing women to a subjected Jesus, but attributing power and authority on earth to men like God would have. Jesus said He had all authority, so that is a flat-out heresy in itself. These constant claims to authority over others is heretical.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  55. Muff Potter: Todd McCauley: The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    Authority?
    What you really mean is the Scripture Police and what they say it means.

    i.e. “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADES!”

    There is a reason I cannot say the word “Scripture” without nausea.
    I even have to bypass that one line in the Nicene Creed every Mass.
    SCRIPTURE(TM) has been completely Weaponized.
    A Virtue-Signalling Beatdown Weapon for The Righteous(TM), nothing more.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  56. dainca: HUG, it’s more like Arianism, with Christ being not-quite-God and therefore women not-quite-human.

    Not-quite-human ……… that’s my take, as a woman, a wife, and a life-long (until recently) Southern Baptist.

    A few years ago, when my husband decided “we” were going to move 1200 miles away, he told everybody at church all about it ….. Except he so much as breathe a word about it to me. When I finally found out through overhearing a conversation at church, I asked hubby, “What were you planning to do? Put me in a pet carrier and throw me in the truck with the other dogs??!!!”

    We didn’t move.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  57. Ava Aaronson,

    Nancy2(aka Kevlar): “disagree agreeably — and thoroughly enjoy a meal” together

    Ava: “Sounds like NT living to me. But what do I know. How about y’all?

    Discuss.”
    ++++++++++++

    to me it’s just reasonable. and pro-cognitive integrity, pro-mutual respect, and pro-community.

    (emulating NT living is a valid idea, but i don’t think it’s necessary — and potentially problematic)

    however, i reserve the right not to spend any of my precious time on earth with the jackasses at Genevan Commons, who seem to relish wearing the “jerk” badge.

    it takes an especially confused kind of man to measure his masculinity by his capacity for rude, snide cruelty.

    the fact that such a man thinks he is being godly or Christ-like is just…. well, i’m laughing, but not because it’s funny.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  58. Jerome: 26:37-28:03 Phillips explains his thing about no public praying by women during ‘worship services’ (says however that he’s let women publicly pray for their children during a midweek prayer meeting)]

    Because clearly a weekday is less holy than a Sunday.

    Elder, “Shall we also let women read the Bible passage out loud in small group?”
    Learned honored doctor who publishes books and gets speaking gigs at mega churches , “Only if there are less than 14 people and never in the holy sanctuary no matter how many people are present.”
    Jesus, “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  59. Fisher,

    AMEN!
    If God forbids the voices of women in church….. a sanctuary built specifically for those created in his image to gather and praise, honor, worship, and give thanks to Him …….. then, how can there possibly be anywhere on this earth where He would want to hear the voices of women?

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  60. Todd McCauley: Let’s just sum this up.

    Since you asked so sweetly, I’ll try to help because helping is what you seem to need right about now. I’m not going to rehash what I’ve said a lot about textually in the distant past at TWW on this topic, but I’ll just invite you to point to the Biblical text where these supposed ROLES are prescribed. That would be far more effective than your argument by assertion. I’m a conservative inerrantist, so you can’t tag me as a liberal. But I also stick rigorously to the actual text, and that proves inconvenient to the Complementarians who cling to ROLES that have to be inserted into it.

    I will defend Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt *a little bit* because they were on the case several years ago when this blew up before the ETS. To put some perspective on this, ESS is a touchy subject for those in the PCA and the OPC. Way back before you children were born, the PCA birthed itself out of the PCUS in 1973, and one of the primary issues was the status of women’s ordination. Take one guess who solved that problem for them and who is the theologian who is the authority on the offices in the PCA/OPC today. You all may be shocked, shocked to know that the one theologian is George W. Knight III, the very one who invented the doctrine of ESS, and this work all took place before 1976. His authoritative book on these matters was published in 1977. ESS was ESSential to shore up an exclusive male office in the PCA against the scholarship that was happening, and I say that as a textual conservative.

    Rachel and Aimee have touched the Third Rail of ESS which supports all Complementarians but which affects the Reformed Complementarians at a much deeper level because it impinges on a core doctrine of exclusive male office. George Knight III did not invent ESS because he had nothing better to do in 1973 or because it was a really good idea. It was not a good idea then or now. But it served the purpose. Now, due to fear of some that the doctrine of the exclusivity of the elder/deacon office is under threat and the fear by others that it is genuinely displeasing to God, Aimee and Rachel must endure abuse that is irrational, unfounded, and untethered to the actual text or any confessional documents. Fear causes many not to examine the actual texts. Fear causes many to throw up chaff to frighten those who honor God.

    As far as I know, Dr. Knight is still a teaching elder in the OPC and is a professor at Greenville Theological Seminary. So, it would be exceedingly awkward for Trueman or Pruitt or any of the others to call him out at this point, though of course it would be the right and honorable thing for them to do for the Church as well as for Aimee and Rachel. It would be the right thing for Dr. Knight to recant his false teaching of ESS, along with Grudem, Ware, all of the luminaries at SBTS, SEBTS, MWBTS, and TGC, Piper, etc. But let’s be realistic. It’s not going to happen. All ESS documents have been scrubbed from websites without being recanted. It’s like the false teaching never happened before ETS.

    I’m a Baptist, but I speak somewhat fluent Presbyterian. From what I have read, Rachel and Aimee are faithful OPC women. Baptists don’t have offices and sacraments, so it’s not as complicated. Presbyterians do, and so ESS and Offices are sort of superglued together in a way that Knight and I suspect that other theologians understand, because I suspect that Knight and the other theologians understand the problems that the actual text presents when interpreted conservatively and consistently but they are human just like the rest of us. Nevertheless, Aimee and Rachel honor their vows, and they should be honored. The men and women who are bashing them are very small persons who do not understand what these women are saying. There is nothing they are saying which is unBiblical or against any of the confessions or catechisms. So what is really the problem?

    P.S. IIRC I think I said several years ago before my self-imposed quarantine that Aimee and Rachel, among others, would be rising stars.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  61. I heard a bit about this and saw the post at Aimee’s site, but i hadn’t heard they kicked her off the podcast! And so rudely and slyly too.

    I find Aimee fascinating because she is trying to stick with some of the people at her church/their rules while also being more reasonable about women and they constantly keep proving that her quest to be reasonable amidst all the misogyny is actually hopeless. One day she will quit it altogether i think.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  62. Gram3: the PCA birthed itself out of the PCUS in 1973, and one of the primary issues was the status of women’s ordination. Take one guess who solved that problem for them and who is the theologian who is the authority on the offices in the PCA/OPC today. You all may be shocked, shocked to know that the one theologian is George W. Knight III, the very one who invented the doctrine of ESS

    I’m pcusa so i was aware some of why they left but I never heard this connection with Knight before. Fascinating!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  63. Beakerj: Just reprehensible misogynistic abuse, with levels of casual sexism that I associate with drunk men down the pub, not Pastors & other so-called Christian men on a message board.

    Yes. I think increasingly we are just seeing who these people are. They didn’t arrive at their position through careful study…they just plain hate women. It’s much simpler to understand when you realize that you don’t have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    John S Smith: This pretty well sums things up

    “Encouraging one on one time, e.g. sharing a meal with a woman who is not your wife (4), is foolishness that undermines the chastity of Christian women and men. ”

    I’m fascinated by the people who think having lunch with a coworker of the opposite sex is going to undermine anyone’s chastity who isn’t already thinking that way. So dumb.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  64. Robert: To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    To my previous point, I consider it misogynistic to tell women that they can’t be godly and lift weights. I’m not speaking to his motives because I can’t know those. Just what he says publicly (and he says a LOT publicly).

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  65. Samuel Conner: Which suggests that the comps are taking a completely wrong approach in their arguments with the egalitarians. They should be employing Paul’s appeal to “the law of love” — “you egalitarians may be easy in your consciences with your practices, but you are damaging ours. Our consciences have a more constrained conception of what is permitted by our liberty in Christ, and we appeal to you, for the sake of our own consciences, that you conform to our standards.”

    Well, if someone dismisses my humanity entirely, i don’t think i’m going to be persuaded to conform to their standards? I’m not sure that this is as good an argument as you think it is.

    Not eating idol meat is a comparatively small thing.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  66. Let me state up front I wish we never had this coronavirus enter our world. I loathe everything about it. But we are at risk seniors and so have been isolating for 3 1/2 months. Lots of time to study.

    We have been part of several groups through the last many years. Usually those changes were brought about by geographical moves, and I have learned much from the many faith families.

    Lutheran, to be specific LCMS has been a star in the show. But this pandemic has given me plenty of time to try and tease out that niggling NO I find with this whole single predestination thing. Really, the outcome is indeed the same as double predestination. But for me that is less an issue than its root:

    What is God’s purpose in creating human beings? What is this all about, this life and faith? I come back to there being two choices that I can find (maybe you find more): either the Calvinists, Lutherans, and classical or Reformed Arminians (its thing. google it.) are right and it is all to show God’s glory, or the nonreformed Arminians (Wesleyans, etc) are right and it is all to show His love.

    I believe it is the latter. My church is caught up in it being the former. Which means when I can go back to church I likely will lose my church family. But I am convinced this whole unilateral election thing paints God to be a monster. It is blasphemy.

    From that root grow all sorts of puny men trying to walk in God’s shoes. They think I cannot access Him without their rites and rituals. They think I am under their authority, not His. They think they can forgive my sins. They think they can dispense Him to me, or deny that should they feel it best.

    No. Just no. I believe His purpose is to show His love. He seeks us. He comes to us before we come to Him. (Prevenient grace.) He wants our love to be free, not coerced. He woos, not forcing Himself upon us. (Vile concept makes Him a perp, a less than god God.) He is not the author of sin. He does not create human beings for the express purpose of frying them in hell. He is always available to the humble, seeking heart. He does deal strongly with sin because it hurts us. He will allow us the dreadful consequences of our sins. He does not give us the authority to decide for ourselves what sin is. Rather, only He defines it. He is and always will be the only spiritual authority over us.

    To sum it up: some see God as an angry parent, disgusted with His creation. He might decide to fix up some of them and keep them around, but mainly He just wants to put them in the burn barrel. Others see God as a loving parent, willing to do anything He can to show His love to His kids, to save them from their own sins and that of others.

    Perhaps after this pandemic ends what will ultimately have died is the body of lies that paints our Lord as a cosmic tantrum throwing bully. Perhaps the religious abuse will stop.

    And perhaps, just perhaps, we will see Jesus again.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  67. Robert:
    Ricco,

    To be fair, I’ve seen lots or commentators here say that Piper and other complementarians are secretly motivated by misogyny.

    The dudes telling aimee to go make a sandwich are not very ‘secret’ about their motivations…

    Piper, otoh, is just really really weird. He’s confused about himself in some way and trying to sort it out through theology.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  68. ES,

    You’re very welcome. It’s too bad that history is being scrubbed everywhere. Conveniently for some, but it hinders learning from mistakes. People make mistakes for all sorts of reasons. There were scary things happening in the PCUS in 1973 (from my perspective) so I don’t want paint a distorted picture. It’s just that our solutions are really bad ones sometimes. ESS is one example, and the conservative church is having a really hard time recovering from it. Not the first time I’ve addressed Dr. Knight’s theology on TWW, but it’s tough seeing a couple of faithful sisters being piled on and slandered for no good reason at all while powerful men remain silent.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  69. Gram3,

    What it means critically for me, is that my parents were teaching an extreme form of wives submitting to husbands while also expressly teaching us that Arianism was a heresy… but I can see the connection between ESS and Arianism. Which is yet another self-contradiction within the faith I was taught in my childhood. And I had no idea that ESS was possibly specifically related to what my parents taught me about men’s and women’s “roles” – and yet, it makes so much sense.

    I really feel for both Aimee and Rachel. Based on my personal experience, neither the OPC nor the PCA is really poised to appropriately respond to this situation.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  70. John S Smith: This pretty well sums things up, at Cross Politic: https://crosspolitic.com/will-someone-love-aimee-byrd/

    I checked out Cross Politic!!! Uhm, OMG, OMG, OMG!!
    Hubby needs to shove me into that pet carrier and get me to the vet, quickly! I haven’t had my rabies shots – shoot, I’m not even leash broke!

    Seriously, I went through a few pages and found an article on Johnny Mac and Beth Moore. It appears that these prime examples of Holy Misogyny believe that we wimmenfolk will be judged by our homemaking abilities when when stand before the Bema seat of Judgement …….. I’m not kidding you! If God’s gonna question Beth Moore about her homemaking, I reckon He’ll be coming after us all!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  71. Gram3,

    Does my heart so good to see you back, Gram3! I, for one, have missed you, and your knowledge/wisdom.

    Now, if y’all will excuse me, I need to go get some green tomatoes ready to fry. Yeah, I do the cooking around here. Hubby doesn’t do very well with cook stoves, bless his heart. After supper we will work together making blackberry jelly. When we’re finished, guess who is doing the dishes? Hint: not me!

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  72. Gram3: I’m a Baptist, but I speak somewhat fluent Presbyterian. From what I have read, Rachel and Aimee are faithful OPC women. Baptists don’t have offices and sacraments, so it’s not as complicated.

    Glad to see you back, Gram3!

    The New Cals do believe in offices, though. This is why they rush to switch churches from congregational vote to elder-run. The big problem with this, and the difference between Baptist and Presbyterian leaders, is that Baptist leaders make sure they don’t have to have any accountability in that office to anyone else, while expecting those within the church to answer absolutely to them. This fails a bit at the institutional level, but that’s why they’ve stacked every committee with their people.

    But eventually, I think the egos are going to clash too much and they will destroy each other.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  73. ishy: The New Cals do believe in offices, though.

    I hear you. Certainly the Founders are 1689 LBCF, so arguably severely confused Presbyterians. 🙂 No, I don’t really mean that, my Presbyterian friends! Grudem is WTS. Not recalling Piper’s background. I think that covers the source of the YRR phenomenon. Their disciples’ might be expected to follow their Presbyish lead. Also many Baptists have been informed by the Bible Church movement which came out of Presbyterianism in the 20th century which gave them the idea of elders. Baptists historically, have not had a conception of “office-bearers” quite like Presbyterians have had, and the YRR movement has, mercifully, been a relatively recent development that has not been good for either Baptists or Presbyterians IMO.

    I think that you would find that people find accountability lacking in both Baptist and Presbyterian polity structures, mainly because human nature will find a way to be sinful. They may push it up and bury it, while we just bury it in-house. I’m not a pessimist, but I am experienced.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  74. Gram3: I think that you would find that people find accountability lacking in both Baptist and Presbyterian polity structures, mainly because human nature will find a way to be sinful. They may push it up and bury it, while we just bury it in-house. I’m not a pessimist, but I am experienced.

    I think you’re right, though I have to admit I’ve only visited a Presbyterian church on occasion.

    You’d think after so long we’d have figured out better ways to deal with human nature. I’ve been in churches who promised everything would work out “if you just have faith and pray”. And people believe it, even when their pastor is getting arrested for something he clearly did…

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  75. Todd McCauley: Let’s just sum this up. All of this is about women pouting about not being able to be Pastors. This is what this debate has always been about. The Bible is clear about who is to be an Elder in the Church. In other words, roles exist. The authority of Scripture has been and still is under attack.

    *Tartly* This isn’t about women being pastors. This IS about women being full human beings and not second class people.

    As for your Biblical exegesis, I would note that a lot of people who are much smarter than both you and I disagree on whether only men should be elders. I would also note that you do not practice or believe everything in the Bible. Although, to be perfectly sarcastic, I do wonder if you want to go back to the days when women were property of their fathers, husbands or closest male relative.

    Also, are you a complementarian? If so, can you explain to me how complementarianism is supposed to work for women who are not married? In all the nonsense surrounding comp, nobody who adheres to the dogma has been able to tell me how it applies in practice to single, divorced or widowed women. Who, by the way, make up just slightly over half the adult woman population in the USA.

    For the record, my late father raised me and my sister to be self-sufficient. I’ve supported myself for decades. My sister has been married nearly 35 years and she’s been the family breadwinner most of that time. So yeah, do tell us how comp works in a world where there are millions of us who don’t have male headships, don’t need male headships and don’t need male headships.

    I’m waiting…

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  76. ishy: You’d think after so long we’d have figured out better ways to deal with human nature.

    I’ve wondered at this too. I get the sense that while there is an accumulation of dogma as theology is developed, there is not much of an accumulation of wisdom in terms of “the life of the churches as communities of flesh and blood people, ‘saints’ in some sense of set-apartness, but still very much sinners.” Will any of what has been learned about how pastoral ministry can go wrong (to highlight one problem among many) be remembered a generation from now? I rather doubt it. New ways of being the church will be devised, and the same mistakes will be made, world without end.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  77. Robert:
    Lea,

    Sure, but are you saying the position that women should not be pastors/elders dismisses your humanity or that some professed complementarians dismiss your humanity?

    I think the majority of professed complementarians dismiss my humanity as less important, less equal, less everything, of they could not arrive at their conclusions. They may think they’re being ‘nice’ about it but the end result is the same.

    the position, however it is arrived at, concludes that women are different, women are less.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  78. Robert: It matters because Paul’s words are Jesus’ words.

    Of all the people who have written books of the Bible, and all of the people who are quoted in the writings, how does one tell which words are Jesus’ words and which are not?

    Paul- ahem…………Peter? Luke? Matthew? Mark? Isaiah? Ruth? James? ………..

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  79. Max: Nancy, the church needs more women like you, but the men are scared to death to think of that possibility!

    Tee hee hee. I personally know a lot of Baptist’s that would disagree with that statement.
    Hubby …… well, he might like having a few more women like me at church (I enjoy teaching teenagers, and he knows I work hard at it!), but just one of me at home is more than he can handle.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  80. ES: What it means critically for me, is that my parents were teaching an extreme form of wives submitting to husbands while also expressly teaching us that Arianism was a heresy

    I can imagine that your parents had no idea where the extreme ideas of submission came from and they were trying to live as faithfully as they knew how to do at the time. There were many ideas in the 70’s which included that, including Gothardism (Baptist), Reconstructionism (P&R), and offshoots too numerous to mention which I’ve forgotten. And that doesn’t include traditional denominations that were perhaps not as cultic. The 60’s and 70’s were a time of great turbulence and disruption, and people were frightened. We made mistakes, as people do when we are fearful.

    I want to draw a distinction between submission and subordination, though. We are all called to submit to one another, and that is a very good thing. Subordination, especially subordination that is demanded and no where prescribed, or even described, in scripture is a very bad thing. Making up stuff and calling it scripture is always a bad thing, if you’re a conservative, as I am. RBMW has lots of made-up stuff that sounds super-spiritual and plausibly good. But it’s not what God has said, so it’s not good. Aimee is pointing some of that out. I’ve pointed more of it out a long time ago here. She’s nicer than I am.

    So much toxicity has been introduced into relationships by framing them as power relationships. That may be necessary in the world. It must not be so among those who are in Christ. Tragically, church leaders are also the leaders in perpetuating a model of relationships based on power. That is not what Jesus taught nor what he modeled. It’s not what Paul taught, either. Not even in the pastorals.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  81. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): I checked out Cross Politic!!!Uhm, OMG, OMG, OMG!!
    Hubby needs to shove me into that pet carrier and get me to the vet, quickly! I haven’t had my rabies shots –shoot, I’m not even leash broke!

    Seriously, I went through a few pages and found an article on Johnny Mac and Beth Moore.It appears that these prime examples of Holy Misogyny believe that we wimmenfolk will be judged by our homemaking abilities when when stand before the Bema seat of Judgement …….. I’m not kidding you!If God’s gonna question Beth Moore about her homemaking, I reckon He’ll be coming after us all!

    Yes Nancy.
    The doctrines being created are for application in this life. Biblical manhood is as was fortold in the beginning, the man would rule over the Woman. The Woman would have sorrow.

    But the objective is the afterlife. What matters is the subordination of women in Heaven. The current teachings have no, zero, no expiration at the reconstitution of all things.

    The same goes for ESS. It has no practicle effect in this life. ESS is only created for the life to come. Both these belief systems will cause unavoidable conflict. The difference between the two is ESS is a direct challenge to the authority and divinity of Jesus Christ.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  82. Gram3: So much toxicity has been introduced into relationships by framing them as power relationships. That may be necessary in the world. It must not be so among those who are in Christ. Tragically, church leaders are also the leaders in perpetuating a model of relationships based on power. That is not what Jesus taught nor what he modeled. It’s not what Paul taught, either. Not even in the pastorals.

    The simple fact of the matter is if these men were treated the way they treat women, and if the theology was reversed, they’d be in a different religion. They wouldn’t follow the God they’ve created in their minds.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

  83. Robert,

    Complementarian is female SLAVERY. It is Christian men concluding they are entitled to a trapped female slave.

    Complementarian men have also concluded that if they decide to beat or rape their wife she can’t divorce him for it.

    Complementarian men look at their own baby daughters and all they see and think of is sex.

    Complementarian men do not love their wives or their little girls. They are the most selfish, childish, self-worshiping, abusive, and embarrassing men in all of Christendom.

    Complementarian men have every bit the belligerent condescending contempt for 2 year old baby girls as they have for 35 year old women.

    I was born and raised in complementarian. I became suicidal at age 11 and told my mother at age 16 I wish she had aborted me. If my parents had loved me they would not have raised me in in the male supremacy pro female slavery cult that is complementarian. My mother should have aborted me before having me with a complementarian man. But, she was a brainwashed underage girl who was also born and raised in the wicked cult that is comp. She was nothing but a trapped slave for my child-marrying comp father.

    Pedophilia and incest is the obvious evolution of complementarian.

    Can you not see that complementarian causes women and little girls intense pain? Or, are you like all the complementarian men I have ever known who believe it is women’s and little girl’s job to hurt to make Christian men feel good?

    John Piper giggles about men abusing their wives and he also wants women to take abuse from abusive husbands.

      (Reply & quote selected text)  (Reply to this comment)

Leave a comment - Click here for our commenting rules

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *