"cbmw.org will provide you tons of good resources on this [complementarianism]. cbmw.org They have a booth here in the exhibit hall. Recovering Biblical Mahood and Womanhood, a great book you ought to read on this." – Ligon Duncan
Ligon Duncan, in his 'role' as moderator for the panel discussion on complementarianism at this year's T4G, strongly endorses the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), as stated above. Why is CBMW so important to Duncan? Because until last summer he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Now Russell Moore serves in that capacity, although the website doesn't yet reflect the changing of the guard.
In the partial transcript of the complementarianism discussion featured in the previous post, it was interesting that John Piper did not remember many details about how "complementarianisim" came into existence. His buddy Wayne Grudem has written a detailed summary of events that led to the invention of this term and theological interpretation of gender roles. Last month we highlighted some of those details, and what follows is an excerpt from that history.
Wayne Grudem explains the early history of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
After his first article on kephalē was published in 1985, he received an invitation be a plenary session speaker at the 1986 Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) meeting in Atlanta. The theme was "Manhood and Womanhood in Biblical and Theological Perspectives." He then notes that he was the “token complementarian” among the speakers who had been invited. According to Grudem, there was an imbalance with the plenary speakers that did not accurately reflect the membership in the ETS. He and Wayne House, along with several others, met “secretly” to discuss this.
Grudem then reveals: “We all were saying that we had to do something because egalitarians were taking over the ETS in a way contrary to the convictions of the vast majority of the members of ETS. So I made an announcement at the end of the ETS meeting that if any others would want to join us in a new organization dedicated to upholding both equality and differences between men and women in marriage and the church, they should please talk to Wayne House or me. (Gleason Archer was still president at that last session, and he gladly let me make the announcement.)”
A month later Grudem and House met in Dallas along with John Piper, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, Ken Sarles, and "perhaps some others" (Grudem's exact words). Hmmm….. During the meeting they drafted a statement on principles for manhood and womanhood, which included:
– Adam and Eve are equal in God’s image
– Adam’s headship in the family and the human race was established by God before the fall, not as a result of sin
– The fall created strained relationships (sin) between men and women with men having a tendency to rule harshly and selfishly and women having a tendency to usurp authority over men, etc.
Grudem explains that these concepts were the basis for the Danvers Statement and that John Piper supplied “substantial wording” for what would become the Danvers Statement. As Grudem reflected on that meeting, he writes: “We left Dallas encouraged that God was guiding our work.”
I believe this next portion of Grudem's summary is extremely important!
"We next met at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers, Massachusetts, on December 2-3, 1987, just prior to the 1987 ETS meeting at Gordon- Conwell Seminary. We finalized our statement, called it the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and voted to incorporate as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. CBMW was off and running.
But we were still meeting secretly in 1987, not posting the meeting anywhere, not letting anyone know what we were doing. We just didn't want to get involved in controversy and argument while we were still getting organized and deciding what exactly we would stand for."
The President of Crossway Books, Dr. Lane Dennis, attended the meeting and while at the Sheraton he discussed with John Piper and Wayne Grudem the possibility of editing a book of essays on manhood and womanhood. That idea eventually became Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.
Next Grudem shares the strategy they implemented to "take over" the Evangelical Theological Society, which included attending ALL future ETS meetings as well as ETS business meetings in order to vote for candidates for the nominating committee who shared their principles. Where have we heard this strategy before? (SBC)
Grudem then summarizes the results of their efforts, by writing: "When I reflect on the fact that the incorporation of CBMW, the finalizing of the Danvers Statement, and the agreement to produce Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, all came out of that one meeting at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort, I think it is one of the Lord's pleasant acts of providence that twelve years later, on November 17, 1999, I had the honor of giving the ETS presidential address in that very same hotel. Those were the only two occasions in the sixty-year history of the ETS that the Sheraton Ferncroft was the primary hotel for the conference.)"
Finally, Grudem explains how they went public with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), by writing:.
"For those first two years we were still a very secret, by-invitation-only group. But by December, 1988, at the ETS meeting at Wheaton College, we were ready to go public. We announced the formation of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and handed out brochures. We even had a press conference (Christianity Today showed up, but nobody else). We coined the term "complementarian" as a one-word representation of our viewpoint. So we were now known to the ETS, but not yet in the general evangelical world."
They proudly announced the formation of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the January 13, 1989, issue of Christianity Today. Then Crossway Books (CBMW's ally from day one) released Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991. The following year it was chosen as Christianity Today's "Book of the Year".
So now you know how the word "COMPLEMENTARIAN" came into existence.
It is somewhat surprising that John Piper's memory places Danvers in Connecticut, not Massachusetts. As important as the Danvers Statement appears to be to Piper, we don't know what to make of this geographical inaccuracy during the complementarianism panel discussion. It was a HUGE relief to hear John Piper say that you don't have to be a complementarian to be saved.
During the second half of this discussion, Ligon Duncan explained that he sees pastors having three different responses to complementarianism.
(1) Some will lean into it (embrace it)
(2) Some will put it on the back burner
(3) Some will question the issue itself
Russell Moore suggested a fourth category of hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity
If you haven't yet done so, we strongly encourage you to invest thirty minutes into listening to this panel discussion.
Here are the highlights from the second half of the discussion on complementarianism.
Russell Moore (17:22 mark): When people embrace this issue, they are forced to become counter-cultural in this society to say I love what it means to be a man or a godly woman say I love what it means to be a woman or simply to love children and to love families and to do what it takes to love families. So when you see that man who is working two or three jobs so that he can provide for his wife and children, when you see that mother who is not seeking her own career advancement but really sees pouring herself into nurturing the next generation and Titus 2 woman to woman ministry as being valuable and worth it, you’re seeing something that looks increasingly strange to the outside culture but strange in I think a glorious kind of way, which means that we as a church need to stop mimicking the outside culture even with the kind of pictures we put of women, for instance, in our printed materials. We give this picture that seems to say the supermodel shall inherit the earth rather than saying what we really value is not that Madison Avenue caricature; it’s something else.
Next Greg Gilbert makes two points regarding complementarianism:
(1) It is impossible to back burner the issue because pastors have to make decisions about who will fill the pulpit and read scripture from week to week.
(2) When women's roles are framed in negative terms – what women cannot do in church — it is detrimental. Gilbert says he wants women serving in every way in the church according to the guidelines provided in Scripture. There are certain roles God has reserved for women in the church, and Gilbert prefers to focus on them.
Ligon Duncan then asks John Piper about receptiveness / acceptance / embrace of the complementarian message amongst the young folks. Piper says there are thousands of young women who are embracing this. Really? He explained that there is a tremendous difference in the 20’s and 30’s crowd today and those who were viciously opposed to his ideas during the late 80s. Piper did concede that he is out of touch with the vast majority of young people.
Toward the end of the panel discussion, John Piper responded to a previous question posed by Ligon Duncan. Here is what he said:
John Piper: Can I answer your other question? All I wanted to add was there’s a line of continuity between simple homespun conservative evangelical complementarianism and so-called gay marriage, and in those days I used to say you're gonna quote Galatians 3:28 on me there's neither male nor female the way you're quoting it I know where that's gonna go and they would scoff at me, just scoff at me! Nobody’s scoffing today. Nobody’s scoffing today. There’s neither male nor female. See, there really is neither male nor female with that hermeneutic. Now here’s the question that I found. The question you asked was what do you to say to people who might be a little skeptical or whatever. The question egalitarians have never satisfactorily answered for me is if you’re raising an eight year old little boy or little girl, you're mom or dad, and that little girl says to mom mommy what does it mean to grown up and be a woman and not a man? Or the little boy – daddy what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman? It will not do to just talk in terms of plumbing – biological – cause that's not your personhood. And it won't do to simply say courage, humility, righteousness, Christ's likeness. Cause [the] little kid's gonna say no, no I mean a woman and not a man. No answer. No answer. And that's the question I would ask these folks. What will you say to an eight year old or a ten year old who says what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman? What separates me? And I don't just mean body. I mean is there anything that matters?…What are you gonna say if you can't give some articulation to complementarity between them. And by and large you don't. I read book after book after book after book in those days when I was trying to fight the battles. They never would address the issue. . .
It certainly sounds like John Piper is trying to say is that if you don’t draw the line between complementarianism and egalitarianism, the end result will most likely be gay marriage.
This appears to be another Calvinista fear tactic to intimidate pastors into embracing complementarianism.
Lydia's Corner: Ezekiel 24:1-26:21 Hebrews 11:1-16 Psalm 110:1-7 Proverbs 27:14
They need to push CBMW as you posted the numbers a while back and it is not doing so well financially. And there is a whole new generation of YRR guys to buy stuff.
Piper’s assertion about 8 year old girls asking such a question is ridiculous. (I have no doubt his daughter asked it because of who she lives with!!!) How many have had that question asked by a kid? Here is an answer: You are created in the Image of God and are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone. We serve a great God. Period.
These men are just plain silly. But they are also deceptive. Why keep something about what they perceive at total “truth” so secret? To take over an organization? What wolves.
“So when you see that man who is working two or three jobs so that he can provide for his wife and children, when you see that mother who is not seeking her own career advancement but really sees pouring herself into nurturing the next generation…”
How is having a home situation like the one described above “Biblical”, or even sane? What good dad doesn’t want to have the time to “pour himself into nurturing the next generation” right alongside his wife? Can’t do that and work three jobs too.
I should just say: if your family is in a dire financial situation and the only way to get out is to hold down three jobs, then that’s obviously the right thing to do. But if there are two able bodied adults in the family to share the financial burden, well… it would sure be nice if the kids got to see dad more than a half hour a day between shifts.
Good points Rene, and because the father is away the mother becomes the sole disciplinarian, financial manager etc – no doubt taking on the roles that they are so feared women will take on! Of interest, the Dallas meeting had women attendees:
“A month later Grudem and House met in Dallas along with John Piper, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, Ken Sarles, and “perhaps some others” (Grudem’s exact words). During the meeting they drafted a statement on principles for manhood and womanhood, which included…”
What a disappointment when women are contributing to their own, and other women’s bondage (I really can’t think of a more accurate word than bondage).
I was going to make the same point as René. You see a man holding down two or three jobs, when will that man have time to spend time with his kids? He’ll, by necessity, be an absent father. The only one raising the kids will be the mother…
Alternatively, he’ll sacrifice his rest time to squeeze in time with his family, and become increasingly stressed out, physically ill, and his health will suffer.
But either way, that’s a beautiful example of sacrificial love, and living up to the complementarian ideal!
Dee and Deb, it does appear that neither of you will affirm the New Testament scriptures teach male leadership in the home and in the church.
That being true, TWW’s brand of Christianity is not exactly conservative. I predict TWW will drift further and further away from Biblical orthodoxy.
@Jimmy, if that’s how you define biblical orthodoxy, then I can only hope your prediction comes to fruition.
Leave it to a bunch of men to keep making what is between their legs the mainstay of religion. They certainly spend an awful lot of time pontificating on these minor issues. They are majoring in the minors as it were when it comes to Christianity.
John Piper wants to ignore Galatians 3:28 because it doesn’t fit into his view of male and female. That scripture will no more turn a boy gay than saying that black and white people are equal in God’s eyes will turn a child into a racist.
If Jesus is gender blind, then so should these men be. I guess that’s too much of a threat.
Please! Neither I, nor my son, nor my granddaughter ever asked what it meant to be a man or a woman. The ultimate way this question is answered is by modeling him or herself after the parent of the same sex. If would never occur to me either to judge someone on some artificial masculinity or feminity scale. Neither I nor my husband are absolutely feminine or masculine but a mixture like most human beings. We’ve been married for 43 years,very happily and imperfectly. He’s helped me through a heart attack and two bouts of breast cancer. We’ve raised a son who’s a strong Christian, a husband and a step-father and are grateful to be part of a strongly egalitarian church that helped us do all these things. God created people male and female, not John Piper. Thank God.
“(2) When women’s roles are framed in negative terms – what women cannot do in church — it is detrimental. Gilbert says he wants women serving in every way in the church according to the guidelines provided in Scripture. There are certain roles God has reserved for women in the church, and Gilbert prefers to focus on them.”
—–
Gilbert wants to make sure there are enough women to staff the church nurseries (God knows the men don’t want THAT job), clean the church kitchen, organize meals and potlucks….that’s all in scripture, right?
Jimmy: Scripture interprets Scripture. There are so many passages of women that God used in mighty ways. Of course Deborah the judge is one (Judges 5), Hannah (1 Samuel 2),and many more in the OT. In the NT there is Phoebe(Romans 16:1-2, Phillip’s daughter’s who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9), Priscilla who helped teach Apollos (Acts 18:24-28), Mary mother of Jesus (Luke 1), and many more.
The Holy Spirit was the only criteria for inclusion. One had to have Christ as their Savior and be born again regardless of race or gender. (Acts 10:27, Galatians 2:6-10). And this is not to mention all the passages where Christ treated women as people. He treated people as people.
So my advice would be to read all of Scripture, not just picking out a verse here and there Jimmy. There are many other passages I could give where women were in ministry, and some even went against what their husbands told them to do. God honored these women. Look it up and see if what I am saying is true.
Just as a small comic interlude, I will let you know that I am the woman who put my copy of Grudem’s Systematic Theology (or whatever it was called) into the boot of my car because I wouldn’t have a book that taught double predestination in my house and deliberately failed to remove it when I sent the car to be crushed. Oooops. But then it was all to much for my teeny tiny woman brain.
Jimmy,
In 1 Timothy, our most esteemed Paul says “I will that the younger women marry, bear children, oikodespotein, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
oikedespotein=rule the household
So, PAUL has expressly told women to rule their household.
You just need to dig a little deeper to get at such truths which undermine what they always told you in church. I suggest starting here: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Lesson%2048.htm Bushnell gives several clear examples of translational veiling of the equality of feminine authority.
Blessings!
Charis
Jimmy, you kept on insisting that Deb and Dee answer you. Could you now answer Eagle?
To refresh your memory, his question is here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/04/26/complementarianism-a-primary-doctrine-at-together-for-the-gospel/
It is on the comments of 27 April 5:57 am; 11:42 am; and 8:36 pm.
You know, if people fail to answer you, it may be because you evidently are not interested in two-sided discussion.
Jimmy and Debbie give you sage advice.
When reading the Bible, it is best to consider ALL the verses, not just the ones you like that, when stringed together just so, seem to support what you want the Bible to say.
This is what the Danvers, CBMW, Piper, Grudem, Moore, Duncan all do and they teach others to do likewise, completely missing other things that Paul said and much of what Jesus said and did while walking on earth.
In order to support their male-favoring, hierarchical doctrine, they MUST ignore and sweep under the rug, the words of Jesus, and wave in front of everyone’s faces their favored verses from Paul like a magician playing a trick on people.
Here are the words of Jesus that Piper, Grudem, Duncan, and Moore pretend that Jesus never said:
Matthew 23:8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
Luke 22:25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
Jimmy,
In Genesis, Eve is called the “ezer” to Adam, formerly translated as “helpmeet”. In Psalms, God is called the “ezer” to the Psalmist. So God created Eve to have a relationship to Adam that parallels Gos’s relationship to the Psalmist, and God was definitely not under any headship, covering, etc. by the Psalmist.
The problem is that the patriarchalists are selectively taking little selections out of the Bible, mistranslating them (e.g., Junia the apostle was transgendered by translators to be Junias), and then telling us that the other passages are unimportant or misunderstood.
The Bible clearly teaches that God calls, equips and provides for all of those who believe and are willing to be servants (as opposed to “leaders”). Jesus clearly taught that his followers are not to be “over” others, and that includes all males who are not to be “over” anyone, including their spouses.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH MALE LEADERSHIP IN THE HOME. Any statement to the contrary is heretical and defies the teachings of Jesus.
Jimmy
You use a silly tactic to differentiate you from me. There was this scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers when, the protagonist was running from the aliens, and all of them turned and pointed fingers at him and made an odd wailing noise. Somehow, that reminds me of you. Call me liberal but I think if you were to see my life and the things that I do within my family and for my community you might not be so sure.
Actually, you well demonstrate that complementarianism, your way (and of course that is Piper’s way) is the defining factor of what constitutes an conservative Christian. Jimmy, I urge you to rethink this. I pray that you will be the most loving and gracious servant to your wife and that you love her as Christ loves the church. May you cherish her and be known in your community as the man who so demonstrates the love of Christ in his marriage that many look at the faith because of your example. May you serve the poor and let down in a self sacrificing manner and bring the word of God to those who have not heard it. May your life be a shining example of the love of Christ.
Beakerj
I will add to your funny story. I taught through Grudem’s Systematic Theology with my husband and another man. We had some funny moments, especially when I was teaching on the role of women. I said that Grudem would have a fit if he saw me teaching that section-well, teaching in general. It was kind of fun to point out areas of disagreement, especially when there were those who thought Grudem was kind of like the Bible.
I often get a snicker when people feel the need to defend their idols-Grudem, Piper, Calvin, etc as if they were speaking the very word of God instead of their own view. How silly it all becomes when time is spent of the apologetics for Piper instead of apologetics of the very Word of God.
“Dee and Deb, it does appear that neither of you will affirm the New Testament scriptures teach male leadership in the home and in the church.
That being true, TWW’s brand of Christianity is not exactly conservative. I predict TWW will drift further and further away from Biblical orthodoxy”
All the code words are here: Liberal, conservative, biblical orthodoxy (whatever that means to him)
What does Jimmy do with Luke 8? Here we have the very married Joanna out galvanting around the country with Jesus, neglecting her duties and even supporting Jesus out of her own resources. How does she have resources? No where do we see she needed permission from Chuza or whether he was a believer or not. We simply do not know. Scripture just records it as a fact. Seems it was not a sin to Jesus she was traveling around with other married men, too such as Peter, etc.
See, when we enter the spiritual realm it is quite different than this Talmudic world so many of these guys want us to live in. They have control in that world. They have no control over others when it becomes the spiritual realm. That is why we should get away from them and warn others.
Barbara
Thank you for your wise words. 43 years of marriage! How wonderful! I weary of these comps who insist that there is only one to do it and it is there way. Then, within their own little group, they start deciding what constitutes a woman’s role and a man’s role. They then come up with silly rules like a woman can’t read the Bible out loud in church! These men are very confused and the more they try to define it the more ridiculous they sound.
Mark
“will no more turn a boy gay than saying that black and white people are equal in God’s eyes will turn a child into a racist.” This is a great statement. Piper shows a profound misunderstanding of the causes of homosexuality. This is not meant to get into the discussion of the issue which we have done in the past. They are treading on very serious ground here and will spread false guilt to many families if they do not watch out.
For example, take a woman who runs her home as the leader while dad is away in the military for a long time. So, this role will make her son gay? How about a dad who loses his wife and raises his two girls, cooking and cleaning as well as working? This leads to lesbianism?
Sometimes the stupidity that reigns today is overwhelming.
Clay
This soon to be “flaming liberal female blogger” thanks you.
Jimmy:
You said:”Dee and Deb, it does appear that neither of you will affirm the New Testament scriptures teach male leadership in the home and in the church.
That being true, TWW’s brand of Christianity is not exactly conservative. I predict TWW will drift further and further away from Biblical orthodoxy.”
Jimmy, has it ever crossed your mind that you just might be wrong about all of the male leadership stuff you believe is in the scriptures.
BTW, I find TWW quite Biblically Orthodox.
Haitch
I like to follow politics although, in general, I keep it away from this blog since I believe that Christians of good will can come out on differing sides of most political issues.But I think there is an example that might bode hope.
You said, “What a disappointment when women are contributing to their own, and other women’s bondage” I have a theory and I base it on Rick Santorum’s presidential run.(I am not endorsing anyone, promise!!!!!!) Rick did fine so long as he stuck to the knitting. But, then he waded into things like contraception-something that many Christians differ on- and several other issues. Suddenly, his popularity began to take a hit.Why? he began to lose the support of the larger base.
Right now, NeoCalvinism is the au courant theology. We have lived through the “Late Great Planet Earth scourge in which people said if one didn’t believe in a pretrib rapture, one was probably not a Christian.That has passed, in general although there are still a few stalwart proponents. There was the shepherding movement which feel out of favor due to abuse but a few people morphed if into some current permutations. Then there was the “Moral Majority which linked the faith to the America flag.
The really weird stuff-women not reading Bibles in churches, patriarchy (the larger culture will fall down laughing),ESS, Driscoll’s pronouncements on gender, Pipers stuff and so forth, will continue to get weirder and weirder. They will start infighting, guaranteed, as to who is the MOST GODLY COMP. And they will begin to lose the hearts of many people and others will not come to their churches. Over time, radicalism, on either side< has consequences. For now, they are self talking in their own little clubs. But, a T4G that brings in 7500 people is not major. In fact, it is rather small.Their message, in my opinion, will not resonate with the culture at large. Especially when they start with the nonsense that a woman can be a CEO but she can't read Scripture out loud in church. My guess, give this movement another 5 years. Major problems will develop. There are already cracks in the alliance-Elephant Room, creationism mandates,etc. They will start going after each other and the movement will wane.
Mot
Thank you for your comment. I, too, believe I am orthodox. However, today’s post evangelical doctrinistas are proposing secondary doctrine that is necessary for one to be considered orthodox. It really is a yawner sometimes. For example, just 10 years ago, there were those who said that in order to be a “conservative” Christian, one had to believe in a pretrib rapture. Now that the Calvinistas are on the scene, that is no longer “required.” So the thing is extreme complementarianism. This, too, in my opinion, shall pass. Just wait till they start pronouncing themselves patriarchs. Frankly, as people look as these guys, the overwhelming response will be falling down laughing. Oh yeah, people will be flocking to churches to be converted by the patriarchs.
Frankly, I hope I live long enough to see the next permutation of “required” doctrine. Any thoughts as to what it will be? For example, will all Christians be required to consume “a little” wine (which I do-I am talking about required) since Paul said a little wine is good for the stomach? I can see it now. People will come to church and will be handed a 1 ounce glass of red wine (unless they prove that it was white in the region of Jesus) and forced to consume it before entering the church service. They will then have to come up with some theology about how to deal with alcoholics who cannot consume an alcoholic beverage.
Better yet, since these guys love the patriarchy thing, perhaps they will mandate that all men wear a multicolored robes like Joseph and carry a staff during church services. Women will wear veils and not be allowed to wear gold jewelry.
Evangelical watching can be fascinating.
“Sometimes the stupidity that reigns today is overwhelming.”
Agree!! But how do we explain the stupidity of those that believe it? That’s been my question for a very long time. One doesn’t have to be a scholar to see the contradictions in the Word. Why do some believe the false doctrine being taught? Can’t figure it out.
Thought this post was interesting and worth a look. 😉
Might have some insight to these…
“Complementarians Pushing CBMW”
——————-
“When Narcissism Leads”
http://sentralizedgathering.com/blog/when-narcissism-leads/
NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Or – NPD = Narcissistic Pastor Disorder. 😉
The following list is a tool professional’s use for help in diagnosing NPD
From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition:
NPD = “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior),
need for admiration, and lack of empathy,
beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,
and indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1 – Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2 – Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3 – Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high status people (or institutions)
4 – Requires excessive admiration
5 – Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6 – Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7 – Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8 – Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9 – Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”[iii]
Does any of this sound familiar?
With the – “Complementarians Pushing CBMW” ???
Can’t speak for others, but I grew up in a dysfunctional home- abusive alcoholic dad, mentally ill mother… This causes wounds and for me, that woundedness included the tendency to be hyper-submissive (think of the lesson that a sexually abused child learns…) and a deep seated belief that men are more valuable and important than women.
BTW, you mentioned your Ephesians study elsewhere. Do you have it published online anywhere? I would like to read it.
And – It only takes “five” to be considered, and to be labeled, to have – NPD 🙂
Charis:
“BTW, you mentioned your Ephesians study elsewhere. Do you have it published online anywhere? I would like to read it.”
You can read it here:
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=54650&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=200
My name there is Abiding in His Word as I’m the site admin of that discussion board since 2006. In all that time, I believe I’m the only egal among the 1700 or so members. Many challenge my understanding of Ephesians and the “headship” of the husband and this was once I think ended the discussion 🙂 although it does naturally resurface from time to time.
P.S. My real name is Mary Ann. 🙂
This strikes me as a “drink the Kook Aid,” scenario. The real life and practical applications of this teaching and lifestyle are ridiculous. God help the man that beomes ill. This hurts men and women. It does not glorify Godly love. Period.
Charis:
P.S. Forgive me for labeling those who believe compism as “stupid.” I thought about it immediately after clicking on the submit button, but it was too late to edit my post. 🙁
Piper said: “I read book after book after book after book in those days when I was trying to fight the battles. They never would address the issue. . .”
I wonder how many of these men have read anything that has been published since they wrote their manifesto? There have been SO MANY useful papers and books written since RBMandW was published 20 years ago.
Time after time I see the CBMW folks throw out these statements that point to the most radical proponents of egalitarianism. They never acknowledge that there are very valid writings out there that respond to RBMW. It is as thought they believe they have the very final word EVER on this topic and there is nothing to interact with since.
This makes me suspicious of what they publish because I don’t see a willingness to deal with the trickier aspects of their beliefs. I don’t see a willingness to acknowledge the valid questions other conservative, Bible-believing Christians are asking.
My summary is the last post on that page at the very bottom.
You can read it here:
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=54650&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=200
Deb
So let me get this straight…I know a couple. The wife is a doctor and the man is a computer geek. They had two daughters. They decided that she would practice medicine and he would stay home with the girls. During the years at home, he built a successful little computer business in his spare time. They have had a happy life. The girls are now adults and Christians. He now has a full time business and she is still practicing medicine.
So let me get Piper’s “trajectory” (a Calvinista term) straight. They are in danger of living a gay marriage. Is this stuff whacked or what?
Meantime, on another site, a commenter called us “mean girls.” May I be so bold as to say, given my rapidly advancing age and my matronly status that I be referred to as a woman. And what would happen if I referred to Piper as a boy? This stuff is crazy. The Mahaney women (who they say we have insulted) have a blog called “Girl Talk” and the males refer to themselves as men. but as you know, to keep things even, I am now calling them boyz.
Dee, I appreciate your post to Mot at 12:30pm todạy
I think these things are just fads in the Christian world, they come and go with no lasting value; so, I am not concerned. I read the bible and know Jesus loves women just as much he loves men.
I teach a bible class to both men and women and they all love it. I know there are churches out there saying women should not teach men. I DO! and men appreciate it. Just imagine the value that has been lost when these guys do not allow women exercise their God-given gift to build up the body of Christ because of gender roles! Personally I think, in general, women are more in tune with spiritual things and love Jesus more with fervent love. Of course there are exceptions for males..
I do what God calls me to do, serve Him faithfully and I ignore the eggheads who put restrictions on women. I follow the Great Shepherd, not these guys.
Have a good weekend. Dee, you are doing good!
I think it ridiculous
“The question egalitarians have never satisfactorily answered for me is if you’re raising an eight year old little boy or little girl, you’re mom or dad, and that little girl says to mom mommy what does it mean to grown up and be a woman and not a man?”… “What are you gonna say if you can’t give some articulation to complementarity between them. ” John Piper
Hmmm…
1) Teaching correct gender identity to our children is important.
2) Egalitarians (like me) do not know how to teach their children proper gender identity (but complementarians do).
3) Therefore all Christian marriages should be complementarian.
Sounds like Piper is selling snake oil. Perhaps this Piper is pied.
Dr. Jon,
I hadn’t associated John Piper with the Pied Piper, but now you have given me something to think about…
I am beginning to see some similarities.
Dee wrote: “…Call me liberal but I think if you were to see my life and the things that I do within my family and for my community you might not be so sure…”
C’mon now Dee, everbody knows that Muff is the only liberal-humanist-soshalist-apostate here! ===> (smiley face goes here)
Today I was blessed to participate in Operation Inasmuch through my church.
After reporting on the hyper-focus of gender roles by the T4G and CBMW crowds, it was refreshing to work together with godly men and women on a project that benefited an elderly woman in the community. We were ALL blessed as we worked to be a blessing.
I haven’t had time to respond to Jimmy due to my service efforts in the community, and now I have decided to let the TWW record speak for itself. If the Calvinista crowd believes we are trending outside of Christian orthodoxy (a la their peculiar definitions), then I take that as a compliment!
Dr. Jon:
I find that the “logic” displayed in statements and conversations by many in the Calvanista crowd is dismal at best. They usually “end up down” a rabbit hole.
Dee,
Thought you might be interested in reading my response to those who have called us “mean girls”.
Ellie,
Thanks for clarifying that Dee and I do not have an issue with traditional “Calvinists” per se, but with the Neo-Calvinist crowd whom we define as “Calvinistas”.
To demonstrate that we are not against “reformed theology”, we feature a pastor every weekend through our EChurch whom we consider to be reformed. Here is the latest EChurch post:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/04/28/echurchwartburg-4-29-12/
Another point of clarification – we are not against complementarians; however, we do have a problem with complementarians who condemn egalitarians.
Dee and I have thick skin and we have been called much worse than what has been expressed here towards us. We have a list of those names over on our website. Wartburg Witches is a favorite!
Neither of us has ever been a part of Sovereign Grace Ministries, but we have tremendous compassion for those who have been hurt and have attempted to bring attention to the abuses some have experienced.
Blessings to all.
Dee –
Please do not resort to “Meanie Mother Superior.” I thought the comment was unnecessary and perpetuated the mindset of not believing that people can discern for themselves, which is exactly what much of the issue is at SGM. It was a bit ironic.
I always disliked the title “Ladies’ Gatherings” as compared to “Men’s Meetings.” I much prefer to be called a woman and use “Women’s Meeting” since that our given name.
Bridget2
Never fear! The only thing that gets me going is when people hurt others by their theology. Then, on occasion, I am a bit thin skinned. Thank you for your kind words in that venue.
We are used to being called out on our stands and we have been called far worse than “mean girls.” My original comment was merely put there to offer my condolences on the AOR fiasco and to assure people that we will not forget it over here. We are so sorry for the pain that was caused by this report even though we felt it would most likely end this way. Please know that we will be praying for the many fine people who were hurt.
Now, back to slaying dragons!
Please help! I am a female nurse practitioner. I need for all males to wear Medic Alert bracelets identifying whether they are complementarian or egalitarian so, if a complementarian has a heart attack in my presence, I won’t sin by performing CPR and, thereby, placing myself in authority over him.
Oh wait! I am already sinning by being an NP but I promise, from now on, I will only treat women and children and merely “suggest” to the males at my practice anything they might, if they so desire, find it more beneficial to do differently…….Yes, I feel “different” in this role but certainly not “equal”.
Abigail
Be sure to apologize if you must ask them to do something like take their pills. “Mr Smith, I know you are a leader in the church and a patriarch and it is not my place to assume any sort of authority over you. Might you please consider taking these pills so you won’t drop dead and need to be resuscitated by a female nurse who will not be able to acknowledge your leadership during the resuscitation?”
Abigail
If only using a dull needle was not unethical…
Dee,
I guess I couldn’t charge for my most humble service, either. But no worries. My spiritual “covering” will take care of me since I am a single (again) and my father is no longer living…………except that my (ex) pastor could not tell me who that was supposed to be.
Victorious Sat, Apr 28 2012 at 01:20 pm
“Sometimes the stupidity that reigns today is overwhelming.”
Agree!! But how do we explain the stupidity of those that believe it?”
*****
One explanation: The spell-binding, hypnotic effect at these conferences. I can see the automaton nodding of heads now.
The powerful music, the collective vibe, the power of being united, lauded personalities who have been granted power, all invoking words like “God”, “Christ”, “Jesus”, “sanctified”, “holy”, and of course the trump cards “biblical” and “gospel”.
Very powerful sway.
Those attending really didn’t stand a chance. (of managing objectivity)
I guess very little is known about Grudem. This is why. He is very respectful in regards to how he and his wife interact. I watched a video about him and his story on leaving an area of the country and his job in order for his wife’s health sake. When he moved to Arizona a better climate for his wife, he found a seminary in Phoenix where he could work. He gave up a lot and was very sensitive to his wife’s issues.
This issue just seems to be getting way too conspiratorial about complementarians. The verse “in Christ, there is no female or male” means that there is no priority of favor of one to the other – that does not mean they each does not have their own distinctions or strengths. I am convinced the issues lie with the Hefner generation of men that led everything down the road to where it is today. Beware of men that support egalitarianism women they also support abortion rights and such. Shame on them.
If you look at the rise of the women’s movement, it actually led to rise of conservatism in the 80’s with the pro-life movement and other causes. The pro-choice movement was decided by an ALL MALE Supreme Court at the time. If you don’t believe me, think about it and please be a bit suspicious on the other side if your going to be suspicious of someone who is a complementarian.
I will say though since Patterson has come to Fort Worth, five strip clubs have gone up since his start, but somehow he was more concerned of women at the seminary and their roles in ministry. I don’t get that at all.
So let me get Piper’s “trajectory” (a Calvinista term) straight. They are in danger of living a gay marriage. Is this stuff whacked or what? — Dee
Piper’s just playing The Gay Card. Nothing is a brighter red murder flag to Christians than “THE FAGS”.
Anyone remember “Masked Man”, Lenny Bruce’s take on The Lone Ranger? (I’m sure it’s on YouTube somewhere.) There’s this one background character in the skit, one of the townspeople, who after Masked Man outs himself and Tonto just stands there pointing at Masked Man screaming “FAAAG!! FAAAAAG!!! FAAAAAAAG!!!!” for the entire rest of the skit. That’s the Christian audience Piper’s pitching to — “FAAAG!! FAAAAAG!!! FAAAAAAG!!!!”
(Come to think of it, isn’t total fear of anything “un-manly” — and you can’t get more “un-manly” than flaming homosexuality — real common among hyper-masculine types?)
I am Pentecostal. I would describe my view of gender roles as Pentecostal. That is, I believe that women can serve as pastors and teach congregations of men and women. However, I would not describe myself as an evangelical feminist.
I disagree with the concept of mutual submission. I believe that wives should submit to their husbands and that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church as scripture says. I agree with the basic premise of complementarianism, just not their application of it.
I believe that men should lead in the church and the home. It seems I’m not alone. Joyce Meyer talks about having to adjust to letting her husband teach her after she has taught others because she feels that is her biblical obligation. There are also female Pentecostal pastors such as Paula White and Sheryl Brady who feel that they need the covering of a man of God like T.D. Jakes.
I say all of that to point out that there is a via media, there is another option. It’s hard for me to understand why it is often overlooked in these kinds of discussions.
@ Casey:
“Beware of men that support egalitarianism women they also support abortion rights and such.”
All it takes is one egalitarian man who is pro-life to disprove your claim. TWW is full of them.
I’m sure you would be very upset if I said, “Beware of men who support complementarianism, ladies! They all support wifebeating!” And you would have every right to be upset, because that characterization would be false and unfair. It is no less false and unfair to claim that all egalitarians support abortion.
Also, don’t think complementarians are always shining angels of justice for women and children. If that were true, we wouldn’t have such frequent and well-documented cases of abuse coverups in conservative churches. On abortion specifically, Doug Phillips has come out and said that women with ectopic pregnancies should not have abortions – even though ectopics are almost always non-viable and carrying them to term with either kill or seriously injure the mother. So, when faced with the unfortunate ethical decision to save one life or lose two, he decided to let both parties die. So much for his favorite phrase, “Women and children first!” Even other pro-life groups are appalled at his stance.
Source citation:
http://www.thatmom.com/2008/06/06/doug-phillips-poses-threat-to-life-of-homeschooling-moms/
http://www.thatmom.com/2011/07/19/pro-life-apologist-has-this-to-say-about-ectopic-pregnancies/
Thanks for those links, Hester. I knew this about Dougy boy (the disrespecter of the lives of women) but the old link I used to go to was broken. I’m glad for other links.
Iverna Tompkins is a Pastor Emeritus who has traveled throughout the world speaking in churches and at conferences. In 1985, she founded and directed a Training Center for mentoring pastors, leaders, and their spouses in Scottsdale, Arizona. In less than ten years, she had trained hundreds of leaders from the US and abroad.
I sat under her ministry many years ago and have the utmost respect for her. Can you imagine that? She trains pastors and leaders!!!
You can read about her here if you wish:
http://www.ivernainternational.com/index.php/
There are some women who are following the leading of the Lord in utilizing their gifts. Thank God for them!
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=37682&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0427
Oh My. Look who is speaking to pastors wives at SBC Convention. The point of the article is bad enough when it comes to women. Sheesh!
I have been wanting to write a post about Mary Kassian. This looks like the perfect opportunity… Look for it this week. 🙂
One explanation: The spell-binding, hypnotic effect at these conferences. I can see the automaton nodding of heads now.
The powerful music, the collective vibe, the power of being united, lauded personalities who have been granted power, all invoking words like “God”, “Christ”, “Jesus”, “sanctified”, “holy”, and of course the trump cards “biblical” and “gospel”. — Elastigirl
Couldn’t you say the same thing about Nuremberg Rallies? Many eyewitnesses compared them to “revival meetings”.
Actually, I think you are right egalitarians can be supportive of pro-life. That was not my point. Just think there needs to be some equal time thinking about the other side of the issues with regard to their motives for both camps. I think that terms are not being supportive properly in this discussion and that what you are dealing with are actually traditionalists in complementarian garb. You are right This message of if you would “just submit to male leadership” and “everything will be fine” is garbage and sweeps all the mess I see in response to a relativist postmodernism under a bogus cover. I tell you Dee and Deb in the latest gang increase I have actually seen in the last few weeks resulting from this Trevon and the Latin Peruvain Zimmerman case I have greater concerns that America’s day are numbered. We have too many churches, denominations, and a welfare system I don’t even get. Keith Green said this once when I first made a decision in high school, “If the church would do its job there would be no need for welfare in this country.” He is right. Several ministry notable leaders in the country talks and talks about tithing and promotes prosperity tithing which was subjected to Israel only. I don’t get it. I am growing to have lower and lower respect for much of the leadership I see today when they have all this energy toward federal welfare and liberals and yet will NOT devise alternatives in welfare and helping struggling families.
My mother told me when I was older that she was actually was left and forced to possibly abort a fetus at age 43 due to medical reasons. I could have lost mother in that situation. I think she was 4 weeks out, I am not sure I was about three. My dad would not stop drinking at the time. There are some dilemas in life that people face that are tough decisions. Doug Phillips I am not sure who is. Sounds like a Pharisee legalist to me.
“I guess very little is known about Grudem. This is why. He is very respectful in regards to how he and his wife interact. I watched a video about him and his story on leaving an area of the country and his job in order for his wife’s health sake. When he moved to Arizona a better climate for his wife, he found a seminary in Phoenix where he could work. He gave up a lot and was very sensitive to his wife’s issues.”
Casey, Some saw it different and wondered why he wanted to make such a big point of “all he gave up” for her. It came off as him elevating himself. But it seems to have worked as many people believed him to have “sacrificed so much in his career for his wife”. Yes, we all know his position in AZ is not as big as the one he had/.
His son works with Driscoll.
I read the links, having some medical reasoning background, I really don’t get Doug Phillips point on how he says that a baby would not be viable to term in an etopic prenancy but the pregnancy should go on either. I get your point on this.
Is he related to Howard Phillips?
Casey
Doug Phillips is the son of Howard Phillips. We have written a numerous posts on Doug and the patriarchy he espouses. Doug is a dominionist, and he is extremely divisive in Christendom.
I was right. It is his son. The conservative reconstructional movement that I have seen in the last 10-12 years has a lot of problems with it. This “just submit” mentality that they have in solving postmodern problems makes no sense at all.
The ‘just submit’ mantra is not a thought-through solution to problems, it’s simply a stock answer designed to make the females in the congregation stay silent and stay in line with their agenda. The worst cases are, of course, when wives are told to ‘just submit more’ to abusive husbands.
Sorry, correction. The worst cases are when daughters are told to submit to sexually abusive fathers. I’ve read about that, but I’m not sure where. The Biblical Personhood blog may be where I found out about such ‘advice.’
The Reformation was never based on a “just submit” mentality. I told a minister friend of mine in where I had read the by-laws on his church that the term “elder led” church was a red flag. Nicolatians were known in conquering the laity. I have reservations when someone uses the phrase this is an elder led church.
Re: the Mary Kassain article…
From the article:
Ministers’ wives will view inward beauty at their annual luncheon in New Orleans as they study “The Hidden Person of the Heart,” drawn from 1 Peter 3:3-4.
In the passage, Peter tells wives that their beauty should come not from outward adornment but from a “gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”
AND
As Wicker prayed over the theme, she said she knew immediately she would ask Kassian to speak because of her skillful teaching of biblical womanhood.
“She’s outstanding and so balanced. She’s intelligent, she’s witty, she’s cute,” Wicker told Baptist Press. “My daughters, who are 33 and 22, absolutely love her, so she has the ear of women of all ages.
AND
“Having Mary to interpret that theme I think will be so incredibly encouraging because our culture has objectified women and has put so much emphasis on external appearances, and we need to remember that the greater beauty is an attitude of humility before the Lord, even in response to our husbands,” Wicker said.
—-
Okay, am I the only one seeing the glaring inconsistency here?
One of her qualifications is “she’s cute”? And the whole conference is about not focusing on the outward appearance?
Yeesh.
I’m intelligent. I’m pretty witty. But I’ll never get asked because I wouldn’t qualify as “cute”. But then this is New Orleans they are talking about. We in the Midwest don’t do “cute” quite the same way y’all down south do it. 😛
So,
“Having Mary to interpret that theme I think will be so incredibly encouraging because our culture has objectified women and has put so much emphasis on external appearances…”
******
hmmmm…. i’m thinking it’s possible that this annual luncheon in New Orleans (“The Hidden Person of the Heart”) might also be “objectifying” women, except from the inside.
If the standard of beauty is a “gentle and quiet spirit”, I guess my girlfriend whose personality is still loud and strong even when at her tempered best is just sore out of luck. Sucks to be her, I guess. Too bad when God formed her inward parts they did not fit the standard of what is of great worth in God’s sight.
So, I’m wondering and wanting to explore the possibility that much of christian culture, as expressed in conferences such as this one, are actually objectifying the so-called “inward woman”. Viewing women as objects not for sexual gratification but for relational gratification. An object, in the sense of being a quiet and gentle one.
Did a quick search on “objectify” and found this on Wikipedia (for what it’s worth):
“This term (objectify) is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors is present:
Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences.”
So, maybe we can dialogue more about this sometime.
(remember, elastigirl said it first)
Maybe ‘cute’ can qualify as a character trait as well as a type of physical appearance. I’ve been called ‘sweet’ before, though never ‘cute’, but perhaps cuteness is a type of sweetness. It’s certainly something that’s considered appealing and loveable. Usually. I wouldn’t want to be called ‘cute’, to be honest. I like my maturity, my mellowness, and my occasional bursts of assertive fire when the need for it arises. I wouldn’t fit into the patriarchal mould at all. I like my independence and individuality too much.
Oh yeah, and I can (and do) have a gentle and quiet spirit without submitting to a husband. It’s annoys me when patriarchs think that women who don’t subscribe to their views are rebellious, rude and power-hungry.
Anon1
Cute-the new patriarchal requirement for women. Well, Deb and I are absolutely adorable so do we qualify?
Anne – Maybe “perky” would have been a better word than “cute”? Or “sweet”? I don’t know Mary and have never heard her speak. It just struck me as ironic that she was described as “cute” when the entire purpose of the conference was inner beauty.
And I asked Dee and Deb to remove my last line. I felt convicted it wasn’t appropriate so I apologize if anyone was offended.
Jared
Where do you get your idea of a “covering?” Do you have any trouble with the theology of TD Jakes? Do you really think that he provides “covering” for White and others? Could you please describe to me the process that is involved in this covering? Does he meet with them and review all material?Does he carefully review everything they say? This is most interesting.
Comment edited by request.
Jared –
The “covering” of a “man of God” like “TD Jakes”?
I am also confused about the “covering” concept. Where is this found in scripture? If we are sealed with the Holy Spirit,” then what is this mysterious covering that many leaders claim that we need?
I suspect the “spiritual mysteriousness” about this covering notion is what adds to the legitimacy of the idea.
After all, who wouldn’t like to be able to claim to see into “spiritual mysteries” & further demonstrate this rarified knowledge by being able to throw the word out in conversation. As if it’s common knowledge, but of course only for the spiritually elite.
Brdiget2
Covering? Like a poncho? To make matters worse, by TD Jakes? Besides the theological issues, is he even around? What in the world is a covering? I swear the post-evangelical world is getting more and more difficult to understand.
Bridget2
This covering business is such a racket, I think i will get into the business. Starting right here and now, please send Dee $10 for every hour of covering you wish. Then, assume I am “covering” you.
I 1st encountered the whole “covering” deal in the early-mid 1980s and think it probably comes from a combination of discipleship/shepherding movement ideas plus Gothardite stuff, though I’m not certain of the latter.
I do know that I was subjected to speeches about it – including one about how I needed to move from one suburb to another, since I was single and on my own and thus not “under the covering” of the church’s “elders” (or that of a husband or father).
Gah!!!
I felt demeaned by the speeches I heard about “covering” – as if I was being treated like a child.
I was in graduate school at the time, fwiw… kind of independent, y’know?
How do they justify the enormous amount of time and energy spent on beating this meme into the ground all the timee? Don’t they ever stop and think, “Hey, we did the same exact conference the last go around, and the one before that, and the one before that, and…..” At some point, don’t you have to think it’s time to cover new ground? If I was one of these women (35 year old dude that I am), I would get tired of hearing the same thing over and over, even if I bought into it. Are they that myopic?
Are they that myopic?
What do you think, Scott? (i.e., YES.)
Numo
No problem. Take advantage of TWW’s new service. We offer covering for $10/hour. if you want a male, my son is a poor college student. He’ll do it for $8/hour-undercutting his own mother.
Dee – I think I’ll just throw a blanket over my head instead – won’t cost me a dime! 😉
All –
The “covering” issue is much worse, actually. Yes, people tithe to many of these churches that insist that they are covering you, but what is worse is that they often proceed to assume that they “own” your soul. You are now their business (as Numo shared above). Many of the heavey handed church discipline policies that we see now seem to perpetuate this idea. They want to own your soul!
I think people caring for you and speaking into your life should be on a much more interpersonal basis (by a friend who knows and loves you dearly) as opposed to a signed policy that you agree to. Often the people who are “covering” you don’t know you on a personal level.
Not a good situation in any form. It ends up being about control and authority and not LOVE and RELATIONSHIP.
Casey–
I’ve just started to see your comments recently and so I am assuming you are quite a newer commenter on this blog. I joined a little over a year and a half ago… Remember that because you see strong opinions here on the complementarian matter isn’t because “equal” thought hasn’t been given to both sides-and I guess by your concern, particularly regarding complementarianism), that there truly has been volumes and volumes or discussion, thought and extreme study by many longstanding and even newer individuals here who have put in their time and consideration to come to where they are now.
In my personal in depth studies, after two years of being subjected to this patriarchal teaching and culture in the church, more study simply isn’t needed. When it comes to historical context, socioeconomic political issues, Roman house codes, Greek and Hebrew translations and a host of other information available to us, this complementarianism as being preached today does not hold a light to the truth that “egalitarian” authors and thinkers, including the brilliant minds here, have brought to light by the very Scriptures that comps use to condemn others and subject women to permanent subordination to men by virtue of their genitalia…and in the same breath they want us to believe this by insisting that God the Father subjects himself unto himself as God the Son, altering the relationship of the trinity in a most non-classical understanding of which the existence of such a trinity lies outside and even deeper classical and historic understanding of the nature and personhood of God as was understood by the audience in the OT…
From the information you have presented and the questions you ask (which show that you do want to learn and that is also great) I’d say that maybe you could do a lot more considering the arguments of equal personhood between men and women, with no roles, subordination, etc..
Check out the books and links others have provided and especially over at Christians for Biblical Equality. You can’t really accuse others of doing what it appears you yourself are doing…
Why is it important to give a kid a black-and-white definition of the difference between men and women? Why do kids need that? Why is it not okay to say “Well, kiddo, men and women tend to be different in these ways, but not always. Really, God made all of us people, and individuals.” Why is that not okay? And don’t give me that gay marriage stuff. There are PLENTY of people raised in complementarian Christian homes who found themselves with gay feelings, so those feelings probably aren’t coming as a result of what kids are taught (or not taught) about gender roles. That is a ridiculous cop-out and Piper should be ashamed of leaning on such faulty logic.
Really I’ve had it with these guys. All they do, all day long, is set up straw men and then yell at everyone for not believing in those straw men. I am so tired of it.
The Observer
Okay John Piper, answer me this. What do you tell your kid when your kid says, “Dad, if God loves us, why does he allow evil?” Like your posed dilemma above, their is not black-and-white, clear-cut answer to that. Does that mean the kid is doomed, or that your theology is incorrect because it doesn’t provide black-and-white answers to every question?
There are plenty of relevant questions in this world that are hard to answer. To think you have those answers is the height of arrogance.
“Cute-the new patriarchal requirement for women. Well, Deb and I are absolutely adorable so do we qualify?”
Are you perky, too?
What I am trying to figure out is what these needy, doormat women whose lives are lived for their husbands and to “further his work” do when he dies? They are pretty much useless. They can’t teach and have no spiritual mentor anymore to tell them what scripture means. I suppose they can watch the grandkids? Surely they cannot handle money and all those hard things men must do for them. And they certainly have no experience making hard decisions. I guess the son or son in law handles all that for them?
“The Reformation was never based on a “just submit” mentality.”
Actually Casey, it pretty much was. They wanted to ‘reform” the Catholic church but not in the way many seem to think. They certainly did not want to do away with the hierarchy as such. They embraced it. They wanted to replace the sacraments with preaching and the preacher became the authority. (it started over indulgences if you read ML 95 theses) And it was totally political. The Reformers aligned themselves with princes who were the defacto “boss” of the churches.
I highly recommend people read secular history concerning the Reformation. The mongerism books tend to white wash a lot of stuff.
“Having Mary to interpret that theme I think will be so incredibly encouraging because our culture has objectified women and has put so much emphasis on external appearances, and we need to remember that the greater beauty is an attitude of humility before the Lord, even in response to our husbands,” Wicker said.”
Sallie, the blindness is astonishing. Think of this: NO ONE has objectified women in the Name of Christ more than Mark Driscoll. Yet the SBC partners with his Acts 29 creation of church planters. Think of it, hundreds of young men who have been trained in Driscoll’s thinking (sodomize your wife when she is not up to it) and are unleashed as YRR pastors.
Mrs Wicker is a blind guide and does not even know she is supporting the objectification of women in her own denomination. Because the SBC Reformed wing loves Driscoll.
“I am also confused about the “covering” concept. Where is this found in scripture? If we are sealed with the Holy Spirit,” then what is this mysterious covering that many leaders claim that we need?”
Thanks for asking the astute question Bridget. 1 John says that all true believers have “annointing”. It does not say it is only for men. I suspect Jared will trot out the Hebrews 13:17 proof text. Of course, it is a horrible translation of the Greek but fits the whole state/church mentality even though that translation contradicts all the other verses about lording it over and all the one anothers. Go figure.
@ Mara:
Glad to see I’m not the only one who affectionately refers to him as “Dougy” around the house. : )
Have y’all seen this?
Seems like well-known Christian apologist Doug Wilson has been taking pointers from Mark Driscoll. He wrote a post recently, titled ‘Your worship service might be effeminate if…’:
http://www.dougwils.com/Liturgical-Notes/your-worship-service-might-be-effeminate-if.html
I don’t know where to begin. I was frustrated and hurt after reading it. This kind of drivel is not new, of course. But it seems that conservative Christian leaders are now galvanising their efforts to spiritually demean women.
He begins with the qualifier, “To emphasize masculinity in worship is not a practice that excludes women. Rather, it includes them, brings them along, and makes them feel safe.” As if that explains the snarky, misogynistic list that follows. Note how men don’t need to be actively ‘included’ or ‘brought along’ into worship because their place in it is assured!
Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk has written a great response:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/esau-christianity
(Dee and Deb, perhaps this warrants its own post?)
JJ,
We haven’t spent much time focusing on Doug Wilson, but that will probably change. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
I did see part of Doug Wilson’s interview with Mark Driscoll a few months ago.
Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll (Part 1) Men and Masculininty
Sad Observer
“And don’t give me that gay marriage stuff. There are PLENTY of people raised in complementarian Christian homes who found themselves with gay feelings, so those feelings probably aren’t coming as a result of what kids are taught (or not taught) about gender roles. That is a ridiculous cop-out and Piper should be ashamed of leaning on such faulty logic.” There are some Christian leaders and pastors who have had kids who have gay feelings.And they were strong complementarians.This is a ridiculous concept and shows an utter disregard for the studies surrounding this difficult issue.
Casey
Please do not misunderstand this discussion. Although I do not subscribe to complementarianism as defined by Piper, Driscoll, CBMW, et al, I do not say that one cannot by a committed Christian and still be comp in perspective. I also do not believe that complementarian theology in general leads to women who wear burkas.
What I object to is the demonization of men and women who are egalitarian. Take, for example, the current “your kids will become gay if you are egalitarian” argument. Or if a husband stays home with the kids and the wife works, both agreeing on this arrangement, that the husband is “worse than a pagan” as some in this camp have suggested.
I also believe that some of the Bible verses used to “prove” a comp perspective have other interpretations and that one can choose the other interoperation and still be a dynamic Christian-evangeliaing the world. This is a secondary matter that is being catapulted to primary by some men who have nothing better to do with their time than to pontificate about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Finally, the dirty little secret in evangelicalism is that people mouth comp and live egalitarian. Even Tim Keller said that his marriage is functionally somewhat egalitarian.
I believe this blog exists to debate these issues, especially since there are many who now hold to the “Your kids will be gay if you are not comp” codswallop.
Casey
Please do some reading on Biblical egalitarians. I have not yet met any women who are egal and support abortion rights. I believe that such an argument has been advanced by men in the patriarchal camp. They can’t argue Biblically so they make up stories to demonize the other side. Please read stuff that comes out of the Christians for Biblical Equality.
JJ
Doug Wilson, much to my everlasting astonishment, has gained traction in the wider evangelical arena. I used to dismiss him as one of those bizarre fringe people. Now that John Piper has said he loves Doug Wilson, the gloves are off and we will do some writing on some of his beliefs that should make many evangelicals blush, including John Piper. Then again, I do not know what has happened to Piper in the past few years. He has increasingly started embracing some things that I do not believe he would have 20 years ago.
What I am trying to figure out is what these needy, doormat women whose lives are lived for their husbands and to “further his work” do when he dies? — Anon1
What happened to widows in Talibani Afghanistan?
And it was totally political. The Reformers aligned themselves with princes who were the defacto “boss” of the churches. — Anon1
And the princes came on board because as head of their own state church, all tho$e tithe$ going to Rome now went into their own pockets. And THEY were the ones now calling the shots, not some Pope beyond the mountains.
Covering? Like a poncho? — Dee
More like a chadoor or burqa.
elastigirl,
GREAT point about the collective experience of massive conferences. They are not places for dissent, debate, or discussion between opposing or even slightly differing views. When someone asks a question or makes a comment that suggests anything other than complete agreement and gratitude to the speaker, that person is treated like an unregenerate outsider or, more dismissively, a crazy. A nervous and bemused hush comes over the crowd as the speaker smiles awkwardly. I’ve seen it happen far too many times.
Dee, I am glad to hear that you will be writing about Doug Wilson. He is being given an increasingly broad audience through his new friends but he has not been held accountable for his positions that will make many evangelicals blush indeed!
On Piper, I wonder if his drift is simply the result of too many ‘yes men’ around him. When does he ever face serious disagreement, other than on blogs that he doesn’t read? I also think that some of the recent associations between hitherto disparate people (Mark Driscoll and DA Carson; Piper and Wilson, etc.) is (sadly) about extending theological influence and political power. Conservatives always perceive themselves to be under political/cultural attack, and so strange alliances get made. Heck, 100 years ago, Protestants and Catholics avoided or fought each other far more than they do now. In a more secular and globalized world (wherein Christians compete not only with secularists, but Muslims, Hindus, etc.) Catholics and Protestants have made alliances on certain issues because a Catholic looks more friendly than an evil university professor or muslim immigrant. I think that this is somewhat understandable and I am obivously glad that Protestants don’t persecute Catholics as subhuman as we once did. However, it also perpetuates US v THEM mentalities in unhealthy ways and gives the fringe a bigger microphone. Hence, Wilson.
I’ m still waiting for the Doug Wilson opus: “How to own a wife and slaves without beating them.” subtitled: being white and male the biblical way.
“All I wanted to add was there’s a line of continuity between simple homespun conservative evangelical complementarianism and so-called gay marriage, and in those days I used to say you’re gonna quote Galatians 3:28 on me there’s neither male nor female the way you’re quoting it I know where that’s gonna go and they would scoff at me, just scoff at me! Nobody’s scoffing today. Nobody’s scoffing today. There’s neither male nor female. See, there really is neither male nor female with that hermeneutic.”
I’ve commented before that Gal. 3:28 is a genuine gospel statement about men and women (as well as others). It’s a shame that Piper is only using it here to demonstrate a fairly obvious incorrect interpretation of it. I hope that elsewhere he or someone else at CBMW points out the truth of it as a gospel statement.
Beakerj –
I, myself, have some problems with Grudem, but he doesn’t teach double predestination in his Systematic Theology. “The term ‘double predestination’ will not be used in this book to refer to election and reprobation, since it blurs the distinctions between them and does not give an accurate indication of what is actually being taught.” (1994, p. 670)
Here is a website I found awhile back that discusses covering and authority theology. Disclaimer: I’ve not read everything there, but what I did read was very good.
http://coveringandauthority.com/
Sallie –
I totally “feel you” on the CUTE thing. Ick.
Scott
The Wilson slave thing is quite upsetting. I plan to do a review on it.
Sallie –
That site has some good information. It explains the teaching of covering/authority and why it is not healthy.
There are some very dangerous teachings going on in the homeschooling communities at conventions held around the US and perhaps in various parts of the world. I got involved in a church that now I would say seems like a cult. I have to be careful what I say because I’m right now in the middle of a lawsuit by my former pastor for defamation.
But in the midst of this “trial”, I have gone back many years in our family trying to figure out how we got drawn into this church. What belief systems led us there, who influenced us.
We have been homeschooling our 7 children for the last 20 years or so. People who are in the Christian homeschooling network need to do some very careful research. If you think you are going to a homeschool convention to get renewed, to get encouragement with your homeschool endeavors, you may, but do you know the background of the speaker? It would be one thing if the conventions were only about the practical ins and outs of homeschooling, the latest curricula, how to teach, but they are not.
Do Google searches on the following and see what you find floating around on the internet regarding and notice how many of these Christians are suing each other and being sued. What’s up with that? Doesn’t the Bible speak clearly about Christians not suing each other? Look up “dominionism” “reconstructionism” and see how the names interconnect. I’ll list some names to start: Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Art Robinson, D. James Kennedy, David Barton, Gregg Harris, ATI, Bill Gothard, HSLDA, Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron has recently been drinking the koolaid. Look up “covering”, quiver-full, dresses only, helpmeet, dressing modestly, courtship, etc. I am angry and feel used by these people who I thought were trying to help my family along our path. Some were using us to feed their political agendas and fill their pocketbooks.
There are countless blogs showing up from adult children who have been raised in these homes. These adult children have left the faith, some leave their families entirely, don’t have anything to do with Christianity, etc.
There is a serious problem going on in the homeschooling community and 99% isn’t even about “homeschooling”.
“Some were using us to feed their political agendas and fill their pocketbooks.” –Julie Anne
Just wanted to draw attention to that.
Julie Anne,
You have brought up something that deeply concerns me. I homeschooled my daughters for four years when they were very young (1995-1999). I attended the BIG homeschooling conference here in North Carolina for several years. The last time I attended (May 1998), Doug Phillips has just come onto the scene and was the keynote speaker. Yes, I heard him speak in person, and his message was pro-God, pro-family, and patriotic.
Before we began blogging three years ago, I did extensive research on Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, and I have continued to do so. We have written numerous posts on Phillips, Vision Forum, Family Integrated Churches, the video projects done by these groups, etc. I plan to do a post on Momumental soon.
Voddie Baucham is coming to the homeschooling conference next month, and I’m thinking about writing an open letter here at TWW to the organizers of this event and to homeschooling parents in general. Incidentally, the NCHE office is located just a few miles from my home.
Here’s the thing, Deb. People are not understanding how influential the Christian homeschooling community is. Homeschoolers have time on their hands. If parents get that political bug in their head, they get their kids on the agenda and incorporate it into their homeschooling curricula, they take their kids to the state capital, lobby, give school assignments on writing letters to congressmen and are very involved. Homeschoolers are very active in speech and debate. Look how HSLDA came on the scene and how it appeals to homeschooled kids to get involved in the legal system, become lawyers, lobbying efforts, etc. HSLDA attempts to speak for all homeschoolers by putting their nose in homeschooling laws all over the States. Not all homeschoolers have the same agenda as HSLDA and appreciate their efforts. Some would say HSLDA has removed some of their homeschooling freedoms.
Homeschoolers don’t need to be a part of a church that espouses these ideals because they group together via internet groups, homeschool co-ops, and find their niche. It is a very powerful group.
Keep in mind, the push is to keep popping out babies under the guise of “be fruitful and multiply” because we don’t want to prevent God from giving us His wonderful blessings. Hey, I have 7 blessings and love them dearly, but who was the one telling us these messages? People who are making efforts to take over the government and communities politically? Hmmm If you are going to tell me to pop out babies because they are a blessing because you want them to join your political effort, then tell me like it is. Quit covering up the truth.
Julie Anne – I’ve been in your shoes (well, not sued, but close) and I agree 100% about these homeschool “conventions.” I refuse to participate in NCHE here in NC since the whole Doug Phillips debacle a few years ago. Voddie Bauchum is on deck this year (excuse me while I puke).
They are all about their agenda. But there is one more thing they are about — MAKING MONEY. They want it. Gobs of it. They want to shove their products/books/cds/dvds/movies/curriculum/baby dolls/whatever down your throat and hope that by purchasing their products, you’ll feel a little bit “holier” and keep coming back for more.
Don’t let Doug Phillips or any of them try to tell you it’s all about the message. It’s about the M-O-N-E-Y
Doug Phillips now has his own homeschool convention (Teach Them Diligently) that just finished in March in Spartanburg, SC. His agenda gets weirder and weirder by the year. His next big thing is the “Reformation of Food,” which will have its own conference in July. The article below at his blog mentions things like “the theology of mealtime” and the “doctrine of feasting.” (I imagine you’re not alone if you never knew that feasting had its own doctrine.)
Source:
http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2011/11/9717/
@ JJ:
You’re right, that list was pretty offensive. It also displays a huge amount of musical ignorance on Doug Wilson’s part. He describes the music of Bach as “masculine,” but then rags on choir directors for insisting their singers “trill their R’s” correctly. As a musician and singer, I just had to smile. Rolling the R’s aids in projection (as it keeps the sound at the front of the mouth rather than back in the throat) and would actually HELP the choir to “fill the sanctuary with the loud sounds of battle”! And as for trills, Bach’s music is full of them – big extended ones that are so flowery they might make even Mark Driscoll’s testosterone levels drop. If Wilson wants straightforward, militant music, he should be opting for something more cacophonous. Death metal or gangsta rap might fit the bill. (Then again, Bach did sire twenty children with two different wives, so maybe that qualifies him as a “real man.”)
Also, Wilson seems to be saying that only “masculine” worship is acceptable to God. But according to Jesus, God’s criteria for acceptable worship is worship done in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24). This has nothing to do with gender, and was in fact spoken to a woman! And where in Scripture does it say that worship must be “masculine” or “feminine” anyway? Sure, if you’re comp, men are the leaders in the church. But since when does that give them the right to insist that women worship God like men? This seems rather ridiculous given their loud insistence that men and women are DIFFERENT and should do DIFFERENT things DIFFERENTLY. You’d think they’d want men to worship God in a “masculine” way, and women to worship God in a “feminine” way, instead of forcing square pegs into round holes.
I suppose they’d answer the above by saying that “masculine” should predominate in public worship, because men are the leaders in the church. But you’d think a “servant leader” (like comp men are supposed to be) could sacrifice his own desires long enough to sing a few “touchy-feely” worship songs for the benefit of the women in his flock. (And yes, by the same token, the women should not insist that all the songs be “touchy-feely.”) What you should have is balanced worship, reflecting the fact that the Body of Christ is made up of both men and women, and that Jesus is both the righteous Judge and the Good Shepherd.
True Words:
“Don’t let Doug Phillips or any of them try to tell you it’s all about the message. It’s about the M-O-N-E-Y”
That is not hard at all to believe once you pop on over to Phillips’ store/site and see all the overpriced stuff.
Julie Anne:
“Some were using us to feed their political agendas and fill their pocketbooks.”
And fund their pseudo let’s play dress-up reality–
TITANIC. Those dress-up costumes look pricey…and so necessary.
Hester –
If they are going to start a reformation of food and dinner time, then they will have to stop promoting Michelle Duggar and her famous “tater-tot casserole” gaahhhhhh!
Eagle, maybe they should issue slankets at the door for everyone. Boom! Problem solved.
“Three Little Principles?”
HowDee YaAll,
“The Reformation was never based on a “just submit” mentality…” -Casey, TWW (Sun, 4/29/12 2012; 05:43 pm)
“Actually, …it pretty much was. They wanted to ‘reform” the Catholic church but not in the way many seem to think. They certainly did not want to do away with the hierarchy as such. They embraced it. They wanted to replace the sacraments with preaching and the preacher became the authority. (it started over indulgences if you read ML 95 theses) And it was totally political. The Reformers aligned themselves with princes who were the defacto “boss” of the churches. I highly recommend people read secular history concerning the Reformation. The mongerism books tend to white wash a lot of stuff. -Anon1, TWW. (Mon, 04/30/12; 12:29 am)
hmmm… (scratch’in head)
Comic relief: “Disorder In The ‘Reformation’ Court?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C–fiTlbWiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
*
Q. In what does the ‘essence’ of Reformation Christianity consist?
What?
A. There are three principles which form Reformation Christianity in it’s essence:
1. A Christian receives the knowledge of the truth, only from ‘the word of God’, and Reformation Christianity admits no other source of religious knowledge.
2. By ‘the grace of Christ’ alone, the Christian receives the possession of salvation. Scripture recognizes no other meritorious cause for life eternal.
3. There must be in every sacred soul a moral and individual work of regeneration, wrought by ‘the Spirit of God’ alone, and not by a certain church adjunction, and the proverbial possibility of magical influence of certain pro-scribed activities…
*
Constantly recall’d,
In the mind’s eye,
Simple truths three:
By the word of God;
The grace of Christ;
The work of the Holy Spirit,
Christianity true!
A lamp unto the feet,
A light upon the path…
Three watch-lights great,
Spirit raised, Church endear’d,
Their light ought, spread end to world’s end.
While they shine,
The Church shines true, n’ walks in the light,
And light lamps the Christian’s life!
Soon extinguished these lights three,
Christianity obscured,
The plague, darkness spread.
– Sopy, April,’12
Now, kind folk, it is precisely these three fundamental principles of Reformation Christianity: the word of God, the grace of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, which when marginalized, and attacked, -Reformation Christianity is thereby overthrown. These three simple truths form the essence of Christianity, and also the very essence of the Reformation.
That is why these three truths are so important: the word of God, the grace of Christ,and the work of the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther said: “With them the Church stands, without them the Church falls.”
Buda bing, budda boom…big budda boom! nuck, nuck, nuck…
hum, hum,hum…♫♫♫ “..all else is sinking sand…”
Ipr♥ay4U
S㋡py
___
Inspiration: “My Hope Is Built On Nothing Less…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6tFzOYFZ30&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Comic relief: Fred Astaire – “gospel in distress drums”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cFtl6Mggc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
—
@ True Words:
Not if she uses organic heirloom potatoes locally grown by a Reconstructionist patriarch small farmer.
I will try to answer most of the questions that have been posed to me.
First of all, I don’t think Bishop Jakes is entirely doctrinally sound primarily because of his view of the godhead. After considering issues surrounding the “prosperity gospel” for a number of years however, I have come to the conclusion that Jakes’ views on prosperity are scriptural. He says he rejects the prosperity gospel while personally holding to a view that he calls “empowerment” which leaves room for suffering and the sovereignty of God. I do think that T.D. Jakes is an important evangelical leader in spite of his confusion on the doctrine of the godhead.
I hold that most Oneness Pentecostals are lost. But Jakes is not like most Oneness Pentecostals. He is more than willing to work with non-Oneness people and his views on the godhead do seem to differ slightly from those in most Oneness churches.
As for the idea of a “covering” I would use the same passages that traditional complementarians use to support their views. I don’t think it’s very hard to find the concept of a covering in scripture if you start with a basic complementarian framework and work your way out from there.
That is why sometimes I think of myself as a lenient complementarian. I agree with complementarians that we can have equality within hierarchy. The trinity is our model for this. It would be difficult otherwise to explain the trinity.
So I agree with egalitarians on the one hand when they say that the church has been wrong to silence the ministry of women. However, I also agree with much on the complementarian side of things. That’s why I think the traditional Pentecostal model is the best one. It provides for the greatest amount of freedom of any conservative evangelical position while avoiding a dangerous hermeneutic that could leave the door open for arguments in favor of ordaining practicing homosexuals to the ministry.
I use the term “traditional Pentecostal model” because I recognize that there is a progressive Pentecostal push to embrace labels and terms such as “evangelical feminist” and “mutual submission”. I reject those kinds of labels because they do not adequately describe my position. That is why I prefer to say that I am a lenient complementarian or a cautious egalitarian if I am going to use such terms at all.
ALERT TO ALL READERS
Wade Burleson received a phone call from the father of the victim in the Tom White situation. According to Wade, there is no question that abuse occurred. More to follow. Here is the link. http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/04/tom-white-abuse-vom-and-power-of.html
[Broken link fixed]
I also would like to add that the Pentecostal hermeneutic of empowerment is becoming more and more important in my theology.
Deb – thanks for the link. I’ll steel myself and watch the video soon. 🙂
Dee – It’s sad that many followers would sooner excuse or explain away their leaders’ more bizarre statements than actually examine them thoughtfully.
Caleb W – I agree with you that leaders like Piper would be surrounded by ‘yes-men’ (and yes-women, for that matter!). And the ‘us vs. them’ mentality is very strong. If you disagree, you are automatically seen as unfaithful. Think of how often conservative Calvinist treatises on various topics work in a sneaky disclaimer like, ‘of course those theistic evolutionists/egalitarians/inspired-not-inerrantists will disagree with this, but that is to be expected of unbiblical heretics.’ Well…words to that effect!
Hester – thanks for your encouraging input. I’m a musician too, and I agree – not sure how the ornamentation in Bach supports Wilson’s masculine worship agenda 😉
And what on earth is masculine worship, and what is feminine? I certainly can’t tell the difference. You’re right – God doesn’t characterise worship as masculine or feminine. For people who pride themselves on being ‘biblical’, some conservative complementarians are very happy to create their own extra-biblical standards. Seems that it’s not enough for the uber-complementarians to delineate how men and women must behave – they need to create an entire theology of worship based on warped gender stereotypes.
One of the things that hurt me the most about Wilson’s post was its underlying disdain for women. He used ‘the effeminate’ (however he defines it) as a catch-all synonym for things he views as weak, ineffective, or offensive.
JJ / Hester / Caleb…. aaaaaahg it’s all ridiculousness further dressed up in preposterousness.
If my husband & I were to focus on how great God is we could express ourselves doing jumping jacks and then sing “Bridge Over Troubled Water” with all our hearts and nothing NOTHING would be more sincere.
All these bossy religious requirers should be tar and feathered. I get to arrange the feathers.
elastigirl –
“If my husband & I were to focus on how great God is we could express ourselves doing jumping jacks and then sing “Bridge Over Troubled Water” with all our hearts and nothing NOTHING would be more sincere.”
HAAA!
I love the hubris of these guys, declaring those of us who are egalitarians as the ones who are hermeneutically challenged. Really? Shall I remind us that:
THEY are the ones that rely on proof texting to support their “sound doctrine”;
THEY are the ones who eschew Higher Critical Methodology and prefer to remove any and all human element from scripture—declaring inerrant the modern ENGLISH WORDs their very selves, removing bits out of context for their use like so many pool balls, putting them into whatever pocket suits at the moment, never seeming to consider that the body of contemporary English text they declare utterly inerrant is a body of text that has gone through several revisions over the years of the English translation alone, and has been translated into dozens of languages, usually without a unanimous consent of the world church at large I gather (you think the Catholics feel the ESV is an “inerrant” version…oh, wait, Catholics are real Christians…silly me).
THEY are the ones who, when they declare God’s Word inerrant, are really say that it is their interpretation of it that is inerrant
THEY are the ones consistently removing all culture and context from scripture, giving them the power to translate anything in the Bible to support whatever they say it means;
THEY are the ones who ascribe to extremely narrow, Western European medieval reformed theology as being the only true “orthodox”;
THEY are the ones who will NEVER concede that it might be THEIR conclusions that are wrong and therefore they might actually want to look a little deeper into scripture and the church, the history, the evolution, the syncretism of various secular philosophies and this molded Western European interpretations of the New Testament, to find the truth beyond their myopic and proof-texted theologies;
THEY are the ones who consistently scoff at scholars and critical thinkers and intellectuals who disagree with them as merely “puffed up”, and engaging in “vain philosophies”,
THEY are the ones who devote thousands of dollars and hours declaring opposing viewpoints to their narrow definitions of disputable matters as “satanic” and “getting the Gospel wrong”
…and yet I am the one who’s performing the (hermeneutic) gymnastics?
If I were I betting man, I’d gamble that these guys are a LOT more flexible than I am, with several perfect tens among them, to be sure.
@ Jimmy, There’s a huge difference between your statement…”the Bible affirms male leadership in the church and in the home” and in what goes on at a place like Mars Hill. They’ve taken your basic point and then run with it so far beyond what the Bible ever intended (ie – women aren’t responsible for their own sexual sin because they were simply the victims of the man (because they are lesser people with lesser self control), women aren’t allowed to have jobs outside of the home, etc, etc.)
…meant “Catholics are NOT real Christians, silly me.”
All of us,
We do not need to accept the complimentarian premise quoted by Jimmy: “the Bible affirms male leadership in the church and home”. Indeed, we need to REFUSE to accept their premise. You see…that’s why we keep being marginalized in the debate, and how these neo-Reformed types continue to arrogantly display their “sound doctrine” and “perfect orthodoxy”. We accept their premise, and then try to prove them wrong by citing some exceptions. Make no mistake, once you accept the premise, they have won the argument. Nothing matters after that.
I do not accept. I do NOT agree that “the Bible affirms male leadership…etc., etc.”. I refuse to accept that, regardless of how many times they proof text their ESVs.
Don’t listen to them. If the Bible really affirmed their premise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Here is a story about a Quiverfull couple where the husband finally admitted he was transgender, and the wife is supporting him through transition:
http://ayoungmomsmusings.blogspot.ca/2012/04/unwrapping-onion-part-one-secret.html
It has nine parts, and it is well written. I’ve been deeply challenged by their story. It really throws a wrench into the idea that complementarian doctrine is a failproof recipe for a “normal” heterosexual marriage.
We are complex creatures.
Wait a minute, I never said I was Reformed. I’m Pentecostal, not Reformed.
Rene, your link shows an extreme example of how complementrianism fails. So many couples in so many situations have much less ‘extreme’ things to deal with and comp still doesn’t work. Yet the sellers of comp refuse to accept it as a failure.
Has anyone else noticed with these guys that anyone who disagrees with them is labeled an “Open Theist”? It seems to be the latest label insult. But since they change definitions as often as their underwear to suit their purposes I am still not sure what it means to them…at any given moment.
Mara, I agree with you. I’m not really sure of the tone of your comment – are you irritated with me? I just can’t tell. In light of John Piper’s inference that egalitarian marriage was a slippery slope to gay marriage, I felt that this was instructive.
An “open theist” is anyone who believes that praying is more than a waste of time, i.e., that it does affect what God does, which is something that Jesus taught. It is the opposite of the Calvinista tope that we are living out a totally scripted life, including double predestination, and we are basically automatons. Ergo, it was God’s will and plan that a child would be abused.
Jared
Have you seen Reformed thinking beginning to make its way into the Pentecostal denomination?
Anon1
I have yet to hear it but you are usually quicker at spotting trends. Open Theist, eh? I look forward to the day when i am thus charged.What a bunch of knuckleheads.
Arce
Your argument is the classic argument against Calvinism. I have always found the protestations that one is a Calvinist and only believes in single predestination. Logically, if you are not elect, the only other argument is that you will be going to hell. I have heard so many try to explain this conundrum and either I am stupid (an epithet used by many) or I am correct. See, there are many “either or” choices in this world.
Dee,
You know that earlier on TWW there have been lengthy discussions (arguments?) regarding strict 5-point Calvinism. And my point is that their god is a god that is sovereign over everything except his own sovereignty. And they misunderstand what sovereignty is. Sovereignty is having the power, the authority and ability to carry out or have others carry our your choices and decisions, and not be trapped by what would prefer to happen. That is, God is not trapped but is a free agent able to respond to human behavior, unless one is a strict Calvinista.
Anon 1 –
I’m beginning to think that the only way many leaders (Reformed and others) can relate to God is if they have His being completely figured out. It fits very well with sovereignty (the catch all), rules, legalism. If they have God’s motives and intentions figured out then they “think” they can instruct everyone else with the what, how, and why (Piper). They love rules, structure, “systematic” theology, order. There’s nothing wrong with any of these things (they can make life easier, actually) until you try to explain everything about God (as if anyone can do that!) and how we should relate to Him through these lenses. When you see these caregories, one sees that the more relational and emotional characteristics are not as evident. I know that much of their doctrine and beliefs come from Calvin. I need to read more about Calvin’s life. I’m wondering what lenses he viewed through. What lenses do I view through? Okay, enough of my rambling thoughts for the day . . .
One more add on . . . It seems that a certain type of person is drawn to Calvin’s doctrines.
Generally, authoritarians. And if you read up on the authoritarian personality, you will find some interesting things, including a tendency toward social convention, disdain for variability (e.g., not moving outside of narrowly defined roles), and classism (which is a nice way of saying people should stay in their place, as in minorities, women and “others” should not seek equal rights).
“I’m beginning to think that the only way many leaders (Reformed and others) can relate to God is if they have His being completely figured out. It fits very well with sovereignty (the catch all), rules, legalism. If they have God’s motives and intentions figured out then they “think” they can instruct everyone else with the what, how, and why (Piper). They love rules, structure, “systematic” theology, order. There’s nothing wrong with any of these things (they can make life easier, actually) until you try to explain everything about God (as if anyone can do that!) and how we should relate to Him through these lenses.”
Actually, I think they horribly complicate God. And they do this with not only His Sovereignty (I agree with ARce concerning that) but their doctrine of total depravity even after one is saved/Justified. I think it is Gnosticism.
If you take them at their word, why should I listen to them? They are totally depraved, right? But no, they actually believe some are given this special knowledge or anointing to lead others. Mohler all but said this when he preached that pastors are God’s appointed agents to teach the ignorant. Or something like that. If you listen to them close over time, you start seeing this attitude emerge. Many times it is self deprecating (think Mahaney) as in I am the worst sinner but God has given me this great responsibility, yada , yada.
Unconditional election, total depravity after being saved, Limited atonement, etc are fantastic doctrines to control people. Everyone wants this “special truth” and “understanding” so they get sucked in.
If an ignorant illiterate poverty stricken African in the bush can be Born Again, then what is there to figure out? The historical narrative presented in the entire pericope shows us that God is long suffering with us, is totally Just. Merciful. Wrathful. But most of all total complete LOVE.
On a blog post on a Reformed site, a YRR pastor type literally wrote a post asking “Is God a Narcissist. Here is the link:
http://sbcvoices.com/is-god-a-narcissist/
Do you know where even asking such a stupid question comes from? The Calvinists total focus on “God wanting Glory for Himself”. They teach this as overarching principle and then wonder why a student would ask such a question. Everything is about “God glorifying Himself”. It is the same doctrine that brings us Calvinist commenters over at Challies saying that God is glorified as he dumps babies into Hell. I kid you not. (This was a while back, have not read over there in a few years. Could not take it anymore)
Calvinism is a black hole of despair. They want God to be complicated. That is why total depravity after being saved is so important to them. And why they will accuse you of believing in sinless perfection if you disagree.
Therefore, keep your hand on your wallet when talking to Calvinistas. They are still totally depraved. :o)
You know, Bridget 2, I just had another thought. (Dangerous :o)
If God wanted to only “Glorify Himself” then why allow sin to enter the world and take us away from Him? He could have had humans who do nothing but worship Him all day long. 24/7.
I find it interesting and am reminded that Jesus also calls us….those who are saved….”Friends”.
Bridget2 –
I’m with you — a certain type of person seems to be drawn to Calvinism & related thinking. I can assure you that people like me, that come from a long line of unbelievers (thus, unelect?) aren’t that type. We tend to love GRACE and MERCY and FREE WILL. Because well, if you look at my gene pool and past you’ll find a lot of ugly stuff. Non-elect stuff.
Sigh.
Arce –
In your 10:16am to Dee you described (more eloquently) what I call “putting God in a box.” They confine God by his own sovereignty, it seems, in order to keep everything orderly and systematic. They use the scripture, as the authority (force) to control people. In doing this, though, don’t they have to limit God to what “they” understand of the scripture and “assume” they understand it all perfectly? I think scripture was given to us to come to know God. I don’t assume that God is limited to what he has revealed to us in scripture. I think he is consistent with what he has revealed to us. But many people use the scripture as if it containes “all” of what God is (as if any book could do that) and then they use it to try to control people’s actions, as the Pharisees tried.
Didn’t we see the Jewish nation be blown away when God appeared in the flesh? What they knew of Him from the scripture didn’t seem (to them) to be consistent with what Jesus said and did. This is one reason I’d like to see much more teaching from the Gospels than from the Epistles.
Jared-
“I agree with complementarians that we can have equality within hierarchy.”
No you can’t-how can you have equal authority within a hierarchy? By definition, a hierarchy means that some have more power (unequal) than others within the power structure.
You would’ve been considered a heretic within orthodox circles of the early church, for teaching the Trinity has a hierarchy.
Arce
That is why I have always enjoyed you comments on this matter and hope some of our newer readers will understand your points.
doubtful
That was one smart comment.”You would’ve been considered a heretic within orthodox circles of the early church, for teaching the Trinity has a hierarchy.”
A key difference between the teaching of Jesus and that in the Epistles is that Jesus was not attempting to moderate his teaching to accommodate the culture, whereas the epistles were addressing issues that arose in the early church as the early converts, disciples, and apostles (those who had seen the risen Lord), tried to live in and witness to the culture, which required some, hopefully temporary, accommodation to their cultures. Thus culture permeates the epistles.
I think of Paul as the first century church consultant and mediator, trying to help the early churches resolve issues that were harming their witness to their communities. We take some of his writings as being edicts for everyone and all time, rather than paying attention to the problem being addressed. For example, the issue of head covering was important, since the only women who were out in public in that community were prostitutes, so not having a covering was bringing disrepute on the faith. We don’t have that problem, so that passage must be handled with that in mind.
A faith that says we can have been forgiven and adopted as a brother of Jesus and a child of God, and that whosoever will may come, and that in Christ, there is neither male nor female, should not be hung up on covering!! We are all priests, representing God to humans and praying for humans to God, in a great ministry of reconciliation.
When Christians get public in opposition to people who need to accept the great grace gift, chasing all kinds of divisive positions, they fail to be reconcilers. We should be known by love, love of God, love of Christ’s siblings around us, and love of those who are not yet His siblings because they have not accepted that gift of grace.
Anon1,
RE: God as narcissist:
“If God wanted to only “Glorify Himself” then why allow sin to enter the world and take us away from Him? He could have had humans who do nothing but worship Him all day long. 24/7.”
To set himself up as ultimate hero.
(it was painful even putting that nonsense into words)
Elastigirl
It’s the word “Love.” Some of these guys can barely say it out loud.
We are to be known by our LOVE, not whether we have a clearly understood or understandable theology.
Elastigirl –
Some can almost whisper it, yet they have an awful time “doing” it. I believe Jesus used it as a verb.
I guess I was actually responding to Dee in my comment at 2:02.
Oh, I’ll take all responses. About this WORD called “love”….
I used to watch “Inside The Actor’s Studio” on Bravo… This guy (can’t remember his name) would interview well-known actors/actresses, and would always end with the same 5 questions — one of them being “what is your favorite word”.
Well, if I ever was important enough for such an interview and they asked me what my LEAST favorite word is, no hesitation and I’d say “love”.
It means so many things as to hardly mean anything anymore. In some professional christian circles, it means whatever is most convenient to pacify one’s subjects for one’s purposes and to pave the way to get one’s own way.
I’m really a pleasant person — just feeling the freedom to say sht I REALLY think.
Oh, no, Rene, not irritated at all. Just noting how Comp fails in both extreme cases and less extreme.
Comp makes no room for the possiblity that the husband might have adult ADHD or something that makes leading a very frustrated situation for both himself and his wife. This would be much less extreme. But it still shoot a whole in the Comp arguement that husbands must always be the leaders all the time. In comp land, the wife must submit to total chaos in order to obey their doctrine. She has no way out through either divorce or even standing up and saying, “Enough is enough, you are going to the Dr. and getting on meds while I dig out out of this ADHD hole you’ve dug for both of us.”
Comp only works with two mentally and emotionally healthy and believers with a certain level of maturity. Throw a wrench in any of those categories and it topples the house of cards.
I’m not terribly concerned about the influence of Calvinism in Pentecostal circles. In fact, I am surprised that it has not wielded greater influence on the Pentecostal movement because of Calvinistic preachers like George Whitefield, Evan Roberts, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and RT Kendall, who have had a profound influence on Pentecostalism. My main concern is that the traditional Pentecostal view on gender is not well represented in theological circles. I think a lot of that has to do with postmodernism and the feminist movement of the 1960’s. I think that postmodernism is prone to make people choose sides; Calvinism or Open Theism, complementarianism or egalitarianism, postmodern or premodern, etc. I think this is unfortunate for Pentecostals because the Pietism that undergirds Pentecostalism is under attack. That’s why I’m thankful for theologians like Roger Olson who have dilligently fought for Pietism’s place in modern evangelical thought and dialogue. While I don’t share Olson’s concern that monergism is creeping into mainstream evangelicalism and I am more concerned about the rise of Open Theism, I greatly appreciate his contributions to the study of Pietism and its influence on American evangelicalism.
Hi Mara – I’m relieved to know that I didn’t offend you. 🙂
You raise a really good point: “Comp only works with two mentally and emotionally healthy and believers with a certain level of maturity. Throw a wrench in any of those categories and it topples the house of cards.”
I would even say that it would only work with certain personality types. I know that idea wouldn’t hold water with anyone who is complementarian, but if the husband is an easygoing introvert who is happy to be at home and cherishes lots of time with his kids, comp doctrine (as described in the transcript above) is going to be an extra burden. If the wife is great at heading up big projects and is a gifted leader, comp doctrine is going to be an extra burden. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I’m betting it can’t be done indefinitely without some emotional damage. Kind of like getting bunions or heel spurs from cramming your feet into shoes that don’t fit you.
René – thanks so much for the link to the Permission to Live blog.
Just read the 1st part of the story and am eager to get to the next one.
Elastigirl –
I hear what you are saying about the use of the word “love.” I guess I still enjoy it as an action, verses just a word to throw out at someone. Jesus lived it as he went about “doing good.” We also see him living it way more in scripture than we see him talking about it.
“She has no way out through either divorce or even standing up and saying, “Enough is enough, you are going to the Dr. and getting on meds while I dig out out of this ADHD hole you’ve dug for both of us.”
Do you know how many times I saw this in comp/pat circles? All the time! I have heard sermons where the preacher says the husband should be in charge of the checkbook so he knows where the finances are, etc. He is to be in charge of all these things and guess what? The family goes into a blackhole and abyss.
Then the women come to their women’s ministry groups and that is all they talk about. Maybe if I pray more and all the women pray more waiting for Joe to be the spiritual leader God designed him to be. Maybe if I am more supportive and stop asking questions because he thinks it is nagging. It is sick and leaves everyone in despair and this is all they do. Wait for Joe, Jim, Bob, etc. It is like these women are in a holding cell waiting for God to do something.
I am telling you it is a sick “religion”.
Doubtful-
No you can’t-how can you have equal authority within a hierarchy? By definition, a hierarchy means that some have more power (unequal) than others within the power structure.
Is Jesus less equal than the Father because He submits to the Father? He says He submits to the Father. I don’t care what the early church said. I’m talking about what Jesus said.
As a Pentecostal, I’m willing to concede that Junias may have been a female apostle. But, I still think it’s significant that all of the original twelve apostles were men. I’m not willing to go as far as most complementarians in saying that were never any female apostles. I’m just saying I do think it’s significant that none of the twelve were women. Jesus was willing to challenge the culture in other areas so why not here? I think it was because He wanted to set up a precedent of male leadership in the church. It doesn’t mean that women can never lead. It doesn’t even mean they can’t do the same jobs as men. There are women who are pastors that I great respect for and I don’t think they’ve missed or “misinterpreted” their calling. But I do think they should submit to men in the church in some way and most of the ones that I have observed do.
I think we need to let scripture and church history determine these issues instead of the feminist movement. I will support a woman pastor if I believe she’s called to that office and she is willing to submit to the leadership that is over her. But I will never support a woman or a man for that matter who embraces the label ‘feminist’.
Jared –
Why should church “history” determine anything? Church history can be a little helpful, but from my perspective church history has not managed to settle anything with any amount of peace or clarity. If anything, most of church history has sent us adrift from scripture.
How do you think the culture (Jewish or Gentile) would have received female apostles among the twelve? Jesus and Paul broke many, many of the cultural norms of their time with respect to women. They interacted with women like no other men had or would dare to during their lifetimes. I think it is quite an assumption to say that since Jesus did not have a female apostle among the twelve, that women must submit to an earthly man. Quite a leap don’t you think?
What you are saying is that a man’a authority is Jesus, but a woman’s authority is a man? What did Jesus say about all authority?
Are you trying to say that Jesus is submitted to God for all time?
Um… Jared, I’m happy to refer to myself as feminist.
It isn’t the dirty word that many make it out to be.
Jared-
I consider myself a feminist (I’m a man), because I believe that men and women are essentially equal. And that one’s sexual organs should not be the determining factor for who gets to hold all the cookies. Especially in marriage. It brings nothing but heartbreak and confusion, from my experience.
You said “Is Jesus less equal than the Father because He submits to the Father? ”
According to the early church…yes. They would state that submission implies inferiority. Jesus’ authority would be inferior to the Father, which makes him unequal to the Father. Again, there is no equality in a hierarchy. By definition, a hierarchy has different levels of authority that are unequal. The Father would be greater in his authority, according to your definition.
I am no longer a Christian, so I really don’t have an axe to grind theologically. I was just pointing out that most of the church from the 4th century on has clearly defined what you stated about the Trinity as a heresy.
Bridget2-
Are you trying to say that Jesus is submitted to God for all time?
I’m going to let scripture answer that:
If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:19-28 ESV
numo-
Um… Jared, I’m happy to refer to myself as feminist.
It isn’t the dirty word that many make it out to be.
And that’s the difference between most of the Pentecostals that I see who embrace women pastors and those who officially identify as egalitarian. And I think that’s also why the complementarian charge that egalitarianism will eventually lead to ordaining homosexuals doesn’t hold much weight with a lot of Pentecostals. I think that Pentecostals though should be careful not to make the argument that Paul’s restrictions on women were merely cultural. I think there are other ways to allow women greater freedom in ministry without going that route.
Jared
The cultural argument is valid in the discussion. You dismiss culture all the time when you read Scripture-slavery, gold jewelry, women wearing a veil, etc. It’s just that we pick and choose when to play the cultural card.
doubtful
Thank you for your input.
Jared –
Thanks for the response to that question. I have no problem with that scripture as the summation of it is “that God may be all in all.” Jesus was God in the flesh. God would not be submitted to himself. If God is three in one as orthodox teaching on the Trinity states, then your logic would lead to Jesus being submitted to himself.
I will say that the Godhead is a mystery to me still. Maybe I’ll get it completely when I see God face to face . . . maybe I won’t care :). But whatever submission took place on the part of Jesus to reconcile the world to God, none of it was because his Father insisted that Jesus had to do it. Jesus came of his own free will. Love is only love when given freely. “God so loved the world that he gave his son.” I don’t believe God gave his son without great heartache and I don’t believe Jesus was “forced” to come to earth as a man. It seems to me that Father and Son “mutually” took action from a place of love.
I have deferred to my husband at times ( when I had come to a different conclusion on my own) when I knew a situation was in conflict with my husband’s conscience before God. I did it in prayer and faith in God who can work all things together for good. My husband would do the same. As Christians, we are both under the headship of Christ.
Why do you think that mutual submission, under Christ, between a husband and wife (or a man and a woman in leadership in a church, as in your narrative) cannot exist. Is it because a man will not (should not? cannot?) defer to a woman if God so desires. I’m just curious.
Jared –
“ALLOW” WOMEN! Listen to your own language.
dee-
Thanks for letting me hang out…I appreciate the stands that TWW makes on the important issues. They still affect an awful lot of people I love, even if I am no longer a part of that world.
“Is Jesus less equal than the Father because He submits to the Father? He says He submits to the Father. I don’t care what the early church said. I’m talking about what Jesus said.”
Jared, One of the problems with this is most people do not understand Hebrew thinking of that time. Yes, Jesus said that but what does it mean in context of all the Gospels, the OT and historically? I didn’t understand it either but when I kept seeing ESS thinking, I did a ton of research because it simply did not sound right. Not having a historical context ends up making a mockery of the “One True God” which is the Trinity.
There are a ton of passages to exegete on this but one very simple example is found in John 5:18
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Why would calling God His Father make him equal with God? Us calling God our Father would not make US equal with God.
Because in Hebrew thinking while transacting any business at all, the son could represent the dad and it was considered doing business with the dad. The son was a full representative of the dad. He was not just acting on his behalf. It was considered doing business with the dad. This is why the Pharisees were outraged at Him.
Phil 2 is another one taught very wrong (bad translation, too) or to prop up ESS. Think about it, The Lord of Host Armies, gave up what?
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!
Very bad translations use “grasped” which sends a wrong message. Here we see a better translation tht it is something He did not use to His advantage. He made Himself nothing. (Remember, the Jews of that time thought of a ‘Messiah” as more of a non diety warrior type to save them from Roman occupation. Jesus did not fit their expectations)
There is more but pray on this. When we tamper with the total love and equal status of the Trinity, we get into dangerous areas and start mapping it to human relationships. Very dangerous when we get it wrong.
This ESS thinking is one of the most insidious teachings to rear it’s ugly head in centuries. But all this stuff makes the historical rounds. And I am convinced if more people understood historical context and stopped reading scripture through “Western Eyes” they would not fall for this stuff.
I think it is important to note that the Bible teaches that the Son is eternal. During his sojourn on earth, he submitted to the Father, as should any God-fearing human, and limited his use of his god-like-ness to be more like humans, being a human. But I believe that the Bible is also clear that, other than during his time as a human being, the Son is co-equal and co-extensive with the Father, as they are one (and including the HS).
Bridget2-
“ALLOW” WOMEN! Listen to your own language.
The language I’m using is intentional. Remember I said that men should lead in the church and in the home. The language I’m using is merely an extension of that.
Anon1
Thank you. I very often don’t comment because you do it for me.
I have a friend who is not a Jehovah’s Witness nor does she belong to any groups that do not recognize Jesus as divine. However, through her own reading of the Bible she is convinced that Jesus is not divine and there is no trinity.
We have had many lengthy and contentious discussions about the Trinity. I did quite a bit of research for my part of the discussion and our friendship was very strained for a while because of the passion we each feel for the subject.
Imagine my surprise when I first heard Bruce Ware holding forth on the Eternal Subordination of the Son!!! He sounded exactly like my friend, except he stopped every five minutes or so to declare that the trinity is true. Geez. My friend was a difficult conversation partner, but at least she was honest.
One point was the one you bring up. Calling Jesus the Son does not demote him beneath the Father in any way. IT RAISES THE HUMAN JESUS TO EQUALITY AND UNITY WITH THE FATHER!!! Not the opposite.
Thank you Anon1. Keep us the good work.
Jared – It’s not up to men to allow women to do anything. Male humans do not have that authority and it is sinful for them to assume it.
Anon1 – I meant to say – keep up the good work.
Anon1 said: This ESS thinking is one of the most insidious teachings to rear it’s ugly head in centuries.
I’m thinking if “Jolly” Old St Nicholas were really around today he might lose his cool and slap some of these guys around. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/bishop-nicholas-loses-his-cool/
Jared, women should not fear men nor be man pleasers nor wait for any man’s permission or ever think that it is up to any man to allow her to serve God in whatever capacity she feels called.
When the veil tore in two, it wasn’t just for men or for men to become the new priests that stand between women and God.
God doesn’t need any man’s permission to call any of His daughters.
It is not up to men what God has called women to do and far too many men have made it their business to determine God’s will for women. All men who have ever meddled in this cannot get past their own prejudices and their own sinful natures of what they want women to be.
Women need to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, not the approval of fallen men.
“Remember I said that men should lead in the church and in the home. ”
How does that work on a daily, weekly, yearly basis? I have never been able to find one man that can tell me what that looks like on a daily basis without it sounding egal or they get caught in a quagmire of legalism. (The reason is most men realize when they start to describe it makes their wive sound like an idiot doormat because they always add in how “smart” their wives are but allow them to lead. Well if she ‘allows’ you to lead then she is the real power)
Comp sounds good on paper but when taken to it’s logical conclusion has no basis in scritpure or even life unless one is married to an ignorant doormat a child wife of sorts…..or an intelligent woman who is trying to help you finally feel like a real man because of insecurities.
Sorry if that offends but that is pretty much what it comes down to.
“Imagine my surprise when I first heard Bruce Ware holding forth on the Eternal Subordination of the Son!!! He sounded exactly like my friend, except he stopped every five minutes or so to declare that the trinity is true. Geez. My friend was a difficult conversation partner, but at least she was honest.”
Dana, Good catch. ESS actually mirrors JW and Mormonism doctrines on Jesus. Cheryl Schatz of “Women in Ministry” has a ministry to JW’s and Mormons and caught this early on. She made a DVD about it and Bruce Ware is featured on it:
http://mmoutreach.org/trinity.htm
The power brokers have backed off ESS a bit because it was so analyzed by people on the blogs it would not hold water. They quietly dropped it after pounding on it all over the Reformed movement for about 3 years. But every now and then someone uses Jesus’ submission to God during the Incarnation to try and map it to a marriage. They really do not understand what they are saying. The husband is playing the “God” “role”?
Jared – I’ve got a question for you…
Why is it important to you (personally) that women be “in submission” to men?
(Not asking for Bible verses, theological arguments, etc., but why it matters to *you* and your life.)
*
And another one: why do you think Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well? Why do you think he commended the woman who was healed of her bleeding? (Vaginal bleeding.)
By all rights, he should not have been spending time with or around either of them.
I wasn’t aware until reading some of the comments here that some egalitarians deny the Eternal Subordination of the Son. I have debated egalitarians in the past but none of them seemed to deny that. The most common thing that I saw with them was a denial that wives need to submit to their husbands.
I was a full fledged complementarian then and they were on the liberal end of the Emerging Church.
I get weary with debate. I have debated Calvinism vs. Arminianism and I’ve also debated this issue but it seems to me that most of those kinds of debates generate more heat than light.
I don’t think I want to get into a heated debate. I would like to learn a little more about how some of you guys think about the egalitarian issue though.
Well, that’s interesting, Jared. So are you saying that you have never talked with anyone who denied ESS?
I guess if you want to learn, you will have to ask some questions.
@Dana, no I’ve never met anyone that denied ESS. To be honest, there aren’t a lot of true egalitarians in my town. I live in a small town in the South in East Tennessee just north of Knoxville. There are a couple of Pentecostal churches here that are pastored by women but I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t call themselves feminists or adhere to the concept of mutual submission.
There is a PCUSA church here in town. I would assume they would hold to an egalitarian perspective that would look more familiar to you all. Some of the Methodists might as well.
So where are most of the people on this board theologically speaking? Are most of you conservative evangelicals who merely happen to be egalitarian like Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee? Are you on board with the Emerging Church? Are you continuationists or cessationists? Are you liberal Protestants?
I think there’s a lot of confusion on this issue. When I was growing up, some of the Pentecostals that I knew would talk about the Southern Baptists and say that they “didn’t believe in women”. Then, I became a complementarian, the sort that would walk out of the Assembly of God church that I was raised in if I happened to go on a night that a woman was preaching. Then I realized that Rick Warren was a complementarian but he was more lenient: he would quote Joyce Meyer for instance.
The fact that as a Pentecostal some of my favorite preachers were Pentecostals like Juanita Bynum and Paula White and Joyce Meyer made it hard for me to become a full fledged complementarian but at the time I felt that was what was taught in scripture and I felt like there was no way around it. I took it too far though and it took a toll on my marriage. I’m not saying that’s true of all complementarians but it certainly was true for me.
I think I always realized that there were liberal Protestants who were feminists but I never realized there were evangelical feminists until a few years ago.
numo-
Why is it important to you (personally) that women be “in submission” to men?
(Not asking for Bible verses, theological arguments, etc., but why it matters to *you* and your life.)
*
And another one: why do you think Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well? Why do you think he commended the woman who was healed of her bleeding? (Vaginal bleeding.)
By all rights, he should not have been spending time with or around either of them.
As to why it’s important to me, I guess it’s partially because of how I was raised., I feel that I have an obligation to be the spiritual leader in my family. Also, I believe that a wife should submit to her husband. Someone said it this way: a husband should submit to his wife’s need and she should submit to his lead.
I think Jesus went out of His way to include women. I just think we should recognize the sovereignty of God in only choosing men for the twelve. We should also recognize that God in His sovereignty chose to have the first witnesses to the resurrection be women.
I don’t understand why as a Pentecostal who believes that women can serve as pastors and teach men, you seem to lump me in with the strict complementarians.
Jared
The best way to get educated on evangelical egalitarians is to get a publication called the Priscilla Papers from Christians for Biblical Equality. You can actually get a CD with the back issues and read them. The articles over the last ten years or so are very well researched, footnoted, and somewhat academic in nature. But they cover issues like the mistranslations that we have lived with due to the hierarchical bias of the KJV translators, which carries over to other translations, since, when there is a choice to be made, most translators default to the KJV choice of meaning.
Worth the effort. The reading deepened my understanding of a lot of scripture, my faith in Christ and my love for God.
Okay, Jared – I think that you tend to get lumped in with strict complementarians because of your language.
“I realized Rick Warren was a complementarian but he was more lenient” or the remark about allowing women. It makes you sound like the core of your belief is that men hold power over what women are allowed to do. “I think Jesus went out of His way to include women” Well, maybe. Or maybe he was just living as God on earth who naturally included women. Not a big stretch for God, I guess.
I have a question for you: How should we have this discussion without ending up in a debate? I feel like I am trying to help you by quoting you to show why you are getting the response you are, but I also see how my answer could spark a debate. Not my intention, I promise.
Dana-
Okay, Jared – I think that you tend to get lumped in with strict complementarians because of your language.
“I realized Rick Warren was a complementarian but he was more lenient”
That’s part of my journey, it’s part of what helped me to get back to where I started as a Pentecostal.
Dana-
It makes you sound like the core of your belief is that men hold power over what women are allowed to do. “I think Jesus went out of His way to include women” Well, maybe. Or maybe he was just living as God on earth who naturally included women. Not a big stretch for God, I guess.
I have a question for you: How should we have this discussion without ending up in a debate? I feel like I am trying to help you by quoting you to show why you are getting the response you are, but I also see how my answer could spark a debate. Not my intention, I promise.
Okay. I just get tired of debate.
I would like to find out where you all are coming from though and hear your stories and how you got to where you are.
“I don’t think I want to get into a heated debate. I would like to learn a little more about how some of you guys think about the egalitarian issue though.”
ESS is related to comp/pat doctrine. An old heresy resurrected to try and map it to patriarchy. Jesus was and is God. Remember, the term is ETERNAL. Now, try to prove this hierarchy from the OT. Same ONE True God.
What I think about the egal issue is that it is really “mutuality” and the Body and marriage would be better served by focusing on the 58 “one anothers” type doctrine found in the NT.
“I would like to find out where you all are coming from though and hear your stories and how you got to where you are.”
I studied Gen 1-3 in depth. And found so much taught wrong concerning it. Then we go over to the beginning of the church and are told women would prophesy.
The problem is that comps map hierarchy in the body when they are really functions in the body. They take the Gentile approach Jesus warned about. So, we end up following man instead of Christ.
It is harder for me because this doctrine is where they get their worth. Their preeminance. A hard thing to give up but very alluring.
Jared –
I thought I was a complementarian but realized that my husband and I were functioning more as egalitarians. When we try to fit into the roles as complementarians prescribe, it didn’t work very well and puts a lot of stress and expectations on our marriage.
BTW I believe that the meaning of complementarian has been hijacked to mean something different than what I thought it meant 25 years ago. I believe my husband and I complement each other with the gifts that God has given us. When we freely function in those gifts we “complement” each other and two become one. We honor God in a way that we don’t when we try to fit into the current comp roles of “leading” and “submitting.”
Jared –
I do have a couple questions for you:
What do you mean by a woman pastor (elder, preacher, administration, counseling, etc.)?
How does a woman pastor submit to a man who is not her husband (trouble on the horizon)? My understanding from scripture (if I was to proof text) is that a woman is to submit to her “own” husband? This would not include other men, be them leaders or not.
I believe that the scripture that is normally used to support the above position is from Eph. 5 and 6 is taken out of context. The text is giving instruction to wives/husbands, fathers/children and slaves/masters and specifically to the Ephesian church. It starts in 5:17 with being filled with the spirit and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. It then goes on to list the ways that we can submit to one another in relationships.
Anon1, you say that ESS is an old heresy. Yet most evangelicals who are considered to have good theology hold this view. I don’t understand that. Generally, heresy is defined as what is generally thought of in conservative evangelicalism as bad theology, but ESS according to your definition would be an exception. What about 1 Corinthians 15 that I already quoted? Doesn’t that clearly teach ESS? And if so, since Paul taught it, doesn’t that make it sound doctrine?
Jared,
Subordinationism is an old heresy. ESS is subordinationism revived and tweaked by putting philosophical arguments about ontological and functional equality and subordination into it.
I’m disappointed because this looks like a good conversation happening, but I’ll be busy most of the day and probably won’t be able to participate.
You want a story? Here’s a short one.
1. I had to finally admit that I reject the arguments from Genesis. Just do. Always did. I happened upon a blog where complementarian seminarians were discussing it and one guy said that he rejected the arguments from Genesis. And I thought, “Oh, I guess you just say that and move on. Hmmm.”
2. I had to admit that my husband and I really operated as egalitarians. So did just about everyone else I knew. The ones who didn’t were the couples where just about everyone felt real sorry for the wife.
3. My non-trinitarian friend and the discovery that ESS is, well, pretty much the same argument that non-trinitarians use to tell you that Jesus is not divine.
4. Going to “lenient” complementarian churches where women held the same jobs as the men but could not be ordained and were called directors instead of pastors and paid less. What? What’s all that talk about how complementarians value women?
5. Having to sit and listen to lame ass sermons about Ephesians 5.
And Jared,
Just so you know – now I’ve responded to your requests twice.
I do want to ask you a direct question. You wanted to know why you were getting lumped in with strict complementarians. I told you why. It looks to me like you completely ignored what I told you and told me it was part of your journey and you don’t want to debate. Fine. Part of my journey was learning to value clarity and being honest about what I thought and observed.
Do you think that men have the authority to decide what women can and cannot do?
Bridget, Anon1
My husband and I believe in giftedness. Do what you are called to do. If we are Christians, it will fit into the marriage relationship.
Jared
Everyone who has been deemed a heretic at one time or another was considered mainstream before they got whacked out. And most “theologians” do not buy ESS and patriarchy. It is a Calvinista thing!
Jared-
you said
“I wasn’t aware until reading some of the comments here that some egalitarians deny the Eternal Subordination of the Son. I have debated egalitarians in the past but none of them seemed to deny that.”
I’m not trying to debate you or pick a fight. But most orthodox Christian theologians (egalitarian or complementarian) considier ESS a heresy. I’ve read many Reformed theologians who believe in submission of wives but consider ESS a heresy.
It’s why I object to the new Calvinists use of it. They are trying to justify their Biblical view on women by saying it is rooted in the foundational doctrine of the Trinity. This is called cherry picking in my book, considering that the Trinity by most are all male or non-sexual beings. It’s apples and oranges…
Doubtful –
I was just reading over at CBMW and found an open letter to Egals. written by Wayne Grudem in which he referenced 1 Cor. 15:28 and stated that Jesus would be eternally submitted to God the Father. The letter was written first in 1988 and revised in 2003. I don’t see how any of them can state that this is an eternal condition from this scripture. I don’t see them quote any other text in this regard.
Doubtful-
I’m not trying to debate you or pick a fight. But most orthodox Christian theologians (egalitarian or complementarian) considier ESS a heresy. I’ve read many Reformed theologians who believe in submission of wives but consider ESS a heresy.
I doubt that seriously.
Jared –
Wayne Grudem believes in it as I noted above.
Jared –
Since you admit that you’ve never run into people who don’t believe in the eternal subordination of the Son, here is a little reading if you are interested. I don’t know if you realize that those who do not hold to the doctrine agree that Jesus was subject to the Father in his human incarnation. Honestly, ESS as it is explained today is a pretty new doctrine. Honestly.
http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/johnson-keith-e-_trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustian-perspective.pdf (An interesting paper on Augustine and the appeals made to him by those who both support and deny ESS)
http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/01/28/the-subordinate-son/
And interesting take on the Subordinate Son. Maybe it doesn’t have anything to do with men and women after all. Huh.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html
Bridget2 and Dana –
Jared is not saying he doubts people believe ESS. In fact, it appears that he’s saying the opposite – that he doubts that ESS is considered a heresy. He’s quoting Doubtful here (without quotation marks, which is confusing):
I’m not trying to debate you or pick a fight. But most orthodox Christian theologians (egalitarian or complementarian) considier ESS a heresy. I’ve read many Reformed theologians who believe in submission of wives but consider ESS a heresy.
His response is “I doubt that seriously.”
Earlier in the conversation Jared mentioned that he never talked to people who do not believe ESS. I suppose if he had, he would be acquainted with the idea that if it is not outright heresy, it certainly is a tweaked version of heresy.
I just thought that maybe he would be interested in reading something that does not present ESS as the ultimate truth about the trinity and relations between men and women. Because, no matter what else ESS is, it is neither of those.
Dana – Sorry, I see what you are saying now. 🙂
No problem at all. No apology needed. 🙂
Jared-
You can doubt it all you want…but Harold OJ Brown is one author I remember. His book was simply called Heresies. I had a Reformed seminary Grad recommend his book. Brown had been a professor at Reformed Theolgical Seminary in Orlando.
One thing to keep in mind, is that another term that describes ESS is the term Subordinationism. That is the term most commonly used in many scholarly books on heresy.
Jared (and all) – see the Athanasian Creed, an early refutation of ESS.
I Think this overview and translation are better, but thought folks might be interested in seeing more than one. Link.
Here’s the clincher:
“And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.”
Dana
I bet Jared has talked to people that do not believe in ESS. he just didn’t bother to ask them. Either that or he is living inside of an insulated cult.
I find it pretty hard to believe that he has never talked to anyone who does not believe it. He may have talked to people who never really considered the notion but just believe whatever they are told to believe to be considered a good Christian in their own circle.
In all fairness, I think ESS for a lot of people is either something they just don’t think about or something that is unimportant to them. It was something I just always took for granted. I saw it in 1 Corinthians 15 and believed it but really didn’t give it much more thought to be honest.
By the way, I am a monergist but I tend to be pretty low key about it. I’m not Reformed because I’m Pentecostal. And again, I’m not a Calvinist (in the strictest sense) because I’m Pentecostal. I teach Sunday school at a Pentecostal church and my pastor knows that I’m a monergist. I didn’t mention that at first because I thought you would judge me based on that. Anyway, it is what it is I guess.
I agree with you Jared – most people don’t think about it or it is unimportant to them.
I don’t hold the monergism against you. I’m not all that well acquainted with Pentecostalism (not totally unfamiliar, either), but what exactly is it that makes Pentecostalism and Calvinism mutually exclusive?
Jared – most of the Christians in the world do *not* believe in ESS/subordinationism. (cf. historic creeds like the one I cited.)
But our discussion of that is somewhat hindered by the fact that the vast majority of Christians in the world do not speak English (at least, not as a 1st language).
“I agree with you Jared – most people don’t think about it or it is unimportant to them.
I don’t hold the monergism against you. I’m not all that well acquainted with Pentecostalism (not totally unfamiliar, either), but what exactly is it that makes Pentecostalism and Calvinism mutually exclusive?”
My opinion is that it’s mainly tradition. The Pentecostal Movement is descended from the Holiness Movement, so a lot of Pentecostals see John Wesley as the grandfather of Pentecostalism. What they seem to overlook is the fact that:
1. John Calvin was a cessationist but said that in the book of Acts, tongues was the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
2. Some of the Puritans who followed Calvin believed in a second blessing.
3. The Irvingites of the 18th century were Calvinistic and they are one of the most prominent groups before the Pentecostal Movement to embrace the continuation of the charismata.
4. George Whitefield was firmly Calvinistic and he is one of founders of Methodism along with John and Charles Wesley.
5. The Welsh revival of 1904 sparked the Azusa Street revival of 1906 which marked the beginning of the modern Pentecostal Movement and the leader of the Welsh revival, Evan Roberts, was a Reformed Methodist.
There are also other connections including Ern Baxter, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, RT Kendall, John Wimber, and others.
If you mention this to Pentecostals they tend to downplay the significance of it. It reminds me of the fundamentalists who deny that Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist.
Of course, being a Pentecostal, I prefer terms like monergist or sovereign grace. I think Rick Warren said it best when he said that he was a John 3:16 Christian who believes in the doctrines of grace.
Anyway, that’s part of my journey. I’ve learned over the years not to push the issue. It tends to lead to debate which usually generates more heat than light. If the doctrines of grace are true, only God can convince someone of that. I’ve tried before and failed so I just leave it in His hands. Sometimes you just have to let go and let God.
If memory serves Lutherans hold to monergistic soteriology but are most definitely not Calvinist.
monergistic soteriology may have become more acceptable, if not more common, over the last century. I’ve heard Gordon Fee’s view of soteriology is effectively monergistic but it’s been a while since I’ve read Fee. I think he’s still Assemblies of God, right?
Jared –
That makes sense. They’re not mutually exclusive necessarily, monergism just didn’t “stick” as Pentecostalism developed.
WTH –
I feel like I never understand Lutheran theology. Lutherans would be monergistic without the TULIP?
WTH – you’re right about Lutherans not being Calvinistic! 😉
Dana – I was raised Lutheran, and am a bit of a revert these days, though leaning toward a fusion of some Anglican ideas with some Lutheran.
Still… I’ve never heard or read anything within my own tradition to suggest that there is such a thing as “irresistible grace.” (At least, not in the way that Calvinists tend to use and understand that term.)
The whole notion of “limited atonement” is anathema – in fact, when I recently told my elderly mom (who was also raised Lutheran) about that aspect of Calvinism, she was horrified. Seems like a *very* reasonable reaction to me!
Dana, it’s a bad habit of Calvinists and even worse among neo-Calvinists to pretend that the only way to get to the “doctrines of grace” in a monergistic way is to go TULIP. It was Luther and not Calvin who wrote The Bondage of the Will, after all. 🙂 But the doctrine of limited or particular atonement is a big difference between Lutheran and Calvinist thought. I may be Presbyterian but I’ve had too many Lutheran friends in my life to buy the idea of cage-phase Calvinists that monergistic soteriology is only conceivable within a Calvinist framework.
Thanks Numo, WTH. I certainly can conceive of a monergistic soteriology without the L, but since I really know less about Lutherans than I do Pentecostals, I never connected the dots.
A am monergistic up to the point that grace is a gift from God and God has done all that is necessary for that gift to be ours, EXCEPT, like any other gift, we have to accept it by believing in that gift of grace and reach out and take it into ourselves.
It is a fact that a gift is rejected if it is not accepted — a fact in life and in law. Just leave a gift unopened for a few days when the giver is aware of your behavior and see whether they are at all happy with you, and, given an opportunity, take back the gift.
Another analogy is a contract. One party makes an offer. If the other party accepts it, it is a contract. But if there is no response, the offer will expire or be withdrawn, and there is no obligation on the first party whatsoever.
Dana – If you can… try to just set aside what you know about Calvinism when you read about Lutheran beliefs.
I think both the Small and Large Catechisms are a good place to start. You might also want to look at the Apostles and Nicene Creeds (and don’t sweat some of the things that might seem strange).
It’s not unlike learning another language… at some point, your brain will start recalling the words in the other language instead of trying to pull up the English word 1st.
You know, I have read the Catechisms before – a long time ago. At least the Small Catechism for sure. I just keep associating Lutheranism with a focus on differentiating everything along the Law/Gospel divide.
I must have been unclear – I have never thought of Lutherans as Calvinistic – I just hadn’t really thought of them as monergistic, either.
I think I’ll look up the Catechisms anyway. I do like reading such things. Thanks for reminding me.
Dana, I’m with you, I never understood Lutheran theology.
I may be wrong but I was always under the impression that Luther himself believed in the TULIP but that all sort of unraveled over time and Lutheran theology quickly became much more Augustinian (in the technical sense) where they see their soteriology as monergistic but they also believe in conditional perseverance or the idea that salvation can be lost.
Modern Lutherans deny double predestination and only hold to singular predestination whereas Martin Luther believed in double predestination.
The part I never understood was how you can be a monergist and believe that salvation can be lost.
Jared – Like I said above, I think it’s helpful to set aside the Calvinist lenses when trying to understand Lutheran theology…
The thing is, Lutheran and Catholic and Orthodox theologies do *not* fit the template you folks are using. while there might be points of convergence, none of these churches are Calvinist.
To my mind, you cannot learn French by taking a German class.
Same deal here.