Sad as it sounds, I’ve heard women who killed their husbands and went to prison say they prefer prison to their life with their husband. When asked why, their response was that “at least they could go to the bathroom without asking.”

🙁

Before I turned to satirical blogging, I was a college-level public speaking instructor for eighteen years.

Where does Tim Challies get off lecturing anyone on how to speak properly???!!!

Are you kidding me??? Have any of you listened to his podcast (with David Murray)?

I couldn’t believe it when I saw that. Now I have to pee.

SMG

When I was in the patriarchy “camp” for awhile there was this wild thing going about communion. Husbands would serve their wives and daughters communion at family-integrated church. If for some reason Papa wasn’t available to do so, then the oldest son or next oldest son would do it. Mama & daughters could not/should not go get their own communion.

Yes, for real.

Well, if women aren’t meant to do higher education, that makes me – a PhD student who’s already completed both a bachelors and a masters degree – an evil heathen.
These men really are so very scared of intelligent and independent women, aren’t they?

The devil is always in the details of this false doctrine which is why they stay away from them and stay in the gray areas. That leads to confusion and stifling of the Holy Spirit in a believers life.

So, at what age is a boy a man and a woman can no longer teach him? I know one pastor who said he saw one church allow a “video” of a woman teaching but would not allow her to do it in person. Mrs. Criswell of FBCDallas taught a mixed class for years that was even on the radio. Her reasoning? She was under her husbands authority. But he was not in the room. So, what does that mean? If women are not to teach men, it is ok if the pastor says it is ok? What does that say about him?

The problems are endless with this doctrine. We would need a standardized Christian Talmud of laws. In fact, this doctrine interpreted by so many in different ways operates as a sort of Talmud.

And woman are either paralyzed by it or use it to hide from developing their spiritual gifts. But the worst thing about it is that people are focused on roles instead of Christ. Satan is delighted.

Perhaps as their rules become more and more bizarre, the sheep will realize they are following the wrong shepherds. One can only hope.

Arce –

Isn’t that what Jesus told Martha and Mary? (sarcasm)

I picture Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet in a room filled with mostly men 🙂

We all know what Jesus said.

If “women should not teach baptized boys”, then that’ll kill it for home schooling, yes?

patriarchal**, homeschoolers**… time to find a pillow.

“I’d like to see a good scholarly debate on this topic.”

Puke.

I am in agreement with you here. I believe churches where Calvinistas congregate (I call them right hand dominant churches) are usually strong on this idea that submission means that the person who is in the subjugated place also must relinquish of all their voting power.

As an example, I was really attracted to an “elder-led, family integrated” church in my town after I left the institutional church that I had attended for years. My wife got a weird vibe about this church and could pick up on controlling speech used by the teaching elder there. The teaching elder had a dominant hand over the activities there. I remember one comment that really turned me away when he stated, “Some of you, who have not grown up in this church, have been steeped in the idea of Democracy – that ‘my vote is a good as any one else’s.” He proceeded that the Bible does not teach democracy in the church when it comes to what the elders have declared. When I saw what my wife saw, I never visited again.

It occurred to me that, in these right hand dominant Calvinist churches, you have no voting power. In fact, they strip you of any vote cast or any outcry against tyranny in the church. The elders make all of the decisions and do not include the subjugates in the voting process. I think a litmus test for any good church would be based on two questions. Do I share equal voting power with the elders of the church? Also, am I considered a partner or a servant to the elders of the church? One way to make sure this happens is to call them your leaders, which Jesus said not to do. For, He is the only leader to the believer. Anyone who expects you to call them leader has already eliminated you from the voting process.

The answers to these questions I mentioned can give one a good indication of whether or not a church is safe to attend.

I asked my wife the other day, Do you believe that you have voting power in our marriage? She replied, “Sometimes I feel like I have too much voting power.” I then told my wife, “Good, this is how it should be.”

I pose the question to all of these Calvinistas, Is your wife your partner or your servant? Do you use Bible verses to selfishly eliminate her influence in the partnership to which you purportedly have been called?

Thanks for this great post.

I had stopped commenting, but then the things you claimed to be complementarianism were too absolutely absurd! I understand you are relaying what people have told you, but I have never heard anyone in the complementarianism camp hold to your bulleted points. You won’t find defense for them in any books on the subject either. I know you hate complementarianism, but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this instance by using extreme examples to make your point.

Joe –

I’ve personally heard the ‘women shouldn’t go to college’ line, as well as the slightly altered ‘well women can go to college in order to find a husband, but they’re not to go there to really study and prepare for a career or anything’. I’ve also had men say to me that a man should be able to decide everything about their family, from what school their kids should attend to what books his wife is allowed to read. And it wasn’t in a ‘well, we’ll talk about it and then the husband gets the deciding vote’ way, it was ‘the man is the voice from heaven who decides all’.

That’s just a couple of examples of things I’ve personally heard, and I’ve only had a few conversations on this stuff with people.

Joe –

I don’t know why you say anyone hates anyone. Not good. On the contrary, some comps state that those who don’t hold their same view might be diluting the gospel somehow.

I have been in a comp church for 14 years. Women were not encouraged to have Bible studies. The small groups, led by men, were not encouraged to study the Bible. Small groups are encouraged to read suggested books and review application questions concerning the Sunday sermon. The pastors seemed to think that it was not good for the common folk to study scripture unless it is through the doctrinal lenses they prescribe. Thankfully, my husband and I broke the rules. I even studied books in the Bible with the women.

There are plenty of men and women on this blog who have been or are in comp environments. Why don’t you ask them what happens in their worlds?

Folks, when a Christian leader, like John Piper, has to write a post like this…

Not a “post”, Dee — a FATWA.

And not a “Christian Leader” — a Christian Ayatollah.

Wouldn’t these Calvinistas be happier in Extreme (Talibani) Islam? Utter Predestination, God’s Omnipotence, and Complementarianism on steroids. Why drink it watered down with the Calvinistas when you can have it straight on the rocks with the Mullahs?

^With your husband’s permission, of course.”

@ Joe:

Those things they listed may be extreme, but they are not uncommon. I grew up in the conservative evangelical homeschool “bubble,” and let me tell you, I have seen at least two of the things listed there. And let’s see, what else…

Mr. T would only let Mrs. T drive the car/leave the house two days a week.

Mrs. B bought a new skirt at the mall. When she brought it home, Mr. B told her she already had too many in that style and she had to return it. She did.

Innumerable mothers saying their daughters were “ONLY going to be wives and mothers” so they didn’t need to learn geometry, physics, etc.

Little boys trying to command their younger sister to do her chores because “boys rule girls!” I’ve also heard this one used against girls who complained to the boys that they were bullying them.

A local homeless ministry was raffling off tickets to a college basketball game to raise money. A man called them and reprimanded them because, according to the Bible, women were not supposed to break a sweat.

Note: these are only the stories that relate to submission/headship. If I included the courtship stories, the legalistic censorship stories, and the young-earth stories, the list would be MUCH longer. Maybe I should just write a book. : )

I have an idea. That particular husband should go with his wife to the bathroom and pray God takes the *#@% off his mind. One wonders, however, if man would then become an invalid.

Sickening. The logical end to patriarchy, but still sickening.

When did the Taliban move to the United States? The only thing that is more moronic than their statements is their inflated sense of self importance.

Hillary Clinton once stated that the American people need the Democratic party to rule over them because they are too stupid to realize it. Sounds like the YRR crowd believes the same about the church.

Another example… I was at a meal gathering where there were numerous leftovers. When the hostess asked one of the women (with a growing family) if she wanted to take a bunch of the rolls home, the woman said she had to ask her husband.

Her husband had total control over their menus and everything they ate. If he didn’t think a food fit their paradigm, they didn’t eat it.

I have been reading various things on the importance on reading and centrality of word of God to where churches are advised to build their assembly in a semicircle around the reading. In trying to find a good church to have a wedding I was told this was why churched were designing this buildiings differently.

Dee –

What in the world was “the woman who wears a veil” doing reading this blog? It seems to me that this blog would be on a “no, no” list for someone who feels they should wear a veil.

If Piper didn’t get the man and woman in his example some long-term help, then he should not be pastoring. If a man believed he should have that kind of dominion over anyone, then he has issues.

Joe
I am glad your life in Calvinista villa has been a bed of roses. — Dee

Of course it is. Joe is one of the ELECT, and more important for this thread, a MAN.

“I thank Thee, God, that I was not born a WOMAN…”

Joe said: “…I have never heard anyone in the complementarianism camp hold to your bulleted points.”

One’s experience in complementarian circles is largely defined by a single factor: possession or lack of a penis. Joe is obviously a lucky member of the former group (excuse the pun).

I admit I have always been a non-conformist. After following Buddhist philosophy for years, I was dramatically converted to Christ – alone at home- when I was in my thirties. I spent a year praying and studying the scriptures (and reading Christian books by the likes of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones) before attending a church for the first time ever. By that time, I was wonderfully grounded in my freedom and security in Christ and I imagined I would find like-minded people when I started attending a reformed Baptist church. Sadly I was a misfit from the beginning but I persevered (on and off) for nearly 20 years in different reformed churches. I grew in leaps and bounds despite the church …. maybe because I was continually forced to cling to Christ and examine the scriptures for myself to see what really mattered.

I know HOW I persevered – Christ was the focus of my life, not the institutional church. My husband (who isn’t a Christian and with whom I have a mutualist relationship) and two children were also my priority. But now I ask myself WHY I persevered!

A few “highlights” from my time in comp circles:

-A pastor referring to women’s bible studies as “fools sharing their ignorance”. This man had a terrible temper and was very disrespectful to his wife.

-A pastor (one of the good guys) being kicked out of the church because he didn’t believe in a young Earth – even though he didn’t preach about or teach his point of view.

-Teaching on John Piper’s “all women should submit to all men” etc. I snorted through my nose with laughter when I first heard that one. It was no laughing matter though and the beginning of the end for me……

-A pastor teaching that a woman was to submit to her husband and do whatever he told her to do as long it wasn’t sin. This was the example he gave: if her husband expected it, she should mow the lawn, cook the dinner, bath the kids and bring him tea while he lay on the couch watching TV.

Having God-given wisdom and discernment, how could I keep quiet when faced with erroneous ideas and questionable practices? I was obviously a woman who didn’t know her place! HA!

dee @ 8.45: Back in the good old 16th century, they used to burn midwives who offered herbal painkillers during labour. For exactly the reason you gave. They thought that anything that stops women living out Eve’s curse (the very one that Christ freed us from, btw) was ‘witchcraft’.

It wouldn’t surprise me if a modern day patriarch rehashed the idea, minus the witchcraft and burning-at-the-stake parts. My response to him would be: well, if women are supposed to purposefully live out Eve’s punishment (and there is nothing in the Bible that says so) then by sheer logic you should be picking up a shovel and digging up the nearest field. Come on, chop chop! I’ll just be over here bleeding quietly while your back breaks under the sun. 🙂 Don’t come back until it’s dark.

Anne –

Well how about patriarchs that don’t allow for the removal of ectopic pregnancies? Doug Phillips (Vision Forum) doesn’t think that women should receive that particular form of health care. I suppose that is one way to experience Eve’s curse.

Dana: Seeing as that’s more about their strict conservative no-abortion-ever views, I don’t think it has so much to do with Eve’s curse. Although yes, that is one way to experience it.

Patriarchs have zero empathy for women and 100% enthusiasm for their own pleasure in life, so of course Doug Phillips would spew crap about dying in pregnancy being ‘the right thing to do.’ But I bet you that if he was ever faced with the choice of driving off a cliff or running down a child, he would pick the latter.

Again, I admonish us all…we must never accept their premise in any form. I do NOT believe that it is unnatural for a woman to have authority; I do NOT believe that the Bible teaches complementarianism unequivocally. These are the premises from which THEY start.

I say that there is no complimentarianism done right. There is only female subordination, and this to me goes against the second greatest commandment. This is what happens, though, when you proof text your doctrines. All of a sudden the “husband is the head of the wife” becomes, “a female boss can’t command a male subordinate”. The logical extension of all of these neo-Reformed doctrines always becomes abusive because in the end, there is no way to condemn the “extreme” version because the “extreme” version of their doctrine is ALWAYS in keeping with the fundamental premise of the “normal” version.

Or, said another way:

When dealing with any of these “doctrines” not only are the “extreme” versions important, but they are the most instructive. Time and time again, you will come to the conclusion that these extreme versions are really just logical extensions of the original premise. They are the sand on which the house is built.

dee @ 8.45: Back in the good old 16th century, they used to burn midwives who offered herbal painkillers during labour. For exactly the reason you gave. They thought that anything that stops women living out Eve’s curse (the very one that Christ freed us from, btw) was ‘witchcraft’. — Anne

And when surgical anesthesia was developed in the 19th Century, clerics made the same argument against it. Queen Victoria had to put her foot down in-person to get anesthesia/painkillers accepted for labor.

I would like to point out that the 16th and 17th Centuries were the all-time peak of Witch-Hunting (especially the 17th, in the war zones of the English Civil War and Thirty Years’ War).

And Witchfinders were paid from the confiscated property of the witches they burned. (As in Witchfinder splits the swag with accuser and judges — you can see where that’s heading right there.)

Despite its reputation, the Spanish Inquisition didn’t do much witch-hunting; its Inquisitors were on a fixed salary. When they did roll on a Witchcraft accusation, the actual charge was the Heresy of Attributing Too Much Power to the Devil — something today’s Spiritual Warfare types should keep in mind.

Oh my, what a heathen I must be!

Educated.

Teaching a mixed SS.

No longer member of my SBC church in my mind, still am in theirs.

Member of the liberal old UMC but needed as a teacher in the even more liberal ELCA, under a woman preacher in both cases.

But GUESS WHAT?

In both of those denominations and both local churches I am seeing the quiet surging of real old fashioned Spirit led revival, as people get right with God and then get right with each other and then move out to serve the needs of the community and evangelize.

While my heart spurns some of the more bizarre liberal teachings, there at least is room for Christ on the throne of the individual’s heart.

Which opens the door for God to speak.

Good stuff happening, and the next major move of God may just be bringing the dry bones of the mainlines to life!

His view on ectopics makes no sense at all.

Hey do you guys have any links or any more specifics about those last claims in the Under Biblical Clarity? Those things are UNBELIEVEABLE. I just wondered if you had any info on it. Yikes.

~Kathryn

Run of the Mill:

While I agree with your story about the church you attended and am glad you left, it does not necessarily follow that the model of the NT is pure democracry, as you suggest.

It is quite natural for we Americans to believe and for a lot of our churches to believe that, especially the ones that thrived and grew after the founding of our country.

Despite some very good benefits that might come from Democracy, I think that we would be hard pressed to press this point too firmly – for NT times or for today.

The Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and lots of other groups do not practice pure democracy where there is a one man – one vote policy.

In fact that is a very small minority position in both Christian history and Christian practice.

I submit that one may find very healthy congregations that practice a variety of polity alternatives.

I do believe that certain polity arrangements are more biblical than others, and that there are polity arrangements that are better at producing healthier congregations.

But one can find “nut houses” among any polity type, too.

Some of the worst I have seen are one man – one vote places. All the pastor has to do is get 50% + 1 person. And the most ignorant or evil person in the room gets the same say-so as wise, aged servant who has served the church for 40 years.

Pure democratic polity has been blamed in recent years for the destruction of lots of congregations who have abandoned years of tradition and ministry and music, changed bylaws abruptly etc. All it took was an aggressive pastor who campaigned and used the one man – one vote effectively to fire the staff, smash the organ, burn the hymnals, bring Hollywood into the church – and then changed the rules to ensure his unfettered control of the church.

But then, again, there are times when democracy helps. The SBC is democratice (but that is a group of churches), and that helped common grass roots people get control of their seminaries.

The Episcopalians I know would love some democracy right now, as they see their church leaving biblical standards, and there is nothing they can do.

Just a little clarification….Eve wasn’t cursed. Only satan and the ground were cursed. Both she and Adam would experience “toil/sorrow.” Same Hebrew word for both, but translated “pain” for Eve. If interpreted that way, to be consistent, Adam must experience physical pain in his farming.

🙂

Anne, I just wanted to toss that out there since it seems to be a “myth” that has followed women over the years.

Victorious: Yeah I know. 🙂 Thanks.

Arce: Doug’s reasoning is that it is better for the mother to die than to ‘murder’ the unborn child. Self-sacrifice over sin, even if it is to no avail. Which sounds honourable on the outside, but when you apply it to ectopic pregnancies it turns into a horrible contempt for the lives of unfortunate women. Like you said, the baby is destined for death anyway. Making the mother die through lack of action is itself murder/manslaughter. Hence, Doug is advocating the murder of women with ectopic pregnancies.

Scot McKnight’s latest Tweet: Yes, Call it what it is: Patriarchy.

Read the post he’s referencing here.

Joe, IMO there is no baby in the ‘complementarian bath water’ to throw out. I’ve been studying this issue for years but I was only 99.9 percent sure that the egalitarian doctrine was the right one because every now and then a tiny doubt would worm its way in through some clever patriarchalist dogma that would send me back to the scriptures to re-examine my interpretation. That was until last year when my daughter asked me where in the scriptures does God ever directly command the male to lead or to take authority over the woman. I still can’t find that for her. If I ever do, I might get a slight glimpse of a baby to worry about.

Run of the Mil —

You said: I asked my wife the other day, Do you believe that you have voting power in our marriage? She replied, “Sometimes I feel like I have too much voting power.” I then told my wife, “Good, this is how it should be.”

I pose the question to all of these Calvinistas, Is your wife your partner or your servant? Do you use Bible verses to selfishly eliminate her influence in the partnership to which you purportedly have been called?”

I think the Calvinista would say that his wife is a partner and that you misunderstand complementarianism, to which you could say he misunderstands partnership. Piper obviously thinks that he’s so understood on comp doctrine that when things go wrong with it, that it’s because the person practicing it is somehow misunderstanding the application. He fails to see that his faulty fake fallacy is the catalyst that brings about such behaviors. There is much difference in application, as he mentions, because they have to make it up. It’s simply not in Scripture. I think John Piper has become a bumbling idiot, much like Pat Robertson.

John, your seat is awaiting. Please take it.

Interesting post Dee. I think you have hit the nail on the head in a couple of different ways. As a recovering calvinista, recovering patriarchist, one who used to attend Bethlehem Baptist Church for several years, I believe I have some interesting experiential insight. A few things of note:

1) I regularly heard women read scripture in Church. This may have changed since I was there, but it was very common for women to read the Bible in Church. Of course the sermon text for the service was always read by a man or one of the apprentices/interns at the church.

2) I attended a conference hosted by Desiring God where Joni Erickson Tada was one of the speakers

3) Women did not teach any of the classes in the missionary training program or the intra church instructional sessions.

4) Women did not sit in the back of the church unless they wanted. Women regularly sat in the front. Often times Piper’s wife and daughter were up front.

5) Piper did NOT teach any of the following while I was there:

*Women must ask their husband’s permission to attend Bible study.
*Women must drop what they are doing and bring coffee to their husbands at work as soon as they are commanded.
*Women should not go to college.
*Daughters should stay at home with daddy until they are married and should tend to daddy’s needs.
*Women should not teach baptized boys.

6) Piper’s teaching was regularly misinterpreted/misapplied by both men and women in the church. There seems to be a general disposition within “inerrancy circles” that it is better to error by adding to God’s word than taking away from it. In other words, they would rather a woman not do something that is “gray” in their mind rather than do something that is “gray.”

7) Piper regularly called men to account and to love their wives with sacrificial service.

8) Piper often times pontificated much too far in unpacking of the roles. In other words, some of the discussion about what a woman should do was ridiculous, harmful, and unnecessary.

9) There were marriages that were healed, saved, restored through the complementarian position that Piper espoused.

10) There were marriages that were broken, lost, and ended as a result of trying to apply the complementarian position to marriage.

11) There were women who experienced a deep sense of gratitude as they heard the longing of their hearts expressed as a calling i.e. joyful submission to husbands.

12) There were women who were minimized, dismissed as feminist, and labeled as being in rebellion toward God because they were more of the Proverbs 31 type woman than a Titus 2 type woman.

13) There were men put in positions of leadership that should not have been and were extreme in their positions on manhood/womanhood.

14) There were women with teaching/preaching gifts who did not exercise these gifts and were not given an opportunity to do so.

15) There were men with teaching/preaching gifts who did not exercise these gifts and were not given an opportunity to do so.

16) There were many godly women who embraced a complementarian view.

17) There were many godly women who embraced an egalitarian view, but were made to feel uncomfortable.

Obviously, any of these things could have changed since I attended Bethlehem a long time ago. That being said, the above gives a sense of some of my experiences. One thing I have noticed over the years is that as Piper has sought to become more “mainstream” he has lost a lot of the focus of his initial ministry. From what I understand Piper used to hold to a position on justification that is more in line with a Roman Catholic position (i.e. Daniel Fuller’s position regarding the future aspect of justification) although I do not think he would admit that was his position. He would say he was misunderstood. That being said, from what I understand Justin Taylor used to be an apprentice at Bethlehem and while there “corrected” Piper’s understanding of justification to be more in line with the mainstream reformed folks i.e. Mohler, Sproull, etc…As Piper has focused more and more on blending in (from my viewpoint) with the Mohler’s and Moore’s he has assumed that they believe what he believes about men and women. Personally, I think Piper and Moore are world’s apart on the role of men and women. They agree in principle, but not in application. Plain and simple Mohler and Moore are Southern Baptist who live in a different world than most people. They live in the South which hasn’t changed much over the years. The South is obsessed with issues of patriarchy and control and it goes all the way back to slavery. Mohler and Moore view the world through patriarchal colored lenses and squelch women with their view points. Driscoll is in this camp as well as Mahaney. If I were to make a continuum of the views of men and women in the calvinista church it would look like this:

Mahaney—————-
Driscoll \
EXTREME—-Grudem——Piper]—-Roger Nicole & Wade Burhleson
Moore /
Mohler—————–

All that to say, I don’t necessarily think that Piper would agree with all of those who align themselves with him, but he doesn’t go against it. He would rather be in agreement with someone theologically than practically. It is an interesting dichotomy to say the least. Is it fair to put all the blame on Piper? I don’t think so due in large part to his general “cluelessness” to how people misapply and misinterpret what he says. He tries to get so creative with language that people can easily miss the point of what he is actually trying to say i.e. think Christian Hedonism…..a most unhelpful yet thought provoking term that many people have assumed they understand and run down a path of wrong application. Is it fair to put blame on Piper for not addressing the issues that stem from his view? I do think so, but not full blame. As Piper’s tenure of teaching comes to an end, I think that the best focus is to address the blatant disregard for women that Moore, Mohler, Mahaney, Driscoll have and let the falsehood be shown for what it is. That being said, the whole issue of abuse is one that needs to be addressed as well. There are way too many men out there using “submission” as a means of abuse in much the same way that people use “grace” as a means of abuse.

Sorry for the long drawn out post…just my fifty cents.

Hi Kolya,

There’s a long answer and a short answer.

In short: Kind of but not much.

Long version:

I believe that, culturally, whatever starts in the USA ripples out to the wider Anglosphere and beyond to other nations, too. I think Christianity is no different in this regard. I don’t know if you’ve found that to be true or not in your experience, but it’s true of mine.

At the church I used to attend, all the books we were encouraged to read and the books that the pastors themselves read were written by evangelical American preachers and teachers: books by Joyce Meyer, ‘Under Cover’ by John Bevere, that weird book about ‘The Prayer of Jabez’*, stuff by people who present TV shows on the American Christian networks, etc etc.

We also read books like ‘The Fourth Dimension’by Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world’s biggest church in South Korea, apparently because the pastors were in awe (as pastors often are) of massive churches.

They weren’t Calvinista as such but I find it difficult to make the distinction between one weird authoritarian dogma and another. It’s all just the same oppression to me.

The closest we got, I think, to Calvinista teaching was ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ by SGM’s Joshua Harris. The church seriously considered implementing a courtship model for all the youth and students and singles, but after a trial period abandoned it. Personally I found the book offensive and was relieved not to have to ‘court’ my boyfriend.

Oh, and I visited a Free Church bookshop in Edinburgh not long ago and saw that nasty brick of a book by the CBMW stinking up its shelves.

However, even though I never really experienced Calvinista-ism, the church leadership imported a very close approximation of it from Colombia, originating at what was the fastest-growing church in the world, MCI Bogota. It put the same emphasis on ‘covering theology’ as the Calvinista set, and the idea that submission was the most important thing to God, more important than discernment and freedom.

So it wasn’t necessarily Calvinista teachings, and it wasn’t necessarily American. But it was always authoritarian. And it was always cherry-picked and inferred from the Bible, usually by people with no real credentials. It always gave me a weird queasy feeling and filled me with doubt, and then I felt guilty for doubting. And it always came from somewhere else far away, so we could hear the hype but not see the consequences.

I do believe that these men are already influencing – or should I say damaging – churches over here. Mark Driscoll has already visited and raised merry hell with his repulsive blowjob sermon. I think that for severak more years at least, the Calvinistas will grow in influence among the kinds of British evangelical, charismatic churches that are pastored by enthusiastic men who believe that zeal counts for a lot more than knowledge.

How about you, have you had much experience of this kind of thing?

*In case you don’t know that one, it’s a book about how we don’t receive the things we should rightfully get from God because we haven’t used the magic ‘Prayer of Jabez’ formula in asking. Or at least that’s how I interpreted it; maybe the author had a bigger point that I missed.

Hi Sophie,

Thanks for your comments. I can relate to a lot of what you are saying.

To be fair my church never went in for the sort of fringe stuff from the charismatic side, such as the “Prayer of Jabez” (which nobody seems to mention these days!) or Yonggi-Cho. Until about 10 years ago we were mainstream evangelical Anglican and tended to favour more the books put out by the Sydney diocese, while Evangelicals Now was a favoured newspaper.

However the most recent incumbent has been clearly influenced (in my opinion) by the CBMW/Calvinista crowd. We also had Harris’ dating book on the shelves (espoused by both the minister and his curate), segregation was apparently introduced for the teenagers and even the 20-30 group (at least for Bible studies), and then the age of the 20-30s group was dropped to a max of 25, after which singles had to join housegroups. A lot more staff were employed, particularly “apprentices” (though I think these had to fund themselves) – most of the apprentices were younger men and women, mainly men, who were there for a year or two to see if they had a taste/fit for ministry. Some books by the Mahaneys were carried on the bookshelf, and the minister paid a visit to the US to visit (I believe) one of the SGM churches. Our church also became part of a “gospel partnership”, which again I believe (correct me if I’m wrong here, Dee/Debs) is a key SGM concept.

In all fairness I must add that the sermons themselves are not wacky (except occasionally when gender issues come up, which may have been more to a past curate than the current incumbent), that Driscoll does not seem to get a mention, and no attempt has been made to force certain interpretations, for example young-earth creationism. The minister himself is not a bad man per se.

Come on Anne, your turn!….

I do not accept that “everything” means “everything”. I don’t care that “it’s in the Bible”. “It’s in the Bible” is just another way of demanding that everyone accept that all verses exist in a vacuum.

But it’s in there, Argo. Everything…in plain English (oh, the irony…only after thousands of years did e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. actually exist in the Bible…but, it’s infallible you know. Perfect. Well, now that we have an ESV it is.)

Eeeeeeevrything. Think about that for a minute. Everything. Now, do you really mean that you believe EVERYTHING? And if you think about it and you say, well, no I don’t think she should submit to her husband when he demands that she vote for who she tells her to vote for, or demands that she service him four times a day, or ANY exception, then you’ve compromised your premise. And when you’ve done that, how do you really define everything since you’ve already admitted that it doesn’t really mean everything? You look at the Bible. You study it. You ask yourself who Paul was speaking to, in what context, in what cultural understanding, and you go from there.

See, when you remove these versus from context and culture, when you proof text your scriptures and demand the impossible from them, namely, that they exist in a vacuum, then I submit that submission very quickly becomes slavery. Yes…yes it does. Tell me how “submission” as defined by “EVERYTHING” as a word existing in a vacuum does NOT violate the second greatest commandment by its very definition? Tell me how you can treat your neighbor as yourself while claiming ownership over the entirety of that person’s very mind and will?

Or does “neighbor” not include wives?

Hmm…

To the “everything means everything” crowd…you don’t know what you are saying. If you thought this through, you would be troubled by what you see.

Hi Bridget2,

Good point. I personally do not think your points and Piper’s are mutually exclusive. Piper seems to be discussing the ultimate purpose of marriage. Keep in mind Piper is influenced by the language of the 18th century philosopher/preacher Jonathan Edwards who distinguishes between “ultimate” and “penultimate” goals. In other words, Piper is not saying (in my understanding) that this is the ONLY reason for marriage or only purpose for woman and man, just that it is ultimate.

In regards to your last question I can merely pontificate and give you my opinion which may or may not be helpful:) After all I am not inerrant:) With that being said I think that Adam and Eve are “types” of what was to come with Christ and the Church. The OT offers allusions and types of things that are fulfilled ultimately in Christ.

Argo –

I agree completely with your last paragraph. There is instruction in scripture regarding not requiring a person to go against their conscience. I believe that includes the husband and wife relationship. A woman should respect her husband by including him in her thoughts and intentions not going behind his back or doing things in secret to undermine him. She should be open and willing to work through differences. She is not to be mindless follower. She is so to bring scripture to bear in her husband’s and her own life. This would undoubtedly include instruction going both ways. That puts a hole in the “women are not to instruct men” (eye roll).

Why is there a common problem with these teachers that when negative affects of their teaching is discussed, that it’s because their teachings have been misunderstood or misapplied? Seriously? So sooo many people can sit under each of these men’s teachings Sunday after Sunday, and a verifiable recognizable culture becomes present that one can identify, and it’s the members who are misunderstanding the teacher… who teaches them almost every Sunday… on the same topics round and round again… For real? Really? I think not.

These behaviors, relationship patterns, church cultures can be found VERY common amongst these Calvinista church groups. If these men are being misunderstood and their teachings misapplied that darn often, then they need to step down off the pulpit because they suck at communication. I’m sorry, but i cant buy this one. It’s playing apologetics for these men with whom Scripture from the very book they teach from says they will be held responsible for what THEY teach. And if people regularly and consistently glean the same application and understanding from such teachings, then it is logical to concede that the teaching was understood as it was intended.

Piper needs to sit his ass down and stop trying to explain over, and over and Over again what marriage should be like and what men and women should be doing. The Bible is freakin’ HUGE and this dude is wearing OUT the texts pertaining to marriage and family. He needs to come off of it and preach about something else. So tired of him. What a loser.

Argo,

Thanks. You have encouraged me today.

I did find a different way around “EVERYTHING”- posted here: The Elephant in the Egalitarian Room “wives submit in everything” Ephesians 5:24

A woman should respect her husband by including him in her thoughts and intentions not going behind his back or doing things in secret to undermine him.

What do you do with Abigail in 1 Sam 25?

Nowadays I pay for medical and dental care for the children without including him in my “thoughts and intentions”. I do inform him after the fact. We have plenty of money but he objects to “wasting” it on healthcare (while he has spent as much as $4K on a “toy” for himself without including me in his “thoughts and intentions”)

Charis,
You are welcome! And thank you for your kind comment! 🙂

Oh…sorry, her shirt is Minnie Mouse. So, Driscoll is safe because:

Male cartoon mouse with hiked up red shorts = manly, studly, UFC, turn the tables over Christian.

Female cartoon mouse = girly, sissy, gay-Jesus Christian.

Argo – Comment of the day! (Your most recent on the various “looks.”)

“But then, I’m the guy that does not accept the premise that the Bible is “infallible” as the Calvinista’s define it (infallible, meaning, interpreted through the narrow, medieval, western European, theological lens of Calvinism), so I just shrug and realize that I’m a heretic all over the place, apparently.”

Argo, Just be glad you are in the old USA and there are no church/state magistrates or burnings at the stake!

Theoblogue,

I have enjoyed your insights much. About 10 years ago my niece and her husband graduated from Wheaton and went directly to intern with Piper and attend the school there. They came back different people. All of a sudden their long time believing family, including pastor grandpa’s and music minister grandma’s were not really saved and did not know the true Gospel. We were too patriotic, too, because we had a 4th of July party which was USA idolatry.

My niece became one of those women (she was well educated at my brother’s expense) who was not to work outside the home but only support her husband’s work. (Too bad because they were broke and my brother and his corporate atty wife were done footing the bill since she refused to work after they laid out about 100,000 for her education).

Let’s just say that to us, strong believers in the Holy Priesthood and soul competency, it was like they had been brainwashed by a cult. Piper and Calvin were spoken of in terms that bordered on idolatry. It was scary. They are now on mission field and expecting baby number 5.

According to Anon1, Piper taught “3. If a woman has a job with male direct reports, she should only offer “suggestions” but never give orders because it is not natural for a woman to have any authority over a man.” I did not know Piper taught this.

Wow, I was a manager, I almost fired a male employee for his insubordination. I put him on a 3-month probation, he shaped up, so, he kept his job. That’s how corporate America operates, I know my power and authority of a manager who is responsible for the entire department.

Eagle, the frog in the kettle is an apt analogy.

Bridget2, Abigail defied her husband Nabal and saved her household from destruction by David. She doesn’t fit very nicely into the comp female mold.

“Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name, and folly is with him. But I your servant did not see the young men of my lord, whom you sent.” 1 Sam 25:25

“According to Anon1, Piper taught “3. If a woman has a job with male direct reports, she should only offer “suggestions” but never give orders because it is not natural for a woman to have any authority over a man.” I did not know Piper taught this.”

Kelly, I would link to it but it is in one of those long treatises on CBMW where Piper is quoted and it was a while back I read it. I cannot even remember the name of it. But he did teach it and say that women having authority over men even in the secular world is not natural. It is not part of the created order of how things should work. He does not go as far as say it is sin but the implication is there is you do not “do it right”.

We have all been redeemed, if we have accepted the gift of grace, and we are all then adopted as siblings of Christ. According to Hebrews, we are all priests (yes, women too). I find no basis for women being second class citizens in the kingdom of our Lord and Savior. BTW, the word we translate as submit is not as strong as many preachers seem to say. After all, if we are all to be in submission to one another (as 5:21 says), then clearly it is not a one way street, but rather some form of mutual agreement and sharing. Perhaps that next verse means that women should be careful about submitting to anyone but their own husband and not to be too submissive to some other man or some other woman’s husband!!!! But the previous verse clearly speaks to mutuality.

It’s demeaning and degrading to an adult human being to have other adult humans think they have the right to sit around and debate what she can and cannot do. So some men are going to be “unwise” in how much they restrict a group of adult human beings? Piper says “we” (meaning male church leaders) are probably going to make different judgments about what women can and can’t do. Apparently he can’t see that the fact that he thinks men have the inherent right to make these judgments for their fellow adult human beings, is the real problem. How would he like it if another group of humans sat around and decided what Piper was to be restricted from doing?

Charis –

Neither did Rebekah!

Kristen wrote: “How would he like it if another group of humans sat around and decided what Piper was to be restricted from doing?”

He might not like it, but I’ll bet there would be plenty of eager volunteers for that committee. 🙂

Good points, Kristen.

@HeadlessUnicornGuy- Would you prefer I apologize for being a Christian? FYI, don’t believe everything Dee assumes. I am not at a comp church.

@JJ- You are assuming I only can learn from my own experience as a male. You are dead wrong! I am not at a comp church.

@Anon 1- Care to reference the things you are attributing to Piper more specifically than CBMW? I have read some of what Piper says on the subject and not seen your examples before.

@Patti- If you are 99.9% sure of your view there is not much myself or anyone else can do for you. 🙂 If you want to hear another perspective seek out those with differing views. Keep reading the Bible.

Charis-

I know this is a very personal question, so feel free to ignore it.

I’m wondering why you would continue in a marriage where the one partner (your husband) is so immature and disregarding of the other?

@Joe

You said: ‘You are assuming I only can learn from my own experience as a male. You are dead wrong! I am not at a comp church.’

I’m very happy to hear that you’re not at a comp church. But I wasn’t assuming that you could only learn from your experience as a male. However, I believe that many men who are sympathetic to complementarianism will not have experienced its consequences because, as men, they’ve never had to bear the brunt of its ultimately demeaning implications. Not only will they not have experienced its consequences, they are often blind to its effect on women because their own position is secure.

But if, like you say, you are open to learning from others’ experiences, I’d gently urge you to consider the fact that what you view as exceptions to complementarianism are actually quite representative of this teaching and its outworking.

The many examples of hurt and abuse cited here at TWW show how very destructive this doctrine is. These experiences are not marginal cases, and they aren’t distorted versions of complementarianism: they are what happens when the doctrine is carried to its logical conclusion.

I – and I think many others who comment here – believe that leaders like Piper have built an elaborate theology around their self-created term ‘complementarianism’ which is not biblical, yet they teach their interpretation and standards as if they ARE biblical. Where are all these clauses and sub-clauses of behaviour to be found in the scriptures? (Uh, that’s mostly a rhetorical question…don’t want to get into a game of Deuling Prooftexts – it’s like Dueling Banjos, but sometimes more disturbing than Deliverance.)

The fact that many professing complementarians have practically egalitarian marriages and relationships can hide how harmful complementarianism is, by its very nature. The mild facade of complementarianism is bolstered by those who actually don’t follow through with its full implications.

You said to Anon 1, ‘Care to reference the things you are attributing to Piper more specifically than CBMW? I have read some of what Piper says on the subject and not seen your examples before.’ I’m sure Anon 1 might respond specifically, but in the meantime here are some references for the examples Anon 1 cited.

1.‘Women should not give directions to men in a way that might look like they are “instructing” them.’

From page 42 in Piper and Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
‘For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.’

2. ‘Women should take “abuse for a season”.’

Here’s a video of Piper talking about a woman’s response to abuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM

To quote from Piper at 2:33: ‘Now that’s one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.’

3. ‘If a woman has a job with male direct reports, she should only offer “suggestions” but never give orders because it is not natural for a woman to have any authority over a man.’

The following quotations don’t address this specifically, but they relate to this theme.

Page 42 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: ‘Her demeanor-the tone and style and disposition and discourse of her ranking position-can signal clearly her affirmation of the unique role that men should play in relationship to women owing to their sense of responsibility to protect and lead.’

‘When you combine these two continuums, what emerges is this: If a woman’s job involves a good deal of directives toward men, they will, in general, need it to be non-personal. The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior.’

Page 41 ‘One or more of these roles [a list of occupations] might stretch appropriate expressions of femininity beyond the breaking point. But in any case, regardless of the relationships in which a woman finds herself, mature femininity will seek to express itself in appropriate ways. There are ways for a woman to interact even with a male subordinate that signal to him and others her endorsement of his mature manhood in relationship to her as a woman.’

Joe, I’m glad that you want to join this discussion. But please try to see that these many, many examples aren’t the straw men we’re creating or citing to boost our agenda, but rather that they are complementarianism, fully manifested.

Dee-

dee on Wed, May 09 2012 at 08:32 am

“Kristen
These men believe they are given the keys of authority to decide what flies in the church. 9 Marks pushes this and the Calvinistas love it. They will make decisions for those who let them.”

Don’t mean to change the topic but a distraction for a minute. Your comment reminded me of this-

http://theresurgence.com/2011/05/02/10-tips-for-your-mothers-day-service

I am all for honoring moms, although I don’t think the Sunday service needs to be controlled by Mother’s Day. I feel badly for the women who will not go to church that day because they know the service will honor moms and most likely the sermon will be about a “biblical” mother and they feel left out…either having lost their moms, or by not being a mom, or by having an abusive mom…being estranged from their moms-whatever the reasons may be.

Some of these suggestion are bizarre–(keep the music happy and upbeat–dedicate a lot of babies ’cause people like to see babies on Mother’s Day). I wonder who is controlling this day–the “youngers” (elders) or the Holy Spirit when they advise to, “5.Keep the sermon short—there are tons of brunches and events.”

I am glad they at least gave an honorable mention to those who may be suffering on Mother’s Day by saying they are welcome to come for prayer after the service. But what with all the gifts and free books they recommend giving out to the moms– it just seems unnecessary damage is done.

Dee: LOL regarding that link to “tips for pastors” for Mother’s Day by Driscoll. Sounds more like tips to Cub Scouts. His number one tip may cause him to run afoul of the Calvinist/Reformed/Covenantal crowd.

“Here are some thoughts on your Mother’s Day service:

1. Have a woman lead or help lead worship.
2. Dress nice; say it’s to honor Mother’s Day…”

Dress nice?

In order to honor mother’s day, Driscoll will wear a Minnie Mouse t-shirt.

Irish, what do you primarily hear about in a reformed baptist church? Is there any mention of Christ crucified for your sins? Or is it a vague you may or may not be saved?

Mark’s necklaces puts mine to shame.

Well Bridget2, I saw that too. I suppose he feels he is a leadership guru, even to the point of coaching the other Mars Hill pastors (and any other pastors) on how a Mother’s Day Sunday service should go down. Because, he knows what’s best.

Keep it short with happy music—gotta get to those brunches.

Robin,

Occasionally you’ll hear of Christ’s sacrifice. But generally the focus is on one’s own sin. Navel-gazing. “Oh, I am such a bad sinful wretch….” So. What about Christ and what He did? No. They get stuck at wretched selves.

Preachers will go through a man-made laundry list of do’s and don’ts yelling and shouting and giving the eagle eye to members no less to make sure your election is sure. Which is ironic since we are not supposed to have control over that anyway. Or they will exegete an obscure OT text reminding you how bad you are and that you better pull up your socks. They really lack assurance of salvation, again, ironic given what they say they believe.

I sat in a ref. bapt. service wherein all of us present were members and afaik, genuine Christians. The preacher was yelling, “maybe your are not a Christian, maybe the person beside you isn’t.” I looked around and thought, “really, who the heck is he talking about?”
Calvinists love to beat up and get beaten up over their sin. Some are more overt than others.

Dee,

“Chronically miffed off” is an understatement. There really is no patience or grace. They want perfection and they want it now, darn it. And haven’t we done you a big favour by sacrificing our time and talents to lead you stupid sheep? I’ve heard this actually said. The condescension is astounding.

We had a baptist preacher once tell us in a sermon it was his job to listen to God, and ours to shut up and listen to him.

Boy did I beat feet!

They might have to do more than pray for me though. They might need to perform an exorcism to get the thinking out of my head.

LOLZ – though what makes your comment funny is that it’s all too true. I’m sure some of my pals from That Church (and others) would think I’m one of “the lost” if they were to see some of my comments here. 😉

For those who don’t believe that this “extreme” version of complementarianism exists, you need to meet my cousin C and his wife K. K does have a car but she doesn’t have a key to their house. She doesn’t have a need to leave the house without her husband anyways (he works from home). The car will probably be sold very soon. The husband, C, decided when his wife was pregnant that midwives and doctors and hospitals were too expensive and he knew everything about giving birth. He insisted that she give birth at home alone with just his superior knowledge. Well, mr. genius and K ended up at the hospital with complications following the birth of their son. When C and K need to leave the house for any reason, they leave when he is ready, even if it means they will be late. Oh, C and K are in their mid-20s. Sounds like complementarianism at its best (or worst).

Then you have C’s opposite, my former neighbor Roger. Roger was a college professor and known as a “giant” on campus for his gentle demeanor. He was a leader not because he asserted his power as a man but because he chose to love all who entered his life. He and his wife were complete equals in life and because of this, she is now equipped to handle all of the details after his passing. At Roger’s funeral, the two words that I heard over and over to describe him were “gentle” and “love”.

I’d rather live in a world full of men like Roger than one with men like my cousin C.

I’m wondering why you would continue in a marriage where the one partner (your husband) is so immature and disregarding of the other? -doubtful

Long and complicated story….
but I was pretty much in the hard comp fog until 22 years into the marriage and by then, we had a quiver full of 8 children.

The Lord used Luke 1:17 to lay on my heart that the children’s well being comes first and they are better off with my husband and I together (for numerous reasons I won’t get into…).

At the reformed baptist church that finally put me off institutional church FOREVER – a deacon (male of course)was telling me that our hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked and therefore we could never trust ourselves to do anything pleasing to God etc etc….. (worm theology!).

With the intention of encouraging him, I said that in Christ we have new hearts in which the Holy Spirit dwells and He inclines us towards God… and we are always completely and unconditionally loved and accepted (warts and all!) because of Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

His response? I was showing a lack of understanding of the doctrine of sanctification and he reported me to the elders for “criticizing” him!

Charis-

I’m so sorry for your situation…I really hope for the best for you and your children.

Thanks for your response to my question…you are a brave woman, in my eyes.

…oh, I also want to add that the pastor of my church was a really decent guy with the best of intentions and a lot of humility.

Pam – Yes and sadly it wasn’t atypical. These men didn’t know their bibles. They knew a few proof texts and had been spoon-fed their doctrine by the pastor. They were also used to their women keeping quiet and making them feel like heroes of the faith!

Dee-

Yes you don’t know me, but I have been commenting enough and telling you who I am and who I am not throughout the process. If you want to continue to hold to the belief and practice that this blog is open, you have to allow the few dissenting voices to speak.

I am in full agreement with the thrust of the posting yet I find it disconcerting that you perceive the errors of John Piper and his ilk to be inseparably linked with Calvinism. My theology is largely Calvinistic yet I am thoroughly egalitarian (and I’m sure that I am not alone in this).

Challies lectured on proper speaking technique? BAHAHAH This I gotta see. (and I do like Challies most of the time).

What a relief! I can only hold it for so long.