Mary Kassian and Her Complementarian Spin

"Recently, someone in the twitter world called me an “uber-complementarian.” They threw out the term “complementarian” derogatorily, like an ugly handful of mud – akin to calling someone a “racist,” “fascist,” “sexist,” or something scary like that. I had to smile, since I remember sitting around a table with John Piper and Wayne Grudem and others, wracking our brains to come up with an apt label to describe the historic Christian teaching on gender. Oh how quickly labels turn into stereotypes!"

Mary A. Kassian

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/worldwariiposterart/ig/World-War-II---Victory-Home/Rosie-the-Riveter-.htm

Rosie the Riveter

I love learning the history of recently established complementarianism.  It was birthed through the Danvers Statement, which Mary Kassian probably had a hand in writing.  What I'd really like to know is how she became so privileged as a woman to sit shoulder to shoulder with the likes of John Piper and Wayne Grudem as they "wracked" their brains to identify a term that would describe their narrow interpretation of gender, supposedly according to Scripture. 

The above quote is the introduction to Mary Kassian's post a year ago – "Dora the Doormat" and other Scary Straw Women of Complementarity.  She provides a Historic Christian Position on Gender in which she explains the following:

"Since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles. There was no word to describe this position, since no one had ever questioned it. But about 50 years ago, feminism changed all that. And by the mid-eighties, when Egalitarians and Evangelical Feminists eagerly jumped on the feminist ideological bandwagon, it was necessary to come up with a label to identify this traditional, orthodox, historic belief. That’s when we came up with the term “complementarian.” It simply means someone who believes that the Bible teaches that God created men and women with equal, yet distinct roles. We are equal, but different."

Then her post gets really interesting.  She explains that the term "complementarian" (remember, it was invented by Piper, Grudem, Kassian and others who met in secret) conjures up scary stereotypes in people's minds.  It's funny that spell check doesn't recognize this term.  Kassian tried to be oh so clever by coming up with "straw women" which she claims misrepresent the complementarian position.  Just before introducing them, she writes:

"(Strike up the scary organ music please!) . . ."

Allow me to introduce you to Kassian's Straw Women:


– Dora the Doormat

– Dipstick Danielle

– Kitchen-Trapped Kathy

– Baby popping Bertha

– Repressed Rita

 

HaHaHa!!!  What is tragic is that these women actually exist in the complementarian world no matter how Mary Kassian tries to spin it.  We have read testimonies from some of these women and have received numerous comments on our blog from those who easily fit into these descriptions.  Even though Mary Kassian asks us to "please stop doing it!" (calling attention to these so-called straw women), we absolutely will not because we are here to provide a voice for those who have been silenced.

Here's Mary Kassian's conclusion:

"If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!"

Why is she protesting so much against those who reject complementarianism?  If Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are so wonderful, why is this crowd always trying to sell it?

Frankly, I'm not buying it!   When the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 was initially embraced by Southern Baptists, I thought that perhaps the idea of equal but different roles was beneficial.  My husband never did – he never swayed from his egalitarian position.  Twelve years have passed, and during those years we have seen complementarianism up close and personal.  From my perspective, those who are selling the comp position are wearing rose-colored glasses.  They are so enthralled by their positions of power that they cannot see the damage that is being done in Christendom.   We hear about it all the time here at The Wartburg Watch.  It's real, no matter how hard Mary Kassian tries to deny it.

What I find most interesting about the families of John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Mary Kassian is that all of their biological children are male.  Has anyone else noticed that?  Granted, John and Noelle Piper adopted a baby girl some years ago.  I can't help but believe that this predominance of sons has influenced their embrace of complementarianism.  Hmmm…  what a great way to control daughters-in-law. 

Yes, I'm cynical because since the comp position has come into vogue, MANY of my brothers and especially sisters in Christ are being hurt.  We hear from them every day here at TWW.   I am deeply disturbed that leaders in this movement refuse to MAN UP and address the problems within complementarianism which are too numerous to name.  If you're new to our blog, just look through our category "Calvinistas". 

As a wife and mother who chose the career path that Mary Kassian advocates (homemaking) but refuses to embrace herself (do as I say, not as I do), I am warning my young adult daughters against the comp doctrine that I once thought was beneficial.  Thank God they haven't married into this religious system!  They have watched my husband and me flourish in our egalitarian marriage, where we strive to out serve each other (quote from Dee).  We have been married almost a quarter of a century, and every year gets better.  

It has been a busy day, and I have spent much of it "serving" my husband and two daughters.  The younger one moved home from college and the older one is planning a "Moms and Muffins" brunch for the parents of her students tomorrow morning, which I plan to attend.  I find so much joy in helping my husband and daughters. 

Dee and I are just beginning to focus on the women of complementarianism.  We are planning to review Carolyn Mahaney's books, focus on the upcoming Here is Our God conference (sponsored by The Gospel Coalition), and investigate the True Womanhood Movement.  As women, we feel highly qualified to report on these trends that involve our 'sisters in Christ'.  

In the meantime, I have some advice for Mary Kassian, who loves to dole it out herself…

Why don't you go home to Alberta and take care of your husband and stop telling us how to take care of ours…

 

Lydia's Corner:  Ezekiel 39:1-40:27   James 2:18-3:18   Psalm 118:1-18   Proverbs 28:2

Comments

Mary Kassian and Her Complementarian Spin — 98 Comments

  1. I just posted this but I will post it again on this thread,

    Totally off subject but you might want to check out the whitehorse inn because they have a conversation with R.C. Sproul at Ligioner. I will say that if you go to the 47 minute mark you might be happily surprised by the conversation about young earth vs. old earth.

  2. Deb –

    You and Dee are the best. Thanks to you both for taking this on – and I mean everything, not just this series of posts.

    And to all who comment here – you are some of the best blog commenters I have seen. Great community, great comments and great interaction. Thank you all.

  3. Dana,

    TWW has the smartest commenters on the planet!

    We are passionate about what we do, and our ONLY rewards are the satisfaction that we are sharing God’s truth as we see it and the thanks we receive from commenters like you. Dee and I are storing up our treasure in heaven and in our hearts.

    I wonder what kind of rewards (financial or otherwise) Mary Kassian receives…

  4. Complementarian roles in marriage was in my family systems class in the early eighties at a state college. In was taught in contrast “traditional” roles in marriage.

  5. A lot of family systems counseling used that term in contrast to “traditional” roles way before then, Deb.

  6. I think you’re on to something about them all having sons. Let me tell a story.

    Some years ago, when we were between rectors, we had a locum pastor who was best buddies with the strongest complementarians in this diocese. To my amazement, he allowed me to have a turn preaching, and ended up being very supportive of me. When he finished up he was remarkably complimentary (as opposed to complementary!) about my teaching ability. A little discreet conversational digging revealed why. He has an adult daughter who has studied theology and is highly qualified to teach Hebrew and Old Testament at tertiary level. But she was having a lot of trouble getting a job in a conservative Bible college because of her gender. That one detail had made a world of difference to how he saw that women were being treated in the church — because his own daughter wasn’t getting a fair deal

  7. I have spent 35 years ‘serving’ my husband,children and grandchildren and will continue to do so as long as the Lord permits me. My husband has always wanted my opinions on everything and we work together in this marriage and with the children. It has always bothered me that other folks are so ready to tell us what we need to do. Like we are idiots!

    I am glad you are revealing these issues on the blog. Keep up the good work! And the comments are wonderful too.

  8. Preach it! Talk about Straw Women….Mary K herself has created a “Straw Woman” by presupposing that egalitarians are “inventing” fake consequences of complimentarianism. IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE! This world would be a much safer place and I would sleep better at night.

    I wish we could just have discussions about these things without people on BOTH sides of the aisle getting up in each other’s faces and tossing straw people around. Can’t we just have a nice, polite convo without deception, misdirection and incorrect implications? I would really enjoy that.

    The Flaming Egalitarian Observer

  9. sad observer
    I have seen terrible consequences with complementarianism as well. Does she want to play the game of dueling “Your way will destroy civilization” with me?

  10. Simply outdo her, dee. A false teacher is know by their fruits. You really need to catagorize her as a truly a traditionalist not a complementarian.

  11. Mara (and those who wondered about my daughters),

    I peeked at that youtube you posted and just happen to be visiting my oldest daughter for her graduation from Med School tomorrow. (Proud mama moment!) My second daughter is already a practicing PA. They are both married and were very careful and picked RESPECTFUL husbands (thank YOU LORD!). My third daughter is a rising senior at Harvard (yep THAT Harvard!)

    My theory is that intelligent gifted girls who are chronically put down and told “you are gullible, easily deceived, so you CAN’T be a leader! GOD says so!” become very highly motivated to prove daddy wrong…

  12. Charis,

    Your girls are the lucky ones. I wonder how many gifted women grow despondent and cave under a lifetime of discouragement? Clearly you produced some brave offspring! 🙂

  13. Let’s talk statistics. As most of the modern abolitionists will tell you, studies and their own experiences tend to show that raising the status of women helps the whole community. Also for those who think women working outside the home is a great evil, check out Lois Hoffman’s 1998 study on the effects of dual working parents. I don’t imagine many complementarians will want to have those results widely reported. Perhaps complementarians could stop existing in some liminal world populated by their own faulty assumptions and look at actual evidence.

  14. Charis,

    You have such beautiful children. I’ve been reading your blog since you linked to it the other day, and I am convinced that God has noticed your long-suffering, patience, and willingness to follow Him even in the face of your trials, and blessed you with wonderful children as a reward. They take in their mother’s strength in Christ, and in herself, and know that it’s in them too.

    I’ve been touched by your writing, and I’ll be praying for you in your journey. Just wanted you to know that!

    Dee and Deb-
    What else can I say? You gals are fantastic!

  15. Juniper, could you post a link to that study? If not that’s fine I can also Google it.

  16. This is what I was taught in family systems traditionalism is when male has his specific roles and a woman has hers. Complementarianism is when a husband can function in roles that traditional women fucntioned in and vice versa, but it respects the idea that this is not true in every household. The spouse helps to strengthen the weakness of the partner. Look at John McCain, he said that his wife was better at finances and so she runs the budget. Sheri Klouda would have a complementarian relationship as her husband was disabled and unable to work. It varies from couple to couple. Egalitarian view is family systems theory assumes every women in every household can operate in the function of the husbands role and vice versa for the husband.

  17. Thanks for the great comments. I have spent the last three hours with my older daughter in her elementary classroom helping her with a Muffins for Moms celebration in honor of Mother’s Day.

    It was wonderful having so many of the moms come up to me and praise my daughter and her impact on their children’s lives. She taught them a catchy tune to thank their moms and read Love You Forever by Robert Munsch to the moms (and grandmothers) and students. If you haven’t read it, you should. It brought tears to my eyes.

    Happy Mother’s Day in advance to all moms everywhere!

  18. Ever noticed the liscensed based programs and also system based programs are being eliminated from seminaries?

  19. Deb,

    What a wonderful thing for your daughter to do for her students and their moms! She sounds like a very special teacher. I’m sure her students and moms/grandmoms enjoyed having you there too.

    No doubt Piper and Grudem brought Mary Kassian in their circle, because they knew they’d need a woman who would buy into this garbage and who could write and speak well to market their harmful ideology. If they could have used men exclusively, I’m certain they would have done so. I’m sure they keep her around, pay her well, and give her the required pats on the back so she’ll keep selling their wares and increase their power.

    Your advice to Mary Kassian is right on target: Why don’t you go home to Alberta and take care of your husband and stop telling us how to take care of ours…

    Exactly!

  20. What I’d really like to know is how she became so privileged as a woman to sit shoulder to shoulder with the likes of John Piper and Wayne Grudem as they “wracked” their brains to identify a term that would describe their narrow interpretation of gender, supposedly according to Scripture.

    Maybe “she”s really a “he”?

  21. I am reluctant to post this. Ultimately, it is God who judge hearts, not me. But when I first read the “straw women” post, I felt that the heart of it is wrong.
    I believe many comps are honestly mislead people who want to do as God say and are wrong about what he say. Others are honestly mislead people who sort of want to do as God say, but who combine that with their own pride and between good and less good intentions, they get misled.
    But this post tells me that Kassian know about the repressed at church, those who are doormats at home, who believe their minds and thoughts are worth nothing – and instead of expressing concern, she makes fun of those who point out the victims of complementarian thought.
    It gives the impression that her heart do not care about the victims. This seems worse than Piper calling a woman who cannot leave the room to go the toilet “sick.” Because Piper, in some way, admit that “misunderstood” complementarianism is to blame. Kassian seems to say: “Victims? None of them here. Those you see are made of straw, by our enemies.”
    I realise that those times comps judged my heart (according to them, sin is the only reason I could understand Scripture as I do, and according to 1 I cannot be a Christian), I was upset about it. But if I think she has a heart that needs more love, it is based on the evidence of her words.

  22. Years ago when I wanted to become a member of a church we were attending, I was told that wasn’t possible as I was a smoker. But when they needed a husband and wife team to teach a couples Bible study, that was ok for a smoker.

    After a number of classes, I was called into the pastor’s office to be reprimanded for “out-shining” my husband!

    Talk about feeling like a ping-pong ball! lol

  23. Victorious:

    You said:”After a number of classes, I was called into the pastor’s office to be reprimanded for “out-shining” my husband!”

    Unbelievable!! This is pure insanity and yet it appears millions of people are part of this “belief system.”

  24. Casey –

    I think the term “complementarian” was high jacked. I believe the way we are created – male and female – was intended so that we can complement one another. It was not meant to confine us to certain roles as determined by male theologians. Instead, we complement one another according to the gifts God has given us. Some people just can’t fathom life without a hierarchy (or an authority) in adult relationships.

  25. Casey
    I knew that there was some rumblings of eliminating social work programs. Do you know of any articles I could read?

  26. Charis
    I believe it is women like your daughters who will eventually challenge the system.Good for them (and you as their mama-you should be proud).

  27. Casey
    I really like this suggestion. “You really need to catagorize her as a truly a traditionalist not a complementarian.” We could add the adjectives of American, cultural as well. Great idea! Maybe we need to birth a new term.

  28. Mary is a hypocrite. She states not to use stereotypes towards her beliefs, and yet uses them herself towards others. (Thank you Mara)

    What I have seen ‘encouraged’ is women especially that drink the Koolaid state they see these ‘stereotypical’ women ‘all the time’. I don’t buy it. Their world revolves around almost ONLY their home and church almost 100%. Where are they seeing these ‘types’? At the doctor’s office? Grocery store?

    I don’t live in the bubble they do, and honestly I don’t even see them ‘all the time’. I’m out in the secular world more than they are.

    Sadly, I think they encourage people to see things that aren’t there. No doubt there are extremists. I’m not saying there are none. That would be silly. To say they are ‘everywhere’ and you see them ‘all the time’? That encourages paranoia.

    Mary’s examples are extreme, and they way she presents everyone its like you need to expect the boogie man to jump out at you at any moment so the brain washing can begin.

    History has show that fear tactics like this back fire big time.

  29. Dee –

    Pride is an interesting concept. I believe an angel was tossed from the presence of God because of a desire to be elevated. Eve was tempted by this same concept – “your eyes will be open and you will be like God.”

    Isn’t this the same concept we see with the men in the patriarchal camps as well as pastors who want to stand in the sted of God for others. They actually want to usurp the place of God in other’s lives and they use scripture to do this. I’m sure they would argue otherwise and it’s all for the others’s good. But this is the same thing that satan said to Eve. Hmmm.

  30. @ Charis-

    “I peeked at that youtube you posted and just happen to be visiting my oldest daughter for her graduation from Med School tomorrow. (Proud mama moment!) My second daughter is already a practicing PA. They are both married and were very careful and picked RESPECTFUL husbands (thank YOU LORD!). My third daughter is a rising senior at Harvard (yep THAT Harvard!)”

    You must be so proud! I am very happy for you. 🙂

  31. I just love this, and your website! Thanks for the laugh-out-loud moment this morning–from another wife and mom who loves helping out her family and teaches her fabulous daughters to, as you say, “beware”!

  32. But this post tells me that Kassian know about the repressed at church, those who are doormats at home, who believe their minds and thoughts are worth nothing – and instead of expressing concern, she makes fun of those who point out the victims of complementarian thought.
    It gives the impression that her heart do not care about the victims.

    “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
    — Josef Stalin

  33. “Out-serving each other.” I love it–we celebrate 12 years of marriage on Sunday this year, and that will be a nice motto for the next 12.

    The timing of these posts is quite ironic, as we attended an A29 wedding last Saturday. The minister, whom we did not know, hit submission pretty hard. He stated that complementarianism (he did not use the term) was so important was that it was one of the primary images that the secular world had of the gospel–by which he meant Christ’s sacrifice of his will for the good of his bride, the Church, and the Church’s sacrifice of her will for the glory of God. To his credit, the pastor spent an equal amount of time on the roles of both partners, and he stressed that the husband wasn’t to lord it over his wife but rather to consider what was best for her and, if necessary, give up his own desires in order to do what was best for her. That’s marginally better than some complementarian messages I’ve heard, but it still leaves room for misunderstanding and misapplication, as it assumes that the husband will be the wiser party and therefore the primary decision maker, and it invites the husband to make decisions before he has apprised himself of all the circumstances and feelings involved. The pastor also insisted that it was very important for Christian marriages to follow such a pattern because it was countercultural, and therefore would provide a lead in (my paraphrase) for evangelism to non-Christians. I agree with being countercultural in some aspects, but when it comes to gender roles, I think we also have to consider that the way in which Jesus and the Apostles treated women (with more dignity than the 1st century secular world) was both countercultural and progressive. I have a hard time believing that being countercultural and regressive, as militant complementarians seems to be, could make for effective evangelism.

    I also find it frustrating that these messages start at Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit to your husbands”) and not one verse earlier (“Submit to one another”). I’m convinced there’s something important about the relationship of 5:21 to the rest of the passage that is being omitted in the gender role discussion. I also wonder if the fact that “submit” in 5:22 is a participle rather than the imperative that it always gets translated as is significant. I know that the participle can have an imperatival force, but from what I remember, it’s a pretty rare usage. I am not a Greek scholar, in spite of three years of study, but I’ve read nothing about why so many translation committees have chosen to render the verse as a command rather than a statement explaining the Christ-Church metaphor. It’s a subtle difference in tone, but one that I think could make the difference between abuse and a clear continuation of submitting to one another in the previous verse. I’m willing to be enlightened on this matter, but so far I am unconvinced that submission needs to be interpreted with the full force of the (English) imperative. Has anyone explored this question?

  34. @ Deb-

    “It was wonderful having so many of the moms come up to me and praise my daughter and her impact on their children’s lives.”

    That must have made you feel just wonderful! The blessings of being a loving mom. 🙂 Happy Mother’s Day to you too- and to Dee and all the other moms here.

  35. Hannah Thomas said:

    “History has show that fear tactics like this back fire big time.”

    You’ve got that right! I am sick and tired of the Calvinista fear tactics. They will not be tolerated here.

    Jesus Christ loves us more than we can ever imagine, and I prefer to focus on Him, not these Calvinista idols.

  36. Amy-

    I know I already mentioned Charis once before, but she wrote some enlightening essays on that very subject in her blog: http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/ephesians5-24/ I think you’ll find her take on that passage eye-opening.

    My heart has been burdened with certain verses pertaining to men/women relationships(usually the ones that all the comp pastors like to throw out there). I knew deep inside that much of popular understanding of verses like Eph 5:22 were wrong, but I couldn’t figure out why. Charis helped open my eyes, and so many of the puzzle pieces fit together.

    I’m blessed to have an egalitarian husband who is open and receptive to my understanding, even though he would have formerly labeled himself “traditionalist”(he’s not at all, but he didn’t really understand what it means to the people who are).

  37. So, at 9Marks Blog, we have Jonathan Leeman promoting “Church Membership” – their way…

    http://www.9marks.org/blog/what-church-membership#comments

    He gives “His Definition” for “church membership.” (Do these guys ever read the Bible???)
    Then a 3 point review…

    Notice that several elements are present:

    1 – a church body formally affirms an individual’s profession of faith and baptism as credible…
    …. (What???)(Where is this in the Bible?)(Can’t wait for a calvinista to “affirm” my profession of Faith.)

    2 – it promises to give oversight to that individual’s discipleship;
    …. (Sounds more like a “Promise” to control and maniputate at will.)

    3 – the individual *formally submits* his or her discipleship
    to the service and authority of this body and its leaders.
    …. (Hmmm? *Formaly submits* to it’s leaders???) (Sounds like a set-up for “Spiritual Abuse.”)

    Thought some folks might enjoy commenting.

    I’ve commented on his last post about “What is the Local Church.”

    http://www.9marks.org/blog/what-local-church#comment-11220

    And my Brain Hurts. 😉

    I’ll probably comment – BUT – Where to start??? These guys must be reading a different Bible.

    I’m glad God is sitting in the heavens and having a good laugh… 🙂 🙂

    Jesus loves me this I know…

  38. “Having chosen Christ, a Christian has no choice but to choose to join a church.

    “9Marks locuta est, causa finita est,”

  39. Charis:

    I’ve heard the “participle” explanation before and wholeheartedly agree that all of the participles flow from being filled with the Holy Spirit.

  40. Toffeemama,
    I didn’t see that you had already posted a link. Glad that made sense to you and was helpful! Thanks for the encouragement!

    To me, it fits so many pieces of the puzzle together and increases my regard for Paul. Saddens me that women have been driven by the disrespectful interpretations to ditch the Bible thinking it is the problem instead of seeing in Scripture how deeply God understands and loves us.

  41. Charis,

    Thanks for all the links! Your conclusions mesh with what I was thinking. Good to know someone else was thinking along these lines.

  42. “Since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles. There was no word to describe this position, since no one had ever questioned it. But about 50 years ago, feminism changed all that. And by the mid-eighties, when Egalitarians and Evangelical Feminists eagerly jumped on the feminist ideological bandwagon, it was necessary to come up with a label to identify this traditional, orthodox, historic belief. That’s when we came up with the term “complementarian.”…

    ******

    …but is it really true that “since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles”??

    My purview of history and culture leads me to conclude that this way of doing life (gender-specified roles) was simply part & parcel of the greater culture — it was based on culture, not on doctrine.

    People took it for granted (largely because they had no choice in some respects — women were legally not permitted to do a whole host of things that simply enable a human being to own their whole life themselves, instead of another human being owning parts of their life).

    As Mary Kassian points out, “no one had ever questioned it” (generally speaking, that is — can’t forget about someone like George Elliot). Actually, I think a good many people questioned it (women, mainly, I would assume), however the forces against them were too strong.

    So, I think Mary Kassian’s statements like “historic teaching”, and “Since New Testament times, Christians believed that the Bible taught that God created male and female with complementary differences and roles” are quite one-dimensional, simple-minded, and of course intended to create spin. A ton of “posturing by way of verbiage”.

  43. Elastigirl –

    I don’t know where these people study their history or how they come to their conclusions. Seriously, women have been surpressed, enslaved, and chattel since for ever. When in history were they ever free to make their own choices until about the 20th century? There were a few queens who came into power, but rarely. Women, as a whole, have not ever been free to make their own decisions, and they still aren’t in many cultures.

    Mary’s conclusion is based on a completely false premise.

  44. Mary Kassian said:

    “…If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!…”

    I gotta admit she’s got good bluster and buffalo posturing to intimidate the neophyte and those who don’t do their homework, but I’d pay money to see her go up against say Greg Boyd or Chris Hedges in a moderated debate. ===> (smiley face goes here)

  45. One of the reasons that the historic balance between men and women has shifted is because of technology. When the world was ruled and managed by brute physical strength, women were always going to lag behind because of physiology. Most work was physical and gruelling, and the few professions that were not depended on education, which women were denied. Add to that the many pregnancies most women endured and they were safely kept out of the running. But it was rarely doctrine. Even in the Middle Ages there were abbesses that ran several hundred people and all their business affairs, and many noblewomen competently ran their husband’s estates while the men were off fighting. It was only when technological and medical advances started making a level playing field that these ‘doctrinal’ positions suddenly became so loud.

  46. Lynne –

    Your comment above is similar to one I made earlier this week somewhere (maybe here). The doctrinal issues weren’t pushed until men and women vied for the same positions in the job markets.

  47. Hi Lynne, do you mind me asking whether your strong complimentarians were from the Sydney diocese?

  48. Hi Lynne, Sydney diocese have had a strong influence on the Reformed Anglican wing of the UK church over here. In all fairness I have to say some of the stuff has been quite reasonable and certainly less inflammatory than the SGM/T4G stuff that our current incumbent seems keen on, but I noticed that they also seemed to be keen on the traditional role thing, though not as rabidly so as Mr Driscoll and the CBMW crowd appear to be. I would be interested in hearing any other experiences you have had generally in this area.

  49. Deb,

    As a matter of full disclosure, I am one who would consider myself complementarian, and I am one who has fairly recently left an SGM church. Also, I am thankful for this website and the work you have put into it. With that said, I do not think that just because one is egalitarian does not necessarily mean that they are not a Christian. Paul does not say, “Believe in complementariansism and you will be saved.”

    That said, I would agree that men and women can twist and distort a doctrine like this and make it look like – “Wife, you better get permission for __________”.

    I certainly do not think that is what Paul meant when he said, “Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

    My question for you is – is it the doctrine itself that is the problem, or people’s hearts? Obviously, I believe a wife is to submit to her husband and a husband is called to live sacrificially for his wife. Just as Jesus loved his church, I am to love my wife, dying to my desires and needs, for her desires and needs and in the end, do what I believe is good and right for her and for our family.

    I think when the emphasis is on the wrong thing, it most certainly can lead to destruction. But, thankfully, God in Jesus came to save those who do place the wrong emphasis in the wrong place.

    For a “healthy” complementarian, there should be a great emphasis on sacrificial love and service, out of which would then flow a desire to submit to the one who is loving sacrificially. Because, there is a trust in the one who loves. Just as we trust Jesus because of the demonstration of his love for us.

    I realize this may be choppy but there you are…and one last question – since I have not actually looked at the biblical arguments for egalitarianism – who/what book would you refer me to that has a good biblical argument for that position?

    Thanks again for your work.

  50. Lynne – it sounds like you’re a fan of Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay, “Are Women Human?”

    I *love* that piece, though the intro. remark where she claims to not be a feminist always makes me smile! 🙂

  51. If Complementarians as the way Mary Kassian defines it is the right way, why so many affairs in churches? Why the Matthew Baker incident who killed his wife over his desire to be with another woman? I believe it is because women are the lesser in complementarian world and therefore we are looked on as sex objects. Beauty is over brains so to speak.

    In looking at it the way I believe scripture does, in Genesis Adam and Eve were equal. They ruled together etc. then women are looked upon as another human being with ideas, strengths, as someone not to be messed with in areas of adultery. We contribute much more than having children, cleaning house, serving meals in the church or teaching children.

    At one time in Southern Baptist history(as well as other denominations) women were not allowed to vote. They were to sit in the back of meetings or up in the balcony and keep quiet if they were even allowed to sit in on church business meetings at all. The church was wrong in its interpretation of scripture then and I believe they are wrong now.

    You bring up an interesting point Deb and Dee that I have been writing about for a few years now. Mrs. Patterson, Mary Kassian write and work among men outside the home and have been doing so since their children were little. Mrs. Patterson has made many trips on her own around the world without her husband. Yet, they dare to write and speak as they do. They tell us what we should do. Ridiculous. Yet even as we point this out they continue. Mrs. Patterson teaches at SWBTS. She has spoken to a mixed crowd in chapel. Common sense comes into play if nothing else.

    Forgive my long comment, but this will always stick in my craw. 🙂 Until we speak up, until we realize that they can say I am a feminist and I will say thank you. Feminazi doesn’t even bother me because that means we are making a difference in getting women and men to rethink and go back to the Bible, reading what it actually says concerning women’s “roles”.

  52. “At one time in Southern Baptist history(as well as other denominations) women were not allowed to vote. They were to sit in the back of meetings or up in the balcony and keep quiet if they were even allowed to sit in on church business meetings at all. The church was wrong in its interpretation of scripture then and I believe they are wrong now. ”

    Do you have a source for that? Could not sit in meetings and had to sit in the balcony? Are you speaking of convention meetings or individual churches? My g-grandmother was voting in her SBC church in the early 1900’s before women had the right to vote in elections. She has references to church votes in her old diaries. She also taught mixed classes in a large SBC church in a large Southern City. This was not unusual if you talk with many older people and ask about their ancestors in the church. You will actually find more freedom for women to operate in the Body than you do now. There were limits, I agree with that, but nothing like it is today. Women did not baptize or preach but they did teach men and even vote in many SBC churches.

    In fact the WMU supported more missionaries than anyone else for a long time.

  53. Todd

    Here is a book to get you started. It is written by two conservative theologians and comes highly recommended from a female pastor in my former church, Bent Tree Bible Fellowship (Pete briscoe, the son of Jill and Stuart Briscoe. You may want to look at the Council for Biblical Equality.

    We believe that both comps and egals can be saved. 🙂 along with young earthers and theistic evolutionists. It is the elevation of these issues to primary importance which is the problem.

    Frankly, the issue is complicated. if women are to submit and men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, then functionally, what is the difference? Christ sacrificed Himself, fully, for her. Is such an act not a submissive act? Another issue is the one that many pastors like to stress. Our marriages are to be earthly examples of Christ’s submission to the Father in order to be a “witness” to that relationship. Last time I checked, very few people have come to the Lord because they saw Jesus and the Father’s relationship in a marriage. Nice thought, not reality. In fact, Tim Keller has admitted that although he is complementarian, his marriage functions more like an egalitarian.

    Here’s the problem with “My question for you is – is it the doctrine itself that is the problem, or people’s hearts?” If it is something that is rarely lived out then is it rebellious people or a misapplication. In fact, I believe in something called radical servanthood and playing to our giftedness. So, for example, I had some friends. She was a doctor- a good one. He was into computers. They decided that he would stay home with the kids while she worked, wonderfully using her gifts. He stayed home and started a side business. They have been very happy. The children are grown, are great kids, mom is still a doctor and he has a booming computer business.

    Here’s my point. If a woman is the one who is theologically gifted, she should use that gift in the context of the marriage.In fact, my husband often asks me my thoughts on certain sermons and Scripture, usually agreeing with my take. He taught alongside me. The church said he was my covering. My husband would often say that I was covering him because I was the one who understood the nuances better than he. I also do not like it when complementarianism is boiled down to “Someone has to break the tie.”That diminishes the entire argument to a little used act.But, to be frank, most comps cannot tell me what, exactly, does “having authority” look like.

    Finally, here is a thought. Let’s say a woman becomes the President of the United States (it will happen one day.) Let’s assume she is a deeply committed Christian who knows the ins and outs of running a government and applying the faith in the context of her work. Now, she goes to a Bible church which has decided to offer a class on “Applying your faith in government.” They have a choice. She is willing to teach it or you have a 30 year old guy who once ran for dog catcher and lost. Why shouldn’t the female President teach that course? Is she really under the “authority” of that guy or should that guy joyfully listen to the insights of such a female and acquiesce to her giftedness?

  54. Wow!! I love that phrase, “Radical servanthood and playing to our giftedness.”

    Dee- I feel like you could unpack that phrase, and write a book on this topic that would bring so much life in marriages and (dare I say) “biblical” perspective on God’s heart for women specifically.
    Come on, give Mary Kassian and her rhetoric a run for their money…

  55. Todd, many people can tell you of egalitarian sources. But perhaps you should also notice that the question is not just egalitarian/ complementarian , but egalitarian/ marriage submission and church restriction supporter/ Biblical man- and womanhood supporter.

    It is one thing to say wives should submit to their own husbands, it is another to claim all women, including the unmarried and widowed, should act in certain ways men should not and vice versa for all men. For example, I ask if there are things that should stay undone in the home of a single father or mother as they say certain roles at home is only for one gender.

    It is one thing to say women should not preach, it is another to claim there is roles all men, including those with no desire to preach or lead, should fulfill in church but women (with no desire to preach or lead either) should not and vice versa.

    Because those are the claims of Biblical manhood and womanhood as Kassian teach it. Even while complementarian, you could still reject the message of Biblical manhood and womanhood, as it is simply hot air.

  56. “Here’s the problem with “My question for you is – is it the doctrine itself that is the problem, or people’s hearts?” If it is something that is rarely lived out then is it rebellious people or a misapplication In fact, I believe in something called radical servanthood and playing to our giftedness. ”

    Exactly! The premise of the question is flawed and I saw the problem with it years ago in women’s ministries in comp churches all these women praying for their husband to become the spiritual leader. Waiting around for someone to lead them. Because they always heard that it was not the doctrine but the person not living out the doctrine.

    This is such a huge question Todd asks concerning where to start. I always suggest people go back to the beginning and make sure they get that part right first. The only way to find patriarchy before the fall is to read it into the text.

    And such a huge translation problem with Teshuqa in Gen 3:16 and a misunderstanding of how it is applied with Cain later. Here is a chart showing the translations of Teshuqa until around the 1300’s

    http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf

    So, if we really want to understand Gen 3 we find that Eve turned TO Adam instead of to God. And because she did this, Adam rules over her. Just as God described. And right away, we see the ugly head of patriarchy rear it’s head. It was never about Eve wanting to rule Adam. That is read into the text and affirmed by the horrible translation of “desire”. It was meant as “desire” for Adam as in turned to Adam instead of desire for God and turning to God.

    Never forget. Eve admitted she was decieved. Adam blamed God and Eve.

    The other problem is not once in the OT do we see any law or prohibition on women teaching or leading men. Otherwise,both Deborah and Huldah would have been in big sin.

    After the fall they were simply living out the sin of patriarchy from which God eventually intervenes and regulates through the law. (When compared to other pagan tribes at the time, God’s laws concerning the treatment of women are radical but they sound cruel or harsh to our enlightened ears)

    It is really uncanny when you think of it. Man has turned the sin of patriarchy into a virtue. It is a lie. I am not about egalitarianism. I am about what scripture works toward when Jesus Christ comes: The Mutual love and submission of believers to one another. There are 58 “one anothers” in the NT but so many of the guru’s focus on a few badly translated and misunderstood proof texts to lord it over people.

    In fact, I say that these guru’s have started a horrible us/them war between the genders and satan is delighted. If there are gender roles that are really this serious then Jesus was helping Joanna sin in Luke 8.

  57. relative
    Well, there is something in the works but is going a bit slower than expected. Keep us in your prayers.

  58. Todd,

    Thanks for your comment. I’m responding via my IPhone, so I have to be brief.

    Here is my view on marriage.

    I believe those who are married should strive to out-love and out-serve each other. My husband tells me often, “You’re my partner, my lover, and my best friend,” and the feeling is mutual. Next year we will celebrate our silver wedding anniversary, and we are more happily married now than on the day we wed.

    We don’t get hung up on ‘roles’. We make decisions together, and we help each other with responsibities as much as possible. I help him mow the lawn and he helps me with the dishes, for example.

    There is no “I” in “WE”. That’s what makes our marriage work so well.

  59. Todd, there is an evangelical organization Christians for Bible Equality. They publish a magazine and an academic journal. Great resource. They are very even handed in their publications, well-referenced and very exegetical regarding the scripture.

  60. Our model in the home is more: Whatever needs to be done, do it. Exceptions are laundry (me, a male), taxes (me, I do them for others, so why not us), garden planning and execution (spouse, she has green thumbs and great ideas), things involving ladder climbing (me, she has a mild seizure disorder and a ladder is not a safe place for her, but occasionally she will get a step or two off the floor), using the power shop equipment (me, I have had extensive training and experience), cooking (split, about 60/40, her more), dishes (ditto), vehicle maintenance (me, but sometimes she takes her car in), lawn mower (her, she loves it); weed eater (me, she hates the thing), bookkeeping and bill paying (mostly me, but at times has been mostly her). When the children were little, she took a job teaching, so I took them to the doctor, found and got them into a pre-school/day care, and did more of the domestic stuff. When she took an hiatus from teaching, we swapped some of those assignments. Neither of us tries to boss the other, and most decisions are shared.

  61. “If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application.

    There is much talk here about how wrong “Complimentarianism” is, but I haven’t read how we are supposed to view the biblical roles that God defined for us. Do you just overlook those verse, or throw them out because they don’t fit what we think is “right”? Lot’s of emotion about the issue, but not much in the way of hermeneutics and exegesis.

    Can someone with the egalitarian view please explain to me how you handle the verses that indicate roles. ie “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” etc.

  62. strawberry red: “Head” is considered to mean something other than the modern(ish) English meaning of ‘leader’ or ‘authority’. One reason being that the original Greek word doesn’t suggest such a meaning, the other reason being that if ‘head’ meant leader/authority, why is Paul saying that Jesus is the authority over men but not over women? Jesus has the authority over every Christian believer equally. That said, there is quite some discussion over the meaning of what ‘head’ really means – personally, I think it means ‘initiator’. This would fit with 1) the creation story 2) use of the greek word in other greek texts e.g head of a river is the stream 3) marriage roles (I very mildly believe in these). Christ took initiative and came to earth to serve mankind, likewise a husband should initiate care of the family. Not in a leadership way, but in a do-good-things way. That’s my opinion though.

    Context is also taken into account especially regarding the “I permit not a woman to teach” verse. It’s considered that Paul was referring to specific women at the time, who were causing trouble by preaching snippets from the local Artemis cult, or who didn’t understand the gospel well enough to teach it correctly.

    We also don’t zoom in on phrases like ‘a pastor must have one wife’ or ‘teach young women to be good keepers at home’ and assume that they are exclusive of any variations. Being a good keeper at home doesn’t mean a woman should only focus on the home her whole life. Having one wife in order to be a good pastor isn’t saying that women can’t be pastors because they don’t have wives.

  63. Hi,

    One book I recommend is ‘Women in the Church’ by Stanley Grenz. He gets into the sticky translation issues. A great resource.

    I heartily recommend Christians for Biblical Equality. They have many free resources on their site, a newsletter, etc. With membership you get their excellent journals. They have a worldwide perspective that is refreshing.

    Website: http://www.cbeinternational.org

  64. strawberry red
    We have recommended books, there have been extensive discussions on various views, there are many great Christian theologians who have no trouble with egalitarianism, so , are we, and they, just ignoring what “God defined for us?” Christians use your exact argument for young earth creationism as well. You disagree with the interpretation but that does not make you following God more than anyone else who sees it differently.

    Let me ask you a question.How does an egalitarian who has a happy marriage and serves God, has good kids, etc. in any way hurt the church or the church’s witness to the world. How does a woman who teaches well, in fact, better than most men in her church, harm anything? If God did not women to teach, then why did he give them a brain to comprehend and develop a theological argument? Why does it harm a man to hear a well thought out theological discussion led by a woman? What happens to the man when I teach him something about the Bible that he does not know? I am being dead serious. God is a God of reason and I am trying to figure out what the reason is beyond a simple “because.”

    I never have bought the “God said it and I believe it” simplistic argument. So there must be something that happens when you listen to a good woman teacher in mixed company or something that happens in a happy egalitarian marriage that must harm the faith. Tell me what that is.

  65. stawberryred,

    God has not defined “biblical roles” for us past the biological. Think of the word “roles” and how it is used. It is about acting. Not being. If biblical gender roles are defined for us then Joanna in Luke 8 was sinning with Jesus’ permission.

    As to thinking that verse about Christ “head” of the church, etc, consider this, if Paul were trying to communicate a hierarchy here in this context he would never have used Kephale. He would have used exousia or archon. ‘Head’ means literal head. As in source for the Body. In 1st century that is how the “head” was viewed as the source for the body as in breathing, eating, etc. (Head/Body metaphors)

    Christ is the boss of the church but that is not what that passage is communicating. It also helps to read it in a 1st Century context where women were chattel and most (unless rich) did not leave their homes without a male escort. The law told her she must obey him. Submitting in the Greek context of the word used was a step up for her! Her husband WAS literally her source for life. She had no rights.

    In the 1st Century the “heart” was considered the place were thinking and decisions were made.

    Where we make our big mistake is not understanding the Greek and reading scripyure through Western enlightenment eyes. Does it have meaning for us today? Absolutely! The meaning is in Eph 5:21 where it says we are to submit to one another and earlier on it says “be filled with the spirit”. These are spiritual outcomes not defined roles.

    May I ask if you think you are saved through childbearing?

  66. You know there is something else you rarely hear people talk about concerning these proof texts. What Paul wrote to Ephesus is not found in Philippians. In the 1st Century, how would Philippi know not to allow women to teach men? After all, the first church in Philippi was started in the home of a woman named Lydia. How would Colasse know? The Galatians were told that “in Christ there is no male or female” so they are given different concept about there being no roles outside the biological.

    This is the problem with proof texting what was written to 1st Century hearers. These letters traveled slow. So, instead why don’t we take a closer look at Ephesus and what it was like there that might have precipitated such teaching. Such as the Temple of Diana there taught that Eve was created before Adam. And it was a fertility cult so that it would make sense Paul stating that women are saved “through the childbearing”….referring to Christ. (Many women died in childbirth and the fertility cult was a big deal) This would make sense because Paul uses the term “authenteo” which many have wrongly translated as “authority over” when it really means domineer or compel to do something sinister…as in teaching wrong things. Calvin and Jerome both used domineer as the translation.

    But our question should be: If these defined roles (whatever they are) is so integral to the Body functioning, then why aren’t they in every single Epistle to every church group?

  67. Other commentators suggest that much of Paul’s writing about gender and roles was descriptive not prescriptive. It is also the case that the verb translated as submit suggests a voluntary cooperative spirit in the context of the mandated love of husband for wife, such that he would put her needs, wants and desires above his own. And keep in mind that Jesus taught that none of his disciples should “lord” it over others, but should be a servant of all other followers. If everyone is a servant of everyone else, it suggests a certain equality of standing. Does not speak favorably of bossy pastors and CEO model church governance, but of some form of cooperative democracy in the church and, likely, in the home.

  68. For Kolya (sorry I’m late to the party, it’s been a busy weekend)

    Sydney Anglicans are not as far down the track as the ‘hard’ complementarians in the US, at least as regards women out there in the world. They have no problem with women having jobs (even high powered ones) or education, even in Bible College — provided of course that they don’t want to use said education to teach theology to men! But they come down pretty strongly on two things — husbands are to be their wives’ spiritual leaders (whatever the heck that is — 35 years married and I still can’t figure what it means)and women are not to have a teaching role in the church except towards women and children. Phillip Jensen, the archbishop’s brother, dean of the cathedral, in charge of ministry training and originator of St Matthias Press is the chief spokesperson on these issues. He has been quoted as saying that it’s a sin for a woman to teach, and a sin for a man to listen to her. Moore College, the Sydney Anglican theological college has a policy that when women students take their turn preaching in college chapel, any male student who feels that it is against his conscience to listen to a woman is allowed to get up and walk out!!! Or so I’ve been told. Mind you, they have no trouble with women being churchwardens, parish councillors etc — they just have to stay away from theology. That, plus a strong anti-charismatic, cessationist stand (this is the city where Hillsong began)are hallmarks of the diocese.

    If you want to know more, or ask any specific questions, ask Dee or Deb for my email address and contact me privately. I actually have some interesting documents about an inquiry that was made into the behaviour of the diocese by a private individual back in 2007. He got 250 emails in response, and the summary of the results makes for heart breaking reading.

  69. @Muff Potter
    ‘…I’d pay money to see her go up against say Greg Boyd or Chris Hedges in a moderated debate. ===> (smiley face goes here)’

    YES! I’d also pay good money to see that. I recently discovered Greg Boyd and have really appreciated what I’ve read. A pastor with spiritual and intellectual integrity! Could it be? 🙂

    He’s not popular with the Calvinista crowd, particularly because of his open theism. That, and his endorsement of women in ministry. Oh, and his views on annihilationism. And the separation of the church and politics. Hmmmm, they’d probably hold his vegetarianism against him too 😉

  70. Hi Lynne,

    Thanks for your comments. A lot of what you say has been echoed over here in our church in the UK. I agree that Sydney by and large avoid the loopy extremes of some of the stuff being discussed here – overall I haven’t had a problem with them. My biggest problem is that our church seems to be moving further than Sydney and more in the direction of the SGM/T4G crowd, which for an Anglican church is I think a bit bizarre at best.

    Thanks for your invitation – I’ll drop Dee and Debbie and E-mail.

    A blessed Sunday to everyone,

    Kolya

  71. Barb – the Grenz book is excellent. I always think that complementarians are not terribly consistent in their hermeneutic. If you believe the bible is internally consistent, then you have to be very careful about how you view any single passage. Not viewing scripture in light of scripture (and history and literary structure etc.) would lead to believing the bible is a set of prescriptives each unrelated to the other. You couldn’t follow them all without going nuts. Ask anyone if they really “give to everyone who asks” and don’t expect repayment for loans. You’d get a lot of explanations which would reveal their real hermenutic. I know this is preaching to the choir but . .. In any event, Happy Mothers Day to all who are mothers!

  72. Oh…I see. Syllogism isn’t appropriate at all in this debate. Yep, she got us. She’s a genius, and we are logical idiots.

    No…here’s why the syllogistic argument is EXACTLY appropriate:

    Because the abusive situation still agrees fundamentally with the complimentarian premise: “submit in EVERYTHING”. Therefore, you are ultimately relying upon the husband’s interpretation of what constitutes abuse in that vast area between benevolence and beating. The woman has absolutely no say in the matter. She is not free to say: “This makes me uncomfortable; I do not like this situation”, because, unless there is evidence of criminal abuse, the woman is bound, by complimentarianism, to “submit” her will in EVERYTHING.

    This is the reason that I WILL NOT abandon my syllogistic argument: Complimentarianism can (easily) lead to unchecked abuse (and by abuse I mean any situation which limits the freedom and will and mind of the wife (within, of course, the reasonable expectations each spouse would have via the responsibilities of the marriage covenant), abuse is bad, therefore complimentarianism is a bad understanding. The reason this argument is not a house of cards as Ms. Kassian so obtusely opines, is because, as I said before, the abusive versions of her doctrine still agree with the original premise of their perspective. Unless of course, there is criminal action involved. But, even then, John Piper would prefer the woman to endure a night of smacking about in service to HIS OPINION on what constitutes the proper roles of women and men.

    Also, in the future, instead of hypocritically making haphazard and blustering accusations about OUR logical fallacies, she could offer examples, and in addition, look at some of her own:

    Tradition = Bible = Orthodoxy = TRUTH; therefore, Tradition = TRUTH.

    Hmmm…who else do we know routinely confuses “tradition” with “truth”.

  73. “If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!”

    She left out the word “antidisestablishmentarianism”. That would have added twelve more syllables!

  74. Because the abusive situation still agrees fundamentally with the complimentarian premise: “submit in EVERYTHING”. Therefore, you are ultimately relying upon the husband’s interpretation of what constitutes abuse in that vast area between benevolence and beating. The woman has absolutely no say in the matter. She is not free to say: “This makes me uncomfortable; I do not like this situation”, because, unless there is evidence of criminal abuse, the woman is bound, by complimentarianism, to “submit” her will in EVERYTHING”

    People do not get this at all. Think about it. The husband by virtue of the misinterpretation of “kephale” gets to decide what submission looks like to him!!!!

    I cannot tell you all the comp women I have known who constantly pray that their husband will change and be the man “God designed him to be”. (Whatever that is) It was a constant prayer in women’s groups! Talk about a wrong focus. And the “waiting”.

  75. Yes, Argo, I agree. People who base their arguments on tradition are very inconsistent if they espouse the Reformation. Last time I looked, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli etc were dispensing with quite a lot of tradition to reclaim what they considered to be Biblical truth.

  76. “People do not get this at all. Think about it. The husband by virtue of the misinterpretation of “kephale” gets to decide what submission looks like to him!!!!”

    Anon1,

    That is exactly right. The very nature of complimentarianism compels a woman to give over ownership of her self to her husband, in whatever form he deems is truly “submissive”. By her position, according to the doctrine, she can never disagree without being in violation of the premise.

    Bridget,
    Oh yes, “In all things orthodoxy”. Isn’t that the saying? “They will know we are Christians by our sound doctrine”. Wow…I’m really feeling the Calvinista warm and fuzzies with this kind of theology.

    Lynn,

    Well, hypocrisy does often seem to be the soil of neo-Calvinism. For example: “Submit to your pastors and leaders. Make their work a joy. God wants happy pastors” But, we must ask ourselves, how did the neo-Calvinists then find the “freedom” to disagree with theirs and form their own movement without being in violation of their own submission doctrine? By CJ’s own definition, he owes his living to his eschewing the very doctrine of pastoral authority he pounds out from the pulpit. Oh…the irony of it all.

  77. @ JJ,

    Boyd is generally considered heretic in both reformed and non-reformed circles. Back in 03′ Norman Geisler left the Evangelical Theological Society because it would not expel Boyd’s mentor Clark Pinnock who was also an advocate for open theism.

    By the way, I too subscribe to open theism and annihilationism as opposed to the medieval doctrine of hell.

  78. @ Anon1 6:23,

    Exactly! The wife is robbed of any power in the marriage and taught unreasonable expectations for a (possibly) immature, self-centered husband AND she believes GOD is the one putting her in this cage. BLECH! Recipe for mass divorce and even exodus from faith in a god who thinks so little of her to trap her in a paradigm which is so oppressive.

    I believed that I was obligated by God to “submit in EVERYTHING” because that is what Ephesians 5:24 says with no exceptions nor loopholes; most modern translations add “command” language into it (which is not there in the Greek grammar BTW); and preachers and books preach it widely.

  79. @Muff Potter

    ‘By the way, I too subscribe to open theism and annihilationism as opposed to the medieval doctrine of hell.’

    I need to look into open theism a bit more, but I too hold to annihilationism.

  80. The bottom line for me is this: it is plain that the neo-Calvinists are attempting to make their theological perspective THE definitive measuring stick for “authentic” Christianity in America. Whether or not they are doing this for reasons of power, politics, or simply because they think it is orthodox does not matter to me. But now, with the SGM debacle, as well as dozens of other issues raised by Dee and Deb with great diligence, the disastrous outcomes of this kind of theology are in the light for all to see. Therefore, it is really worth exploring what the Calvinistas consider a threat, studying it, and making up your own mind whether it is simply a matter of ethics or if their doctrine is the problem. At this point, I’m very interested in the idea of Armeninianism, open theism, or really any philosophy that still adheres to the essential Gospel: that God sent His only Son so that the world might believe and be saved; and that centers on the two greatest commandments.

    I will also add that I believe that any system which does not require objective accountability of spiritual authorities, but relies merely on a subjective hope that they will act morally and ethically, but offers no checks or objective avenues for redress of wrongs (so that, for example, say…pastors cannot be hypocritically fired willy nilly) is not one that I will ever entertain again.

    In other words: when the least qualified man in the room stands up behind a podium and claims some sort of mysterious divine right to own part of my mind, body, and profit, I turn and head for the door.

  81. JJ

    If you believe that prayer avails, that it changes what happens, then you are an open theist. The Calvinistas basically teach that prayer may change the pray-er but does not change anything else, and in particular what God does or will do (because that is all set in concrete from before the world was created)!!! Of course, Jesus (and elsewhere in the Bible) taught that prayer is effective, and that God responds.

  82. So Abraham was an open theist because he thought that asking God to save Lot’s family would change Gods mind?

  83. So, what I want to understand better is women and teaching in commplementarianism-schmomplementarianism (HA! I win, Mary Kassian, with my 16 syllables!)

    Very murky. CBMW website is not working, so I looked elsewhere. Found a Village Church / Matt Chandler document called “Gender Roles, Responsibility and Authority at The Village Church”.

    http://www.thevillagechurch.net/mediafiles/article-gender-roles-responsibility-and-authority-at-the-village-church.pdf

    Found this subheading, with the following bullet points:

    “Women are encouraged to teach in a way that does not usurp the authority of a man:

    –The Village Church will encourage women to teach some mixed-gendered events.8

    (footnote 8: Culture and Theology events and Saturday Seminars
    may represent events in which women are encouraged to teach
    depending on the particular topic. Where such events involve
    the explicit teaching of Scripture, males will lead in
    teaching)

    –The Village Church will encourage women to co-teach mixed-
    gendered Home Groups alongside and under the headship of their
    husbands.9

    (footnote 9: It is recognized that some women are more
    gifted and equipped to teach than their husbands; thus, we
    encourage them to use their gifting for the edification of
    the body, but to do so in a way that does not demean or
    discourage the husband.)

    So, God does NOT want a woman to teach at all on Sunday, but she CAN teach on a Saturday when a man is within earshot but she CANNOT teach the Bible, but actually she CAN teach the Bible but it can only be in something known as a “home group”, and she is entirely responsible for whatever feelings her husband may have at any given moment as a result of her teaching at said home group meeting.

  84. @Another fan

    Yes, when I was in a Calvinistic church, it was taught that our preordained prayers were a preordained means to God carrying out his preordained purposes. Even back then it didn’t entirely make sense to me.

    Thanks for your response!

  85. Elastigirl –

    That’s right. Or in other words, technically a woman can teach, but the restrictions are so tight that most woman won’t bother. This creates a situation where the teaching slots get filled primarily by men, whether or not they are particularly gifted for it while the occassional woman who squeaks through does so because she is very, sometime extraordinarily gifted for it. This ususally doesn’t improve any complementarian situation.

    I used to attend a church soft complementarian church that had the 6-steps-to-successfull-marriage/kids/finances/whatever sermons. I listened to that on the weekends and then attended a women’s Bible study during the week. This particular Bible study was independent of any church and it was filled with excellent women teachers who were not allowed to teach at their own churches.

    That experience left me wondering why men were so restricted in their choice of teachers while women were free to seek out teaching from whoever they deemed best to teach them. I certainly learned what I know of the Bible from the women in that study.

  86. Dana,

    I did something of a word study on “to teach”, with dictionary definition, and then looked at all the definitions of all the action words in the “to teach” definition.

    All very powerful. Words like to cause, to guide, to compel by way of command, authority, or force; to direct, supervise, influence; to provide with authoritative information or advice; to give an order or command to; to conduct — to bring by or as if by leading; to lead from a position of command; to direct or take part in the operation or management of; to compel — to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; to direct — to regulate the activities or course of; to carry out the organizing, energizing, and supervising of; to dominate and determine the course of; to train and lead performances of.

    So, they have to allow women to teach, but they drain it of much of its meaning. It’s like they’re saying, “go ahead and be yes, just as long as you’re always no.” Or, “of course we want you to be even, but only in the sense of being odd.” Or, “We want you to be hot, but you have to remain cold while you do it.”

    What……… NINCOMPOOPS what an odd and amazing privilege to allow oneself to be so contradictory and illogical in being the last bastion of true godliness, as applied to people other than oneself.

    Some day, one by one, they will shake their heads to clear the clatter and stupor and say, “Whoa, that was a trip”.