I’ve used the term *complementary* since high school geometry, but I must say, something certainly doesn’t square up here about this 25-year-old neo-logism, *complementarianism*. I wish The Gospel Coalition as a whole would figure out what they officially mean by it – define it and describe its applications and ramifications – so it isn’t the current ishy-squishy unhelpful and seemingly judgmental concept. It seems some consider it a hair’s breadth away from a plank of true orthodoxy, so if it’s really that “core” to “biblical”/”gospel-centered” Christianity, then it’s legitimate to challenge them to say exactly what they mean.

I for one am confused and cannot figure out their meaning. But I do know this. When you talk about a “closed system,” Deb, you’ve touched on a key issue. Any group that has such apparently stringent boundaries to keep “right” in and “wrong” out, but who talk in jargon and code that only insiders can truly understand, put themselves at risk of what Robert Jay Lifton described as “Loading the Language.” And that is #6 of the 8 classic criteria he identified as markers of “authoritarian cults.” It doesn’t mean they are a doctrinally heretical “cult.” But it does mean that their terms reduce complex problems to simplistic solutions, and condense categories into judgmental labels. It’s part of a system of “total thought control.” And thus, this issue should be taken as a warning sign to all.

Bridget … yes, I understand that, and it’s scary. And perhaps particularly I’ve seen it taking root within the younger Neo-Reformed/Neo-Puritan crowd, which makes it all the more crucial for the “elders” of The Gospel Coalition and other such networks and movements to specify what they mean and make course corrections while they still can, before this “internal culture war” becomes institutionalized.

An “institution” has been sometimes been defined as an organization that lasts beyond two generations. This “complementarianism* question has not been clarified for one whole generation. If the term and all the issues stuck to it get transmitted with all that confusion intact into and past the so-called “young, reformed, and restless,” it will be institutionalized in these movements and thus, even harder to deal with a generation after them. And then, according to some thought on how to measure social change, it will take at least another generation after some significant change for such a significant clarification to get set as the new default. Here’s one of my favorite quotes for capturing that thought:

“In the long run, what counts is how the next generation thinks. How far new ideas permeate culture is not measured just by attitude change during one generation, but by what is taken for granted in the next.” [~ Helen Haste in *The Sexual Metaphor: Men, Women, and the Thinking that Makes the Difference*, page 149]

Also, when using the term “cult,” I try to be as clear and careful as possible – there is a distinction between sociological cults of the authoritarian kind that Lifton was studying when he conducted interviews with former prisoners of Maoist China in the 1950s, and our general understanding of anti-biblical cults based on doctrinal heresy. There is, however, an area of overlap between the two kinds. The warning was given to encourage those who most influence such movements to clarify where they stand in relation to these kinds of indicators, because there is a growing body of documented evidence online about various Christian churches, ministries, and networks that fit more than just criterion #6 of 8 as authoritarian cults.

It’s a serious issue, not just some silly fuss over some little theological concept. When some are talking as if complementarianism is *required* to be considered gospel-centered, then it is exclusionary. Do they mean that non-complementarians are Christians or not? Or that they are simply “not gospel-centered”? Or …

Here’s why you won’t see these guys budge and why they will continue to “skirt” the issue:

Just watch this clip, starting at :50 – http://vimeo.com/21754490

Watch those faux “tough guy” swaggering posers.
Now imagine a pair of high heels walking among those boots.
Just imagine if they had to face a smart, intelligent, well-dressed, godly woman who would call them out for their phoniness, their primping, their air of superiority, their misogyny? They’d pee in their pants.

That clip is hilarious, TedS. So open for parody. I almost laughed at the ‘let’s get seven guys and put them in a cage!’ bit. Ooh, are we so tough and manly! We need a tough and manly place to discuss the tough and manly things only our tough manliness can handle.

It’s definitely loaded wording. It’s written in a much nicer and less combative way, but in some ways that makes it more insidious. Because it’s written nicely and ‘reasonably’, it is in some ways harder to criticise – because how can you criticise the friendly and ‘biblically mandated’ words of Don Carson?

“I have never once, in my well rounded Christian life, heard the following. “Oh, look at Bob abd Sue and their marriage. Because of them I now understand the Trinity.””

Right. And notice how this mapping to the Trinity leaves out the Holy Spirit. They do NOT want you to be guided by the Holy Spirit. It would mean they are not in control. It is that simple. I wish more people would get that part. It really concerns me.

Coming from someone who was once into the whole patriarchy thing, at least Doug Philips and Doug Wilson and Phil Lancaster and the like give you “practical” ideas as to how complementarianism is supposed to look! (And I thought I would never have anything nice to say about these guys 😉

When I chose to live that lifestyle, I knew that I was to always ask my husband for permission to do things, to defer to him in ALL things, to ask him what his vision was and then see what I could do to further it, etc. etc. And for the guys? Well, they are supposed to order out their wives activities and days and to “train” their wives to do housework according to the husband’s chosen schedule. They are to approve all curriculum choices, all clothing, and everything else that comes in the house. They are to lead their wives in all things and make ALL decisions.

The men TGC *know* what they believe about “complementarianism” and how they think it should look, deep down. But they don’t want to say it aloud. First, because they might actually have to put into words and then be held accountable for how “unBiblical” it truly is. And second, because if they dare put complementarianism in practical terms, they could be challenged to support their view and end up losing the power they so crave.

I feel for these people because the idolize power. They want to be macho men who dominate women. They just don’t recognize it in so many words.

I do want to add that my husband was never like this. In fact, he wasn’t the one that introduced the patriarchy lifestyle to our family: it was me. :-/

My husband is egalitarian through and through. When he didn’t measure up to what I thought a patriarchal husband should do, I viewed him as a failure. 🙁 He never told me what to wear or how to order my days, and, egads! he encouraged me to go out at least once a week with my friends or by myself, to get away from the house! I am so grateful that he wasn’t carried into patriarchy the way I was.

It’s all very confusing to me. By no means does the word complementarian
define, with accuracy, all that the proponents of complementarianism wish for it to say. Moore says the word should be patriarchy. Piper says women must talk in certain ways and with certain tones. Kassian says women can work and, by being a complementarian, this in NO way means a woman must stay at home. Others have taught the opposite-that a woman must be a keeper of the home.

Then there is the whole spiritual leader of the home aspect which has yet to be defined, for me anyway. Just what does a spiritual leader do for his wife that is necessary for her salvation (enduring or persevering) and or sanctification that she and the Holy Spirit cannot accomplish? I recently asked Jared Wilson in a comment to please specifically define what he meant when he said that a husband “nourishes and protects” his wife (spiritually speaking–not merely your husband feeding you cheesecake with his arm around you-which would be very nice btw), evidently something needed that a wife cannot do for herself and he did not reply.) So, to me, the spiritual leader aspect is vague. Some say the husband is a prophet priest and king of the home, others say no one is anyone’s priest…Jesus is our only Mediator. Priest doesn’t mean a real priest…it means something else. Prophet is not a real prophet. Pretend prophet then?

I sometimes wonder if they get up in the morning and thnk–now, how can I further confuse the masses with more comp/speak? And I wonder how their marriages play out in real life. Unless in a heavy duty patriarchal setting ala Voddie Baucham, where your actions are indeed closely monitored and all must comply (he once stated that if a man in his church did not agree to teach his son the way he teaches the men to teach them, he would be asked to leave “his” church), how do we know they even practice what they declare is biblical and necessary? I cannot know. But biblical they say it is–to the point that I remember Bruce Ware stating in a message that women are in rebellion against God if they do not ascribe to comp teachings. He insinuated their salvation would be in jeopardy.

Diane said:

“I sometimes wonder if they get up in the morning and thnk–now, how can I further confuse the masses with more comp/speak?”

Pretty sure they are constantly in search of new ways and words to perpetuate a false teaching to make it somehow more palatable. It’s a never-ending maze designed (imo) to confine/contain women within the parameters they specify. That involves the misuse of words and terms in scripture that are incorrectly applied to the relationship between two adults in the context of marriage.

I do appreciate the comments that “Jim” made on the post at TGC. I hope more people start piping up with that question. I wonder how many people don’t realize how hard complementarians are trying to push their agenda.
My grandparents were over a few weeks ago and I made them aware of the whole Jared Wilson and DW fiasco from several weeks ago. They have been Christians for going on 40 years and they were shocked that this is something going around in churches. This points me to the fact that so many people might not even know that such an extra-biblical viewpoint is being pushed into our churches.

Mark Driscoll, in particular, seem to be very uncomfortable around women. In fact, his last book was primarily a treatise on why his wife is to blame for everything Mark finds bad in his life. — Dee

With asides into the erotic potential of both ends of the alimentary canal.

They harp on John Piper’s quote about asking egalitarian’s, ‘what does it mean to be a man and not a woman?’ or’ what does it mean to be a women, and not a man?’

I would guess their term, ‘biblical manhood and womanhood’ would be the right answer. What does that mean? It seems to change with the seasons.

They also like to use made up terms, and give the reasons of semantics for the excuse for why they are needed. ie: sameness, etc. No other circle uses these terms, and they are NOT in the dictionary – yet are to make sense.

Then they like to use well understood terms, and place some comp spin on it to show how they ‘fit’ these definitions. They don’t tell you about the spin of course – your suppose to figure that out for yourself.

They also like to ask for dialog, debate on their stand versus other belief systems. Yet they moderate their comments into the recycle bin, and never take up the challenge.

They claim they are counter culture.

I guess they don’t read about culture to much, because heck you see their tactics used in politics for example all the time. They talk over or totally ignore basic facts. THEN feel they won.

They call other people ‘confused’? lol now wrap your head around that for a moment to see if that makes any sense either.

Why do some of them – chalies, Piper, teach a woman cannot recite scripture in a church (building)? I know they say it is because the woman would be “teaching” (just by reading a verse or two) and there are men in the congregation. But didn’t Jesus do that very thing when he instructed Mary to go and tell His disciples that He had risen? John 20:17-18. Jesus entrusted those precious words-scripture, to Mary, a woman, with instructions to go and TELL. Mary came to the disciples. Were they together in a “church” meeting (however they did it back then) when she announced to them what the Lord had said to her? Maybe they were! So-Jesus can use women to recite His words, yet certain pastors forbid it? I would be strongly considering that if I were such a pastor.

Victorious – that verse is the very one that made me start questioning the whole patriarchy/comp issue. Of course, if you ask Doug Wilson, via his Fidelity book, it means that yes, the woman has authority during sex, but only under the authority of her husband. HUH?

No More Perfect on, here’s a start:

Jon Zens
http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

Stan Gundry
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/bobbed-hair-bossy-wives-and-women-preachers

Frank Viola
http://frankviola.org/role.pdf

Ben Witherington
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/02/literal-renderings-of-texts-of.html

Philip Payne
http://www.pbpayne.com/

Ooops, awaiting moderation because of several links.

Well, the book used to be on Google books. . . can’t find it now.

Deb wrote of a “Loyalist Commenter” at TGC who equates coplementarianism and patriarchy. Knowing who “LC” would be, and of the maddening personal attacks he’d be making, I was still drawn to read the comments, as I would be to a train wreck. This exchange (omitting the moderator’s appeal to stop) says something of great importance.
Loyalist Commenter (L C):
A simple test: Ephesians 5 tells wives to submit to their husbands and the husbands to “love their wives as Christ loves the church” (i.e. self-sacrificially). That’s not egalitarian; it is hierarchical. To teach egalitarianism is to teach contrary to that.
Laura:
If I always replied to my husband’s “I love you” with “I submit to you” it would break his heart.  L C, does your wife (if any) love you? Don’t you want her to?
L C :
You’re not dealing with the Word of God. You consistently fail to take God’s Word seriously and want to deflect to other things, feelings, etc.
Laura:
I take that as a “no”. Wow.

What gets me, is the whole “complementarian” phenomena was a reaction to what was going on in our culture. They (TGC, CBMW, and whoever jumped on the bandwagon — patriarchs?) saw this change in the culture (mainly feminism) as a threat to godliness? salvation? traditionalism? the Gospel? men? I don’t think they know what it was a threat to. They wanted to “counter” what they didn’t agree with and get their teachings into the churches.

I think it was a movement based on fear and it was produced from the flesh and not as a work of the Holy Spirit. If our lives are one in Spirit with Christ, then why this division of male/female and who has final “authority.” The issue has divided the Church and is continuing to divide the church.

Now it has become such an issue that they have to be “right” or they have to repent because they have divided the Church. They have teachings tying complementarianism to the Trinity and statements that say “if we don’t get this right, then we can’t get the gospel right.” These groups also write the importance of complementarianism into their purposes and affirmation statements. So, THEY SAY IT’S NOT A SALVATION ISSUE AND IT’S NOT CENTRAL TO THE GOSPEL, BUT THEY TEACH CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY SAY! And then THEY write things like “Complementarianism for Dummies.” (I think this is an insult to all those who don’t understand THEIR confusion — cause you really should be able to get this ya know!)

Do we live by the flesh or by the Spirit?

No More Perfect on, I’ll put them in separate posts to avoid the moderation necessity. This is in response to your request for some egal men. Here’s one:

Jon Zens
http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

Third

Frank Viola
http://frankviola.org/role.pdf

oops–the above should be @ Victorious not Hester–it was Victorious who asked about wife’s authority etc.

What about that Australian Anglican minister, Kevin Giles? I remember he was mentioned in another thread discussing the issues around the doctrine of eternal subordination of the Son and its application to complementarianism. Looking around the web I found some documents written by him but I haven’t been able to read them yet.

This is a PDF file with his response to a complementarians conference (or, as he called them, “Hierarchical-Complementarians”) from the year 2010:

http://www.anglicanstogether.org/files/Hierarchical_conference_booklet_Jan_2011.pdf

Muff Potter,

I agree about Bushnell! I got her copy of God’s Word to Women nearly 30 yrs. ago when it was being distributed by a gentleman in upstate NY who didn’t want to see the book disappear. His name was Ray Munson.

The entire book is now online at godswordtowomen.org.

RE: Diane on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM,

I think it stems from an implied view of St. Paul as a sort of new Moses to the gentiles, complete with the Almighty still thundering from Sinai through the pen of Paul.

Any protest or dissent to the contrary is always shut down as Dee has pointed out with appeals to the “authority of Scripture” or even charges of “heresy” leveled at those who disagree.

Patti –

That video would have been nice to have embedded into my comment at 11:57. That, along with what was written over at TGC this week, and the articles over at Mary Kassian’s blog that are jumping through hoops to make “some” point that no one gets, completely prove the point of Deb’s article.

Another good comp: Gordon Fee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NGhHU0h1RM – a great non-comp view on Ephesians 5:18-33

“I have noticed that Piper’s comment about directions is frequently stated. That was written 20 plus years ago. Does anyone know if Piper still thinks this? It just seems very different than when he had Joni speak at one of his conferences.”

Just a few years back Piper was teaching that women should ‘endure abuse for a season’. We have his promotion of Driscoll and now Wilson the pro slavery guy patriarch. And recently he announced women could not read scripture aloud at his church.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/

Anyone want your daughter taught that?

“fled these overly patriarchal types who see the man as god in his own little kingdom, but unfortunately the egalitarian church I found has gone overboard the other way.”

I hear ya. Same here. People tend to “overcorrect” any movement.

Martin, I read both Giles’ books on the ESS controversy. The guy took a beating in the public square but his books are awesome. You know what he showed? The patriarchs were actually EDITING Anthanasius’ writings to fit their premise to sell this doctrine as old and orthodox! You cannot trust what comes from these guys. I see redefining words, redefining concepts, changing words in scripture they quote, etc, quite a bit. Beware. check everything.

Dee-I smiled at your response:) Good point.

Others-Piper is teaching that women cannot read Scripture in church? Oh wow. He has jumped into the realm of the absurd. Can someone point out where he says that at?

Finally, I think Piper and Grudem are generally kind of nerds who are disconnected from the reality that is happeneing with their teaching. They are crossing their i’s and dotting their t’s (intentional transposition) but clueless as to how people are living out what they are teaching. I wonder if Piper would think the brain damaged guy should be the boss of the harvard educated MBA woman if they are in the business world together.

I cannot stand the complementarianism, but equally hate the caricatures of egalitarianism that comps make and the caricature of comps that egals make. It disgusts me in the same way Fox News and MSNBC disgust me (i.e. Beck and Olbermann both stink). I am starting to feel the same about the majority of advocates for both comps and egals. Both sides need to stop with the caricatures. Not all egals are the same and not all copms are the same.

“I have it sitting on my bedside table and have not started it yet. I have had it for a few months. You are getting me fired up to read it!!”

Eat your wheaties! It is not bedtime reading. :o)

@ sincere~

“Others-Piper is teaching that women cannot read Scripture in church? Oh wow. He has jumped into the realm of the absurd. Can someone point out where he says that at?”

Up in the thread (11:18) I posted a video-someone else may have more info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew&feature=related

Jan – I’ll have to think on it, but initially I will say that I believe my attraction to it was because I wanted perfect children. No lie. When you read the hyper-pats, that is essentially what they promise. And of course, even if you don’t go so far as, say, Doug Phillips, version of patriarchy, the John Piper’s and TGC guys made it quite clear in my mind (at the time) that it was the only true and Biblical way to view gender. And so I was also afraid that if I didn’t believe that way, I was displeasing God and truly blaspheming the Lord. So, perhaps it started as a mixture towards having the perfect family and also out of a huge fear. I can write more as I have time. Good question, Jan!

NMP,

Looking very much forward to hearing any more of your thoughts! Thanks! I agree that wanting perfect children was a BIG thing for me too.

Val:

You said:”The funniest part about men returning to patriarchy would be: men between the ages of 20 – 45 would not be the heads of their households – their fathers would be (imagine, now, telling women they must submit to their father-in-laws, as that is what is truly “biblical”)”

It is just pure nonsense!! People need to wake up.

Val & Hester,
Moses was 80 years old, and had verbal orders from God Almighty, yet in Ex. 4:18 he asked permission of his father-in-law to return to Egypt! 🙂

As nonsensical as complementarianism is, to me the greatest conondrum is how its proponents can be intelligent, highly educated people and at the same time such morons.

Love your comment elastigirl!

Southwestern Discomfort

I am thinking about starting a business with my husband called “Coverings Are Us.” For $50, you receive a certificate that you are under the covering of my husband. So, if anyone says that you are not being “complementarian” enough, you can say that some old dude in Raleigh has got you covered.

Then there is Memberships Are Us. For $150 we will send a letter stating that you are a member in good standing on the E Church at Wartburg. For an extra $50, we will say you were a deacon and for an extra $150 we will say you are an elder.

A place to start in looking for men who support an egalitarian view is to check the speakers at the Christians For Biblical Equality Conferences. If you skim down the topics at these events and the speakers then you can follow up the names.

For example: Seattle Conf. 2011
http://equalitydepot.com/2011conference.aspx

There are many resources available at the CBE website, some are free. Check out who the authors are for the various articles in the publications.

CBE website: cbeinternational.org

The sad thing, Southwestern Discomfort, is that what you describe is accurate in patriarchal homes. One model Patriarchal family, the the Maxwells has a daughter named Sarah who is around 30 and she is staying at home serving her father doing her own kind of work (authoring children’s books and helping with the family business) until her father finds the right helpmeet (that word drives me crazy) for her.

CBMW site info –

About Us
In 1987, a group of pastors and scholars assembled to address their concerns over the influence of feminism, not only in our culture, but also in evangelical churches. Because of the widespread compromise of biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood and its tragic effects on the home and the church, these men and women established The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism, they articulated what is now known as the complementarian position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.

An organization like CBMW is needed because the gender issue is so complex, and the consequences for violating God’s Word in this area are so devastating. We hope that you will benefit from the critical ministry of CBMW as we help the church deal biblically with gender issues.

The loyalist commenter makes is quite clear that the complementarian position is basically about men having ‘inherent authority.’ See his reply of 16 Aug at 10.38. He mentions that ‘the man names the woman (thus expressing authority over her).’ I wonder, then, what to make of Genesis 16 where the pregnant Hagar names the LORD ‘the God who sees me,’ after her encounter with the Angel of the LORD in the desert. Is Hagar then expressing authority over the Almighty?

Surely these instances of naming are more about recognizing the other party and acknowledging their identity and/or relationship to one? The man recognizes that the woman has been made from him by saying ‘Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,’ they are of the same substance. He also recognizes that she is the ‘isha’/wife and he the ‘ish’/husband. She is only named Eve later, after the Fall and once they have left Eden. Instead of a hierarchy in the beginning, I see a joyous partnership.

There’s a lot problematic in the Danvers Statement, but points 4 and 6 particularly bug me. 4, because there isn’t an ambivalence to motherhood and homemaking – if that’s what a woman wants to do. What there is, is saying that women are allowed, if they so choose, to get higher education, to pursue a career, to not be a mother. It’s simply a broadening of roles, but that does not mean those ‘traditional’ roles are looked down on, just that they aren’t the be-all and end-all. Number 6 is fairly offensive, because it implies that feminism/egalitarianism/equality/call it what you will is to blame for physical and sexual violence, which is patently false. It’s only because of the tireless work of feminists that rape within marriage is even recognised as a crime. As I said during the whole Wilson kerfuffle, there is an increase in reporting of these incidents, and they are taken more seriously, but that is in no way the same as an increased incidence.

Oh, and going back to the husband/father picking womens’ and girls’ clothes for them, heck no! I make my own clothes and my style is pretty fantastic, if I do say so myself. I’m not exchanging my owl print dress and skirt made of ties for shapeless shirts and little house on the prairie dresses with sensible shoes!

Even my sister could vouch for me on this early in her marriage.

For some who don’t know the story, Mrs Sheri Klouda actually taught Hebraic languages at SWBTS while her husband was disabled. The trustees and the leadership there had a problem with her position since she was a woman and women teachers informing males on a subject was deemed a “no,no”.

To be honest, teaching males in Timothy 3 indicates a mentoring relationship, NOT an informational one, and may even go so far as an apprenticing role.

Oops, THIS one was directed @ Julie Anne:

“One model Patriarchal family, the the Maxwells has a daughter named Sarah who is around 30 and she is staying at home serving her father doing her own kind of work (authoring children’s books and helping with the family business) until her father finds the right helpmeet (that word drives me crazy) for her.”

(teeth gritted) I CANNOT STAND THE MAXWELLS!!!!! People in certain homeschool circles idolize them. They had a conference in CT a few years ago and one of our friends went. Thankfully she has a brain in her head and literally walked out of a session after Mr. Maxwell called television “the Beast.” (It was then that I realized that you can, indeed, figure out some people’s beliefs merely by counting how many calico dresses and denim jumpers appear in their publicity photos.)

There’s also a family we used to know whose daughters are in the same position as Sarah Maxwell. The family moved to SC because there was (allegedly) a better selection of Christian young men in SC than CT. Well, years later, two of their daughters are in their 30s and still living at home. I guess all those holy bachelors never materialized.

Sadly, Hester, there was a time that I did drink that Kool-Aid. I think my husband and I’ve gone to at least a couple of the Maxwell’s seminars. I participated on their online forums for years (when they were active). I almost bought into the “no sports” for boys and no college because our boys were going to have their own businesses and buy their homes outright before they got married, too. haha

Their blog is still in my reader because I’m curious and nosy. They are held high on a pedestal in the homeschooling community. Looking thru the pictures on their blog you see the perfect homeschooling clan, the modest homemade dresses, hard-working, but always-smiling image. Their 3rd son is just about to be married in weeks. He’s the 3rd boy to have a house fully paid before marriage. All of the sons work for their dad and live close by. I’m pretty sure they all go to their church which is held at a retirement community. So what we have here is Patriarchal dad owning a business in which all of his sons and adult daughters work, live close by, and “pastoring” the church in which all the family attends. Will this trend continue with future generations?

The spouses of the 3 sons have been very carefully hand-selected. The wives have been discovered at homeschool conferences or places where the Maxwells have spoken. It seems as though the Maxwell boys have sought girls and asked Dad permission to court, but why is Dad not actively seeking out someone for Sarah to court? At the age of 30, I’d be saying, “see ya later, Daddyo”. Hmm, I wonder if Sarah gets a paycheck for all the work she does for the family business or is it just considered being helpmeet for her father? This stuff gets a bit weird for me and the daddyo/daughter relationship makes my creepo meter climb.

Diane, my husband and I have often discussed this 200 year plan and how it doesn’t seem to be working out too well. The thing is, the 200 year plan relies on utter parental control of the outcomes of their children’s upbringing – which is totally counter-productive to the plan actually being carried out. The SAHD daughters movement is not resulting in very many marriages, just lots of adult women living at home. I suspect there are too many hoops for a young man to jump through to marry the daughter of a patriarch.

Jan, re buying into patriarchy, I think one of Homo sapiens’ psychological traits is that a system appeals to us. If someone offers us a complete system for life – be it neo-Reformedism, Catholicism, Scientology, Marxism or whatever – many of us are tempted by it, esp if we haven’t ever bought into a complete system before. (Of course, once burnt, next time less likely to fall for such grandiose claims).

As I understand it though, the Bible gives the basic and most important answers for life (purpose, salvation and a hope for the future) but it lets us discuss other things using Biblical wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Paul recognises that Christians may disagree on issues in at least two places (Rom 14 and 1 Cor 10, I think). Unfortunately our psychology (no doubt affected by the Fall!) make us love to introduce “the system” so that we can have a perfect answer for everything in any situation. The sad thing is also that love for “the system” can end up replacing our first love, Jesus who gave us the salvation on which we built the system in the first place!

@ Diane and Julie Anne:

You’re right, there’s not much economic incentive for the patriarch to seek out a spouse for his daughters (free in-house help). Then he’d have to do something not “frugal” (pay someone else) or do the work himself (instead of studying the Bible for long hours like a good prophet-priest-king of the home).

I also find the relationship between hard-right Calvinism and “frugality” rather interesting. They seem to be the only group that really harps hard on it, and their definition of it is sometimes peculiar. I’m all for saving money, but is the only way to do that making your own clothes, soap, etc. and refusing to shop at a normal grocery store? Because all those things, done correctly, can actually be VERY expensive. Even “frugality lite” can start to look a little ridiculous – i.e., “frugally” delaying car repairs until the vehicle is almost destroyed and needs to be replaced, instead of “wasting” money on a simple repair that would have prevented the ACTUAL needless waste of thousands of $$$ on a whole new car.

Also, I suppose when it’s been drilled into your head that getting a crush on a boy might mean cheating on your future husband (thus becoming an adulteress if you don’t go on to marry the boy in question) could put the brakes on any attraction pretty quick.

Bridget, thank you for posting the origins of the two agencies with obvious diametrical purposes; one to set free; the other to restrict.

Its hard to overlook the negativity and fear tactics employed in the Danvers Statement. Words like uncertainty, confusion, distortions, neglect, ambivalence, crippling, jeopardized, illicit, etc. are all designed to promote a solid stance against women who advocate for service in ministry in the body of Christ and the inherent dignity of all God’s people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

HUG said: Doesn’t Fred Phelps have a similar setup? (Except maybe with the addition of a Walled-off Family Compound…)

Maxwells would never allow their daughters to go to college and become attorneys. Do the Phelps’ daughters live at home with daddy?

@ Julie Anne~

This is from the bride to be. I am glad she had a choice in the matter to refuse the marriage. I am sure that must have been very hard.

http://muncksquiver.blogspot.com/2012/08/his-gift.html

If the group decided to call themselves “The Complementarian Gospel Coalition” at least they would be giving themselves a more honest title, as it is, the title they give themselves is misleading, because they have chosen to deliberately exclude some people who accept the gospel.

Furthermore, the Bible itself tells us what at the most important things to agree about in (NET) Heb 6:1 Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God,
Heb 6:2 teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

So we see that contrary to what the speakers said, the very next level of doctrinal agreement after having faith in Christ INCLUDES agreeing about baptism, but notice that this text says nothing about gender. In other words, what the Bible DOES say are the first things to agree upon they do not think is important to agree upon in a group that calls itself TGC, but what the Bible does not say is important to agree upon they claim it is important to agree upon. They could not be more out of phase with what the Bible says if they tried and so are revealed as following human tradition more than the Bible.

TGC should respect the name they have chosen to give themselves and accept ALL who claim the gospel OR change their name. Remember, atheists are watching and alert to any hypocrisy.

** Note that I posted this on the TGC blog, but TGC deleted it. Did they think it was too clear or what?

To be fair, they did not (yet) delete a previous comment I made. They do not delete all questioning comments, but I guess they do delete the skewering comments that reveal them to be what they are.

My take is that a group of gender hierarchalists (CBMW, etc.) noticed that some churches were moving AWAY from such thinking over time, in other words, the egal message was getting out and (even worse from their viewpoint) was working to convince believers to become more egal. Denton Bible church was a high profile example of this happening, they were known to be conservative, but they moved in a more egal direction a few years ago. This is VERY SCARY for the gender hierarchalists as it means they MIGHT BE WRONG, since their scare claims of liberal or homosexual do not apply.

So their “solution” was to form groups that explicitly INCLUDED gender hierarchy as a part of their faith statements, even tho this is clearly not a primary doctrine. But when it is NOT included, the church or church group can “slide” into more egal positions gradually. This way, any possible discussion is stopped right when it starts, it is in effect an “unwelcome mat” put out in front of the door of these groups for egals or any semblance of egal thinking. Instead of allowing a church to be continuously reformed, they want to throttle that possibility.

It reminds me of the authoritarianism in the Roman Catholic church before the Reformation.

Hmm. THink a lot depends on what Ray Ortlund means by “obey” and “submit”. Sometimes we can be in disagreement with a minister on an issue but it’s only secondary, or else we agree with him in so much else (hopefully!) that we are happy to let this one go.

I’m not so sure though if the case is more serious. Also, if a minister repeatedly alienates people, experience dictates that in the end they will look for another church. I’ve seen people leave a church and go to other churches where they were actually less theologically satisfied but simply couldn’t sit under their former minister’s authority. I’m not suggesting that people should always “vote with their feet” or that a minister should seek to please everyone all the time – that would be impossible. However if you have a situation where people who have been at a church for years start leaving, especially if they have a record of Christian service, then I think the minister at least needs to ask himself why – and probably ask them why too.

And to be fair to ministers, I’ve also seen at least one individual who seemed to go from church to church because he wanted a role for himself (may the Lord forgive me if I judge him wrongly, but another Christian lady mentioned the same man to me).

Whatever the rights and wrongs of a situation, however, one would hope that any disagreement and parting of the ways is at least done in Christian charity.

But one day it hit me like a rock: He wasn’t going to systematize it for me, that was the whole point of what He was trying to teach me. Closed-system faith is for those who are fearful of relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I had been ignoring the Holy Spirit in thinking I could derive the answer to every question that ever existed from the Bible if only I would study it hard enough. Yes, the Bible holds the black and the white – the boundaries. But the Spirit brings the colors… the life… wisdom as we live our lives and try to make decisions within those boundaries. We need both!”

Bingo! How beautifully you put this!!!

I don’t think they deleted any of my comments, although I wish the ones quoted here had sorted properly because it looks like my last comment there comes after Collin asked us to stop, but if you look at the date stamps you see it didn’t.

…I wonder if no one noticed on the blog post about the broken engagement, “Fred’s” comment. Looks like one of their readers is a Queen fan. I suppose the “Britney” one might be a similar thing, but I am not up on Britney Spears’ body of work.

(As a sidenote, it’s kind of interesting how many secular love lyrics can be easily recast into “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs.) — SW Discomfort

South Park did an entire episode on the subject.

AJ –

You confirmed for me the MAIN REASON the TGC exists – to have THEIR OWN stage. It’s quite a performance they are putting on. Maybe they will win an award for all their efforts.

Dear Dee, Ian, Bridget and Pam,

Thank you so much for your comments. It’s great to have this opportunity to worth thorough this issue. I’d like to pick up on some of your thoughts if that’s okay?

Dee: I’m sorry if my suggestion that y’all set up a new group smacks of disunity. That certainly wasn’t my intention. It seems to me that setting up a new group is a much more productive than people relentlessly criticising TGC for this, that and the other. Also, I’d be keen to know what you think an Egalitarian-Complementarian group would actually look like in practice. Would it not just default to a position of egalitarianism? I’m just trying to think practically what it would look like.

Ian: I guess you and I see the TGC video, scripture and indeed the focus of TGC quite differently. The video: I thought the three men you mentioned were quite clear that being complimentarian does not cause you to believe the gospel. I thought Keller in particular was clear that complimentarianism doesn’t feature in his conversations about the gospel with people and doesn’t features in his conversations with people about how you become a Christian. Scripture: I think one would need to disregard whole chunks of scripture to arrive at an egalitarian position, therefore I disagree that you can take an egalitarian position and still hold to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible. TGC: I don’t agree with what you think the supposed focus of TGC is. Please watch this short video (http://vimeo.com/26481665) and after watching it, tell me if you still think TGC is simply focussed on “unity within the evangelical world.”

Bridget: I think that’s a bit harsh. I was quoting the author of this initial post who used the word “stage” in her penultimate paragraph. I am sure TGC has more noble aims that the ones you attribute to them.

Pam: I think Piper makes a pretty good effort at practically defining complentarianism (both in the home and in the church)in the TGC video that people have been referring to. His definition starts at about 3minutes 20 seconds in the video.

I hope you’re all having a blessed Sunday.

AJ

AJ –

I posted this on the other thread, but I thought you might be interested in it.

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/08/confused-by-complementarianism.php

It’s interesting, it’s written by a complementarian, it might just explain what the people here at TWW see when they watch the TGC coalition videos.

AJ,

I can’t watch the video now, but want to pick up on something you said:

“I think one would need to disregard whole chunks of scripture to arrive at an egalitarian position, therefore I disagree that you can take an egalitarian position and still hold to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible.”

1. This is an example of the disrespectful way most complementarians treat egalitarians. You’re saying that anyone who understands the Bible differently than you is a liberal.

2. Carl Trueman (see link from Dana) disagrees with you here.

3. Please, tell me what “chunks of scripture” you are referring to. I’ll then tell you if I disgregard them.

4. I’d like to know a bit about you, particularly what type of church you belong to.

Thanks!

One of the comments above makes a good point: how on earth can seemingly intelligent, godly men hold such ridiculous views on women in the church?

If ignorance and training are removed as options, it’s hard not to see the possibility of emotional/relational/psychological issues relating to gender roles and relationships between spouses as well as mothers, fathers, and their children. Obviously, I am not saying every complementarian needs therapy, but some certainly do.

I wish we could ask for and receive some honest details re: family backgrounds and past experiences with mothers and fathers (or legal guardians, etc.) – I bet we’d find some interesting things.