Eagle,your record is unbroken! I tried to beat you to it, but couldn’t get the post to post. Mulder and Scully are still looking for the truth, which is out there.

Anyway. Interesting that dads are to babysit. Er, “watch the kids” while the moms are at a conference, which will undoubtedly have something along the lines of motherhood being the highest calling and there is no greater privilege for a woman than to nurture and raise the children that God has blessed them with.

I guess “watch the kids” is all right when a man tells another man to do it, and is probably sanctified when a man tells another man to “watch the kids” so his wife can go to a conference about husbands having authority over their wives.

When my oldest child was born, if the baby was not with me at all times at a church function (interpretation: ladies’ meeting), someone was bound to say, “Oh, is Mr. Tree babysitting?” It irked me from the get-go. “No, he’s not babysitting. Babysitting is what you do for other people’s children and it’s optional. Mr. Tree is parenting, and it’s not optional.”

Perhaps because they cannot truly learn. The p.s. is a light bulb moment, not planned.

I can never figure Keller out. He seems more reasonable than most of this crew. But his continued association with them has me starting to think otherwise.

Sergius Martin-George wrote:

Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking?

From the FAQ: Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking? No, they will be ushered in thru a backstage door and ushered out immediately after their speech 😉

Seriously how can anyone decide as a general principle that 50% (actually slightly more) of the world’s population has nothing worthwhile to say from the start based on their gender? That their genitalia makes their thoughts and ideas worthless. Do they walk around with their fingers in their ears all day lest they inadvertently hear a woman say something that might resonate? How do they interact in the real world? If they’re bleeding to death and a female paramedic turns up or it’s a woman doctor in the ER do they tell them to go away? Do they get off the plane if the pilot is a woman? It’s not the 1940’s anymore guys. Deal with it.

In other news, according to the Met Office:

There are currently no weather warnings in force across the UK.

For which, we’re all thankful.

Well, to play devil’s advocate for just a moment, they probably wouldn’t let women attend a men’s conference either. If they do and I’ve forgotten something, then I’ll shut up. 🙂

Of course I think evangelicalism makes way too many things blue and pink as it is, not just conferences, so I wouldn’t be going to either…

Gender Gospel indeed…..how twisted to turn God’s creation into this. One type of salvation for men and a lower type for women.

What kind of women’s conference has men for speakers anyway?

Why are 3 men speaking at a women’s conference anyway? These are the same old guys whose videos and free sermons are everywhere. Why should women pay to hear them? I think this is a marketing/sales push by desperate publishers.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from women about how to change the world, and give us models of doing it?

If the conference is good and people enjoy it, that’s great. This conference may not be attractive to some, but it will be to others.

There are so many different tribes and speakers in the Christian faith.

This is just one of many offerings out there.

The response to speech we don’t like is – more speech.

People who disagree with this perspective should organize their own conference. I suppose such conferences exist, but I don’t really know.

dee wrote:

Deb
I laughed so hard over this statement that I am still coughing over the Swiss cheese that went down the wrong way.

“She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.”

This has to be one of the funniest statements ever made.

Wow, Dee and Deb, I wasn’t laughing. Honestly, I thought Deb had an inadvertent typo in the quote. Surely Piper did not say what she represented him to say in response to the woman’s question.

I checked. He did.

Stunning.

The language, tone, and disposition of Piper in the comment is one of a master speaking to a slave, a superior to an inferior, one of worth to one without worth. No matter how he spins it, to say, “She’s woman on man, and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.” All that’s missing is the whip, the post to which the woman will be tied, and a few lashes on her back.

That’s sick.

Definitely source this quote. Unlike many who read Wartburg Watch, I have a deep appreciation for Piper and his theology of God. His view on women honestly makes me believe he has an intellectual understanding God but a huge void when it comes to intimacy with God.

Jesus never treated the woman at the well who questioned him in such a manner. That Samaritan woman was “on Jesus,” pressed Jesus with questions, and would have been seen as “too authoritative” by the culture around them – yet Jesus treated her with dignity, value, worth and tenderness – answering every question and objection and never — not one time — making the issue the woman. BECAUSE He respected her, he answered her questions.

Dee, I understand how you thought it hilarious, but from my side of the fence, I found it sickening.

Actually it is perfectly right for a husband to attend and biblically support.

Cranston wrote:

Seriously how can anyone decide as a general principle that 50% (actually slightly more) of the world’s population has nothing worthwhile to say from the start based on their gender?

This whole male supremacy* hermeneutic is is one of the most idiotic and dangerous religious fabrications being perpetrated on people today. Moreover, this is not limited to a religious context – many male supremacists carry this over into secular society as well – denying women the right to any supervisory position in the workplace or even the right to have any job at all.

Take a few Bible verses out of their context and ignore and/or dismiss the multitude of passages that mandate equality and you have just relegated one-half of the world’s population to oppression. To try and paint this as ‘Biblical’, ‘complementary’, or ‘good for women’ is to put lipstick on a theological pig. Piper and his fellow-travelers are no different in their twisting of the Gospel than the slave owners and slave traders who claimed a Biblical basis for slavery.

Since when did any form of oppression become part of the love of God or love of neighbor, on which hang ALL the law and the prophets?

To characterize this oppression as any kind of love is the most heinous of abuses of the word of God.

*I refuse to use their term “complementarian” because it’s a fraudulent term. There’s nothing complementary about it – it’s 100% male domination of females perpetrated by men whose egos are so fragile they need to create an entire class of people who are automatically subordinate to them.

dee wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People who disagree with this perspective should organize their own conference.

The issue runs deeper than free market applications. This conference influences thought within evangelicalism. It is disturbing to me that people accept the fact that men should not hear women speak. This has implications that reverberate throughout the faith and I plan to discuss this on Friday when I look at what is happening to women professors at Cedarville University.

Look at Piper’s machinations as he attempts to describe women speaking to men. Piper is the guru of the NeoCalvinist movement and what he says is parroted by thousands of young men who want to be the next Piper. This affects people in churches in a very real way.

Good points Dee.

Piper: “She’s woman on man, and and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way. Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no. I think that’s contrary to the way God made us…”

Deb: “If you are so inclined, please listen Piper’s entire response. It sheds much light regarding what he believes about women.”

Mara: It also sheds much light regarding what he believes about authority.
What he believes about authority has very little to do with anything Jesus (or Paul or Peter or John or ANY NT writer) teaches concerning authority.

John Piper looks upon authority like a gentile. He does not look upon it as one who has been grafted into the Vine.

And it is terribly troubling that he has so much influence when his understanding of something so basic and pertinent is so flawed.

Yes, we must continue to shine a light on this demented area within Piper-think.

Sergius Martin-George wrote:

Will Carson, Keller, and Piper be wearing special noise-cancelling headphones during the times they’re not speaking?

“Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny.”
Uncle Andrew in “The Magician’s Nephew”

“The men got together to watch the kids while the women attended the conference.”

Oh. How now, is THAT what we should do? Should we watch our own children?

Sorry, that just struck me as really funny. Can you imagine a men’s conference reminding families that women can watch kids while men are gone?

Off Topic but reminds me so much of past Wartburg posts.

http://tinyurl.com/npxhhs6

Rush to judgment

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

Off Topic but reminds me so much of past Wartburg posts.

http://tinyurl.com/npxhhs6

Rush to judgment

You are so far out out in left field Senecca that I wouldn’t know where to begin with this . . . How bout drink a few more cups of coffee and come back when you make sense.

@ Deb:

Thanks for taking care of my typo.
And I agree that blogging about it is one of the best applications of “Be angry but do not sin” in spite of what one misguided commenter claims. How else do we deal with Piper’s false and damaging teachings on gender?

That misguided commenter will go unnamed but his initials are Seneca “j” Griggs!

Bridget wrote:

It’s not just John Piper. It’s probably all the leaders

Oh, I know!

It’s just that so many hold up Piper as a true and gospelly example of their view because he’s “such a nice guy” and gets it right in so many other areas. That makes him more dangerous than, let’s say, controversy magnet Driscoll.

dee wrote:

Pretzels.

Let me chew on that.

Seems to me ALL of these TGC guys are a few Candied Cherrys short of an “Edible Fruit Cake.”
But still Qualify, by their Commandments and Doctrines of Men, to be ”Official Fruit Cakes.”

Tiz the season… 😉

Wade Burleson wrote:

The language, tone, and disposition of Piper in the comment is one of a master speaking to a slave, a superior to an inferior, one of worth to one without worth. No matter how he spins it, to say, “She’s woman on man, and I’m being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.” All that’s missing is the whip, the post to which the woman will be tied, and a few lashes on her back

That’s sick.

Is Gospelly Piper five-foot-nothing, 100 lbs wringing wet, and with a Woody Allen nebbish voice? This has all the vibe of someone who was always on the bottom getting lorded over by his peers finding someone even more “bottom” who he can lord it over.

Deb wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I always look forward to your commentary.

In that case, some further analysis of the news so far…

Since yesterday and today have both been sunny in central Scotland, that means 22% of days in 2014 have been sunny. That’s not a bad return for the summer up here, never mind a January in which the UK has been hit by severe weather and widespread flooding. All of which illustrates the chaotic nature of weather patterns under the northern Polar Jetstream.

JeffT wrote:

Since when did any form of oppression become part of the love of God or love of neighbor, on which hang ALL the law and the prophets?

Since those doing the oppressing started casting around for Cosmic Justification for what they were going to do anyway. “GAWD HATH SAID!”

dee wrote:

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
Rush to judgment
Now I am getting mad at you. I have met with some of those who have been hurt in this situation. The pain is overwhelming and the long term consequences are serious.. But it is all a lie, right?
Enjoy yourself, Seneca. You can pretend that it is all “false memories.” There are no pedophiles, no domestic abusers, etc. in the church. It is all a plot. Repeat it many times and go on tiptoeing through the tulips and trample on people as you do so.

Nope Dee, some of it is very, seriously, ugly true. But you should always be discerning. And a lot of discernment is simply being patient for all voices to be heard. Then it is easier to discern the real from the falsely alleged. [ There are certainly times when you’ll probably NEVER know the whole truth no matter how long you wait.] But can’t we forgo the “rush to judgment?”

I propose a TWW Brigade attend TGC 2014 Women’s Conference. And when John Piper starts to speak women stand up and stop the speech and ask if John Piper can give them permission to use the can! 😛 In the abscene of their husband John Piper is qualified to give guidance.

Or people who attend can use Toilet Paper as streamers for symbolism. You’ve heard of sit ins, now you can have “Wipe Ins”…geared toward Neo-Cal leaders of course!

Before I retired, when going to and from work, I used to listen to a RCC radio station. There was a program on it which included a nun who taught on various subjects. She was one of the best teachers I’ve ever heard. Imo, she taught with the authority of the Holy Spirit, and in that spirit, gender was irrelevant as far as being germane to the topics at hand, yet her voice was definitely feminine. It wasn’t a power play, and also imo, most of what she taught had nothing to do with RCC doctrine.

Eagle wrote:

I propose a TWW Brigade attend TGC 2014 Women’s Conference. And when John Piper starts to speak women stand up and stop the speech and ask if John Piper can give them permission to use the can! In the absence of their husband John Piper is qualified to give guidance.

I feel a new TGC Conference sponsorship deal coming on.

First time comment, but long-time reader.

My name is Jim. I read with interest at the exchange between Dee and Wade over Piper. There is something wrong in Piper’s doctrine of God – two things in fact. The first is the philosophical assumption of a split between God and the world, which sets the stage for a metaphysical dualism running through his entire line of thinking. Dualistic thought structures always split things into two groups – the saved and the damned, the elect and the reprobate, truth and falsehood, and men and women. Piper’s dualism then influences the second, which is a step-child of the first – the Manichean/Christian synthesis solution to the problem of evil as proposed by Augustine, which results in a deterministic conception of God that wills (however it is nuanced) that his creatures commit evil for his glory (brought to its fullest fruition in Jonathan Edwards).

I would imagine Piper subscribes to the ESS view of the Trinity. Most of TGC folks do. If so, the incarnate Son cannot be the window to our understanding of God, for he is less in “role” though that “role” is an ontological category. All we have left is the metaphysical speculation from the preceding paragraph, and therefore Piper’s views make sense in his world.

Jim G.

An Attorney wrote:

The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

It’s highly doubtful that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles (where almost all the admonitions against women are stated). They most likely were written in the second century.

Paul was much more egalitarian than he is portrayed by the NeoCals. Phoebe personally delivered Romans to the church in Rome and almost certainly read it aloud to the church. Can you imagine JP doing something similar. No way.

Hmm, Orlando and not hurricane season. Even a few women all asking JP at the same time for permission to potty just might send him over the edge, and we wouldn’t want to crush his spirit, even though he seems to have no respect for the feelings and needs of women, from some of the statements he’s made which have been quoted here.

We had JP and other Neo Cal books pushed on us at a former church. I never cracked one, but I did recycle them. (:

You know who should inspire John Piper and Mark Dever? Benito Mussolini..look at what Mussolini created and expected of women in pre-war Italy:

(from a historical website)

Women in Fascist Italy

As in Nazi Germany, women were seen as having a specific role in Fascist Italy. The task of young girls was to get married and have children – lots of them. In 1927, Mussolini launched his Battle for Births.

Mussolini believed that his Italy had a smaller population than it should have. How could it possibly be a power to reckon with, without a substantial population and a substantial army? Women were encouraged to have children and the more children brought better tax privileges – an idea Hitler was to build on. Large families got better tax benefits but bachelors were hit by high taxation.

Families were given a target of 5 children. Mothers who produced more were warmly received by the Fascist government. In 1933, Mussolini met 93 mothers at the Palazzo Venezia who had produced over 1300 children – an average of 13 each!

Mussolini wanted Italy to have a population of 60 million by 1950. In 1920, it stood at 37 million so his target was a tall order. However, the Battle for Births was a failure. Though the population grew as people were living longer due to better medical care, the birth rate actually went down between 1927 and 1934.

Here is the source of the website:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/life_in_fascist_italy.htm

So the Italians had the Battle for Births, with the goal of 5 children each. Is that what TGC National Women’s Conference all about? Is this new “beachead” going to be Orlando? Think about it ….

Inspire the troops + Keep the husbands at the hotel + Quiverfull agenda = Bedroom evangelism..out breed the heathen and have a jump start on spring delivery in 2015! 😛

It seems like a whole doctrine has been made out of 1Tim.2:11-12. 2 verses hardly qualify to build a doctrine.

Having been at CLC for so long I had gone along with the man rule thing. It always bothered me to the point that I just had to put it out of my head. I was a good cult member! Except in my heart I was never a believer in the cause (sgm). Now that I’ve been learning so much about what’s really going on I have one question, among many, how do we interpret 1Ti 2:12? And others like that.
Someone mentioned girl talk. The other day I clicked on a link to that blog a read what it said. It was just like the feeling I used to get when I went to women’s meetings at CLC. Burdened down and discouraged. One of the girls wanted to learn to crochet, but Mon showed her how she didn’t have the time right now to take classes to learn. I taught my self at home. I’ve spent many a time enjoying crocheting and kitting while being at home all those years raising kids. Of which I have 7. I’m so glad to get that off my chest. I wanted to leave that comment on the blog.

@ Eagle:

She is their encouragement to single women. After all, TGC wants single women to attend the conference.

On another note, the reason for the “three” special men is to put a stamp of approval on the event. It’s ridiculous and does go contrary to older women instructing younger women. I don’t see the purpose in huge conferences like this to begin with. They cost the women who attend much money and effort in order to get there and you just sit and rehash the books that the speakers have written. It’s mainly about gaining notoriety to the sponsor, TGC.

Outside of one verse in Ephesians about wives submitting to husbands, which comes right after (paraphrase), ‘everyone submit to each other,’
And perhaps with the exception of Paul addressing specific local church problems he was asked about (where women at some church were flaunting their wealth, so he told them not to adorn themselves with jewelry)….

The Bible itself does not go into a lot of detail about male – female relations.

The Bible actually says in Galatians there is no male or female in Christ Jesus.
(Which is funny, because complementarians are very staunch in the view that “men and women are different!!” – the Bible says, eh, not so much, no.)

The complementarians are trying to construct an entire handbook of male-female relations that even the Bible doesn’t get into. Their views are extra – biblical.

Not only is there little to no room for unmarried and childless women in complementarianism (note the their concern is usually how wives shall related to their husbands, or how mother should raise their children), but some of them do try to extend this male control past marital couples.

Some of these complementarians (and patriarchalists) want to see any and all women limited, whether single or married.

I’ve seen commentary online quoting some of these guys as saying they don’t think a male should have a female boss, or if a man does, she should not be too “authoritative” over the employee, etc.

In garden variety complementarianism, single and childless women are non-existant (women just don’t count and aren’t human unless they wear a wedding band and pop out babies), but in the more nutso versions, they want to apply the “wives submit to husbands” phrase and apply it to all women. I’m not sure which view I find more insulting.

John Piper: “…the issue is one of how does manhood and womanhood work? What is the dynamic between how men flourish and women flourish as God designed them to flourish when an act of authority is being exerted on a man from a woman.”

I just love how he believes that he truly speaks for God and believes that he has a true and real grasp on God’s ‘design’. It is also amazing on how much he reverences and bows down to his understanding of this ‘dynamic’ and “how manhood and womanhood work”.
The problem is that he really only understands how to cause an ungodly arrogance in men to ‘flourish’ and an ungodly learned-helplessness to ‘flourish’ in women trapped by his Piper-think.
And as far as men and women having authority ‘exerted’ on them… What is that about?
It’s another pure example of Piper’s ChristLESS view of spiritual authority.
Piper is caught up in the gentile view of authority and trying to exert that authority dynamic on the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you,”

@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

As I was just saying in a post above, there different breeds of gender complementarians. Some would agree with you, but there are some who would not.

There are some whose sexism carries over from their views on marriage to include all women (not just how wives should related to their spouses), where they believe unmarried woman must submit to any and all male authority.

There are some who believe women, Christian and Non, must not or should not be in the military, or work as police, judges, whatever.

Even for the ones who are fine with women being in control/ leadership in politics (they would feel fine with a female being POTUS, for example) that view counter-acts their views on wifely submission… they feel women are too easily deceived or too flawed to co-rule in a marriage, but not an entire nation?

Dave A A wrote:

disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

Yep! And what about Paul’s suggestion that ALL younger widows get married?

Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach…1Tim. 5:14

And look what the word “keep house” means in the Greek!

From G3617; to be the head of (that is, rule) a family: – guide the house.

Young married women should be the head of a family and rule! Bet he’s not teaching that verse.

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

But can’t we forgo the “rush to judgment?”

Doesn’t this then include you Jimmy? You seem to pre-judge all church situations involving the cover up of child abuse as the abuse being questionable & the reputation of the church more important than the welfare of the children, all investigations here at TWW as biased & judgemental, & all commenters here as those who don’t seem to realise that they are just as in need of grace as any of those who get put under the spotlight…Your posts are always pointed & full of snark & judgement (so are mine, I own it). So as Dee said: pot, kettle, black.

Plus I snorted out loud at the quote from Piper…I had authority over a man just today & felt no need to press on him. Poor lad, that would have been most inappropriate, I’m his Manager, not a cougar.

Steven wrote:

We really don’t need any more conferences of any kind. The easiest thing in the world is to pack up and go to a “Christian” conference. Somewhat unrelated, Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one. We keep straining gnats and swallowing camels.

……………..
For sure…….Amen.

Totally irrelevent to the discussion but I read an article on CNN that is fascinating. And given how the Neo-Cals are about sovereingty I wonder what this would mean to them. The article is about lone survivors or airline disasters.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/01/world/sole-survivor/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

This caught my eye its about Galexy Airlines Flight 203 and its lone survivor of a plane crash in Reno, NV in 1985.

George Lamson Jr. is on a quest. The only survivor of a 1985 airline crash that killed his father and 69 others in Reno, Nevada, Lamson has been seeking out sole survivors like himself, to learn from them but also to help them. Moments before the doomed takeoff, Lamson and his father changed seats. Lamson will never know whether that decision saved his life. As the plane was about to crash, Lamson made a pact with God that if he survived, he would work to do good and help others. He desperately wishes to honor that promise.

—-

I find it interesting how theology plays and affects people’s lives in disasters, etc… Not long ago (this will interest those of you who are Catholic) I watched a documentary on the Donner Party disaster in the High Sierras in 1846. Its infamous and known for its brutality and how some people resorted to human canibalism to survive. In the disaster there is a story of people were starving to death and stuck in the high Sierras, and how one female (I forget her name…you can research it and find out) made a deal with God that if she survived the ill fated Donner party crossing she would become Catholic. When she survived..she covnerted to Catholicism.

Bridget wrote:

Are you serious, Dave? The women had to listen to Piper videos!?! Talk about brainwashing . . .

Serious! Months later, Mrs A A was at a wedding shower, and after several women quoted Piper, Mrs A A said, “My HUSBAND asked me to share something from the BIBLE about LOVE. I Cor 13 says Love is etc etc.”
Immediately, the Pastor’s young wife said, “I’m sorry, Mrs A A, but I just HAVE to share this. Piper says…blah blah blah.”

Mara wrote:

Off-topic, but not too far off.
For those who haven’t seen it yet:

Not at all off-topic Mara and thanks for the link! I loved the pic of the old typewriter at their site. Manufactured long before the world had moved on, it even had slot-head screws, and not those gawd-awful-phillips-head-easy-to-screw-up (pun intended) fasteners.

@ Janey:

I think it was the last thread I also quoted this information, something else many of them remain oblivious to:

(source: census.gov)

Single Life

102 million
Number of unmarried people in America 18 and older in 2011. This group comprised 44.1 percent of all U.S. residents 18 and older.

53%
Percentage of unmarried U.S. residents 18 and older who were women in 2011; 47 percent were men.

62%
Percentage of unmarried U.S. residents 18 and older in 2011 who had never been married.
Another 24 percent were divorced, and 14 percent were widowed.

dee wrote:

A woman can say all they want until they enter into a church or behind a podium at a Christian conference at which men will be present

Someone else here may be able to provide a link (I can’t remember where I saw this), but some young Christian lady wrote a blog mentioning something like this.

She used to be a gender complementarian. She said the church (or was it a Christian university?) she attended was gender comp. They didn’t believe in women preaching or leading.

One day, her (let’s say church, it may have been university) invited a well-known Christian woman speaker to speak during their church service.

Her church merely took the big, wooden podium thing her male preacher normally spoke from behind and replaced it with some other table/podium for the woman speaker to use.

She said it struck her watching that woman speaker that day that there was something wrong with gender complementarian views that maintain it’s not okay for women to preach during church services, but here, her church made an exception.

All that allowing a woman to speak during the church service involved was
1. switching out the big podium for a small table, and
2. that the woman speaking was famous in Christian circles.

IIRC, the lady who wrote the blog page said that was the day she began her slide into rejecting complementarianism, seeing how sloppy and inconsistently it is applied in real life, that there are exceptions granted to the rule, etc.

Steven, it angers me to hear that Anne Graham, or any non-celebrity woman, for that matter, would have been introduced before speaking, as being under the cover of her husband. And if it was only being said to appease a very comp audience, there’s something wrong with that picture, too. Why couldn’t the intro simply have included appreciation and respect for her and her teaching skills by Mr. Graham or someone else? Why have to bring comp vs egal into it, just for her to speak? grr.

RB wrote:

Steven, it angers me to hear that Anne Graham, or any non-celebrity woman, for that matter, would have been introduced before speaking, as being under the cover of her husband. And if it was only being said to appease a very comp audience, there’s something wrong with that picture, too. Why couldn’t the intro simply have included appreciation and respect for her and her teaching skills by Mr. Graham or someone else? Why have to bring comp vs egal into it, just for her to speak? grr.

RB,
This was in the mid ’90’s and at the time my thought was…. this church doesn’t allow women to preach…. Anne is preaching…. they’re invoking some kind of weird technicality… it’s still preaching…. who’s fooling who? For me it seemed like the pastor/church had an integrity issue. Why call it anything….just preach/speak. It was good though.

I’m not even sure what complementarian is. I haven’t kept up with current theological junk/issues. I do know this: men have so messed up the church in America it might be worth considering turning the whole thing over to women.

Also gender is not front and center in the creation account. Ridiculous.

Dave A A wrote:

Bridget wrote:

Are you serious, Dave? The women had to listen to Piper videos!?! Talk about brainwashing . . .

Serious! Months later, Mrs A A was at a wedding shower, and after several women quoted Piper, Mrs A A said, “My HUSBAND asked me to share something from the BIBLE about LOVE. I Cor 13 says Love is etc etc.”
Immediately, the Pastor’s young wife said, “I’m sorry, Mrs A A, but I just HAVE to share this. Piper says…blah blah blah.”

“Pastor’s young wife” was reciting the Word of HER God.

Good words from: Wade Burleson wrote:

Jesus never treated the woman at the well who questioned him in such a manner. That Samaritan woman was “on Jesus,” pressed Jesus with questions, and would have been seen as “too authoritative” by the culture around them – yet Jesus treated her with dignity, value, worth and tenderness – answering every question and objection and never — not one time — making the issue the woman. BECAUSE He respected her, he answered her questions.

Also, the rest of the John 4 story tells us about the woman TEACHING and CONVERTING men:

28 Then the woman left her water jar, went into town, and told the *men*, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did! Could this be the Messiah?” … 39 Now many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of what the *woman* said when she *testified*, “He told me everything I ever did.” … 42 And they told the woman, “We no longer believe because of what *you said*, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this really is the Savior of the world.”

I’m going out on a limb, and this could be taken as a blanket assumption, but it seems that the extreme side of comp from the male supporters’ view of it, contains serious misunderstandings of, at the least, and possible downright bigotry bordering on hatred toward females, at the worst. I think its another reason I get that hair on the back of my neck, doo-wee-ooo, feeling when I read or hear statements from either extreme.

Don’t forget Catherine Boothe, co-founder of the Salvation Army along with her husband William. Catherine was known to be the better preacher of the two and became the family breadwinner with her preaching. Together they founded a movement for homeless people which continues to this day.

And this was the mid 1800s. How things have progressed since then. NOT.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Steven:
“Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is (I’ve heard them both). It’s a heart issue, not a chromosomal one.”
++++++++++
I’d say it was a skill and expertise issue.

Good point. Excellent actually.

@ RB:

“I must admit, the several times I’ve seen women preach, something has seemed a little off, and even though I don’t consider myself comp, I prefer a man to preach a sermon or lead a mixed group Bible study”
++++++++++++++++++++

RB, it’s hard not to come away with the impression that you tend to think that “a little off”-ness is an inherently feminine trait. Barring that exceptional nun, of course.

I suspect it’s due to the fact that you, like most churchgoers, have heard almost exclusively nothing but the male voice communicating the male mindset and perspective through the sound system in a church setting.

now, on the other hand, imagine what it might be like for a woman to never, ever hear a woman’s voice in the practice of corporate worship.

An Attorney wrote:

The “women not teaching” comes from a statement by Paul: “I (referring to himself) do not permit . . ..” I believe that the pronoun was divinely inspired, in that that was Paul’s personal rule, not a rule by God. And since Paul is no longer in charge, and some 1900 plus years have passed, who knows what Paul would say were he here today. He could readily change the statement he made as a personal rule. He did not say that no one should permit a woman to teach!

Thank you! I was hoping someone would bring this up. I believe that Paul’s reasoning might have been a result of having to step very carefully through the minefield of Roman culture, so as not to unnecessarily bring the nascent Christian movement into disrepute, as a fully formed egalitarian Christianity most certainly would have done. But heaven forbid that we should speak of cultural context in interpreting scripture! So much easier to have a magical view of the text which allows us to make it neatly fit all our prejudices.

RB wrote:

I must admit, the several times I’ve seen women preach, something has seemed a little off, and even though I don’t consider myself comp, I prefer a man to preach a sermon or lead a mixed group Bible study

I used to be that way, but only because I was conditioned by my mother (who did not believe in women leading or teaching, not even outside the church). It’s social conditioning, not based on Scripture.

hmmm. Gender gospel was brought up at the first by Lin, I think. Don’t the TGC groupies recognize the similarity in thinking to LDS doctrine; godly women (the sealed ones) hope that one day, they can bear children to their husbands forever on a distant planet, one which their husbands have worked their way to godhood in order to claim as their own.? This is not as much about sex, as it is about power and glory.

Sergius Martin-George wrote:

I feel a new TGC Conference sponsorship deal coming on.

Sergius Martin-George wrote:

I feel a new TGC Conference sponsorship deal coming on.

It is truly the bathroom tissue I was predestined to use. 😆

Dave A A wrote:

At the women’s conference, disregarding Paul’s suggestion that the older women teach the younger, the women learned feminine womanly things from Piper videos.

Yes, I’ve noticed that sometimes gender complementarians do that. It’s a double standard.

They won’t let women teach/lead men, but although the Bible talks about older ladies leading the younger, they will bring a male on stage/ video/ blog sometimes to instruct women of all ages how to be a woman. 🙄

I think I already have the knack of “how to be a woman” down just fine on my own.

dee wrote:

Try this one. Most churches let women sing up front. So, what is the difference between singing Psalm 23 which is allowed and speaking Psalm 23 which Piper does not allow? This stuff is driving me nuts.

My husband asked an elder of his church (used to be my church) if women would ever be allowed to read scripture in the service. Elder said: “No – the Bible says women can’t teach men.” Husband then asked: “But you let women sing scripture front and center. What’s the difference?”

Elder’s response: crickets

Bridget wrote:

“Don’t miss the point here: gender is front and center in creation, the fall, and the curse.[6]”

*scratching head in confusion*

It is? I didn’t think a whole lot about gender, if at all, while reading Genesis in the opening chapters.

I thought about humanity in general, how sin messed everything up and how God was setting the stage even then for Christ’s death on the cross.

I’d like to retract my use of the word groupies in my previous comment. It was stock snark. What I should have said is that like others above have commented, believers who are followers of false teachings not only owe it to themselves and others, but have a responsibility and are accountable for, worshiping God first, checking teachings against what Scripture says in context, and thinking it through for themselves. Then they need to have the courage to take action if they don’t agree. That can be very difficult to do if one has been raised in the false teaching, but I have a harder time with the Neo Cals, most of whom have drifted in from other denominations of Christianity.

Anon 1 wrote:

I agree with HUG. This is a man that was never able to get in touch with his maleness. He has serious issues and they play out in public.

He is very much protecting a part of himself from the “evil” feminine not knowing that what he really needs is some sort of inner healing. He is changing the gospel to alleviate his irrational fears concerning women. Instead he needs to get healed (or some kind of therapy) so that he is no longer petrified of emasculation by any confident woman within 100 feet of him.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/05/jock-strap-religion.html

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

If this goes back to creation, you really can’t claim it was just a current cultural issue.

You can’t find male authority or leadership in the creation story / account, though. It is merely assumed to be there by gender comps, it’s not really there.

@ Daisy:

Daisy,

I agree. They never seem to think about people who don’t fit that mold to a T. (Or they cast everyone as a loser who didn’t try hard enough.)

In that little bubble world, you are white (or act white), you are married, you are successful, you are well-dressed, your wife doesn’t work outside of the home, you have no disabilities, and children are all bright and healthy, and you probably homeschool.

No wonder church attendance has declined. So few people meet the Gold Standard of Evangelicalism.

Jesus didn’t come to make us poster children for Evangelicalism; He came to save us.

burntnorton wrote:

Most women have always had to engage in economically productive work, as in income, food, or other necessity-generating work other than simply cooking and sewing for her own family.

burntnorton,

Amen and amen.

Anyone who reads Proverbs 31 knows that woman was a wealthy real estate investor, an import/export expert, and a manufacturer with a staff. If you read all the way to the bottom, both she and her husband are praised at the city gates.

Many many women will be found guilty of burying their talents in the ground by the Master when he returns.

“You might notice that Paul is not placing any authority on a man either since Adam willfully, intentionally disobeyed. That does not entitle him to lead. The point I see here in this passage is simply concern for learning before teaching. Men (Adam) has been “molded/formed”…it’s women’s (Eve) turn.”

Actually, Authenteo means something more sinister was going on. It does not mean authority over. “Domineer” comes closer. (And we know it is something men can do to a wife because Chrysostom tells men not to do it in one of his Homilies)

Because he mentions Adam being formed first and then whole childbearing issue probably refers to the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, a fertility cult, that taught Eve was formed first. It was considered a wonder of the world back then. It was huge and popular because so many women died in childbirth. Paul was referring to “The childbearing” would save her. Messiah.

This passage has nothing to do with women teaching men. (What do they do with women prophesying in 1 Corin 11?) For one thing, the grammar is singular. Not plural. He is referring to A woman. “She and they” most likely refer to a husband and wife situation. Yes, he says, let her learn. As in chapter 1 he refers to those deceived out of ignorance and those who deceive on purpose. She was ignorant.

“He is very much protecting a part of himself from the “evil” feminine not knowing that what he really needs is some sort of inner healing. He is changing the gospel to alleviate his irrational fears concerning women. Instead he needs to get healed (or some kind of therapy) so that he is no longer petrified of emasculation by any confident woman within 100 feet of him.”

People also forget his dad was a Bob Jones style fundamentalist. He was raised this way. Ever heard stories about how his mom changed when his dad came home? She was not even allowed to find a table in a restaurant. His dad had to do it. I can see where being raised an only child with an authoritarian dad gone a lot but watching his mom be in charge and then totally dependent when dad enters the room had to take a toll on his understanding of male/female. Although I am of the opinion that IFB types really do hate women.

I haven’t read all the posts here today so hope I’m not repeating something someone else already posted. A Cry for Justice has an interesting article today about John Piper. His views on women and marriage are very dangerous for women in abusive relationships.

http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/

@ Seneca “j” Griggs:

This page discusses the topic further:
LOST IN TRANSLATION Part 2 – A Look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15

Anon 1 wrote:

That totally fits the historical context

Wade Burleson also has a very informative post on the Temple of Artemis and the cult of Artemis in Ephesus relating to the passage in Timothy.

http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+Artemus

Jessica wrote:

Out of curiosity, I asked if a Christian woman could marry a newly Christian man. His response was that is was just as bad as marrying a non-Christian.

😯 If one thing is keeping too many Christian women single (who want marriage), it is a set of very narrow rules of who they marry, handed down by Christian authors and speakers.

A spouse-hunting criteria list, as issued by some married Christians to single Christians includes:

-must be a Christian [equally yoked];

-must be a guy who can be your spiritual head/ leader;

-and now some jokester is telling you the male in question ALSO has to be a Christian for a longer time period than you.

There is not an abundance of single Christian adult men out there to pick from. You cannot afford to be that super choosy picky about mate selection if you are a Christian female.

But Christian teachers/preachers keep adding requirement upon requirement upon Christian spouse selection, which makes a Christian woman’s choice of suitors grow smaller and smaller.

@ Wisdomchaser:

I am not surprised. As I said above, gender complementarianism is codependency taught using religion as a veneer.

If you make up a check list of qualities that abusive, controlling men look for in a female mate,
and make another list of typical codependent traits,
and another of what John Piper (and gender comps) consider to be ‘biblical womanhood,’ all three lists would be about identical.

And they keep women trapped in abusive relationships.

lemonaidfizz wrote:

Yet I suspect many TGC followers would discourage women from attending higher ed, much less having a career. So where do they think their next generation of speakers will come from??

The Holy Spirit will infuse some of the bare foot and pregnant with everything they need to be good speakers for the cause.[/sarcasm]

@ Victorious:
I think this answers my question

Daisy wrote:

There is not an abundance of single Christian adult men out there to pick from. You cannot afford to be that super choosy picky about mate selection if you are a Christian female.

That’s not an issue for me, fear is. I’ve been in multiple abusive/controlling relationships, and while I would like to find a partner, I’m absolutely terrified of going down the same path again. I’m not saying this to gain pity, I just want others to see where I’m coming from.

@ Jessica:

Oh, I hope I didn’t come across wrong.

I didn’t mean to imply that Christian women should have zero standards in dating, even to the point of dating abusive jerks, only to say that the current (and even past) Christian mandated shopping list given to singles by married Christians in what to look for in mates is too ridiculously narrow.

To the point I really do feel Christian women need to consider dating or marrying Non Christian men.

There are not many Christian single men out there anyway. Walk into any church, there are usually far more single women than men.

NC Now wrote:

She is convinced Jesus is coming back soon because in her mind he will return before she dies. Not sure where this theology comes from.

Dispensational eschatology without balance can be so pernicious. AGL is not the only Christian leader to do this.

I don’t think any of the comments here have been off in regards to intent, but there is a huge difference between authoritative and authoritarian. Authoritative=good, authoritarian=bad.

elastigirl and Daisy, thanks for your input about my feeling that “offness”. You’re probably right. If most of my attendance had featured women pastors, I probably would see it differently. I think the overarching issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money. I also don’t discount fear or dislike of the opposite sex.

@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
Does it bother you when Piper and his his buddies dissect any Christian that disagrees with him?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/03/19/john-piper-and-the-pope-some-observations/
Or is the outrage all one direction?

Val wrote:

@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

Does it bother you when Piper and his his buddies dissect any Christian that disagrees with him?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/03/19/john-piper-and-the-pope-some-observations/

Or is the outrage all one direction?

You’ll note Piper would bring up areas where he disagrees with the Pope theologically, but no personal attack or suggestions that the Pope believes what he does be cause he was bullied in high school, suffers from stature issues or was raised in a home with a lot of issue. Piper simply sticks to the theological differences.

NC Now wrote:

Steven wrote:
Anne Graham is 10X the preacher that Franklin is
Yes. She can really deliver a message.
But at times she sure seems a bit off in that message. She is convinced Jesus is coming back soon because in her mind he will return before she dies. Not sure where this theology comes from.

I haven’t heard/seen Anne since around 1992. I have no idea where she is spiritually. My point had more to do with how she was introduced but thanks for that info. Seems like most Christians think Jesus will return before they die. I just hope He returns before we get another mega church franchise in South Carolina.

@ Steven:

+1

I’m sure these preachers in question have no qualms about dissecting secular celebrities. They should have the gall to take what they’d give.

Wade Burleson wrote:

, I have a deep appreciation for Piper and his theology of God. His view on women honestly makes me believe he has an intellectual understanding God but a huge void when it comes to intimacy with God.

I’m struggling to understand how one can appreciate a person who has this view of half (or more) of the Body of Christ. It’s an ugly, distorted, crippling, perverse view. And it’s cruel in that he never hesitates to express it in a manner that clearly exposes his deep emotional problem with women to the extent he publishes lists defining their permitted participation.

It reminds me of the cruel “whites only” signs at restrooms and water fountains. I know “supposedly” men have the “unique” ability to compartmentalize things, but Piper’s theology can’t/shouldn’t be separated from the words that come out of his mouth/heart that not only marginalize women, but encourage others to “lash” out at them as well.

I can’t appreciate him.

Victorious wrote:

BTW, Jesus didn’t mince words in chiding the Pharisees for laying heavy burdens on others. If Piper is laying heavy burdens on women, he should be corrected publicly by those who may have an influence on his attitude.
Where is the outrage among leaders who see his distorted views? Are they approaching him to correct this?

…………….
Good points.
Am so very tired of so called godly men admiring Piper’s theology and missing the elephant sitting in the middle of the room, Piper’s disdain, disrespect of women.

He is a real little man, with little man syndrome, which is where his enthusiasm for dissing women arises. How can that little man make himself bigger? By demeaning half of the population. Jesus treated women with respect, not so Piper.

KR Wordgazer wrote:

Who is guilty of burying a woman’s talent– the woman, or the church authority who forbid her to use it?

KRW,

My answer is “both.” Certain teachings within the church hold women back, and women hold themselves back. Have you read Sheryl Sandberg’s book _Lean In_? She’s the COO of Facebook. She blames both, and has caught a lot of flack for it, but in my world I see it every day. I’ve been looking for someone who describes it well. She nails it.

For devout women, I agree. It’s a big factor. After my very-necessary divorce I realized I’d been freed from those rules: I was that now — as a single mother — able to do what I really loved: work in a profession that uses my gifts to the fullest.

I really dislike the “little man syndrome” talk.  My husband his short and I know many men as short or shorter than him.  The prevalence of abusive behaviors among them is no higher than among taller men of my acquaintance.  Piper’s problem is that he is a bully (and, like many bullies, he probably has a personality disorder).  The psychosexual issues that shape the content of his bullying may include his feelings about being short, but ALL bullies (short, tall, rich, poor) kick down.  In evangelical culture (and to a lesser extent our culture in general) women as a group are reliably lower than men as a group.  We women are therefore a convenient target for kicking by male bullies of all shapes and sizes. 

More than that, though, I think much of the rhetoric and behavior of these men are rooted in sexual disfunction.  Specifically, they never learned to deal with their sexuality in a healthy way.  Anything touching on sex has a HUGE “danger” flag for them, and so they avoid anything that touches on it in any way that might possibly eventually in some fever dream be sinful.  Except that sexual desire is normal, natural, and persistent, so they keep having to up the ante on what to avoid and what rules to follow.  Avoiding being alone in a room with a woman not his wife is quickly not enough.  They have to avoid touching women, avoid seeing any part of a woman that might be attractive, avoid talking to women, avoid sitting in a lecture hall where a woman is at the front, etc., etc. 

It’s why they obsess over teaching modesty and why rules of modesty tend to ratchet up in a modesty or purity culture. While they give lip service (and may even believe) that modesty rules help keep women from being objectified, the truth is that the rules themselves are a product and an instrument of just that objectification.  Because these rules treat women not as whole people, but as objects with the potential to cause or be used in sin. 

I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual.  A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man.  Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”.  They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas. 

Combine these serious psychosexual problems with a personality disorder and a disposition to bullying and, presto!, you get men like Piper and Driscoll and Phillips and Wilson.   

Conferences (Womens, Mens, and everything in between) fill bank accounts and egos. Don’t believe me? Visit the massive bookstore at say the Ligonier Conference in a couple of months. Tons of books being sold and their humble authors signing autographs. It is with deep regret that I confess I’ve been there and have the autographs to prove it. My conclusion: conferences are a quick thrill for immature Christians. Let me know if you’d like to buy an autographed copy of a book written by a Christian celebrity in the mid 90’s.

Daisy wrote:

J
If one thing is keeping too many Christian women single (who want marriage), it is a set of very narrow rules of who they marry, handed down by Christian authors and speakers.
A spouse-hunting criteria list, as issued by some married Christians to single Christians includes:
-must be a Christian [equally yoked];
-must be a guy who can be your spiritual head/ leader;
-and now some jokester is telling you the male in question ALSO has to be a Christian for a longer time period than you.

Not to mention that in some circles (e.g., Doug Phillips), he must own his own business and be prosperous enough so that his wife never has to work outside the home. With all those burdens, why would any man want to get married?

I guess I see this WW blog post as a non-issue. It is a women’s conference after all and the women paying to attend know who will be speaking. The sponsoring organization is Neo-Calvinist and the topic agenda is (surprise surprise) Neo-Calvinist. I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.

burntnorton wrote:

I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual. A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man. Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”. They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas.

“I SEE Things…”

@ Wisdomchaser:
Haven’t read all comments, but in case, this was posted in comments at Crying for Justice link: John Piper on the wonderfulness of Doug Wilson. Piper simply is not a wise man, not at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2X078_VDjc#t=89

dee wrote:

It is an issue for others.

I can only imagine some young husband, all enamored with Piper, pressing authoritatively upon his already overburdened wife to go to this conference.

This conference and what is stands for just might be a serious issue to her.
Since Piper is held up as an idol to be worshipped by young men in the NC movement, I’m sure they will not hesitate to authoritatively press this idolatry upon their wives so that they and their wives can ‘flourish’ as defined by Piper.

Keith wrote:

I guess I see this WW blog post as a non-issue. It is a women’s conference after all and the women paying to attend know who will be speaking. The sponsoring organization is Neo-Calvinist and the topic agenda is (surprise surprise) Neo-Calvinist. I don’t see anything sneaky, underhanded, or duplicitous about this conference. I wouldn’t want to go and neither would my wife but that is our prerogative as it is the prerogative of the women who choose to attend to pay to hear a pro-patriarchy point-of-view.

Keith, you have a valid point. There are those who, for various reasons, don’t see it as their role to get involved in the dissection of Christian trends. Others of us see it differently. We tend to get rather worked up about the sheep getting slaughtered, or at least sheared. I once took a human anatomy course in which the class was divided into groups of six people. The task was the dissection of a human cadaver. It was the task of the entire group but the reality was that only one or two people actually did the dissection. The rest of the groups watched, learned, and offered support. Those doing the dissection had messy lab coats. It’s ok for you to wear a clean one.

elastigirl wrote:

@ dee:

I can’t help but think fear of boobs has something to do with it.

I totally gigglesnorted at this: in that case I am an object of terror. TERROR I tell you 🙂

Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

My current church has only one pastor, and he’s a man. But I’ve listened to female speakers and teachers in church before. I can’t imagine being bothered by a female pastor.

Maybe I should have also asked how many currently attend a church that would allow a woman to serve as the lead pastor.

@ burntnorton:

“Anything touching on sex has a HUGE “danger” flag for them, and so they avoid anything that touches on it in any way that might possibly eventually in some fever dream be sinful. Except that sexual desire is normal, natural, and persistent, so they keep having to up the ante on what to avoid and what rules to follow.”
+++++++++++++++++

I agree, very much. If women are invisible, it’s much more convenient.
——-

“modesty rules… Because these rules treat women not as whole people, but as objects with the potential to cause or be used in sin.”
+++++++++++

I feel the heart of all this gospel gender ridiculousness masked with “biblical and for God’s glory” is really what is emotionally convenient for men. Women are indeed objects (voodoo dolls?) that are dressed and moved around according to a man’s convenience.

Completely off-topic.
I almost linked it yesterday but didn’t because it really IS completely off topic.
But every time I see this I laugh so I’m going to share it here to through a little levity into this difficult topic of Piper’s misogyny.

“MRW” means “My reaction when”

So the caption says, “My reaction when, as a Briton I see the current US temperature converted to Celsius”
(referring back to when we, in the U.S were dealing with our polar vortex.)

http://imgur.com/gallery/5SuibEF

Have the titles of the talks for this conference been released yet?

My guess is that Piper, Carson and Keller will give the heavyweight theological sermons, while the women speakers will focus on gender roles, pressing upon the female attendees what their limited roles as women should be. I’ve noticed that TGC and CBMW often gets females to drive home the unpalatable messages about restrictions on women, etc. They think women will take it better coming from other women.

Meanwhile on TCG blog, among the hundreds of daily blog posts, the only ones I’ve ever seen written by female authors are on the subject of bringing up children and the home. As if that’s all women are capable of thinking or writing about.

It’s demeaning and sickening. I have met Carson several times and it saddens me that he is so involved in such nonsense. An utter waste of time for the Kingdom. More than that – terribly damaging. 🙁

http://www.insertimg.com/comic/four-steps-christian-dating/

Some more levity that sorta kinda fits the Patriarchal topic. :o)

burntnorton wrote:

I also think it’s why their language so frequently has overt or implicit sexual overtones even when describing situations that are not sexual. A woman teaching a man in person becomes a woman “pressing on” a man. Gay people living openly as couples becomes “shoving it down your throat”. They try and try and try to avoid their sexuality, to the point that sexual imagery and language leak out in other areas.

Support that.

@ Nancy:

Correction: “life” not “live” I need to get saved from spelling.

dee wrote:

Would you go to a church which had a lead pastor who was a man?

lol…sounds so silly when the table is turned, doesn’t it? You’re so right, dee; it’s not about body parts!

@ Steven:

It’s also a very common mindset with fans of celebrities, rock stars, movie actors, etc.

If you dare criticize or say anything negative at all about ‘Rock Star X’ on some blog or forum, immediately, 564 of his/her fans will jump on you and say things like, “Do you know X personally? Have you ever met X in person?”

Nope. But I don’t have to.

Rock stars and movie actors are a public persona and their public actions are open to scrutiny.

They say and do things on television and in interviews for all the world to see. Sometimes reporters dig up information on these people and publish it.

I don’t see why I have to suppress and opinion or cease forming conclusions about the sort of person they are based on the stuff they do and say in public.

Same thing with public Christian figures such as Piper, Driscoll, Furtick, Benny Hinn, and all the rest.

RB wrote:

issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money.

Egalitarians aren’t after power for the sake of power, or money or glory, though.

Egalitarians ask for an equal seat at the table, but the comps keep saying “no,” and interpreting egal requests to treat women as equals as being grabs for power, or trying to usurp “male authority.”

dee wrote:

@ numo:
He is about there. I actually thought he did better for awhile after his last hiatus.

He seems like a person who suddenly awakes from a deep sleep and isn’t sure where he is, what happened, and is on immediate defense. He woke up yesterday and let loose.

Daisy wrote:

RB wrote:

issue related to both extremes of comp and egal imply an inordinate need for power, glory and or money.

Egalitarians aren’t after power for the sake of power, or money or glory, though.

Egalitarians ask for an equal seat at the table, but the comps keep saying “no,” and interpreting egal requests to treat women as equals as being grabs for power, or trying to usurp “male authority.”

Right. Egalitarian is NOT the opposite of Patriarchy. Matriarchy is the opposite of Patriarchy. Matriarchy is as much as sin although more rare.

Eagle, I think it will take several generations to undo the damage Piper has done to so many young people and what they believe because of him. It scares me.

@Joy H. – I used to dread the women’s meetings because I really couldn’t relate to the talks or the focus. It wasn’t just that I’m single and have no children. It was more the personalities of the pastor’s wives. And especially Carolyn Mahaney, since I’d rather be in jeans and t-shirts than heels and dress pants or skirts.

Leila wrote:

Not to mention that in some circles (e.g., Doug Phillips), he must own his own business and be prosperous enough so that his wife never has to work outside the home

I had forgotten about that!

There are now so many rules that some married Christian leaders insist that a single, Christian woman follow to get married, and what qualities she must insist upon in a spouse, someone needs to make a “Bingo” card to keep track of them all.

I hope that these married Christians realize that the type of Christian man they tell single ladies to wait to marry is about as common as a plaid elephant or a unicorn.

@ Leila:

I was holding out for a Christian man to marry for many many years, especially because the “yoked” teaching one hears all the time, but when you walk into church after church and see about 10 -1 5 single Christian women for every single man there, it starts to dawn on you that you may never marry if you keep sticking to that.

I think a Non-Christian man can treat a lady just as nice, so I don’t see the harm in a Christian lady marrying a Non Christian. I have also seen too many reports of Christian husbands who are not prizes (some are abusive to their wives, for example).

@ Clay Crouch:

It wouldn’t bother me to go to a church that has a woman preacher.

I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and they do not permit women to preach.

In so far as I cling to Christianity at all, most of my understanding of the faith is still pretty much in agreement with Southern Baptists, but I don’t agree with their acceptance of gender complementarianism.

elastigirl wrote:

just curious what the shelf life is for Christian celebrities. who are these ’90s celebrities? Are we talking Spencer Tracy or Shaun Cassidy?

Pat Boone is still a poster boy for Christian celebrity. He is on TBN quite often even these days.

dee wrote:

Would you go to a church which had a lead pastor who was a man? Joel Osteen, perhaps? To me, the issue is not body parts but theolog

Dee, as an Episcopalian, the sex of my bishop, pastor or deacon is of no consequence to me. I am only concerned with their ability to serve and function in the office to which they are called. Those are my egalitarian bona fides. I was only curious about how many of the commenters attend a church that would even consider calling a woman to serve as pastor. To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So I think my question is appropriate. To put it another way, imagine what this discussion would look like if the leadership issue in question was race instead of sex.

@ Daisy:

Daisy, Episcopal Church welcomes you.

@ dee: not for long, imo, but that’s just me…

@ elastigirl: thanks for making me laugh!

Clay Crouch wrote:

To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So

To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

@ Nancy: you know, I lived with some nuns for a while when I was in college, and more than a few of them were both smart *and* attractive. (Very much so, in fact.) And they pretty much knew what they were choosing when they made their final vows. The system was set up so that people *did* have outs prior to making that choice.

Even so, things change. At least one of them ended up leaving and getting married… We don’t always know what life holds for us.

Ultimately, all of the women I knew did a great deal of pastoral ministry (though there was no recognition of this in so many words), and most all of them could easily show up Piper, MD and the rest with their knowledge – broad, deep and eminently practical – of theology, the Bible, church history and, most important of all, loving and caring for others in a Christlike way. They’re as human as the next person, but have led lives that guys like the above-named can’t even begin to contemplate as something they could do themselves. That’s mainly because it would involve getting off their high horses and just living as normal people.

Anon 1 wrote:

To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

Isn’t it possible that the same be said for the men at The Gospel Coalition?

@ Steven:

“I was actually in Orlando when a certain “Study Bible” was launched.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just make sure you’re not there for the launch of The BBQers Devotional Bible, The ESV Football Bible, and especially not the Scuba Divers Study Bible.

Any day now.

Read a book written by a woman, but not sit in a room where that same woman talks about her book? Sounds very Matthew 23:24 to me – “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

As for me, I like reading and listening to what smart people have to say, women or men: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/i-am-the-1-why-a-man-reads-a-womens-blog/

Cheers,
Tim

elastigirl wrote:

Just make sure you’re not there for the launch of The BBQers Devotional Bible, The ESV Football Bible, and especially not the Scuba Divers Study Bible.
Any day now.

Ha, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. I could almost predict the names of those who would write the endoresements.

@ dee:
If so, may his tribe increase! I wish him all the best.

@ numo:

Oh, my, I said that very poorly and I apologize. What I was meaning to address is that there is an idea abroad that no woman would commit herself to any religious vocation, secular profession or anything else other than stay at home mom if, in fact, she could avoid doing so. I should not have used the word nun in that context. That said, I interned at a catholic hospital and had some very bad experiences with some sisters (we all did). Some of the sisters were the ones who so resented women in medicine. That is no excuse for me to generalize about people in any vocation, and I am sincerely sorry for my terminology and attitude and carelessness.

@ Nancy: also, i don’t know of any other lay people who had the chances i did via living with ‘the girls,’ as they liked to call themselves. it was unusual, then and now.

JeffT wrote:

Anon 1 wrote:

Clay Crouch wrote:
To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So
To it ions of authobe fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.
</blockquote

I'd like to hear Wade on this. IIRC, Wade's church is SBC, so women ministers are verboten- a very recent policy instituted by Mohler and his flunkies. This was followed by a purge of women professors from affiliated seminaries and positions of authority in SBC organizations worthy of Stalin.

JeffT, It is really strange. Some SBC associations will kick out a church for having a woman pastor but not a church that protects child molesters. And what is being kicked out anyway? They refuse a churches money? that is all it is–churches give money to the cooperative program and local associations.

@ Val:

Part of the problem is that in today’s Christian economy seminary training and intellectual gain is replacing the real qualifications for those who are called to teach. Older (more life experiences), wiser (does not necessarily equate to education, but might), good character to wide community, are not things you usually find in a young seminary graduate.

@ Beakerj:

elastigirl wrote:

@ dee:

“I can’t help but think fear of boobs has something to do with it.”

beaker wrote:

“I totally gigglesnorted at this: in that case I am an object of terror. TERROR I tell you”
++++++++++++++

I hope your shoulders are back and you carry them with confidence & head held high.

Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

I think that is quite uncharitable – to say the very least.

I know that a certain commenter who will go unnamed is in moderation mode right now.
I also know the quote I have above is waaaaaay up this thread somewhere.
But I’m still shaking my head at what he said.

Piper’s views on women are quite uncharitable. His views on the importance of God’s sovereignty far and above God’s other great qualities, like love, mercy, and justice… those views are quite uncharitable.
And his views on marriage and divorce where spousal abuse is involved… those views are completely devoid of anything that halfway resembles charity.

So I’m shaking my head.

Who started this uncharitable fest? (if in fact we are really being all that uncharitable here.)

Who?

None other than Piper
May his charitiless gender/sovereignty gospel have a great fall and never recover.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, commenter whom I will not name.

Anon 1 wrote:

JeffT wrote:
Anon 1 wrote:
Clay Crouch wrote:
To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So
To it ions of authobe fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.
</blockquote

JeffT, It is really strange. Some SBC associations will kick out a church for having a woman pastor but not a church that protects child molesters. And what is being kicked out anyway? They refuse a churches money? that is all it is–churches give money to the cooperative program and local associations.

It’s mind boggling. Especially when you consider that the SBC allows Calvinism, a theology completely opposed to their traditional Baptist theology, yet they propagate a War on Women.

Deb –

I listened to that entire clip of Piper’s response. The entire response laced with Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” while being taught by a woman face to face. I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.

The other thing that I noted is that he misquoted the scripture every time he said it. It says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man . . . ” He said over ‘men’ every time he said it, as if this scripture was meant to convey a context of a woman teaching men. It’s quite possibe that Paul was replying to a specific situation of a certain woman and certain man. Piper changes the meaning of the text by using the plural form of man.

Bridget wrote:

listened to that entire clip of Piper’s response. The entire response laced with Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” while being taught by a woman face to face. I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.

Yep, very good.
And not only does he not care one iota about how an abused wife is feeling, he also has the gall to define what ‘sweet’ should look like or feel like for women.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/02/men-defining-sweet-for-women.html

@ Bridget:

“…Piper being concerned with what the man might be “feeling” and “experiencing” … I find it odd that Piper appeals so often to the feelings and experiences of men, especially in light of the fact that he says a woman should accept abuse for a night at the hands of a man. He doesn’t seem concerned one iota about the feelings and experiences of a woman being abused. He certainly doesn’t speak of a concern for the woman’s feelings or experiences.”
+++++++++++++++

it’s like, handle men with kid gloves. (obviously no such concern for women)

he really paints a picture of male fragility. this can’t be what he wants to be doing.

I know some great men, who are both strong and very kind & sensitive. But I have to say…. women are tough.

Nancy wrote:

Clay Crouch wrote:
I think it would be interesting to know how many of the commenters (including Dee & Deb) attend a church or would have no problem attending one that has a woman for its lead pastor.
Count me in the group. The lead (and only) pastor at my church is a woman. In fact, she is a woman married to a high school principal and they have two young children. She is also smart, petit, athletic and attractive, just in case anybody thought she was a nun or something. And she is a Duke grad, I add for the benefit of D/D and the folks over in the eastern part of the state. Of course, I am a Methodist, gloriously saved from my prior live in evangelicalism by no less a one than Himself.

W00T! A fellow Duke Div grad! HOORAY! 🙂

Eagle wrote:

Why are the comments on the new thread closed?

I’d like to know that as well.

Janey wrote:

KR Wordgazer wrote:
Who is guilty of burying a woman’s talent– the woman, or the church authority who forbid her to use it?
KRW,
My answer is “both.” Certain teachings within the church hold women back, and women hold themselves back. Have you read Sheryl Sandberg’s book _Lean In_? She’s the COO of Facebook. She blames both, and has caught a lot of flack for it, but in my world I see it every day. I’ve been looking for someone who describes it well. She nails it.
For devout women, I agree. It’s a big factor. After my very-necessary divorce I realized I’d been freed from those rules: I was that now — as a single mother — able to do what I really loved: work in a profession that uses my gifts to the fullest.

When someone has been taught to believe that using their talent is sin against God, they are really in a Catch-22, then. God is going to hold them responsible for burying their talent but also for using it in violation of their own consciences.

I don’t believe God is harsh like that.

@ Muff Potter:

They can claim that of course, but I used to be a gender complementarian, until I got to around my mid or late 30s, and prior to that, I had off and on doubts about it from around my mid or late 20s.

It was a study of Scripture (there are examples in the Bible of women who did, with God’s approval, lead and teach men), and seeing all the inconsistencies of how it is taught and practiced by self professing gender complementarians that caused me to abandon it. 🙂 Not feminism, but the Bible itself and gender comps themselves that caused me to see the problems with it.

androidninja wrote:

A little bit unrelated, but I’ve been chuckling for a couple of days over this:
http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-womens-devotional-bible-hccase/
Crossway has, IMO, been promoting itself as an anti-Zondervan of sorts, only to fall into the same trap with hyper-specialized Bibles. I can only imagine what the Men’s Devotional Bible would look like.

Good call! I loved this line: “These contributors include professors, musicians, authors, counselors, homemakers, and conference speakers.”

Despite the fact that nearly 70% of women with children under 18 work, there are no professionals, sales people, doctors, lawyers, managers, etc.

I believe speech is what we’re doing here.

KR Wordgazer wrote:

When someone has been taught to believe that using their talent is sin against God, they are really in a Catch-22, then. God is going to hold them responsible for burying their talent but also for using it in violation of their own consciences.

Yeh, I see your point. I was simply trying to out-proof-text the proof-texters who cherry pick Scripture.

Oh, crud. Deb, wanna hear something funny? I ran the mixing board in the sound booth for a women’s conference at my then church once! I was certainly the “most eligible bachelor” at that conference, to be sure. Uh, this was before I got married, of course. And, my future wife was not in attendance. I not only heard the conference, I made cassette tape copies afterward.

D.A. Carson in one of his books (Exegetical Fallacies) goes out of his way to give props to Linda Belleville (his former student and Evangelical feminist par excellence) for changing his mind about the interpretation of John 3:5. It’s obvious he respects her exegetical skills even though she comes down totally different on women’s roles.

He is another one I wonder about. Either he and Keller just totally change their tune depending on who they are talking to or working with, or they are conflicted.

Christy wrote:

Bridget wrote:
Mara wrote:
Off-topic, but not too far off.
For those who haven’t seen it yet:
http://juniaproject.com/response-complementarian-view-of-women/
Thanks for that link, Mara. It was great. I went to the original article by Strachen
For all of you ladies who enjoy occasional rage surfing, Owen Strachan is always a good bet. My favorite was when he said in a radio interview that he was sick and tired of all these women complaining that they couldn’t use their gifts in the Church. If you are so bent on preaching and teaching, then go off to the foreign mission field where you can use your gifts all you want, you don’t belong in leadership in the Church. Right. Because the mission field isn’t about the real “Church”? Maybe brown illiterate men’s inferior masculinity isn’t strained by listening to a woman teach? They evidently don’t care about job competition or faithfulness to the Bible’s authority structures where you get malaria and live without running water. It was the most covertly racist thing I heard all year.

Good grief!! Do you have a link to that radio show? How does he get there, really? The amount of cognitive dissonance that you would have to have to get there is unthinkable, to me anyway . . .

I can hardly bear to listen or read what that man has to say. It grates on me.

Christy wrote:

If you are so bent on preaching and teaching, then go off to the foreign mission field where you can use your gifts all you want, you don’t belong in leadership in the Church. Right. Because the mission field isn’t about the real “Church”?

I asked this somewhere before, maybe at Spiritual Sounding Board blog, but…

For these men who are anti women preachers, etc, but who are okay with women teaching/preaching to men overseas:

Okay. So they’re fine with an American Christian female preaching to guys in let’s say African nations.

Suppose a Christian woman from an African nation is sent as a missionary to preach/lead American men?

It seems to me that the guys who are fine with American women preaching/leading overseas are making her nationality, not her gender the primary issue… which means, they are not so much concerned with a woman leading/preaching to men as they are they are (if you get down to it) against an American woman leading/preaching to men.

If they are hunky dory with US women preaching to African guys, they should be just find with Christian Non American women coming to America to lead/preach to American men, yes? That’s where their logic leads.