Dee,

I believe it’s Rachel Miller who writes The Daughter of the Reformation website.
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/author/rachelmiller97/

Jared says:

But if complementarians can prove that there is a hierarchy in the immanent (ontological) Trinity, then they win, for if a hierarchy exists among the Three Persons of God, and these Three Persons are equally God, then surely God can create men and women equal yet with differing roles in the church and home.

Here Jared comes out and says this is a game or it is a contest or it is war. Because “they win” if they can prove a hierarchy within the Trinity. But, actually, that does not prove anything at all about human relationships. They have begged the question and called it a win.

He even admits as much when he says “then surely God can create men and women equal yet with differing roles in the church and home”(emphasis mine.) That God *can* do something is no proof at all that he actually *did* what he *can* do.

As always, apologies for funky punctuation and HTML.

It seems to me that, according to hard-core complementarians, women cannot be like Jesus because women have to be as the church while men get to be like Jesus except when it comes to Jesus being subordinate to the Father, then women can be like Jesus and men can be like God.

However, Jesus became human and demonstrated obedience to God to show us (i.e. all human beings of all genders)how to be in relation to God and what it truly means to be a human being.

‘Brother, let me be your servant,
Let me be as Christ to you.
Pray that I may have the grace to
Let you be my servant too.’

The Servant Song by Richard Gillard

I think the place to start to understand the Trinity is to learn the Shema. :o)

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
What do they win?

Sanctified testosterone.

Nancy2 wrote:

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
What do they win?

Sanctified testosterone.

No fair…..this made me laugh while drinking coffee….several kleenexes later… 😉

Lydia wrote:

What do they win?

A god made in their own image?

He sounds like a school boy on the playground . . .

John 8:36
“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Unless you are a woman. If you are a woman, there is no freedom for you, ever.

And, btw, how does the Son make free if he Himself is not free?

——-

I find myself feeling grave darkness reading about this ‘doctrine.’ These people feel themselves powerful enough to define to God who he is? They have gone beyond what is written. They are making up crafty words of deceit as they go along, with no apparent consciousness of God’s possible disapproval. Perhaps they think he has gone on a long journey and left them in charge? They don’t seem to have any fear of him returning.

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” 2Peter 2:1

Gus wrote:

All this scheming by the female subordinationist crowd is so intellectually bankrupt and morally repugnant that it wouldn’t even deserve an answer if large numbers of small men hadn’t been seduced by it.
The one motive of fundamentalists of any kind…the fear of women no longer obeying them. The fear of women empowered to say “No”.

During the recent Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood conference, a young woman tweeted that at least they had gathered together all of the men in one place that she would NEVER consider dating!

@ siteseer:
It would be a real education to see life through their eyes for a few minutes, wouldn’t it? To see just what threat they feel they’re facing that needs this solution?

Hi Dee,

Thanks for linking my post. Yes, I am the author at Daughter of the Reformation.

Nancy2 wrote:

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
What do they win?

Sanctified testosterone.

LOL!

Feeling like a big boy with big boy britches on.

Christiane wrote:

his

I am not seeing an innate desire to control ‘one another’ in the account. The effect listed for Eve is her turning from God to Adam.

Not trying to control him but actually giving him what should have been reserved for God. That is why Adam rules her. She sinfully desired it.

Teshuqa was translated as turning until about the 1300’s.

The so-called Covenant of Redemption that Carl Trueman believes exists rests upon the subordination of the Son to the Father–as I understand it. Here’s an interesting article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html

They can dress it up any way they like but men & women are equal – in every way. It has been a hard battle throughout the 20th century from the time women got the vote up until contemporary times with “equal work for equal pay”.
In some fields the battle still wages and in some countries, it can cost a woman her life.

These men don’t live in the real world. At my work, try telling the Medical Officer, a qualified MD with years of experience, a woman who makes life & death decisions regarding the treatment of patients, to be subordinate to some 20 odd year old pastor who can barely shave.

What young woman is going to sign on for this? I mean, if she hasn’t been raised in it? And even young women who have been raised in it – what damage does it do? What damage does it do to young men raised in such an environment?

There is nothing good about comple-subjugation-ism. I don’t care what’s in the bible or what’s not in the bible.

Once again, this is the fundamentalist desire to go back to the “good old days”, that golden age that never was.

Something odd is going on over at the CBMW website. We critiqued an article at the site called Soap Bubble Submission. However the link has gone dead.

I’m glad you linked to your critique, which includes the text, above. It’s an example of how something can be mistaken for parody without the authors or the followers being aware of that. Here’s the TWW link again:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/03/30/john-piper-and-the-cbmw-soap-opera-lady-demonstrate-why-complementarians-can-be-naive-and-dangerous/

“The original use of that word took its cue from the biblical teaching about the differences yet complementarity of human beings made in the image of God while not running away from the challenges of applying biblical exhortations for wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord or the prohibition on ordination for women in the church.”

I read this the other day, but I want to point out that his entire definition of complementarityistism is based on the women side of the equation. Shows you the woman submit part is legit the most important thing.

Lydia wrote:

It wouldn’t work without women going along. They need to be better theologians.

I think that Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller are evidence that a sound education, especially in theology, *and* a willingness to investigate and be a Berean can make a real difference. The thing that gives me hope that this heretical and very damaging nonsense can be turned back is that there is a generation of young women who are equipped (and I do not mean that in the 9Marks sense) to study and teach. I know two youngish women who started out in this and have seen the error. They are now theological teachers. And conservative!

Patriciamc wrote:

what is with their obsession with controlling women? I’ve never understood this.

If someone feels weak and lacks a sense of control or a sense of significance, then there is an overwhelming need to control other people. Cluster B theology.

If “proving” that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father supports their claim that women are eternally subordinate to men, wouldn’t it also indicate eternal subordination of sons, in general, to fathers, in general?

From the ever-blessed Wayback Machine internet archive comes the original article on “Soap Bubble Submission” by Martha Peace, via an online capture of March 6, 2016:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160306075124/http://cbmw.org/topics/wives-mothers/soap-bubbles-submission/

mot wrote:

K.D. wrote:

If I was a female, how could I be a member of a church that would have me as a second class citizen of heaven? How do this ( insert bad word) even know there will be male/ female in the eternity? They don’t….

If I was a female, I would vote with my feet not attending or supporting any church that espouses such nonsense.

I left the sbc over the 15 male pastors on every program and I didn’t even realize how crazy they had gotten! Talking to a lady the other day about a woman who left a local huge baptist church because of some nonsense they said about women. So I think it’s happening, but maybe not fast enough.

Once you realize you can leave church it becomes much easier…

Nancy2 wrote:

If “proving” that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father supports their claim that women are eternally subordinate to men, wouldn’t it also indicate eternal subordination of sons, in general, to fathers, in general?

I think your point hints at a paradigm issue that is crucial to understand; there is an underlying epistemology mode of processing information that hyper-categorizes. It seems the more deeply you believe things must be classified, the more pervasive the categorizing becomes, and with it, control — which naturally leads to hierarchy. There’s always one category that is divinely designed to control/cover the other.

So, it isn’t just men overlording women, it’s old versus young, leaders versus laypeople, church versus state/culture (there is no theology about Christians willingly letting state/culture trump Church is there?), homelanders versus foreigners …

At the extreme end of this kind of thinking process, it then looks like Bill Gothard’s “umbrellas of protection” where a certain class “covers” the one below it and mediates for them to the one above it. This is the espresso of the Shepherding Movement for leaders over laity and of Patriarchalism for men over women and adults over children.

If you take such adherents at the logical conclusion of their thinking systems, there is no such thing as “one-another” between classes, only within one category.

Final thought: Get to the bottom of what seems to be motivating this and it is FEAR. Not “fear of God” in the sense of respect for His awe and majesty and power. But fear as in angst of falling short, fear things will go wrong, fear because things “should” be perfect.

And, according to authoritative Scripture, what is fear the opposite of? Love.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4:18, NIV, Biblegateway

Hierarchicalists love correctness and control, but law is not love, and fear does not change hearts.

@ Gram3:
Sadly, there are few places for them to go. And to speak up means that they lose their social status in that world. And if their husbands have bought into this Doctrine and they are immersed in that world, it can be a tough place for them.

Lydia wrote:

I think it was VP? The Deebs offered to buy a phone for his church.

Moore was the VP when he was nominated for president.

@ Nancy2:
I am so behind! lol!

Jack wrote:

They can dress it up any way they like but men & women are equal – in every way. It has been a hard battle throughout the 20th century from the time women got the vote up until contemporary times with “equal work for equal pay”.
In some fields the battle still wages and in some countries, it can cost a woman her life.
These men don’t live in the real world. At my work, try telling the Medical Officer, a qualified MD with years of experience, a woman who makes life & death decisions regarding the treatment of patients, to be subordinate to some 20 odd year old pastor who can barely shave.
What young woman is going to sign on for this? I mean, if she hasn’t been raised in it? And even young women who have been raised in it – what damage does it do? What damage does it do to young men raised in such an environment?

I’m giving you a high-five on all points.

This is one of your better posts Dee!!
It contributes toward exposing the bizarre/arrogant/superficial think of this crowd…. I am also felt wondering why they have come up with their weird, dare I say heretical concept of “Eternally submissive whatever” ??
Further, their arguments for it are so weak!

Something odd is going on over at the CBMW website. We critiqued an article at the site called Soap Bubble Submission. However the link has gone dead. Now, I am sure the transparent folks over at CBMW would never remove an article unless they explained why. This must be an accident and I hope it goes back up soon since it give us insight into their views on gender relationships.

If you all are going to poke around on the CBMW site, be careful because you might get cooties and will need shots. Spray yourself down with a very feminine perfume and invoke the power of your Ecclesiastical Estrogen, and you should be okay.

Nancy2 wrote:

If “proving” that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father supports their claim that women are eternally subordinate to men, wouldn’t it also indicate eternal subordination of sons, in general, to fathers, in general?

There you go again injecting logic where it is unwelcome and inconvenient. Yes, it should mean that sons are eternally subordinate to their fathers. How Eternal Son gets morphed into wife/female in their flawgic (love that!) is beyond my little female brain.

It looks like the neo-cal darling Babylon Bee is getting some flack for making fun of Jan Crouch after her death.

Questions: Does Gruden present ESS in his book on systematic theology? Is this what is being taught in SBC seminaries?

Complementarians believe that God has created whites and blacks as equal image-bearers of God, yet with differing roles in the church and society. Many, however, balk at this notion arguing that a hierarchy in the church or society necessarily means that one race is less valuable than the other. But if we can prove that there is a hierarchy in the immanent (ontological) Trinity, then they win, for if a hierarchy exists among the Three Persons of God, and these Three Persons are equally God, then surely God can create whites and blacks equal yet with differing roles in the church and society.

Thanks, Russ!

Patriciamc wrote:

It looks like the neo-cal darling Babylon Bee is getting some flack for making fun of Jan Crouch after her death.

Good. I saw that post and it was in incredibly bad taste. Like picking today to make jokes about Mohammed Ali’s stutter.

Sites like that only work when you are making fun of your own group, because you have an affection that comes through the satire. When they make jokes about people they clearly don’t like or respect it turns mean and not funny.

FW Rez wrote:

Questions: Does Gruden present ESS in his book on systematic theology? Is this what is being taught in SBC seminaries?

Yes and Yes.

Ahh….I hate to bring up this Biblical truth…but Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven….that means there is NO subordination of women to men, period. The NT never says women are to submit to all men in general, just to their husband in particular. If in heaven there is no marriage, then there is no submission. Period. Get over it, guys…in heaven you will finally respect the female species that will worship God with you.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
It looks like the neo-cal darling Babylon Bee is getting some flack for making fun of Jan Crouch after her death.
I read the Babylon Bee post–I think it satirized the belief system that held her captive much more than made fun of her. I felt it saw her as a victim, though certainly her actions hurt others with that belief system.

Someone recently posted that the Babylon Bee is written by one of the editors at one of the big conservative Gospel organizations. Does anyone recall the rest of the details?

Lea wrote:

I left the sbc over the 15 male pastors on every program and I didn’t even realize how crazy they had gotten! Talking to a lady the other day about a woman who left a local huge baptist church because of some nonsense they said about women. So I think it’s happening, but maybe not fast enough.
Once you realize you can leave church it becomes much easier…

The SBC lost a whopping 200,000 living members last year, fed up with these bizarre teachings.

I wonder if the NeoCalvinists/Comps will ever *man up* and rightfully take the blame for it?

I was unaware that the Babylon Bee was a NeoCal darling–they have had great posts mocking Piper and Mohler in the past.

Lydia wrote:

Velour wrote:

During the recent Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood conference, a young woman tweeted that at least they had gathered together all of the men in one place that she would NEVER consider dating!

Priceless!

Things have changed. Now the worst place to meet a potential life mate is at church.

The guy I’m seeing does bible reading in the morning and the crazy thing is I have to wonder if I should be alarmed!

@ brad/futuristguy:

Well, not so much, given the significantly different normal levels of the particular hormones in males and females, which levels of course vary over time not forgetting the impacts of puberty and menopause and chronological age. I think the argument of she has testosterone and he has estrogen does not fly very far because there are too many variables.

brgulker wrote:

Throughout the OT, YHWH refers to “us” and in the context of the ancient near East, it should be read as referring to a sort of divine pantheon, of which YHWH is the most powerful.

So, given that the OT clearly shows that the ancient Israelites believed that there were multiple gods and they sometimes worshipped them, and given that The Most High God forbade them to do that, do you think that there actually are ‘other gods’ as opposed to the modern idea that there really are not other gods per se but only some people’s emotional attachment to other ideas? When Israel was to hear that the Lord our God is One, did that mean-does it mean only that the God of Israel is One or did it mean that there is only one god at all anywhere and anyhow?

I may not be the best person to judge the boundaries of satire–I liked the Wittenburg Door a lot when it was in print.

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
Matt Smethurst
see http://babylonbee.com/news/author/matt-smethurst/. Definitely a connection.

Thanks, KenF.

From Babylon Bee website:
“Matt Smethurst serves as managing editor for The Gospel Coalition. He and his wife, Maghan, have two kids and live in Louisville, Kentucky.”

@ brad/futuristguy:

[/satire]

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I was unaware that the Babylon Bee was a NeoCal darling–they have had great posts mocking Piper and Mohler in the past.

I laughed at many Babylon Bee spoofs and they were well done. But they have gotten much edgier, nastier and generated much more criticism especially on Twitter for not openly stating their backers in The Gospel Coalition and that BB protects their own darlings.

mot wrote:

I wonder what these scholars have to say about the woman at the well? She immediately left Jesus to go and tell the men in the village she was from.

Probably the men were Reformed, told her to hush, and get into the kitchen and ” rattle some pots and pans….”

WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

on the co-existence of masculine/feminine qualities in an individual that individuals need to consider and cultivate, Tim Keller has actually made that point in a sermon a few years ago.

“humandrogynous.”

The co-cultivation of characteristics has come up off and on for a long time over the past 40 years that I’ve been occasionally checking the pulse of that principle and its application. But, seems a key issue continues to be whether there are specific characteristics/qualities that are *essential* masculine and feminine, or whether they are *constructed*. So, that’s something to watch for in how the author addresses the “psychological androgyny” issue.

Velour wrote:

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
I was unaware that the Babylon Bee was a NeoCal darling–they have had great posts mocking Piper and Mohler in the past.
I laughed at many Babylon Bee spoofs and they were well done. But they have gotten much edgier, nastier and generated much more criticism especially on Twitter for not openly stating their backers in The Gospel Coalition and that BB protects their own darlings.

Sarah on Twitter just tweeted me that Adam Ford is also behind Babylon Bee:
http://adam4d.com/

@ FW Rez:
http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-the-historic-doctrine-of-the-church/

Check this out written in 2011 on a popular SBC pastors blog. Miller links ESS to the Nicene Creed!

I agree with Gram on Knight but think Grudem popularized ESS as orthodoxy with his ST and his book on feminism for the evangelical masses. Ware and Burk were the other academic water carriers.

brgulker wrote:

Throughout the OT, YHWH refers to “us” and in the context of the ancient near East, it should be read as referring to a sort of divine pantheon, of which YHWH is the most powerful.

Does the whole pantheon have an image, then, that man was to be created in?

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I was unaware that the Babylon Bee was a NeoCal darling–they have had great posts mocking Piper and Mohler in the past.

They are very careful. And Mahaney is a gold mine. Do you see much on him?

Velour wrote:

Nate Sparks (blogger) just tweeted me this about Babylon Bee:
“I’ve heard Matt Smethurst who is executive editor for TGC is attached to it.”

Can anyone else confirm if TGC is behind Babylon Bee?

Of the Third Ave Baptist Church here…which I cannot figure out how they pay such a large staff of YRR guys? SBC YRR job core?

Lydia wrote:

@ Lea:
Don’t pay attention to me, I was thinking what we used to hear as teens from older people.

These days, It really seems to have more to do with the groupthink in your church on gifting…whether it is gender based or not.

I hope he is a good guy for you!

He’s been good so far, I’m not actually weeding people out because they do go to church! I just have more concerns now than I used to, because I know this weirdness is out there and there’s pretty much no way it would work for me.

@ Lea:
You should! You go, girl!

Lydia wrote:

Btw, the most quoted passage out of scripture to “prove” ESS is astonishingly, 1st Corinthians 11.
There are others but that one has been quoted to death when it comes to ESS. And it does not work at all with Greek grammar. I honestly believe they think we are totally stupid and will believe whatever they teach us.

This.

mirele wrote:

Their framework also doesn’t know how to handle single women (widowed, divorced, never married). I don’t have a man to uphold and guard my equality. I think I’m pretty good on doing that by myself.

Yep. That too.

I just get annoyed that the comp women defend the theory by saying ‘my husband is cool’ and the men defend it by saying ‘I’m cool’.

When everything goes well everything is ok is not a good reason to support a theory! Things often go wrong.

ION:

I am working, this evening, on a CV for Lesley as she applies for a particular job here in central Scotland.

Message to Micros**t Word spell-checker:

“ORGANISATIONS” DOES NOT HAVE A ZED IN IT !!!!!!”

IHTIH…

mirele wrote:

Yes it does, in American English. Check your settings, you may have accidentally switched over to the American settings

Don’t think I haven’t tried that. Extensively.

Part of the problem is that this is Word for Mac, which is somewhat more relentlessly Americanised / Americanized than ordinary Micros**t Word.

I’ve repeatedly set the language to English (UK) in the Tools menu. But still it’s infatuated with spurious zeds.

Sigh.

#FirstWorldProblems

Here is an excellent video on the subject by Kevin Giles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_mYvbgcKE

Giles has also written a couple of good books on the subject.

okrapod wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’ve repeatedly set the language to English (UK) in the Tools menu. But still it’s infatuated with spurious zeds.
In its heart your computer knows that we are right.

Nick,

Since you started a gospely-gospely ministry, in direct competition with Pound Sand Ministries (TM) started recently here on TWW by a poster (and I appointed myself
in the slot on online merchandising for PSM), your computer MAY be remotely controlled
from across The Pond.

Sincerely,

Your Competition

siteseer wrote:

Velour wrote:
Sarah on Twitter just tweeted me that Adam Ford is also behind Babylon Bee:
http://adam4d.com/
Here’s a little more, Washington Post did an article on them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/04/fake-news-thats-good-for-the-soul/

Thanks for that link. Good article.

On a side note, I’m glad that Adam Ford was candid in the article about being treated for anxiety and clinical depression with medication. He would have made zero improvement, in my opinion, with Nouthetic Counseling/Biblical Counseling, with unlicensed pastors/elders throwing Scripture verses at major medical problems.

Jack wrote:

@ okrapod:
The clowns in this act are saying all women. Are subordinate. All. Doctors, engineers (both train operators & the designing kind),cops,welders,pilots,astronauts,nurses,homemakers,seamtresses,lab techs,clerks. All. Bar none. You missed my point completely. Bully for you. Your pastor’s awesome. Your church is awesome. I don’t understand the offense. I’m no longer Christian so maybe my lingo filters don’t work anymore.

The way I took it was more along the lines of her not minding deferring to a younger pastor,(of course she will have to speak for herself) and I agree in the sense that I don’t mind deferring to someone who knows more about a specific topic than I do – sort of a specialist way to look at things? But that is assuming I have personally vetted said pastor and agree with/trust them.

Original post:

He seems to claim that those messing with this doctrine are, in essence, making Christianity seem more like Islam.

I’ve been noticing for a long time now that some strains of complementarianism sound like some strains of Islam – and at times, some complementarians adopt Mormon-esque attitudes and teachings, too.

As such, gender complementarianism does not free women, but constrains them, just as much as some world religions and cults do.

Jesus said his yoke was light, but complementarians, who keep multiplying all these gender rules, lay even more and heavier yokes upon women.

A year or more ago, Julie Anne (at Spiritual Sounding Board) had a post quoting a Christian man (I can’t remember who) who actually lamented that Christians are not more like Muslims concerning how they treat women.

The Christian guy was discussing how some Muslims are way more strict about women than Christians are, and this guy thought this was admirable, which I found stunning. Why doesn’t that guy just convert to Islam already, since he finds their oppression of women so admirable?

Someone made a quiz awhile back, with quotes by members of ISIS and ones by Christian complementarians. Your task was to figure out who said which quote, a Muslim ISIS guy or a Christian? It was pretty hard to tell which apart.

ISIS’ All-Female Manifesto Tells 9-Year-Old Girls to Marry Jihadis; Women to Be Hidden Inside ‘Cell in the House’
http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-all-female-manifesto-tells-9-year-old-girls-to-marry-jihadis-women-to-be-hidden-inside-cell-in-the-house-133737/

—start article quote———
by A. Kumar

“The [ISIS] treatise is the first such document of its kind, and fundamentally misogynist claiming that the role of women is “divinely” limited, says Quilliam, which translated the text into English.”

“….The [ISIS gender role] manifesto stresses on the importance of motherhood and family support, and attempts to convince that it’s a fundamental necessity for women to have a sedentary lifestyle, and that her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house, except in a few narrowly defined circumstances, Quilliam noted. Indeed, this is her “divinely appointed right.”

“…the [ISIS] document explains that the primary duty of Western women who join the terror group is to marry a jihadi, then spend their life cooking, cleaning and raising a family.”
——end article quote———-

It goes on and on like that. The ISIS manifesto sounds the same as what hard core complementarians teach about women. I would hope that complementarians would find this embarrassing and worrisome.

Daisy wrote:

Someone made a quiz awhile back, with quotes by members of ISIS and ones by Christian complementarians. Your task was to figure out who said which quote, a Muslim ISIS guy or a Christian? It was pretty hard to tell which apart.

Someone should make a Comp bingo card, if it hasn’t been done already and post it.
It would be hysterical.

Jack wrote:

The clowns in this act are saying all women. Are subordinate. All. Doctors, engineers (both train operators & the designing kind),cops,welders,pilots,astronauts,nurses,homemakers,seamtresses,lab techs,clerks.

That was my experience at a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite Comp-teaching church:
Women were to obey and submit, and we were told that by the pastors/elders and husbands had the “final say” and “final authority” over everything.

My pastors/elders even put their friend a Megan’s List sex offender in a position of leadership, over trusted, godly women with Ph.D.’s and no felony convictions.

@ Daisy:
I don’t know why that post of mine quoted two people in it. Strange! I meant to only quote siteseer in it, but I found Velour’s quote of some lady very funny.

@ okrapod:
Ah. I see it now. No, I’m railing against inequality, not qualifications. Now if folks had an issue with a senior pastor being female then I have a problem.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I’ve repeatedly set the language to English (UK) in the Tools menu. But still it’s infatuated with spurious zeds.

Imperialist zeds!

Lydia wrote:

@ Oh, And they are not allowed to tell me how I should vote. :o)

I have a dream……

Ha! Good luck with that. The liberal and conservative churches both have a hard time shutting up about politics!

Ot, is gateway in tx Calvinist? Friend that goes there was posting Calvin quotes the other day. Ugh.

@ Lydia:
Equality for me means equal value as a person. Affirmative action as I understood it was/is having a man & woman apply for the same job in a male dominated field with equal qualifications & the woman being selected. I don’t think that needs to apply to the faith. I’m not starting a debate on this blog about the merits or not regarding affirmative action so please don’t go there.

@ Jack:
Sorry the “don’t go there” came out a little abruptly. I just meant to everyone in general that this may not be the best venue for that topic. I’m digging myself into a hole aren’t I?

Jack wrote:

What young woman is going to sign on for this? I mean, if she hasn’t been raised in it? And even young women who have been raised in it – what damage does it do? What damage does it do to young men raised in such an environment?

You’re on to something there. I was raised in complementarianism, but suspected at some stage during my teen years it was bunk.

I didn’t break away from complementarianism completely until about my mid-30s.

Complementarians are not, IMO, going to draw many new female converts to the faith.

Most women find complementarianism nothing but sexism with Bible jargon tossed into the mix (which is an accurate appraisal of it). I think that is especially true for women who were not raised in Christianity (especially secular or agnostic women).

Interestingly (and sadly) there are some atheists on You Tube with videos who share complementarian interpretations of Paul’s comments, or other parts of the Bible.

The atheist in such videos will read straight from the text (‘I forbid a woman to teach,’ etc), slam the Bible close, and proudly declare to the viewer how “sexist” the Christian faith is, all based on something like that.

You have some atheists reading the Bible in the same manner that complementarians do.

I would guess that at this point, your complementarian will then try to convince the atheist (or the non-complementarian Christian) that no, it’s all well and good that Paul was not down with women teaching, because women are equal in value!!

I cannot quite explain it, but that complementarian fall back, the “equal in value just not in roles!,” that cliche’, is so hollow and such an obvious white-wash of what complementarianism is really all about, I think complementarians should feel embarrassed to use that rationalization or catch phrase anymore.

The complementarian “equal in worth not in role” is also not true.

It’s not true because complementarians are limiting women based on a trait that a woman can never, ever change, unlike…

For instance, a Private in the Army who can work his way up to General, or the employee in the mail room, who can earn more college credits and eventually become CEO one day.

However, nothing a woman can do – earn more college degrees, work harder, or whatever – will ever get her permission by the comps to be a preacher or teacher.

She will always be forbidden based on one issue only or primarily: her biological sex, which is female.
Therefore, complementarianism does not support the notion that women are equal in worth. So I really wish complementarians would stop it with that.

If you are a complementarian, and you want me to think you really think women are equal in worth, then put your money where your mouth is, and allow women the same opportunities you’d give to men. Anything else is clever, disingenuous rhetoric to try to hide what is really going on.

@ Jack:
Sorry Jack! I am so used to the comp accusations of egalitarianism being some form of matriarchy that I tend to automatically “go there”. I really do think it is about gifting not gender.

Daisy wrote:

Interestingly (and sadly) there are some atheists on You Tube with videos who share complementarian interpretations of Paul’s comments, or other parts of the Bible.
The atheist in such videos will read straight from the text (‘I forbid a woman to teach,’ etc), slam the Bible close, and proudly declare to the viewer how “sexist” the Christian faith is, all based on something like that.

And translators conveniently manipulated that passage for their own ends, to confine women. The Apostle Paul used “the woman” in that passage. He was referring to one woman who was teaching one man error. He wanted her to stop and learn correctly. The issue was not one about gender, but about error.

Comp-type promoting translators changed it to “a woman”.

@ Lydia:

Well, I was trying to avoid the reference to imperialism, but I think you’re right!

Lea wrote:

From the Mary kassan article: “Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so. ”
————–
(Lea remarked):
This to me is the fatal flaw in all of their arguments. They FAIL utterly when the husband is at all inclined to be authoritarian. Or abusive. Or even unkind. And their framework has no way to deal with this.

I’m a single woman, not married. I have to defend my own equality, because I don’t have a “Brent” to do so.

If your theology makes having a husband NECESSARY or crucial for something like that, not only is it not “biblical,” but something is terribly amiss.

I guess all the divorced or widowed women are also hosed over, since they don’t have husbands to defend their equality for them.

Does Mary Kassan loan her husband out to all the single ladies? Does she charge single women rates for borrowing her husband?

@ Marie:
Welcome, Marie!

So yes, I do think they misinterpret Eph. 5:21. How they get around “mutual submission” is by stating that vs 21 is a heading statement to the rest of the chapter. “Submit to one another” is specifically delineated by wives submitting, children obeying, slaves obeying. What I haven’t heard is how the husband’s love fits in to that view. Logically it would make sense that a husband’s love is a form of submission if they see vs. 21 as a preface verse. Nope.

From their point of view, the idea of mutual submission is truly not applicable to men unless they are slaves.

What these guys don’t realize is there is actually freedom and joy in letting go of control and authority!

Lydia wrote:

Grudem and co did a whack job on Eph 5:21. Based on their interpretation it seems that verse only applies to illiterate male natives of third world countries

Daisy wrote:

I think some of the Quiverfull families teach that a son (once he marries) is still under the father’s (patriarch’s) authority(?) and/or must live at the dad’s house(?).

I guess their bible is missing the passage about a man leaving his family, just like its missing the mutual submission one!

Daisy wrote:

. I was raised in complementarianism, but suspected at some stage during my teen years it was bunk.

When I was a teen I had a woman Sunday School teacher who was also a MD, specializing in eye surgeries. I learned a lot about Jesus and the bible from her and she was able to integrate science and medicine into her teaching. I respected her very much. Then one time she said that it was important to train boys to be leaders so that they could guide the church in the future. (Implying it was not a woman’s role) I think I was about 15 and I knew from her own example that this was BS. I remember asking my dad about this and him telling me that it was a man’s job to lead. She was the first Sunday School teacher that I had ever had that wasn’t a knucklehead. (A previous one told me that women have one more rib than men because Eve was created from Adam’s rib) This woman had great ability, but had to stifle her gifts because of the system she was trapped in. I know that this episode is what has caused me to advocate for women in the church.

Lydia wrote:

This is so true. One question I had for ESS proponents is where does the Holy Spirit fit in the Trinitarian hierarchy?

The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit resides in all believers. It doesn’t say that only men get the Holy Spirit.

The same Holy Spirit who resides in men resides in women, so when complementarians insist on limiting all Christian women every where for all time, they are basically saying (whether they mean to or not), that the Holy Spirit somehow changes once residing in a woman, and that God- the- Spirit becomes an ineffective, incompetent clown.

Patriciamc wrote:

If you all are going to poke around on the CBMW site, be careful because you might get cooties and will need shots. Spray yourself down with a very feminine perfume and invoke the power of your Ecclesiastical Estrogen, and you should be okay.

Or, she could use this
Pug Screen Cleaner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfl6wJsjDy4
🙂

Loren Haas wrote:

I remember asking my dad about this and him telling me that it was a man’s job to lead

I find myself feeling quite lucky my dad never had such notions!

For me, I was kind of ok with the male pastor thing, until it became 10-15 male ‘pastors’ on staff – which was a clear dividing line between men and women on staff that I did not like. Maybe I was more sensitive to this as my mom used to be on staff? Idk. But one male pastor? Eh, ok. But they’ve pushed it too far and I am just done.

I didn’t join a church for years and the one I attend now ordains women and had them at every level.

bea wrote:

What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off “complementarian” on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives.

Those are the ones with any sense.

The cop in this story is a woman, by the way:

‘She did a good job!’ Video captures Ontario cop taking down ‘unstable’ axe-wielding man
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/she-did-a-good-job-video-captures-ontario-cop-taking-down-unstable-axe-wielding-man

Stories like that must make John Piper want to cry into his breakfast cereal. Or they should.

@ abigail:

“If in heaven there is no marriage, then there is no submission. Period. Get over it, guys…in heaven you will finally respect the female species that will worship God with you.”
++++++++++++++++

but that would chafe at being comfortable and feeling secure, which is intolerable to a fragile ego. there’s only one thing to do: double down on doctrine inventions and invoke words like biblical, scriptural, gospel, and wayne grudem to let everyone they’ve won.

to save time, they should just make a set of 4 cards with each of these words, add a spiral binding for easy flipping, attach to a ping pong paddle and walk around with it flashing their “I WON” word.

I feel a new product coming on…. there’s a newly formed marketing department here, isn’t there? I say $19.95 each, with some kind of price drop if you buy in bulk for all your pastoral staff. another drop in price if you buy for all the men in your church. maybe a Father’s Day special…

what would we call it?

okrapod wrote:

I think the argument of she has testosterone and he has estrogen does not fly very far because there are too many variables.

But it still remains true that both sexes have each.

How do we define “complementary” in the dictionary?
“1. completing something else or making it better : serving as a complement; used of two things when each adds something to the other or helps to make the other better
2. going together well : working well together” (m-w.com)

It’s interesting to think of Grudem et al’s choice to use the word complementary in complementarianism. It sounds so good, but in reality, does complementarianism look like the definition?

“Completing something else”: I guess if men and women are viewed to be incomplete as singles and completeness is found in marriage. I beg to differ as we are complete in Christ and do not need completion/consummation in marriage to be whole persons.

“Making [something] better”: I guess the way that men in complementarianism would “make better” their wives is by exercising authority (of course some might admit to the need to love but that isn’t the primary argument); the wife primarily makes her husband better by submitting to him. If the headship/submission thing is off-kilter, there is really no point addressing other ways that the couple could benefit and complement each other.

And the third definition is “going well or working well together”. That definition only works if the hierarchy is in place in the comp worldview. Hierarchy is necessary for a marital relationship to truly work well and to truly honor God.

I say functionally egalitarian marriages would seem to be more complementary than functionally complementarian marriages.

Daisy wrote:

The same Holy Spirit who resides in men resides in women, so when complementarians insist on limiting all Christian women every where for all time, they are basically saying (whether they mean to or not), that the Holy Spirit somehow changes once residing in a woman, and that God- the- Spirit becomes an ineffective, incompetent clown.

They don’t seem to understand logic and reason.

Another thing I’m getting sick of hearing from the CBMW/T4G crowd is this “counter-cultural” hogwash. They love to use it as a support for whatever they are touting as biblical/gospel.

Take for example, Denny Burke: “If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”

Can someone please just put these guys in a time machine and send them back to the Reformation? I think they would enjoy it. No watchbloggers. Gender roles more up their alley. Hmmm…

Also, in case anyone is interested, there are over 1500 search results on TGC for “Counter Cultural”. It’s the drum they’re beating. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/search/results/Y291bnRlciBjdWx0dXJhbA

elastigirl wrote:

to save time, they should just make a set of 4 cards with each of these words, add a spiral binding for easy flipping, attach to a ping pong paddle and walk around with it flashing their “I WON” word.
I feel a new product coming on…. there’s a newly formed marketing department here, isn’t there? I say $19.95 each, with some kind of price drop if you buy in bulk for all your pastoral staff. another drop in price if you buy for all the men in your church. maybe a Father’s Day special

Yes, I am in charge of the Online Store for the new ministry – Pound Sand Ministries (TM) – started right here on TWW by a fellow poster. I felt “called” to retail.

Perhaps H.U.G. and others can think of a name for your invention.

I was thinking we should sell bingo cards with Comp sayings. All: suggestions?

bea wrote:

Can someone please just put these guys in a time machine and send them back to the Reformation? I think they would enjoy it. No watchbloggers. Gender roles more up their alley. Hmmm…

I remember in one of my European history classes in college that we learned that women were so sick of being repressed that they happily joined convents to be free from it all. And that became a problem, the shortage of women in society.

@ Daisy:

“The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit resides in all believers. It doesn’t say that only men get the Holy Spirit.

The same Holy Spirit who resides in men resides in women, so when complementarians insist on limiting all Christian women every where for all time, they are basically saying (whether they mean to or not), that the Holy Spirit somehow changes once residing in a woman, and that God- the- Spirit becomes an ineffective, incompetent clown.”
+++++++++++++++++

they’re also saying to God, “We’ve got this. We’ll manage the Holy Spirit, God. See, we’ve got this really good system where we re-route Holy Spirit activity from women and direct it straight through to men. We control the flow. Makes our jobs easier and more efficient. And it’s good for our morale, too.”

Daisy wrote:

Not just that, but it seems every ten minutes on TV are commercials for older dudes who apparently start losing some testosterone as they age. Some of the products I’ve seen for sale on TV are to increase testosterone or something.

Perhaps the theological equivalent is being hawked by T4G instead of GNC?

Ken F wrote:

Women are not to teach, they are to learn. They are not to take authority in the church and rule over men. That’s very, very simple. It’s very, very clear. Couldn’t confuse anybody.”

How these folks twist the Holy scriptures is pure evil IMO.

@ bea:
Redefining words and concepts is their specialty.

Velour wrote:

Perhaps Gram3, Lydia, Max, KenF., Daisy and others can expand on the people behind ESS, groups, reasons, take-overs, etc.

I found the above 1976 teaching by John MacArthur by searching on “subordination” on his gty.org site. That was the first link that came up. The second was this: https://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A235/reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ?Term=subordination. It shows that MacArthur does not support ESS. The take-away is that it’s not just the ESS folks who have messed up views on gender.

bea wrote:

Take for example, Denny Burke: “If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”

Poor Denny. I remember when he was a half decent fellow. I see he has been training at the Al Mohler School of Mind Numbing Paraphrastic Hyperbole. “I astonishingly watched a breath-taking coat of striking paint dry!”

Now he has abandoned the faith to spend his time peddling a false faith of gender politics. Sad, really.

Ken F wrote:

It shows that MacArthur does not support ESS. The take-away is that it’s not just the ESS folks who have messed up views on gender.

OK, thanks for clarifying that Ken.

Yes, these Comps are messed up – no matter how they justify it.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Another one who put in his time at CBMW and was rewarded by being plucked from Criswell to Boyce.

Velour wrote:

I took all of my NeoCalvinist books and ripped them to shreds, tossed them in the recycling container.

Maybe your recycled book will somehow become in its afterlife a new BIBLE! Gasp! Wouldn’t that be lovely?

Velour wrote:

Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem are inventors of/promoters of it. I believe that Gram3 mentioned George Knight III, an Orthodox Presbyerian Church minister who was given the task of making sure that women weren’t ordained (and this was the argument that he used).

It’s only Wikipedia, but it supports George Knight III coming up with ESS in 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Knight_III. I found many other links that point back to his 1977 book, so it looks like he might be the source.

Christiane wrote:

They need to learn that it was never about ‘authority’, it was about loving-kindness like that of Our Lord, given to others in SERVICE, the kind of love that binds the Holy Trinity: self-sacrificing, wanting only the good of the other for the sake of the other, the kind of love that is the most powerful force in the universe.

Spot on, sister. Well said.

Ken F wrote:

It’s only Wikipedia, but it supports George Knight III coming up with ESS in 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Knight_III. I found many other links that point back to his 1977 book, so it looks like he might be the source.

Here’s a better source: http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/beyond-sex-roles-by-gilbert-bilezikian-and-the-role-relationship-of-men-and-women-by-george-w-knight-iii/. This book review is a bit dry, but it shows that CBMW traces their roots to the 1977 book by George Knight III. Here is the conclusion of the review:
“All these authors share one belief in common: There is no real middle ground on the issue of female authority over men in the Church. In spite of all the work that has been done so far, more needs to be done to reconcile God’s apparent use of women in positions of authority over men (e.g. Huldah the prophetess in 2 Kings 22, Deborah the judge in Judges 4—5, and Priscilla the deaconess [?] in Romans 16) with his apparent injunctions against their holding such positions (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11; 1 Timothy 2). The two books reviewed here contribute to the debate in some significant ways but do not by any means solve all the problems. “

Velour wrote:

Thanks Ken. Gram3 pointed out the other day that Knight should also get *credit* for ESS.

A few minutes ago I post the link between CBMW and the 1977 book, but the comment ia nor yet visible.

“It is also worth noting that Owen Strachan, the President of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, proud supporters of ESS, is the son in law of Bruce Ware.”

I wonder what Bruce Ware thinks of his daughter being eternally subordinate? I wonder what his daughter thinks of it?!

“Despite it’s claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption.” (Rachel Miller)

The new reformers are treading on dangerous ground by diminishing the person of Jesus and His work on the Cross.

Completely off-topic: I’m posting a link to Governor Pappy’s story here, because it’s awesome, and because he’s helping a lot of people see some of the darker realms of fundamentalism. And because he’s one of my best friends. https://govpappy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/sheltered-life/

mot wrote:

Why can the men that espouse this heresy not see this?

They are not men who are men of God. Only preacher boys playing with aberrant theology.

XianJaneway wrote:

Completely off-topic: I’m posting a link to Governor Pappy’s story here, because it’s awesome, and because he’s helping a lot of people see some of the darker realms of fundamentalism. And because he’s one of my best friends. https://govpappy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/sheltered-life/

Thanks. GovPappy is a gem.

Max wrote:

They are not men who are men of God. Only preacher boys playing with aberrant theology.

They are Stepford Men just repeating the party line.

Max wrote:

If you listen closely to New Calvinist sermons for very long (I’ve been monitoring some in my area), you will hear them talk a lot about a determinist God whom they are trying to get to know … with only occasional mention of Jesus whom they say they follow but don’t appear to know … and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit who has been superseded by Calvin and his 21st century lieutenants as the source of all knowledge. For folks claiming to be the sole keepers of orthodoxy, their ideas of deity and trinity are anything but orthodox!

I found this to also be true at NeoCalvinist churches in my area, including my former church.

Ken F wrote:

It’s only Wikipedia, but it supports George Knight III coming up with ESS in 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Knight_III. I found many other links that point back to his 1977 book, so it looks like he might be the source.

I always wondered where it got started. All those claims that it was orthodox teaching were false, I knew. I’d never heard of it in all my years in Catholic schools and churches, and never heard it mentioned among any of my mainline Protestant friends. The first time I even encountered ‘patriarchal’ thinking was at a speech given by a lady guest in a Presbyterian Church hall that was about ‘bloom where you are planted’ and following your husband’s orders at all times. I raised my hand after the speech and asked ‘what if your husband asks you to do something really bad, against your conscience?’ . . . well, the place blew up . . . I could not have known that the ladies of the church had been discussing this very thing prior to the guest coming to speak. There was chaos, with women interrupting each other, and I realized I had touched on the very thing they also were worried about.
Women, no matter what their denomination, know instinctively that it is WRONG to act against their consciences. Christian women especially. Which begs the question, is it by shaming women that neo-Cals have been able to try to keep them silent and ‘under control (ie. ‘authority’)?
And why do’t those women who observe the public shaming of women in a neo-Cal church RUN from the premises to any sanctuary that gets them away from that kind of cult????? If nothing more, for the sake of their own daughters’ well-being. (?) I don’t understand.

bea wrote:

I can’t bring myself to think anyone else will have to read Dever other than for citations in surveys on church discipline in the 21st century. So I chucked them.

That would be me. I bought a used copy of Dever’s The Deliberate Church a few weeks ago just to document where some people in my church were getting this stuff about elders. It’s face down, several books down in the pile by now because I had a hard time with it. A copy of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse arrived at the same time though, and I’m on a second reading of it.

Ted wrote:

A copy of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse arrived at the same time though, and I’m on a second reading of it.

One of my favorites. “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” is the book that pointed me down the path of grace more than 20 years ago. I highly recommend both books.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Jared Moore was one of the nominees for president of the SBC in 2014.
Seriously? This guy: http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/pastor-jared-moore/

http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/christian-truth/the-complementarians-win-a-review-of-one-god-in-three-persons/

Christiane wrote:

And why do’t those women who observe the public shaming of women in a neo-Cal church RUN from the premises to any sanctuary that gets them away from that kind of cult????? If nothing more, for the sake of their own daughters’ well-being. (?) I don’t understand.

This is the same question I have. I will try to tread very carefully on a thought that is probably more of a question than a statement. The complementarians use the statement about Eve being deceived as rationale for men having authority over women. I don’t buy that argument, but I still wonder why Satan went to Eve and why it says she was deceived and not Adam. Maybe it has to do with something wonderful about the spirit of a woman that has a flip side that makes women generally more susceptible to manipulation and grooming. If so, then it’s the “in” that the complementarians use to deceive women into falling for this terrible theology. The question in the fall was not so much about why Eve was deceived, but why did Adam stand there and do nothing. Maybe it’s the same issue today. Why are the men letting this happen? Maybe this reflects a colossal failure of the men when this happens in a church. Is it due to passive, weak men? did the men also get groomed? How?

Yesterday evening I posted an article about victim-thinking on the open discussion. I’m wondering if this ESS/Complementarian theology has the goal of pushing everyone into the victim triangle and never allowing anyone off.

mot wrote:

This is extremely abusive behavior on this pastor and his members. Who are these people–christians??

It’s a 9Marks church located in Silicon Valley, California. The senior pastor is a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary.

I was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned for opposing the pastors/elders bringing their friend a Megan’s List sex offender to church, membership, a leadership position, access to all church activities (including Bible studies where parents brought their children), inviting him to volunteer at a 5-day basketball camp for children — and telling no one. I lost all of my *friends* of 8 1/2 years, who were ordered to never speak to me again. Not one Christmas card.

The pastors/elders are pathological liars and bullies.

Ken F wrote:

I’m wondering if this ESS/Complementarian theology has the goal of pushing everyone into the victim triangle and never allowing anyone off.

‘Everyone’ is right. Those patriarchal men demean themselves when they treat women as ‘submissive’ to themselves. The whole premise of ‘the dignity of the human person’ comes under attack when people treat other people a ‘less than’ and inflict pain on them. A slave owner in the 1800’s beating his slaves turned himself into something ‘less’ than human. A ‘husband’ who demands that his wife be treated as a submissive to his demands, and then speaks about their intimate relationship publicly which he knows will shame his wife, ultimately shames himself more.

That patriarchy thing harms the very men who think it glorifies them as ‘strong males’. If they were ‘strong’, they wouldn’t need to be lifted up by lording it over women, no.

A long time ago, Sojourner Truth, a freed slave gave a great speech in which she said: ‘the womens are coming up, and they are bringing the men up with them’ …. no patriarchist would ever understand the meaning of this truth

Lydia wrote:

I honestly believe they think we are totally stupid and will believe whatever they teach us.

A *lot* of people have shown that they are willing to believe things that have no basis in the text or in rational thought, so…

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

Here is an excellent video on the subject by Kevin Giles.

He is up to his eyebrows in Sydney Anglicans who seem to be clones of Louisville.

Muff Potter wrote:

Religion really is a paradox. It can lift humans out of darkness or plunge them farther into it.

Yes. Unfortunately, some poor folks are still in the dark ages in the religion of their choice. Too much of religion is law. Relationship with Christ is life, but not all religious folks find it.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

mirele wrote:
Yes it does, in American English. Check your settings, you may have accidentally switched over to the American settings
Don’t think I haven’t tried that. Extensively.
Part of the problem is that this is Word for Mac, which is somewhat more relentlessly Americanised / Americanized than ordinary Micros**t Word.
I’ve repeatedly set the language to English (UK) in the Tools menu. But still it’s infatuated with spurious zeds.
Sigh.
#FirstWorldProblems

Okay, you caught us. This is part of our American plot to take over the world. Next, we’re going to target that extraneous “u” that creeps in British-English.

BTW, I love your new name for Microsoft! I’m going to have to use that. Frequently.

Patriciamc wrote:

They don’t seem to understand logic and reason.

With all the ambient Ph.D.s in this movement, I doubt they are unaquainted with logic or with the content of the text. I think they choose to ignore both while secure in the knowledge that few will challenge them, and those few can easily be dismissed with accusations of “cultural capituation” or “abandoning authority” or “feminism” or “rebellious.” I think they are correct in their faith in themselves to fool others.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
If you all are going to poke around on the CBMW site, be careful because you might get cooties and will need shots. Spray yourself down with a very feminine perfume and invoke the power of your Ecclesiastical Estrogen, and you should be okay.
Thanks for the warning, however but ummm I’ll need the Pheromonic Testosteronic variety. I’m assuming they produce that, among other things they manufacture … and womanufacture, for that matter. (Just want to acknowledge their equal valuing of the genders. Whatever that may mean to them.)

Well, since men too make estrogen, you can invoke your Ecclesiastical Estrogen. Just don’t tell Piper. Of course, the other method of protection against CBMW-cooties is to click your heels together while saying, “I am woman; hear me roar.” In your case; you can say, “I am a reasonable, secure Christian man; hear me roar.” That should work.

Daisy wrote:

Interestingly (and sadly) there are some atheists on You Tube with videos who share complementarian interpretations of Paul’s comments, or other parts of the Bible.
The atheist in such videos will read straight from the text (‘I forbid a woman to teach,’ etc), slam the Bible close, and proudly declare to the viewer how “sexist” the Christian faith is, all based on something like that.

You know, there are times when I really get tired of defending the Bible. Yeah, the way it’s written, it looks bad. So many people don’t know what’s being referred to, so when they just look at the words on the page without looking at the context or the Bible as a whole, then yeah, they come to bad conclusions. If I were grumpy, I’d say that I can understand how people would write the Bible off as an out-of-date document – and I wish God would do something about this!

@ bea:

“Another thing I’m getting sick of hearing from the CBMW/T4G crowd is this “counter-cultural” hogwash. They love to use it as a support for whatever they are touting as biblical/gospel.”
++++++++++++++

counter-cultural? you make me laugh.

men with power, women without — it’s the story of world history. the caveman urge to control and have power over. one of the more base apsects of human nature.

embroidering it with sweet smiles, christianese sugar words & power words, and calling it ‘servant leadership’ makes it no less in-line-with-culture.

Max wrote:

I wonder what Bruce Ware thinks of his daughter being eternally subordinate? I wonder what his daughter thinks of it?!

What if Ware does not really believe that she will? What if he knows that he can secure her future by ensuring that Owen BHLH keeps busy writing unintentionally hysterical prose?

Gram3 wrote:

You could do a tutorial on logical fallacies from this one statement. Burk has a Ph.D. BTW, did he tacitly acknowledge that they are *losing* this debate which Jared Moore says they have *won* because ESS?

Excellent point Gram3. One really does wonder. Burk’s training embodies the best Hellenism has to offer. Intense classes (not to mention papers out the wazoo and actually defending his dissertation) in logic, rhetoric, and new stuff added onto existing requirements at an administrative whim. And this is the best they can do in advancing their schtick as sound ‘Biblical’ doctrine?

Daisy wrote:

I cannot quite explain it, but that complementarian fall back, the “equal in value just not in roles!,” that cliche’, is so hollow and such an obvious white-wash of what complementarianism is really all about, I think complementarians should feel embarrassed to use that rationalization or catch phrase anymore.

I agree, Daisy, and I propose that we must also be equal in freedom.

Gram3 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Denny says:
…we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.
First, class, pick out the assertions which are embarrassingly naked of argument. Second, class, spot the “attack on the person” fallacy (hint: the “f” word.) Third, class, identify the emphatic and prejudicial language concealing a lack of facts and argument. Extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely what “vision of patriarchy” actually means. Extra extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely how said “vision of patriarchy” undergirds Christianity (must explain the structural engineering metaphor to receive all points.)
That’s a taste.

Dear TWW Students,

Professor Gram3 has given you the above assignment. Go to it!
Lydia, Max, Ken, Daisy, Nick, H.U.G., and everybody else.

Signed,

Hall Monitor

@ siteseer:
woops, sorry, Ken, I meant to show that was MacArthur you were quoting above.

siteseer wrote:

XianJaneway wrote:
Completely off-topic: I’m posting a link to Governor Pappy’s story here, because it’s awesome, and because he’s helping a lot of people see some of the darker realms of fundamentalism. And because he’s one of my best friends. https://govpappy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/sheltered-life/
Wow, thanks for posting that, I started reading and could not stop. I don’t have a way to comment on his site but would like to thank GovPappy for sharing his journey, it was fascinating and so well written. I didn’t want it to end.

I will Tweet him and let him know.

Lea wrote:

From the Mary kassan article: “Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so. ”
This to me is the fatal flaw in all of their arguments. They FAIL utterly when the husband is at all inclined to be authoritarian. Or abusive. Or even unkind. And their framework has no way to deal with this.

And women like Mary Kassian appear sanctimonious and unconcerned regarding women who are abused by their husbands. Here’s another thing. Mary Kassian and women like her either ignore or make little of comp men abusing their authority. If comp women trust that their husband “uphold and guard” their equality, what happens when such vulnerability and ignorance is taken advantage of? How would a wife even know if her equality is being “upheld and guarded” is she is not able to hold her husband to that standard? These are women who have given up their minds, their thinking, their wills to their husbands. They, in essence, are like adult children. Children cannot hold their parent accountable, nor can they stand up to them when they are mistreated. These women are basically sealing their fate by closing off their minds and wills. If their husbands do abuse their authority, they have no recourse but to submit to that abuse since they have given up their rights to defend themselves.

Darlene wrote:

And women like Mary Kassian appear sanctimonious and unconcerned regarding women who are abused by their husbands. Here’s another thing. Mary Kassian and women like her either ignore or make little of comp men abusing their authority. If comp women trust that their husband “uphold and guard” their equality, what happens when such vulnerability and ignorance is taken advantage of? How would a wife even know if her equality is being “upheld and guarded” is she is not able to hold her husband to that standard? These are women who have given up their minds, their thinking, their wills to their husbands. They, in essence, are like adult children. Children cannot hold their parent accountable, nor can they stand up to them when they are mistreated. These women are basically sealing their fate by closing off their minds and wills. If their husbands do abuse their authority, they have no recourse but to submit to that abuse since they have given up their rights to defend themselves.

Mary gets her paycheck from the boys at the NeoCalvinist/Comp-promoting seminary where she teachers. She’s on the board of the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, headed by Bruce Ware’s (one of the big promoters of the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy to defend his Comp beliefs and impose it on others) son-in-law Owen Strachan.

I won’t read anything Mary Kassian has written about child sexual abuse (being abused by neighborhood boys and her journey of healing even though I am sorry for what she went through) because in my opinion she hasn’t healed enough and she’s promoting a sick, toxic system in Complementarism. How is that any better? It’s ok to treat women as second class citizens and set them up for abuse and degradation? Depression? All kinds of problems that come from this insufferable, un-Biblical system? It’s ok to set children up for sexual abuse – common in Comp/Patriarchy churches and circles? It’s ok to deny the gifts that God has been given women for some doctrine of men?

I think Mary has some serious reflecting and healing to do yet. And I pray that she denounces this sick Comp system.

Velour wrote:

All kinds of problems that come from this insufferable, un-Biblical system

Yes! That’s because ESS men present ‘submission’ as the will of the Father, instead of what it really is: the subordination of one spouse to another’s domination is, in fact, a major result of sin (the Fall of Adam and Eve).

In other news:

Muhammad Ali’s funeral will be held in Louisville with a public memorial at the KFC YUM centre. I wouldn’t have had a clue where those places are if it were not for a small recent gathering of rings of power masquerading as a gospel conference.

Unless this is a different Louisville and a different KFC conference venue.

Lydia wrote:

Another one who put in his time at CBMW and was rewarded by being plucked from Criswell to Boyce.

Yeah, Mohler’s politics are so transparent. I have a difficult time believing the Board of Trustees is foolish enough to allow the systematic dismantling of anything resembling academic integrity at SBTS, but there you go.

elastigirl wrote:

hyperbole I know. what was the paraphrastic part?
are we talking about the tendency of Christians to say “have fellowship with one another” (instead of ‘BBQ — my place’) when making church announcements?

Mohler’s particular tendency is to add lots and lots of adjectives, but he also uses the Christianese jargon too!

Muff Potter wrote:

Excellent point Gram3. One really does wonder. Burk’s training embodies the best Hellenism has to offer. Intense classes (not to mention papers out the wazoo and actually defending his dissertation) in logic, rhetoric, and new stuff added onto existing requirements at an administrative whim. And this is the best they can do in advancing their schtick as sound ‘Biblical’ doctrine?

Nope. He went to Dallas for his PhD. Look up the course work and you’ll see that they don’t even offer classes on critical thinking. It’s a fundy factory.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Yeah, Mohler’s politics are so transparent. I have a difficult time believing the Board of Trustees is foolish enough to allow the systematic dismantling of anything resembling academic integrity at SBTS, but there you go.

The Trustee situation is a whole other connected problem. Mary Kinney Branson, who was at NAMB wrote a book titled: Spending Gods Money. Her description of dealing with Trustees and preparing for the meetings is enlighten.

Another aspect of her book that opened my eyes is how much the employees, family and friends of employees game tithe money with creative projects while they own the copyright and get royalties if it is a success. I hear VBS is a gold mine for some insiders.

None of this works without Trustees either being lazy or ignorant.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

My experience is that most of these men are fundamentalist shills who actually don’t understand basic scholarship, but get paid well to promote certain ideas. This is why so many of their posts are emotional to the point of sounding slightly unhinged (although to be fair to Strachan, he actually is slightly unhinged, so it comes naturally). If they could present their thoughts rationally, they would.

It is all a bit amusing from a different angle. They shill about manly menand, insist it was testosterone that went to the cross and they are counter cultural. Yet they sound like illogical emotional basket cases. I think that IS exactly how our culture now thinks. Feelings over facts. Sensationalism over reasoned debate.

The YRR pastor at my former church was doing his best Piper impression every week. People were confused thinking he had a personal crisis going on he wanted private but was coming out in his sermons. Seriously!. They had no idea it was normal. They were not familiar with Piper. (The former pastor was an older OT scholar. This was night and day.)

For the ones who stayed and actually attend the second hour this is the new normal.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

You can go from undergrad to PhD in this “movement” without taking a single calss in logic, rhetoric, or critical thinking.

!!!!! What about Dever and Grudem at Cambridge, IIRC?

@ Patriciamc:
I can relate. Over 10 years ago I had enough. I read only the Gospels over and over for 3 years and did as much historical context study I could as a plebe –totally alone. It changed everything for me. Jesus is nothing like they present– whether it is the seekers or the Neo Cals.

I had to try to understand Jesus as God in the flesh and the OT God. I figured out the OT is usually approached wrong. Inerrancy hurt scholarship badly and buried a lot of it from the past.

I read not to long ago about a professor run out of the SBC years back for daring to suggest the Genesis creation story might not be literal. I was shocked to find lots of older scholars who agreed with that position. Now it is an accepted position even in some conservative circles.

It is eye opening To realize just how much group think/ political correctness from all sides keeps us ignorant. Half the time we want to be accepted by the group and don’t even realize how much group censoring is going on. It does not even need to be announced. It just happens naturally. Truth is always important whether the group accepts you or not, I realized.

I personally think things like ESS and patriarchy flourish within the neo-Calvinist world because the leaders have little connection to the real world. Have any of them had jobs in the real world? Or do they go from high school to college to seminary to their first church to their second church (and maybe that senior pastorate at 29) or to a church plant, with nary a stop at a secular job?

I’ve examined the resumes of a few of these guys and it doesn’t look like they’ve ever worked outside the bubble.

I’ve said it before, these guys wouldn’t last any time at my employer, because we wouldn’t put up with their prima donna nonsense. We have work to do. And getting all weird because you’re being told by a woman to do something, well that would be completely unacceptable. Objecting because there’s a good reason to object–oh yes, I’ve done that, and occasionally I’ve won that battle. Objecting because your manager is a woman and you don’t take orders from women? You’d be getting the left foot of fellowship from HR.

I honestly think they don’t want to work in the real world, because real world realities would pop their ideal patriarchal world view like a trembling, shuddering soap bubble.

@ mirele:

What I mean is that I agree with you completely.

Homeschooling is not my favorite thing in general for a lot of reasons (although I think there are specific circumstances in which it is probably best) but partly because it makes it easy to keep kids away from the ‘world’. I grew up fairly sheltered, Christian school and a lot of church activities…when I went to public school i learned a lot of things and I think Was better.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I ordered a software bundle at a very reduced rate several years ago. I noticed all the spellings were British.

I started poking around the tabs and menus to find out more about the software, and I found out I had the UK-based version, not the American.

So I had to resign myself to seeing the word “color” spelled as “coloUr” in the menu commands, dialog boxes, and so on.

It drove me nuts the first year or so, but I hardly notice it as much now. I didn’t see a way of switching it to American spellings. I got some great quality software at cheapo prices, at least.

okrapod wrote:

I am glad, because you seemed to be saying that some female MD could not/ would not/ should not function as a parishioner is some church where the pastor was young, including have an authority role to which she would submit/ co-operate.

I’m not following you.

It is a fact in most complementarian churches – well, all of them – that a woman, no matter how gifted, intelligent, or educated, will not be permitted to hold certain functions, such as being Sunday School teacher, being a preacher, or what have you, and it’s all based on her biological sex and nothing more.

Others here have raised the point before that all this seems especially egregious in churches where the pastor is a young kid, (in his 20s or 30s), and he is given more clout, respect, or power than say, a 50 year old woman in that same church.

There does seem to be something very wrong with a system that invests more respect and privilege with a 30 year old man than a college educated, with lots- of- life- experience 50- something woman.

mirele wrote:

I personally think things like ESS and patriarchy flourish within the neo-Calvinist world because the leaders have little connection to the real world. Have any of them had jobs in the real world? Or do they go from high school to college to seminary to their first church to their second church (and maybe that senior pastorate at 29) or to a church plant, with nary a stop at a secular job?
I’ve examined the resumes of a few of these guys and it doesn’t look like they’ve ever worked outside the bubble.
I’ve said it before, these guys wouldn’t last any time at my employer, because we wouldn’t put up with their prima donna nonsense. We have work to do. And getting all weird because you’re being told by a woman to do something, well that would be completely unacceptable. Objecting because there’s a good reason to object–oh yes, I’ve done that, and occasionally I’ve won that battle. Objecting because your manager is a woman and you don’t take orders from women? You’d be getting the left foot of fellowship from HR.
I honestly think they don’t want to work in the real world, because real world realities would pop their ideal patriarchal world view like a trembling, shuddering soap bubble.

I agree.. Beyond the gender question, working/living in the real world exposes you to reality that you do get construct!! Further, you have to defend your positions using the reality that you are functioning in, not the your own self created bubble! While this sounds theoretical, it really is not. I learned very quickly that some, but not all, of the “reality” that my fundamentalist background taught me was BS, but some was correct!!
This is why a mjor atribute of a cult is their isolating their members from “reality”

Velour wrote:

And there is a huge disconnect between these guys promoting this from the pulpit and what the rest of live. 180 degrees apart.

I saw a similar thought in a book about why people stop going to church.

I think the quote was from a man. He was saying something like it’s like stepping into a time warp to go from secular life, where he has women bosses and co-workers, into a church, where women are treated like second class citizens or like children.

As for complementarianism not working. Not only is it not relevant to a woman’s everyday life, but it is pretty much totally irrelevant to women who don’t fit the complementarian favored class of married with children at home.

If you’re a woman who lacks a husband and/or children, you do not factor into their worldview at all. And more and more women are either finding themselves single or are deliberately choose to forgo marriage.

The complementarian cottage industry is fitted around telling women how to be mothers and wives, so the comps are making themselves moot to the growing number of women who are staying single and/or childless or child free. They are making themselves irrelevant.

Oh. One of the comp’s newer strategies is to toss single women a few token kibbles in their articles now. They will do the usual thing of making 99% of an article about motherhood or wife-hood, but then, at some point in the article, toss a nod at the singles by saying, “Hey, single women are great too.”

I’m like no, a token acknowledgement that we exist does not erase the avalanche of marriage and wife-hood rhetoric you guys spew constantly for decades now.

Velour wrote:

Someone should make a Comp bingo card, if it hasn’t been done already and post it.
It would be hysterical.

Like containing the usual stuff they say?

Off the top of my head, their cliche’ about women being “equal in worth just not in role” comes to mind.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Nope. He went to Dallas for his PhD. Look up the course work and you’ll see that they don’t even offer classes on critical thinking. It’s a fundy factory.

Oops! My bad. I had assumed the best about the man and his credentials. It’s disheartening to hear that his alma mater is more like a Madrassa in Pakistan than a world class university.

Daisy wrote:

The Complementarain Trinity seems to consist of –
God the Father, Humans of the Male Gender, the Bible

I am wondering if the reason the Neo-Calvinist brand of complementarianism is so enamored of male hierarchy, power, and authority is this is similar to how they view God the Father.

They don’t seem to care that God is loving or compassionate. They don’t seem interested in the attributes of God that aren’t related to having power over others.

They seem most preoccupied with God’s power, sovereignty, and glory. It figures that people with such a narrow view of God would find this trickling over into how they think male-female relations should work.

roebuck wrote:

Do you know of a more-or-less comprehensive list of ways that the ESV has twisted scripture to a more NeoCal interpretation? I’ve heard a couple of things, but am interested to learn more.

I did a bit of searching. It seems that ESV translation itself is not tilted toward Calvinism, but the ESV Study Bible has notes that tilt toward Calvinism. I have not checked myself because I don’t have the study Bible, but that theory makes sense. I’ve also heard that future updates will tilt more toward Calvinism, but I don’t know if that’s the the conspiratorists speaking.

Ron Oommen wrote:

Muhammad Ali’s funeral will be held in Louisville with a public memorial at the KFC YUM centre. …Unless this is a different Louisville and a different KFC conference venue.

Nope, same town. I met him once in the old downtown Sears where he and his wife were shopping. People would greet him and he was always pleasant and kind, seemed like a real person. He was still Cassius Clay at the time. Louisville is justly proud of this man.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

If they could present their thoughts rationally, they would.

If they could think rationally they would have to abandon their current way of thinking. Their thoughts cannot be presented rationally because they are fundamentally irrational. “Unhinged” is the right word.

@ Ken F:
ESV is Crossway. Check out who they represent.

Packer and Grudem were on the oversight committee. The review committee has some familiar names like Ortlund, Schriener and Kostenberger.

@ Muff Potter:
You have just described most SBC seminaries these days.

@ bea:

I think Moore was the same guy who was quoted on the Bayly (whatever it’s called) blog as saying Christians should stop using the word “complementarianism” and call it by (in his opinion), more accurate term, “Patriarchy.”

Your quote has him saying something about him being sad or afraid it (complementarianism) may be going away.

It already has. That horse has left the barn.

Also, complementarianism is not going to win back single women today, the ones who are single by choice or circumstance, and there are more and more of them.

The proposed complementarian solution I have seen to this, which is to scare or shame women into marrying A.S.A.P. (or telling the single Christian men they are losers for being single and need to marry a single Christian women five minutes ago), does not work for myriad reasons, either.

Not having a robust theology for singleness (and childless people) and a lack of support for singles / childless, has really helped to kill off complementarianism.

Complementarians are really not interested in biblical views on men and women, like they say they are, but many of them are more-

1. anti-secular feminism, and
2. pro-controlling women, which they seem to think can only be accomplished if they can get all women to marry (so the husband becomes a boss to the woman)

They really are at a loss as to what to do with divorced, never married, or widowed women.

@ bea:

Complementarianism is the status quo. It’s not counter-cultural.

Complementarianism is advocating for male hierarchy and female subordination, something which has been in place in most or many cultures for thousands of years, and it’s certainly been the case within many churches and denominations for years.

The Burke guy you quoted admitted that complementarianism is nothing but patriarchy. Most cultures have been patriarchal.

It’s interesting that Burke assumes that because the Bible was set in a patriarchy, it must be God’s intent.

Does Burke feel the same way about polygamy? Probably not.

I don’t see guys like him arguing that Polygamy was God’s intent (merely because it was present in the culture of the days of the Old Testament), and so every Christian husband should have 23 wives and 56 concubines in the year 2016 in the United States and other nations.

On Biblical Manhood: A Q&A with Author Carolyn Custis James
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/takeandread/2015/06/on-biblical-manhood-a-qa-with-author-carolyn-custis-james/

Snippets:
———–
…What isn’t often acknowledged is the fact that not all men are beneficiaries of patriarchy, for patriarchy also places some men over other men.

Patriarchy organizes human society by hierarchal pyramids with only limited (and ultimately temporary) room at the top and where the top is only sustained by a well-populated base that includes not just women and girls, but a majority of men and boys.

…How does patriarchy color the understanding of men’s stories within the Bible?

The fact that patriarchy is on virtually every page of the Bible means that in some way patriarchy matters.
And in fact, patriarchy is an essential and powerful tool that helps to unleash the Bible’s radically transforming message.

Here’s the crucial point: Patriarchy is not the Bible’s message. Patriarchy is the backdrop to the Bible’s message.

bea wrote:

(Quoting Burke):

Take for example, Denny Burke:
“If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”

Another thing I wanted to say about this. He can’t win or reclaim the debate by calling a spade a spade.

While I would find it very refreshing for complementarians to be straight-up about what comp really is (which is, male hierarchy, female subordination, patriarchy) and therefore knock off all the sugar-coating and rhetorical games (“women are equal in worth, just not in role”), he’s simply setting up a more honest brand of comp.

He’s not going to win any new women converts to the Christian faith by re-labeling comp as “patriarchy.” (He might manage to scare some more away.)

I do think itt would be more honest of guys like him to re-label comp as patriarchy, but it still has the same set of baggage and problems as before, but now, they’re more out in the open and easier to see.

Daisy wrote:

He’s not going to win any new women converts to the Christian faith by re-labeling comp as “patriarchy.” (He might manage to scare some more away.)

Russ Moore tried this and it did not transfer well outside the young men academic (if you can call it that) bubble. They need the deception and con of the word “comp” and the old ruse of “separate but equal” for the pew sitters.

I noticed more pushback than usual for the CBMW T$G tweets about testosterone. I hate Twitter but I was seeing the references everywhere so checked it out. I laughed out loud the when the T$G boys were rebuking people for “stealing their hashtag”. They don’t get it, do they? They are so conditioned to think they can control the message and the venue they end up looking ridiculous when they venture outside their bubbles.

Velour wrote:

Professor Gram3 has given you the above assignment. Go to it!

“If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”

++++++++++

What an assignment – pretty stiff challenge because the statement is such a mess of vague terms. They can wiggle words to say just about anything when they don’t define them. I’ll give it a stab:

“reclaim” assumes that complementarians once had the upper hand. When was that? Evidence? It’s a nice word to throw in becase it preys (prays?) on people’s loss aversion (people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains – from Wikipedia). The reality is they have nothing to reclaim because complementarians have never been in the majority. Pure spin.

“the debate” makes it sound like there are two sides and that one side can win. It pushes the discussion into extreme views: one is either a complentarian with all that baggage, or one is a liberal feminist who denies all gender differences. The reality is at neither extreme. And there is no true debate because there are no official groups who are taking the two extreme sides. It’s an attempt to spin facts in order to whip up frenzy and make it sound like there is something to win, or at least something not to lose.

“we must not fear making a claim” – This is a funny statement. I would think they would want to say “we must not fear standing for the truth.” It’s almost like this is an admission to making up something new.

“disturbingly counter-cultural” – How does one define counter-cultural in a multi-cultural environment? “Counter-cultural” is just a buzz word that has almost no meaning. It’s meant to sound brave and heroic, but they forget that all the heretics were counter to the normative church culture. “Disturbingly” is a disturbing word to describe a Christian movement. More spin in an effort to sound heroic.

“yet strikingly biblical” is another meaningless phrase. First, the word “yet” contrasts “biblical” with “counter-cultural.” Isn’t Christianity already supposed to be counter-cultural? So it sounds like this is setting up a double-negative. It seems like “and” would have been a better word choice. Unless they mean to upset the current Christian culture, which is what they are doing. Inserting “strikingly” makes no sense other than to inflate the language.

“less-than-evangelical feminists” – What does “less than evangelical” mean? Is it assuming that no feminist can be fully evangelical? What do they mean by feminist? If it’s someone advocating equal pay for equal work, that hardly disqualifies a person from being an evangelical. What does it even mean to be evangelical? There is no clear definition for evangelical. So this is a nearly meaningless string of words.

“understand increasingly:” What evidence does he have that “less-than-evangelical feminists” are increasing in their understanding of his conclusion? I think it’s the opposite. It’s spin to make it sound like complementarians are gaining ground.

“Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.” – This is the point they have yet to prove. But say it enough times and it begins to sound true. Christianity has been infected by it too often in the past, just like it has been infected by lust for the power of the state. But it’s not the “Biblical” norm.

I have to skip the extra credit points – I cannot begin to imagine how to answer.

Velour wrote:

I was thinking we should sell bingo cards with Comp sayings. All: suggestions?

I just thought of another complementarian expression or two for your Bingo Cards:

“Not all complementarians.”

Or, some variation of, “No True Complementarian would ever X, Y, or Z like the complementarian in this story.”

“Women are equal in value to men but not in role.”
“Motherhood is a woman’s highest and most godly calling.”

“Real men are masculine He-men who like watching MMA and taking Karate lessons and smoking cigars” (insert whatever other Mark Driscoll caricatures of manhood)

Flip side:
“Boys or men who enjoy cooking, playing with dolls, or who are stay at home dads are Man Fails” (Owen Strachanisms)

“Women can never communicate with a man directly but only indirectly and in such a way as not to offend a man’s sense of masculinity” (John Piperism)

“Complementarians are / Complementarianism is highly effective at dealing with domestic violence against married women”

Y’all, slightly off topic: Is anyone familiar with Southeastern Christian, a mega-church in Louisville? It is apparently elder-led with a membership “commitment.” Does that mean it is neo-Cal? Relatives are getting sucked into it.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Y’all, slightly off topic: Is anyone familiar with Southeastern Christian, a mega-church in Louisville? It is apparently elder-led with a membership “commitment.” Does that mean it is neo-Cal? Relatives are getting sucked into it.

This statement on the Southeast website is a bit of a warning flag and could indicate potential church authority issues:
“We believe that the Elders of the church are the overseers of its affairs and the shepherds of its members; that they are the final interpretive authority of the Bible’s meaning and application for the church; and that they are responsible for the oversight, instruction, edification, discipline, and restoration of church members.”

Ken F wrote:

I have to skip the extra credit points – I cannot begin to imagine how to answer.

I just read my answer to my wife. She said “vision of patriarchy” means “bow to the P…..” [male appendage]. She asked me to add that as a rape survivor she has the right say it as it is. Does she get extra credit for her answer?

@ Lydia:

“I read not to long ago about a professor run out of the SBC years back for daring to suggest the Genesis creation story might not be literal.”
+++++++++++++++++

violently so.

if the prof is Ralph Elliott (The Message of Genesis), he describes threatening phone calls, explosives thrown onto his front porch, and police having to escort his children home from school.

a mafia-styled religion, it is. for the God’s glory, of course.

https://books.google.com/books?id=c7A0WVhEnS8C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=ralph+elliott+message+of+genesis&source=bl&ots=fwnGENrPsa&sig=yKNBjnz0qVeeGAqLPJETQPHm6yk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTsrjwwZHNAhVL1WMKHe9xBL04ChDoAQhPMAg#v=onepage&q=ralph%20elliott%20message%20of%20genesis&f=false

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
They have been historically loose on Doctrine. They targeted the unchurched early on and the joke around these parts is it’s the biggest Catholic Church in town and the biggest Baptist Church in town at the same time.

They mainly appeal to seekers. And it is extremely shallow. They will be what they need to be to get people in the doors to pay the $100,000 a month electric bill and huge staff Pastor salaries.

In these sorts of Megas a lot of things go on behind the curtain that the Pew sitter never knows. Most megas are Elder ruled for a reason. And the Elder rule is all about protecting the cult of personality on stage. The cult of personality and Disneyland children’s programs are what gets consumers in the door.

Can you tell that I think megas are a blight in the vineyard? :o)

@ elastigirl:
That’s him! I was astonished when I ran across this. Had no idea!

@ Ken F:
Yes Sir!

Daisy wrote:

There is nothing, nada biblical about what he said there, especially not in regards to single women.

That type of teaching grooms women to be abused in the most horrific ways.

@ bea:

yes, understood. it was the ‘comp as counter-cultural’ idea which you were highlighting that ‘makes me laugh’. I can tell you’re far too reasonable to see it as anything but utter h0rsesh|+. sorry my intent wasn’t clear.

Lydia wrote:

Daisy wrote:
He’s not going to win any new women converts to the Christian faith by re-labeling comp as “patriarchy.” (He might manage to scare some more away.)
Russ Moore tried this and it did not transfer well outside the young men academic (if you can call it that) bubble. They need the deception and con of the word “comp” and the old ruse of “separate but equal” for the pew sitters.
I noticed more pushback than usual for the CBMW T$G tweets about testosterone. I hate Twitter but I was seeing the references everywhere so checked it out. I laughed out loud the when the T$G boys were rebuking people for “stealing their hashtag”. They don’t get it, do they? They are so conditioned to think they can control the message and the venue they end up looking ridiculous when they venture outside their bubbles.

We have always used their hashtags for our comments on twitter, they just haven’t noticed. In fact, I am preparing for their conferences for next year and I’ve already been using their hashtags and I’m the first one there! (CBMW and T4G)

my understanding was that Crossway bought the rights to the Revised English Version of the Bible. They then retranslated select verses (the bulk being clarification of male gender pronouns “he”, “his” “man” “men”

This all in reaction to the TNIV Bible translation, which led the CBMW folks to mount an all out assault on the TVIV – specifically to ensure that the TNIV wouldn’t be published in the U.S.

At the time, charts were available on the web showing the verses in question side by side with the three versions. Possibly at CBE?

@ Ken F:

yes, and lots of foil stars for the plain-speaking!

Sorry, I’m recalling it was The Revised Standard Version. So the ESV was really a revised, Revised Standard Bible.

@ Elizabeth:
I went the soft comp fellowship route for years. I understand it. But I no longer appreciate it.

I believe it’s very important that people have their own freedom of conscience in beliefs that does not harm others. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make our case.

My problem was that soft comp teaching affects everyone in that fellowship. It meant that I had to put aside my mutualist beliefs in order to operate there and be accepted. Any gifts that I might have developed would not be used unless the gifts were defined as hostess, children or food.

There was also what I call the soft bigotry of low expectations that is often subconscious. Women were never taken seriously as theologians. Yes they were probably listened to but that was it. Women who took theology seriously were viewed as uppity.

And I have watched Time After Time in church after church, the soft comp position grow harder and harder over time.

Even asking the question ‘what does this really mean” when it comes to 1st Timothy can bring out the worst at church. Very few want to deal with that in their Fellowship so they stay silent.

I go all the way back to Satan hating women and seeing them as a threat because Messiah would come through woman. This played out all through history in patriarchy and and it even lives today in soft comp.

There is no nice way to live with separate but equal.

Ken F wrote:

More spin in an effort to sound heroic.

🙂 That is an excellent summary of what you accurately describe as a messy word salad. Where the lettuce is not lettuce. They think that they are the heroes of every story.

Daisy wrote:

Meanwhile, boatloads of same-aged or older women in that church, some of whom may be wiser, more gifted at X, or more educated, than that guy, are barred only due to being born female. I do have problems with that.

I too have big time problems with it No matter how much they (patriarchalists) try to hem and haw with qualifiers allegedly derived from Scripture, when you come right down to it, it’s based solely on plumbing received at birth. It really does beggar the mind that supposedly rational 21st century adults can buy into this cart full of horse poo-poo.

Lydia wrote:

wanted to buy TNIV for my kids but my goodness! It is not easy.
One reason is because they use their devices to read scripture and the tniv is not online— that we can find. Has anyone out there found it online? Is it named something different now? It blows my mind that it seems to have vanished in this country
I am a big believer in using many translations. That was one of the things I loved about the internet. I mainly use an Interlinear, though. There are some free software programs out there like scripture4all. It is based on the King James but I like having the Greek. If anyone knows of better programs I would love to hear about it.

Thanks, Lydia. I guess I will have to see if I can order a TNIV from England, like others have done if I can’t get it here.

Perhaps Nick or one of our friends across The Pond knows the answer about the TNIV in electronic form for devices.

Ken F wrote:

That type of teaching grooms women to be abused in the most horrific ways.

I suspect that it will take something like their daughters being abused by their Female Subordinationist husbands to wake these guys up. They do not care about other people’s daughters, but…I suspect also that the *wives* of these guys will wake up when the kids have left the nest or when they get a whiff of their daughters being abused. Or their sons being weighed down by the burden of being Jesus to their daughters-in-law.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Y’all, slightly off topic: Is anyone familiar with Southeastern Christian, a mega-church in Louisville? It is apparently elder-led with a membership “commitment.” Does that mean it is neo-Cal? Relatives are getting sucked into it.

Here’s a link to their church: https://www.southeastchristian.org/beliefs/

Perhaps Lydia knows about them.

They have all of the submission/elder-led/authority stuff on their website.

If people need counseling they have licensed, educated counselors and a Christian psychiatrist who can prescribe medication (which means they haven’t gone the Nouthetic Counseling route entirely).

@ Lydia:

sheds new light on “fierce debate”. the whole thing, then and now, has all the reasoned maturity of

“A liberal! A liberal! A liberal! We’ve got a liberal! A liberal!”

“We have found a liberal, might we burn him?”

“How do you know he is a liberal?”

“He looks like one.”

“Bring him forward.”

“I’m not a liberal. I’m not a liberal.”

“But you are dressed as one.”

“They dressed me up like this.”

“No, we didn’t — no.”

“Did you dress him up like this?”

“No, no… no … yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.”

“He has a wart.”

“What makes you think he is a liberal?”

“Well, he turned me into a newt.”

“A newt?”

“I got better.”

“Burn him anyway!”

Daisy wrote:

If Neo Calvinism were true, they would probably have to conclude that God predestined you and foreordained you to rip those Neo Calvinist books up and throw them away.

You are certainly determined Velour, without being “certainly determined,” if you know what I mean.

Lydia wrote:

They insist on the ESV.

The standard no-commentary ESV is harmless enough. But the ESV Study Bible is loaded with Calvinist commentary. New Calvinists love to carry the ESV as their sword of choice – it’s a sign to other reformers that “we are on board” with the movement. A young pastor with a Southern Seminary diploma, shaved head, and toting an ESV is one bad dudebro.

Ken F wrote:

And

Typo – “An”

Max wrote:

Lydia wrote:
They insist on the ESV.
The standard no-commentary ESV is harmless enough. But the ESV Study Bible is loaded with Calvinist commentary. New Calvinists love to carry the ESV as their sword of choice – it’s a sign to other reformers that “we are on board” with the movement. A young pastor with a Southern Seminary diploma, shaved head, and toting an ESV is one bad dudebro.

Max,

I am deprogramming from NeoCalvinism/Comp and having been seriously *hoodwinked*.
Can you explain the whole TNIV Bible version and how it got quashed by the ESV/NeoCalvinists/Comp proponents?

I’ve heard about it. I just don’t know all of the players.

Maybe Gram3, Lydia, Brad, and others know about it.

Velour wrote:

No wonder the NeoCalvinists have kicked the Holy Spirit to the curb!

Also, their penal substitutionary theory of atonement has no place for the Holy Spirit. What was the Holy Spirit doing when God turned away from Jesus? Was the Spirit taking sides? Was the Trinity partially split (two against one) or was it a complete 3-way split?

Velour wrote:

I am deprogramming from NeoCalvinism/Comp and having been seriously *hoodwinked*.
Can you explain the whole TNIV Bible version and how it got quashed by the ESV/NeoCalvinists/Comp proponents?

I’ve heard about it. I just don’t know all of the players.

One of the problems, believe it or not, is that men like Gordon Fee are true gentleman and scholars and don’t partake in the same tactics. They don’t fight dirty. They thought they could just make their case.

In the end Zondervan folded on the issue. LifeWay would not carry it. (Back when that mattered)

Here is an article by Fee and Strauss. Typical of how such men responded to the ridiculous propaganda that was basically culture warring and had nothing to do with scholarship..

http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Fee-Strauss-Gender-and-Translation&ac=true

Velour wrote:

Can you explain the whole TNIV Bible version and how it got quashed by the ESV/NeoCalvinists/Comp proponents?

I’ve never investigated TNIV. This link is interesting: http://www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/newly-incorrect-version-extremely-saved-version-and-other-bible-taunts/. I personally like NASB, which has been called “Not A Study Bible.”

@ Velour:
Thank you! I had stopped bothering with it a few years ago. I just wanted my tween daughter included when she read scripture.

bea wrote:

Go towards her and be her main human means of sanctification.”

Um, isn’t that Christ’s job?

bea wrote:

“We believe that the Elders of the church are the overseers of its affairs and the shepherds of its members; that they are the final interpretive authority of the Bible’s meaning and application for the church; and that they are responsible for the oversight, instruction, edification, discipline, and restoration of church members.”

How dare they.

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
No wonder the NeoCalvinists have kicked the Holy Spirit to the curb!
Also, their penal substitutionary theory of atonement has no place for the Holy Spirit. What was the Holy Spirit doing when God turned away from Jesus? Was the Spirit taking sides? Was the Trinity partially split (two against one) or was it a complete 3-way split?

Thanks Ken. I will have to research this further.

Lydia wrote:

@ Velour:
Thank you! I had stopped bothering with it a few years ago. I just wanted my tween daughter included when she read scripture.

Welcome.

I’m glad you had the foresight to want your teen daughter respected in what she read.
How sad for all of the children who’ve got parents shoving Comp down their throats,
including using the ESV Bibles.

I think we’ll see droves of young people leave the faith. What will it hold for them
when they finally wake up?

Velour wrote:

I think we’ll see droves of young people leave the faith. What will it hold for them
when they finally wake up?

Let me clarify: I think that droves of young people will – rightly – leave false religion, a false Gospel, and doctrines of men.

Velour wrote:

Wade points out that in the Greek texts it says “the woman”, and that Paul is referring to one woman (not all women) that is teaching one man error. Paul wanted her to stop teaching for the time and learn properly. The issue was not her gender, the issue was error.

Thanks for posting this because I’ve never heard that this was just one woman. I have heard that the command for a woman to learn was actually radically pro-female for that time, and in this day and age of women being educated, we can’t adequately appreciate how radical that command was.

Velour wrote:

Thanks Ken. I will have to research this further.

In your research, consider looking at all of Psalm 22. Verse 1 is the passage everyone quotes when saying God forsook Jesus on the cross because they don’t consider that maybe Jesus was pointing everyone to the whole Psalm when he only quoted the first verse. Here’s verse 24: “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” Psalm 22 is a pretty strong proof that God did not turn his back on Jesus. But the YRR crowd says the opposite. I guess that works pretty well when they don’t take the time to read passage in context.

@ Max:
One thing that amused me is the idea of a “literal” translation. Ok, let’s start with the original transcripts then let’s not put in chapter breaks or verse numbers. I much prefer to read Ephesians without chapter breaks are verse numbers…. I want even printed it out that way.

One of Mark Strauss papers is very funny when he takes a look at what is “literal” and how it reads today. The ESV had to make a lot of Corrections.

Go here for some Sunday afternoon amusement;

improvingesv2.pdf

It is a Zondervan site PDF.

@ Ken F:

I appreciated your analysis of the logical fallacies, Ken, you brought out a lot of good observations.

Just as an aside, on this topic of patriarchy, back during the early 90’s I read a lot of conservative political writers and the topic of patriarchy was being pushed pretty hard by a few as the solution to society’s ills. I kind of wish I remembered the particular authors now. The idea was we need to bring patriarchy back because it’s the answer to racial problems and the alternative to “the welfare state” and maybe a few other things. I remember seeing the idea from time to time but didn’t pay it much attention. It’s interesting to see it blowing up in the church now.

@ Patriciamc:
Here is something else to consider, in chapter 1 Paul is referring to people who are deceived like himself or people who deceive others on purpose like Al and Hymeneous. Big difference. For those who deceive on purpose he calls out their name in a letter. For those he believes are deceived, he has great Mercy because God showed him great Mercy.

So, ‘A’ woman was not named. Timothy knew exactly who he was talking about. When it refers to “she and they” the Greek is gune and aner which refers to female and male or husband and wife. This appears to denote that she was teaching her husband falsely. Most likely had to do with the cult of Diana which was huge in Ephesus. A sort of fertility cult for women where they could be high priestesses. That is most likely why we see Paul mention being saved in “the childbearing” (of Messiah). The temple cult taught that Eve was created first.

That entire passage makes no sense without the historical backdrop. Women do not have to bear children to be saved. Most comps teach this passage means they must be in the role of mother. What a cruel thing to teach Barren women of that time with no options like we have.

I often wonder why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of to represent our precious Lord.

Ken F wrote:

In your research, consider looking at all of Psalm 22. Verse 1 is the passage everyone quotes when saying God forsook Jesus on the cross because they don’t consider that maybe Jesus was pointing everyone to the whole Psalm when he only quoted the first verse. Here’s verse 24: “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” Psalm 22 is a pretty strong proof that God did not turn his back on Jesus. But the YRR crowd says the opposite. I guess that works pretty well when they don’t take the time to read passage in context.

I will look that up, Ken.

Dr. Ron Pierce’s, author and seminary professor, 15-hours of lectures about Genesis and this Comp stuff. He used to be Comp, until he studied the Scriptures closely and he is now Egal.

introductory lecture in a series by (primarily) Dr. Ronald W. Pierce on the topic of the theology of gender. For any who have the interest, plus 15 hours to spare, the entire lecture series is available at http://open.biola.edu/collections/bbst-450-theology-of-gender.

siteseer wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I often wonder why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of to represent our precious Lord.
What a great question, Lydia. You have to wonder.

I have wondered this myself. And I think many of them don’t have a real understanding of God, a love for Him, haven’t been transformed by Him.

Their knowledge of Him is book knowledge and nothing more.

I wonder how much of a connection there is between the neo-Calvinists, cessationism, and complementarianism. Basically how their view (at large) of the work of the Holy Spirit affects how they work out their anthropology.

From many of the comments here, it seems that they have a woefully inadequate idea of the work of the Spirit, and I wonder if many of them holding to cessationist viewpoints has anything to do with this? They don’t seem to understand that the Spirit could lead both man and wife to make decisions together.

I’m aware that Grudem was more charismatic as well as Piper and the PDI/SGM group (who seemed to move away from their more charismatic teachings as they embraced Calvinism), but generally speaking would many neo-Cals fall into the cessationist group?

It just seems more coherent to be a continuationist and egalitarian, not a continuationist and complementarian. I know there are Reformed cessationists who are egalitarian though, so maybe there isn’t a connection.

Just thinking out loud. 🙂

Ken F wrote:

Just thinking out loud.

That’s why you won’t fit into a YRR church. They don’t let you think at all. 🙂

Bea, Lydia & Velour: thanks so much for the info re Southeastern. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Apparently the kids love it, so I guess the Disneyland stuff is a very effective marketing ploy.

Lydia wrote:

I often wonder why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of to represent our precious Lord.

That goes all the way back to the Garden when Satan told lies about God. It’s the oldest lie in the book. It’s the lie that God is not for us. It’s the lie that caused Adam and Eve to hide from God when he looked for them in the garden after the fall. It’s the lie that Jesus addressed in John 14:9 – “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”?'” (Elect/Saved Version).

It’s also pretty good for making money.

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
No wonder the NeoCalvinists have kicked the Holy Spirit to the curb!
Also, their penal substitutionary theory of atonement has no place for the Holy Spirit. What was the Holy Spirit doing when God turned away from Jesus? Was the Spirit taking sides? Was the Trinity partially split (two against one) or was it a complete 3-way split?

If you’ve got any time, could you please expand on this point – penal substitution – and the problems you see with it. I am deprogramming – still – from a NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church that taught Comp.

I’d been quite naive in choosing a church. I’d wanted to go to a church, know other Christians and be known (not be in some huge anonymous place) and grow as a Christian.
I didn’t realize that my very spiritual life was being put on the line that I would be indoctrinated with these bizarre doctrines and teachings.

@ Velour:

and yet Mark Driscoll, one of the higher profile neo-Calvinists, constantly described himself as “charismatic with a seatbelt”. A former Pentecostal friend of mine who was at MH once quipped that what this meant was Mark had you seatbelted in and he drove the bus where he wanted to go, but the blanket assertion that neo-Calvinists don’t account for the Holy Spirit makes it seem as though you could read more of their work (I mean … not that you necessarily want to, just pointing out that the blanket statement clashes with what I observed about Mars Hill as a bastion of neo-Cal stuff over the span of a decade).

Per the comment about atonement theories, you may just be looking at the inherent limitation of atonement as a theological category, which attempts to explicate what Christ’s sacrifice accomplished on our behalf and why. All the atonement explanations have some kind of fatal limitation inherent within them as stand-alone explanations, which is why I’d say no responsible or mature Christian attempts to explain atonement by means of just one explanation. It’s an all-of-them or none-of-them deal. My Eastern Orthodox friend told me that even in Orthodoxy you still have to actually affirm penal substitutionary atonement in the prayer life of the Orthodox liturgy. The Orthodox problem with the entire Western tradition (Catholic and Protestant) is that they tried to boil down atonement to just one rather than have them all side by side as equally valuable. That’s the same problem whether a Western Christian is embracing PSA as the “one” atonement or rejecting it as somehow unchristian, both reflect the same tendency to doctrinal failure in Western Christianity for the EO.

Max wrote:

I’m open to most translations and have several in my library for comparative study.

I like to read several as well. I learned that some of the newer translations get updates without fanfare. For example, not too long ago my wife and I read through Romans 3 during our “quite time.” We both had a NLT Bible but mine was from 1996 and hers was from 2004. Here’s how the beginning of Romans 3:25 is translated in the older version: “For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.” I was shocked when I read that because I had never seen that language in any other translation. It’s the perfect proof text for penal substitution. But here is how the 2004 version of NLT translates it: “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.” The updated version agrees with all the other translations that I’ve read. Thomas Schreiner, a well-know Calvinist, was one of the three listed translators for Romans and Galatians in both translations. He was the one who wrote as the proponent for penal substitution in “The Nature of the Atonement; Four Views” (not a very good book – weak arguments on all sides). I’m guessing that he was the one who inserted the penal substitution wording in the original. But that 1996 translation got blowback, so the team revised it for the newer version. I’m still pretty stunned that he was able to insert wording that has no historical precedence. If it was a good translation the revision would have kept the original language. I think that fact alone says a lot about penal substitution. It also showed my how much translations get updated without changing the titles. I threw away my 1996 version. The latest NLT update is 2015.

roebuck wrote:

I’m not sure, but I get the impression that the ‘TNIV’ is no longer available because they stopped publishing the original NIV and renamed TNIV to NIV – so current NIV Bibles are what had been called the TNIV. In fact, I read someone complaining about a ‘bait and switch’.

I just ordered a used TNIV today from amazon.

Velour wrote:

What problems did Calvinism cause for your children?

He came to believe that he is not one of the elect and therefore lost hope. His questions to me were questions I should have been asking years ago. He is incredibly intelligent and saw through the bad theology sooner than I did. Had I learned more about Calvinism earlier maybe it would have made a difference (I’ve never attended an outright Calvinist church so I did not know enough about the five points). His college church was very authoritarian and very Calvinistic. I begged him for more than a year to find a different church, but he said the others in the area were even worse.

I gave up young earth thinking more than 20 years ago. What a mess that is. Here’s a pretty good source for old earth info: http://www.godandscience.org/. I can breath so much better now.

WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

My Eastern Orthodox friend told me that even in Orthodoxy you still have to actually affirm penal substitutionary atonement in the prayer life of the Orthodox liturgy.

That’s very interesting. I found a lot of good articles on penal substitution from Orthodox sources and never found one that affirms it. I got the impression that the Orthodox very consistently reject that theory of atonement. Other than that, their approach is pretty much what you wrote. They regard the atonement as a mystery that we will not be able to fully explain.

@ Ken F:

I’ve always received the impression that the Orthodox vehemently reject penal substitutionary atonement. The converts I know online are extremely anti-Western, and they see PSA as this big Evil Western Thing.

PSA is one of many things I never heard of before I got online back in 1997 or so. LOL, ignorance is bliss.

roebuck wrote:

Velour wrote:
If the truth be told, I hate arguing about these points. I just want to see the fruit of the spirit of peoples’ faith, no matter how their differ on the denominational details. Are they loving, kind, decent, fair, ethical? Do they stand apart from the world? Do they have humility?
Sing it, Sister! That sums up my feelings on the matter to a T. Yet it seems so many people would rather be Right than Effective.

Thank you, Roebuck!

At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church I was doing dishes in the church kitchen one Sunday after the potluck meal. Two men – in their 20s – were drying dishes and going on and on about all of these theological points, engaged in a deep conversation. I had NO CLUE what they were talking about and I felt I had landed in a particle physics class.

I just say to Jesus, “It can’t be this hard. You were uncomplicated. You didn’t want us to complicate it.”

Velour wrote:

If you’ve got any time, could you please expand on this point – penal substitution – and the problems you see with it.

I still deprogramming from it myself. When I started looking at Calvinism a bit more than I year ago I did a search on “imputed vs imparted righteousness” because I had heard so much about the importance of using the word “imputed” or “credited” rather than “imparted.” I was having a hard time understanding what that distinction is so important. One of the links I found was written by an Eastern Orthodox priest. It ties that question into the topic of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (PSA). Reading that stuff was eye opening for me because PSA was all that I was ever taught. That let me to more research. I was starting to get a picture of the difference between PSA and what the early church believed, but I had a hard time explaining it. So I drafted the 18 questions. I posted the list of good links I found and the 18 questions on the open discussion on the afternoon of May 15. I also read the book on the four views of atonement I mentioned above and “Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement” by Gustaf Aulen and M.A. A. G. Hebert. My best advice is to either read through the links I posted, or do your own internet searches. I’ve posted this before, but I think it’s also a very good article to read: http://perichoresis.org/god-in-the-hands-of-angry-sinners/ (you have to click on the link to get the pdf). My main beef with the theory is that one cannot derive it from the Bible. I’ve asked PSA advocates to answer my 18 questions, but so far the only response I’ve gotten is crickets.

roebuck wrote:

Sing it, Sister! That sums up my feelings on the matter to a T. Yet it seems so many people would rather be Right than Effective.

That’s how I’m starting to feel. The reason I’ve been diving into this so hard is because of all the pressure from the New Calvinists. This research has given me a much greater appreciation for other Christian traditions, including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I can now better understand why CK Chesterton converted to Catholicism.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

PSA is one of many things I never heard of before I got online back in 1997 or so. LOL, ignorance is bliss.

Isn’t that the truth! Cosmic child abuse Doctrine.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

Oh yeah. The kids always love it. That is the biggest draw. Get the kids, you get the parents when it comes to that demographic. I know adults who go there and hate it but won’t leave because of the kids. They advise people to never visit with the kids. :o)

@ Ken F:

bring me a shrubbery first.

Ken F wrote:

. I am so thankful for this site because it’s giving me an outlet after spending more than a year trying to understand why Calvinism did so much damage to my children once they got to college. I’m so grateful to find other people who are wrestling with this stuff who are not in the mode of “shoot first, ask questions never.”

Is college where they encountered it? I can relate. It happened in my extended family over 15 years ago with Piper. And I mean they went to Minneapolis for several years after graduating. They were like Arrogant Zombies when they came home for visits!

Ken F wrote:

I still deprogramming from it myself. When I started looking at Calvinism a bit more than I year ago I did a search on “imputed vs imparted righteousness” …One of the links I found was written by an Eastern Orthodox priest. It ties that question into the topic of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (PSA).

I have also found myself researching how the Eastern Orthodox Christians view this topics. They do a good job.

Reading that stuff was eye opening for me because PSA was all that I was ever taught. That let me to more research. I was starting to get a picture of the difference between PSA and what the early church believed, but I had a hard time explaining it. So I drafted the 18 questions. I posted the list of good links I found and the 18 questions on the open discussion on the afternoon of May 15.

Yes, I also copied your 18 questions and the links to the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab so that people could easily find them for future reference. Good job. Thank you.

I also read the book on the four views of atonement I mentioned above and “Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement” by Gustaf Aulen and M.A. A. G. Hebert.

I will add them to my list of books to read.

blockquote>I think it’s also a very good article to read: http://perichoresis.org/god-in-the-hands-of-angry-sinners/ (you have to click on the link to get the pdf). My main beef with the theory is that one cannot derive it from the Bible. I’ve asked PSA advocates to answer my 18 questions, but so far the only response I’ve gotten is crickets.

That was my thinking too – where is it in the Bible? It makes no sense.

If you order an NIV today, you will get the 2011 version. It is not the same as the TNIV. After the huge uproar over the TNIV, Zondervon went back to the drawing board – mostly just to put the vicious backlash to rest.

They then assembled another committee to begin afresh with the 2011 version, incorporating a few members from both sides of the aisle.

However, after all is said and done, I believe that you would feel very confident giving your daughter a 2011 version. Many of the same issues that were contested in the TNIV are essentially retained in the new version. I don’t think I’ll give up my TNIV, but use the new NIV in group settings for consistency

roebuck wrote:

Velour wrote:
I just say to Jesus, “It can’t be this hard. You were uncomplicated. You didn’t want us to complicate it.”
There seems to be a human propensity/need to somehow try to ‘own’ everything by ‘explaining’ it with more and more complicated theoretical systems. In the case at hand, absurd levels of systematic theology, and I do mean absurd.
What a huge and tragic distraction from the ncredibly simple point of it all…
For God so loved the world…

And if we’re supposed to come to Jesus like children, well He’s not going to make it hard for the kiddos to grasp and play mind games with them! He doesn’t do that.

@ Velour:

Fair enough, I’ve seen enoughof the neo-Cal scene that I’m struck more and more by its lack of cohesion. I guess I’d also have to say I lean more traditionally Reformed in my sympathies so it’s not a surprise to me that a rift between older Reformed and neo-Calvinists has begun to appear. I’ve written to dee and Deb over the years that this is what I’ve been expecting was likely to happen. What the older Reformed and other Christian traditions have in common is seeing ESS as a nasty heretical stunt perpetrated on a historic understanding of the Trinity that crosses a lot of confessional boundaries that historically haven’t agreed on a lot of other stuff.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Nope, same town. I met him once in the old downtown Sears where he and his wife were shopping. People would greet him and he was always pleasant and kind, seemed like a real person. He was still Cassius Clay at the time. Louisville is justly proud of this man.
He visited my place of work (we did some custom work for him). What a tremendously genuine and down to earth person.

How nice. Funny man. I must re-watch that documentary “When We Were Kings” about him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118147/

Ali’s funeral will be televised this Friday.

http://www.channel24.co.za/TV/News/muhammad-alis-funeral-to-be-streamed-live-across-the-world-20160605

Lydia wrote:

So, ‘A’ woman was not named. Timothy knew exactly who he was talking about. When it refers to “she and they” the Greek is gune and aner which refers to female and male or husband and wife. This appears to denote that she was teaching her husband falsely. Most likely had to do with the cult of Diana which was huge in Ephesus. A sort of fertility cult for women where they could be high priestesses. That is most likely why we see Paul mention being saved in “the childbearing” (of Messiah). The temple cult taught that Eve was created first.
That entire passage makes no sense without the historical backdrop. Women do not have to bear children to be saved. Most comps teach this passage means they must be in the role of mother. What a cruel thing to teach Barren women of that time with no options like we have.

Here’s another excellent blog article from (pastor) Wade Burleson’s blog, he’s the pastor here on TWW for E-Church on Sundays, about the Temple of Artemus and the cultural/social backdrop of what was going on when Paul wrote to Timothy:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

roebuck wrote:

haven’t paid much attention to the whole NIV/TNIV kerfluffle. I have an old NIV study Bible if I need to consult that particular translation. I don’t actually read it much any more – the font is too small for my aging eyes! I mostly read the NKJV these days, because a) I really like the translation and b) the edition I have is ‘Super Giant Print’

Thanks for the tip. I will consider getting one in my next purchase.

Ken F wrote:

The real answer is that we all need to do a bit of research before we accept what we are told is “gospel” truth. I’ve been amazed by how easy it is to find stuff on the internet if you use the right key words. There is a lot of very helpful info out there.

This is so true. I was so naive before in looking for a church. And what a hot mess I landed in.

Lydia wrote:

I dont understand why His anger had to be poured out on Jesus Christ when He had already chosen those who would be saved before the world was formed.

This has been my problem with NeoCalvinism. If God already knew who was going to Heaven (“The Elect”) and who was going to Hell (“The Non-Elect”) then there was no need for Jesus to ever be born, live, teach, perform miracles, die on the cross and be resurrected.

None of it makes sense if Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If Jesus Christ was God In the Flesh then it was a great sacrifice for us all and the resurrection is proof of New Life.

Yes!

Ken F wrote:

I think you and I are on the same page…

It seems like a lot of us have found our way to the same page today/this evening. As Velour said above, it has been a day of good fellowship, and for me, refreshment. Praise the Lord for fellowship!

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
What problems did Calvinism cause for your children?

He came to believe that he is not one of the elect and therefore lost hope.

How sad. The positive is that he doesn’t seem to be an arrogant young man like so many of these insufferable NeoCals who see themselves as “The Elect”, God help us all.

His questions to me were questions I should have been asking years ago. He is incredibly intelligent and saw through the bad theology sooner than I did.

I’m glad that your son didn’t swallow it hook, line and sinker and actually carefully thought about it. Another positive.

Had I learned more about Calvinism earlier maybe it would have made a difference (I’ve never attended an outright Calvinist church so I did not know enough about the five points).

I will be praying for your family and your son. I deeply regret ever having judged those who didn’t go to church. Now I understand why. The teachings are so very dangerous at so many churches, so untrue, and there is also the other issue of child safety (an epidemic of child sexual abuse in conservative evangelical churches that has me alarmed).

His college church was very authoritarian and very Calvinistic. I begged him for more than a year to find a different church, but he said the others in the area were even worse.

I think the NeoCalvinists have made a special effort to indoctrinate college students, and in my area (Silicon Valley, CA) my former NeoCalvinist church has targeted the elite Stanford University students (graduate students and under-graduate). I fear for them and pray the blinders come off and they wake up to these lies.

I gave up young earth thinking more than 20 years ago. What a mess that is. Here’s a pretty good source for old earth info: http://www.godandscience.org/. I can breath so much better now.

I’d never heard of it before I landed in a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church!
I’d never heard of anything more ludicrous in my life. I thought, “They can’t be serious. Look around. The mountains, the oceans, the fossils. This earth is WAAAAYYYY older than 6,000 years old.” Members of my family were devout Christians (Presbyterians) and worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers years ago. They didn’t believe in an Young Earth – the men or the women scientists in my family – and they were all Christians.

Velour wrote:

And with that, I have just taken communion (red wine and wheat). I vowed, since I was excommunicated from my NeoCalvinist church, that they couldn’t deny me communion so I would just buy the elements and do it myself…and Jesus would understand.
Thank you, friends!

Given their attitude and their actions, their communion is a mockery of God.

Lydia wrote:

I dont understand why His anger had to be poured out on Jesus Christ when He had already chosen those who would be saved before the world was formed.

None of it makes sense if Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Hi LYDIA,
You are right here: Jesus Christ IS God in the Flesh. He is God in the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and it was this Person who was crucified. (Not just His human nature, while His divine nature stood by and was angry …..the whole Person of Christ died on the Cross) And because He was true God and true Man, death did not have the power to hold Him …. hence the Resurrection.

The whole fundamentalist ‘angry God’ thing doesn’t make sense when you realize that Christ, whole and entire, divine and human, died on that cross for our sake.

BTW the eastern orthodox see the Incarnation as just as important a part of our human salvation as the rest of the events of Our Lord’s journey here on Earth.

WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

I guess I’d also have to say I lean more traditionally Reformed in my sympathies so it’s not a surprise to me that a rift between older Reformed and neo-Calvinists has begun to appear.

While I was in my mid-20s, I endured an excruciating four-way church split in the fundamentalist/evangelical church I’d joined in college. It was so shocking and destructive that it brought me to a crisis point that either Christianity was a crock and I should give it up — or that something was desperately wrong in what and/or how we were taught that could lead to such divisiveness.

I have to say that it was an old-school Reformed Baptist pastor/church planter and his wife, both whose humble intellectualism, kindness, and sacrificial lifestyle showed me what real Christianity was. I would not writing this today if not for them.

YRR is not this. Not at all. The word virulent has come up repeatedly about this approach of Neo-Calvinism/Neo-Puritanism, and for good reason. It is not merely “restless” but reckless, and my encounters with its followers remind me of a horror genre movie where some relatively benign virus gets pelted by radiation and starts World War Z.

It has created a sad state of affairs, and I am certain my old-school friend grieves over the snares and snarling this virulent form of so-called “reformed” doctrine has spawned.

Lydia wrote:

Here is something else to consider, in chapter 1 Paul is referring to people who are deceived like himself or people who deceive others on purpose like Al and Hymeneous. Big difference. For those who deceive on purpose he calls out their name in a letter. For those he believes are deceived, he has great Mercy because God showed him great Mercy.
So, ‘A’ woman was not named. Timothy knew exactly who he was talking about. When it refers to “she and they” the Greek is gune and aner which refers to female and male or husband and wife. This appears to denote that she was teaching her husband falsely. Most likely had to do with the cult of Diana which was huge in Ephesus. A sort of fertility cult for women where they could be high priestesses. That is most likely why we see Paul mention being saved in “the childbearing” (of Messiah). The temple cult taught that Eve was created first.
That entire passage makes no sense without the historical backdrop. Women do not have to bear children to be saved. Most comps teach this passage means they must be in the role of mother. What a cruel thing to teach Barren women of that time with no options like we have.
I often wonder why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of to represent our precious Lord.

I knew about the cult of Diana, but not about not naming the people who were deceived. I’m going to read the full article. I do wish the people over at Wendy Alsup’s blog would read this. Recently, they’ve been debating how to justify what women can and can’t do in a church. They started with a conclusion (women can’t do a whole lot), then have tried to twist all the bits of scripture into agreeing with that conclusion, and have basically tried to make 2+2=5. I just couldn’t go down that road and try to debate them.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

It has created a sad state of affairs, and I am certain my old-school friend grieves over the snares and snarling this virulent form of so-called “reformed” doctrine has spawned.

Your post here is so good that I am writing barefoot because it’s like being on holy ground. I have a somewhat eclectic Protestant background. I grew up in the United Methodist church but did not understand the gospel until I was in college. Because of my job I had to move around a lot over the last 30 years. I’ve attended various churches in the Pacific Northwest, Central Coast, Southern CA, New England, Mid-Atlantic Coast, Western Europe, and now one hole removed from the buckle of the Bible belt. The churches included “Community” Evangelical (pretty much seeker sensitive), Friends, Liturgical, Pentecostal, Missionary Alliance, and now Southern Baptist. And I’ve attended Roman Catholic Mass a few times with friends (I even attended a few Friday prayers in mosques with my Muslim friends because I wanted to see it for myself – I could never be Muslim). In every church I have found humble people with a heart for God who did not get wrapped up in theological “distinctives” (one of the BIG buzz words these days). It’s as if the Spirit of Christ in each of us connects regardless of any theological differences we have. Those were the good days.

This New Calvinism is different. It is so contrary to the attitude of your “old-school Reformed Baptist pastor/church planter and his wife.” I believe many good people have been swept into the YRR movement without knowing what hit them. I can understand how this can happen because I was like that when I was in college (but it was not a “Reformed” ministry – it was closer to shepherding movement). I thought that I was with a group that had all the right answers. Thankfully, God was gracious to me and delivered me from it. This is why we need discerning people to firmly and lovingly stand against this aberrant theology. If they had a “live and let live” mentality I would be less concerned. But these people truly believe they are doing the Lord’s work while they force their theology on people who are too loving and humble to believe it could happen. It’s tragic because of the damage it wreaks. Thank you all for your kindness and discernment.

@KenF…oh my gosh re your son!!! Is he OK now?

Are you familiar with the 18th-century English poet William Cowper? He was a disciple of John Newton, of *Amazing Grace* fame. Cowper became convinced that he was not one of the Elect and succumbed to a sort of dull lifelong despair. His poem, *The Castaway,* based on a contemporary drowning incident, reflects his feelings about his presumed lostness. It is heartbreaking.

In Cowper’s case…well, the poor guy probably had schizophrenia. He heard “voices” of devils telling him he was damned and mocking him.

When he was on his deathbed, his friends gathered around, earnestly trying to assure him that God loved him and had not damned him. He wouldn’t listen. Then he slipped into a coma.

While his friends were out of the room, he died. When they came back in, they found him with an absolutely radiant smile spread over his face. It was not the grimace of death; it was angelic.

The author of the Cowper biography (my source for all this; forget his name) postulated that, somewhere in the borderland between life and death, Cowper had encountered Jesus, who had gently assured him of His infinite love and mercy. Hence the radiant smile. I think that sounds like exactly what happened!!!

I know Cowper’s case is not at all the same as your son’s, but what you said tripped my memory banks.

I know we are not supposed to slam other traditions here, and I fully agree with that, but oh my gosh, there is something sick about Calvinism.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

h my gosh re your son!!! Is he OK now?

He is doing much better now that he is no longer under that oppression. Thanks for asking.

For any faith system I think it’s worthwhile to look at the root and the fruit. For Calvinism, look at Calvin’s letter and his Institutes (root) and look at how life was in Geneva under him and how the Anabaptists were treated by him and his followers (fruit). The fruit of Calvin is indefensible. Nobody seems to be following the “The Great Calvinista Divide” thread from last week anymore. The last five posts deal with Calvin’s endorsement of Sebastian Castellio. It’s worth taking a few minutes to read those posts. So far I don’t know of a modern Calvinist who is as cruel as Calvin was.

Ken F wrote:

So far I don’t know of a modern Calvinist who is as cruel as Calvin was.

If the NeoCalvinists got their desired theocracy, that would change. So far they’ve been stopped by the separation of church and state (thankfully), criminal laws, and civil laws.

I was going through my email this afternoon and Mozilla Thunderbird (my client on this Linux box) tagged the latest missive from Mark Driscoll’s “The Trinity Church” as a scam. And then I untagged it and Thunderbird tagged it again! It was like Thunderbird REALLY wanted me to know “It’s a SCAM.” I know–that’s why I picket.

@ Patriciamc:
That is why I cannot be in a soft comp fellowship anymore. It’s a waste of time. I don’t want my daughter to think debating what she can and cannot do (because she was born female) in the body of Christ, is normal.

The premise is wrong even if it is nicer. It’s like traveling down the wrong road and knowing it is the wrong road just to be on a road. Been there, done that.

They will be debating ‘can and cannot’ 20 years from now. Some churches will allow more and some less. I am old enough to have seen this play out in several venues.

@ roebuck:

I forgot to add my thanks for your efforts down there in the Valley of the Sun. (I spent a fair amount of time in Tempe in the 70’s.)

roebuck wrote:

Mozilla Thunderbird (my client on this Linux box) tagged the latest missive from Mark Driscoll’s “The Trinity Church” as a scam.

Who’d have thought, software with discernment. Can computers have spiritual gifts?

Lydia wrote:

That is why I cannot be in a soft comp fellowship anymore.

When there is a rotting corpse in the room I don’t care to be in the room no matter how much perfume they use to mask it, it still stinks in there. And the big problem is when you choose to stay, you lose your sense of smell.

Velour wrote:

They weren’t dogmatic and hateful, not the ones I was raised around.

This is an whole other issue that I hope the Deebs cover some time. I don’t agree with the neocal doctrine, but their issue is far deeper than paper doctrine. Many of them exhibit the works of the flesh, and none of their clique will call them out.

hey, i was #501… does that mean i’m lucky at this moment? how long does a lucky moment last? (thinking through my to-do list, and what might benefit from any glistening lucky edge…)

@ Bill M:
Yes! For me I know it can’t end well. And here is another problem for me. It is one of those issues that so many churches talk about all the time now. It is the Gospel now. It is inescapable in evangelicalism.

When I was growing up we never heard sermons on this issue. Gender roles in marriage never came up at all. Most of the pastor’s I grew up around had working wives because they didn’t make big salaries.

I just don’t see people of my parents generation putting up with all this talk about how they should order their private lives and their marriages. They would have laughed in the pastors face as they voted him out.

What has happened to us?

Velour wrote:

at http://open.biola.edu/collections/bbst-450-theology-of-gender.

Dr. Ron Pierce’s book is:

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy Paperback – August 25, 2005
by Ronald W. Pierce (Editor), Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Editor), Gordon D. Fee (Editor)

This is going to be another time that I highly recommend that both DBE and RBMW be read in tandem. People should examine the arguments and the level of reasoning in both of these books. Actually, anyone who is confident in their reasoning and exegesis and interpretation should not be afraid of other people testing their arguments.

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Velour wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

@ Ken F:
I’ve always received the impression that the Orthodox vehemently reject penal substitutionary atonement. The converts I know online are extremely anti-Western, and they see PSA as this big Evil Western Thing.
PSA is one of many things I never heard of before I got online back in 1997 or so. LOL, ignorance is bliss.

We have a couple of Eastern Orthodox Christians who post here. Maybe one of them can answer this point.

Here is a wonderful explanation by an Orthodox writer whose writing is extremely…accessible. Maybe this is something you are looking for.

http://frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html. This is a very short article.

Also, Father Patrick Henry Reardon has a new book out on the topic. _Reclaiming the Atonement_.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

But that’s the whole point. The Leaders go to “real” schools to gain legitimacy, and then surround themselves with yes-men who came up through the farm league.

Yes, so do you think that Dever and Grudem, for example, know how to reason and refuse to do it? Or, even worse, they know how to reason and use that knowledge to mislead people?

@ elastigirl:
TOO EASY!!!