The Battle for the Eternal Subordination of Women Disguised as a Disagreement on the Functional Roles of the Trinity

"It was the whole Trinity, which at the beginning of creation said, "Let us make man". It was the whole Trinity again, which at the beginning of the Gospel seemed to say, "Let us save man"." – J. C. Ryle link

https://www.facebook.com/emmanuelenidok/photos/a.173588936013689.35661.173586649347251/174084809297435/?type=3&theater
Emmanuel Enid

A debate on the role of women in the church disguised by a debate on the Trinity.

A long time ago, the Deebs predicted there would come a day that the gospel™ boys would  begin to go after one another in order to prove who is the most theologically astute. I used to think that complementarianism was a secondary issue, something Christians could amicably disagree about. It isn't. It has become the lynch pin of the entire Neo Calvinist movement. If this were not so, I do not believe that the current battle about the ESS doctrine would be so heated, especially by those heavily invested in The Gospel Coalition, T4G, Acts 29, and the Council of Biblical Men and Women.

In 2008, CRI presented Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father. The article recognizes that the issue of the eternal submission of the Son was, once again, being debated due to the complementarian/egalitarian debate.

Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father? The biblical doctrine of the Trinity is God’s self-revelation about His nature. Both the Old and New Testaments reveal God as a unity of three persons; because of this unity, we can enjoy the benefits of a relationship with Him. The Trinity makes possible the incarnation of God as man, and it is only through the incarnation that we can be saved from our sins, since God alone can be our savior. B

Believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, accept these truths by faith. Understanding precisely how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another remains a topic of debate, however, and this debate recently has been reinvigorated due to its implications for the egalitarian-complementarian debate about how male and female Christians should relate to one another in marriage and the church.

Some definitions

Eternal generation of the Son 

This relationship between the members of the Godhead is a mystery. Better yet, there is NO human resemblance to what is going on in this unique relationship.

From Theopedia:

The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son." [1]

Brief explanation

The name "Creator" or "Savior" refer to acts of God's will, but in contrast his name as Father to the Son is a revelation of the identity of God Himself. The Father brings forth the Son by the act of being God, not by an act of will, so that the Son fully shares in the Father's deity and glory as God. There has never been, nor is it possible for there to be, any God and Father without the Son.

God is an absolutely simple being. There are not three gods. There are not three Lords. There are not three parts of God. Rather, there are three who are Lord, three who are God, three who are One. The Father is not changed by being Father to the Son; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God eternally. The Son is not divided from the Father by being the Son; the Son is as near to the Father as the Father is to himself. There is distinction among the divine Persons, but there is no separation.

By simply being God, the Son expresses the Father's person and being. Whoever sees the Son, sees the Father; that is, the Father is revealed to whomever the Father chooses to reveal the Son. Only God can reveal God. "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (John 1:18; ESV). "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:21).

"Eternally begotten" compared to "born of"

This doctrine suggests that Jesus, the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin, and declared to be the Son of God when raised up by the Spirit of God, manifests in human and therefore derivative terms an eternal and unchanging mystery concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son.

What is meant by the Ontological Trinity?

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) defines it like this.

The Trinity is the Christian teaching that God consists of three simultaneous, eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three persons are equal in their attributes and nature but differ in how they relate to the world and to each other. When we say they are equal in nature and attributes, we are speaking of what is called the Ontological Trinity (ontology–study of being and essence). Each of the three persons in the Godhead are divine–have equal attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, etc.).

What is meant by Economic Trinity?

Again from CARM we learn:

the Economic Trinity deals with how the three persons in the Godhead relate to each other and the world. Each has different roles within the Godhead, and each has different roles in relationship to the world (some roles overlap). 

Here are some examples from CARM.

We can see that the Father sent the Son (John 6:44; 8:18). The Son came down from heaven not to do his own will (John 6:38). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), who is the only begotten (John 3:16), to perform the redemptive work (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit. 

In other words, the three members of the Godhead have different functions. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Son who died on the Cross. The Son is not the Father. Up to this point, I think most orthodox Christians would be in agreement. 

What is the heresy of subordinationism?

Theopedia outlines it this way.

Subordinationism is an heretical view that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. In other words, this view maintains that, within the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father. To the contrary, orthodox doctrine maintains that although there is no autonomous Person of the Trinity, none who is God apart from any other Person, yet each Person is autotheos

Merriam Webster defines autotheos as

 the doctrine of the self-existence of God; especially : the doctrine that Christ is the self-existent God himself

Do the members of the Trinity have a difference of will?

CARM discusses the issue of the will(s) of the three members of the Godhead.

1. There is only one will with God.  If the Father sent the Son and the Son did not come to do his own will, then is the Son subordinate in that role to the Father?  If so, isn't this a resurrection of the heresy of subordinationism?

This objection fails to recognize the difference between the heresy of subordinationism which teaches a difference in nature among the persons of the Trinity and subordination which teaches a subordination or roles within the Trinity.

2.Doesn't the difference of role mean that the Father commands and the Son obeys?  But if this is so, how can the Trinity be of one will?

By definition, each person of the Trinity must have his own will; otherwise, they are not persons. The question would then be how does each will relate to the other within the Trinity? The Scriptures don't tell us that the Son obeyed the Father. We are told that Jesus came down from heaven not to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him (John 6:38). It would seem that we could conclude that the Father and the Son either did not have the same will, and/or that the Son voluntarily subjected himself to accomplish the will of the Father. Either way, the members of the Trinity work in perfect harmony in spite of there being three persons.

3. If the Trinity is of one will, how can there be a distinction of wills between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The question may not be valid. God is a Trinity of three persons and by necessity, each person must have his own will. The Bible does not explain how this inter-Trinitarian relationship of three persons works in order to accomplish the will of the single God. But we see no logical necessity that says the distinction of wills means that the Trinity cannot act with one will.

The continuing debate

It is important to understand that the parties on both sides of the current debate are complementarians. However, the folks over at The Mortification of Spin(MOS) believe that Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, Denny Burk and Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are wrong to use the interrelationship of the Trinity as a proof text from the eternal submission of women.

I will also give the MOS editors props for calling out some of the more ridiculous aspects of the complementarianism as proposed by groups like CBMW. They had a hearty laugh over the now missing Soap Bubble Submission CBMW post.

Here are some of the current posts on the ESS debate along with a short statement from the posts. 

God the Son–at once eternally God with His Father, and eternally Son of the Father by Bruce Ware

Ware is one of the *inventors* of the current day ESS doctrine as it relates to complementarianism. He is a professor at SBTS and his daughter is married to Owen Strachan of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This was posted at Reformation 21.

As Son, the Son is always the Son of the Father and is so eternally. As Son of the Father, he is under the authority of his Father and seeks in all he does to act as the Agent of the Father's will, working and doing all that the Father has purposed and designed for his Son to accomplish. The eternal Son, God the Son, is both fully God and fully equal to the Father, while he is fully Son and eternally in a relationship of Agent of the Father, carrying out the work and implementing the will of the Father in full submission and obedience to all that the Father has planned. God and Son, i.e., fully God (in nature) and fully Son (in person)–this is who this Second Person of the Trinity is as Hebrews, John, and the New Testament declare. 

Fourth, none of this glorious Trinitarian theology is being devised for the purpose of supporting a social agenda of human relations of equality and complementarity. I do believe there is intended correspondence,

A Surrejoinder to Bruce Ware by Carl Trueman.

Trueman is one of the editors of MOS and a professor at Westminster Seminary.

Nicene Trinitarianism involves a host of commitments – to divine simplicity as classically articulated by Gregory Nazianzus, to the unity of the divine will, to inseparable operations and, of course, to eternal generation.  Repudiation or revision of any one or more of these involves a revision of the whole and thus ceases to be Nicene Trinitarianism.
 
And while I am happy to hear that none of this is driven by identity politics, it does raise one more question.  Even if we were to grant that Nicene orthodoxy is wrong and Bruce Ware is right — what does any of this have to do with male-female gender relations?  The answer, I believe, is nothing at all.

Whose Position on the Trinity is Really New? by Wayne Grudem posted at The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Grudem is a seminary professor, best known for his Systematic Theology and his 83 rules for women.

(4) Failure to adequately account for the clear pattern of biblical teaching on inter-personal relationships within the Trinity: Goligher and Trueman simply fail to account for the repeated testimony of Scripture, and Scripture must be our final guide in this matter. As I have written elsewhere, there is an abundance of Scriptural teaching on the eternal authority of the Father and submission of the Son in terms of relationship (not essence). The names “Father” and “Son” themselves would certainly have implied such a relationship in the ancient world in which Scripture was written, for fathers of families still had familial leadership even when relating to adult sons (see Gen. 49:33; 50:16-17; Luke 15:18). 

A rejoinder to Wayne Grudem  by Carl Trueman

To respond: I accuse no-one of rejecting the Nicene Creed of 325, as he states (at least in the version of the post available at 13:52 on Friday).  Nicene orthodoxy is actually defined at Constantinople in 381.  I simply state that those who get rid of eternal generation and speak of eternal submission are outside of the bounds set by 381 — which is the ecumenical standard of the church catholic, albeit in the West subject to the revision at Toledo.

A Guest Post at MOS by *John Calvin*

He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man.  Let us take notice of those gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

Why did the Son become incarnate? Because he submitted? by Dr Mark Jones at MOS.

Jones is a pastor at Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church in Canada, a research associate at University of the Free State in South Africa, and a lecturer in systematic theology at John Wycliffe Theological College in cooperation with North-West University in South Africa. link

He deeply disagrees with Bruce Ware.

 The offices of the Mediator, namely, priest, prophet, and king, necessitated that the Son of God take on the work of mediation.  Regarding the office of priest, it is the birth-right of the eldest Son in the family to be the priest. Therefore, to prove he was a Priest (Heb. 5), the author cites Psalm 2: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” As an intercessory priest the Son is uniquely able to approach the Father, which is a function grounded both in ontology (i.e. their natural subsistence) and economy (Christ’s work of mediation).  

…In the future, I want to take up the issue of using the language of “authority” and “submission” to describe ad intra Trinitarian relations. It seems to me to be highly problematic, as many have pointed out, to make “submission” the constitutive personal property in God. (I also want to challenge Bruce Ware’s use of the word “eternal” in his Reformation21 piece, which to me is an example of failing to understand how the term has been used historically. And, as I noted above, his Christology seems to have suffered as a result of his Trinitarian views).

There are better ways of understanding why, for example, the Son became Mediator. Those ways do not require us to use the language of submission when it comes to the eternal relations between the Father and the Son. 

A brief response to Trueman and Goligher by Denny Burk

Burk:

 Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of  SBTS.

He is a Neo-Calvinist. However, I want to commend him. Unlike his fellow Calvinists, he takes comments on his blog. When writing about issues like the Trinity, it would have been helpful if those participating in the debate had allowed for questions. This is a complex issue. Denny has even allowed me to comment on his blog! That takes guts.

Burk, of course, aligns himself with the ESS doctrine.

4. Truman and Goligher write as if any analogy of gender roles to intra-Trinitarian roles is inappropriate and unbiblical. Goligher writes, “To use the intra-Trinitarian relations as a social model is neither biblical nor orthodox.” Likewise Trueman, “Analogies of intratrinitarian relations to human notions of submission [are] inappropriate.” The problem with these two statements is that they fail to recognize that Scripture itself makes the analogy! The Apostle Paul writes, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). The point is clear. The headship of God is in some sense analogous to that of man. The nature and extent of the analogy is certainly up for discussion and debate. But to pretend that some form of analogy is unbiblical is untenable—unless of course we dismiss the apostle Paul, but I don’t think either side of this debate wants to do that.

5. I agree with Grudem that Trueman and Goligher have failed “to adequately account for the clear pattern of biblical teaching on inter-personal relationships within the Trinity.” I have in mind 1 Corinthians 15:28 in particular:

“And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.”

Are you confused yet? I certainly was. However, the following article helped me to get a better grip on the issues.

Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father? 

Both side of the debate are presented by CRI in one post. I found it quite helpful.

In the discussion that follows, Kevin Giles, Vicar of St. Michael’s Church, North Carlton, Australia, and Robert Letham, professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Bryntirion, Wales, debate whether Jesus Christ is eternally submissive to the Father. They further discuss the applications of their respective positions to the egalitarian-complementarian debate.

1. Does the Son Submit to the Father in the Indivisible Unity of the Trinity? by Robert Letham

He leans towards the submission view.

Here are a few points.

Since Reformed theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) propounded the idea of the covenant of redemption, much Reformed theology has argued that Christ’s incarnate obedience reflects eternal relations. This idea holds that salvation rests on an intra-Trinitarian covenant, the Father stipulating that the Son should take human nature, make atonement for sin, and promising rewards for the faithful discharge of these duties, and the Son accepting the covenantal terms. Of this covenant, both Owen and Francis Turretin (1623–1687), for example, were notable exponents.

With others, I have some reservations concerning this proposed covenant of redemption. It has not received confessional status; in Eastern terms, it is a theologoumenon—a theological opinion. It pictures the Trinity as a divine committee meeting that borders on tritheism: the Father leading, the Son simply responding to the Father, and the Holy Spirit absent.

…Instead of Giles’s paradigm, I suggest the following. The Son is eternally God—yesterday, today and forever—and remains so. In the incarnation, He chose to lower Himself, adding human nature, in which He was obedient to the Father while simultaneously ruling the universe. From his resurrection, He was exalted to the right hand of the Father. As Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln (1807-1885), put it, “man with God is on the throne,”19 while the distinction of deity and humanity is still preserved, and will be so forever.

This is the way the Son exercises His Lordship—not with the oppressive power of fallen man, but as a servant; He did not come to be served, but to serve (see Matt. 20:20–28). He acts freely, not under compulsion. This tells us something vital about the Son and about God Himself.

As the Son became incarnate and the Spirit came at Pentecost, the Father sending, so the indivisible omnipotence of God comes to expression in distinct ways. No better summary can be found than that of Giles: “It is godlike to gladly subordinate oneself for the good of another.”20

2. The Son of God Is Not Eternally Inferior, Subordinate, or Submissive by Kevin Giles.

His view on Wayne Grudem's perspective is helpful.

On this basis, orthodoxy consistently has taught the temporal and voluntary subordination of the Son in the incarnation and completely has rejected the eternal subordination of the Son in nature and/or authority—the heresy of “subordinationism.” 

…This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.4 The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be overestimated. It is one of the most widely used theology texts in evangelical seminaries. He is emphatic that the eternal subordination of the Son in authority stands at the heart of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. For Grudem, the Father has “the role of commanding, directing, and sending,” and the Son has the role of “obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us.”5 For him differing authority is what distinguishes the Father from the Son. He writes, “Authority and submission between the Father and the Son…and the Holy Spirit, is the fundamental difference between the persons of the Trinity.”6 “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”7

…How what Letham teaches in these few pages significantly differs from what Grudem and other conservative evangelicals are teaching completely escapes me. Letham avoids the confusing and confused use of the words “function” and “role” but he still eternally suborders the Son to the Father in authority. What he first repeatedly denies in his coverage of the Bible and the historical sources, namely the eternal subordering of the Son, he then unambiguously affirms in the final section of his book. The Son is eternally set under the Father’s authority as women are permanently set under the authority of men in the church and the home. Women’s subordination, he would have us believe, is grounded “ontologically” in a hierarchically ordered Trinity where the Father eternally rules and the Son eternally obeys.

On the Permanent Subordination of Women

This observation leads me lastly to point out that what is common to all those who advocate the eternal subordination or submission of the Son is a commitment to the permanent subordination of women. The doctrine of an eternally subordered Son is introduced to give the weightiest foundation possible for the permanent subordering of women.

As no one in the contemporary scene other than conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians who are committed to the permanent subordination of women teach this novel doctrine, we must ask, is the tail wagging the dog? Scripture teaches the unqualified Lordship of Christ and the coequality of the Trinity (see Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 13:13), but has the “women question” led theologically and politically conservative Protestants to deny the unqualified Lordship of Christ and thus undermine the doctrine of coequality in the Trinity?

I highly recommend you take the time to read this post for a great understanding of the debate.

Where do I stand?

I go back to the will of the members of the Trinity. As humans, our wills are regularly in conflict with one another. We are sinners. However, the wills of the Three in the Godhead are not in conflict. Let's look at the attributes of God. God is holy and is without sin. He is omnipotent, all wise, infinitely merciful, just, gracious and loving. He is good and is the embodiment of truth. He is glorious. All three members of the Godhead fully share in these attributes.

This whole *Jesus is eternally submissive thing* makes no sense to me outside of Jesus' time on earth when He temporarily gave up His right to the privileges of being God. Do we truly view him as sitting around in heaven while waiting for the Father to say "Time to get going?" They perfectly know one another, agree with one another and want to work in harmony with one another. They will not make any mistakes and will never work against one another. 

Within the church, we know that we are sinners and those who lead the church are sinners. We do not perfectly understand each other and often times work against one another. Christians, who are supposed to be known for their love, are often known for their condemnation, self righteousness, and their ability to overlook serious sin in themselves and their best buddies. Not so in the Godhead.

I think it is unhelpful and illogical to attempt to apply the relationship between the members of the Godhead to the relationship between men and women. We are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Once again, I believe that the issue of complementarianism is the driving force behind the current interest in this debate and objections to the contrary ring hollow. I suspect this obsession is leading to questionable theology.

Comments

The Battle for the Eternal Subordination of Women Disguised as a Disagreement on the Functional Roles of the Trinity — 855 Comments

  1. Good article, Dee.

    By the way, CBMW uses “on” in their title, not “of”. (I have to look up their org’s name all of the time.)

  2. This might be neither here nor there, but as the OP uses CARM as a resource, this may (or may not be) pertinent, but CARM are complementarians.

    Further, I read an article or two by a Christian women who used to have one or two web sites (and wrote a book?) defending egalitarianism. She participated at CARM’s forums for awhile and was eventually (she claims) stalked and harassed by one of CARM’s moderators.

    She had a big, long page about this on one of her sites. I don’t think the head phoo-ba at CARM (I forget his name) did much to stop the harassment at the time, if I am recalling her site correctly.

    I think this is one of the pages:
    To Diane Sellner of CARM
    https://www.mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/03/27/to-diane-sellner-of-carm/

    CARM might be an otherwise okay source to quote on general apologetic issues, but I guess bear in mind they are complementarian and apparently not friendly towards Christians who disagree with complementarianism.

  3. What I don’t understand is why these Comps are so concerned about women being subjected to men for ALL eternity? Further, have they ever listened to Jesus teaching addressing the Sadducees in Mt. 22? They were so concerned with roles in the after life and Jesus response was: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” One thing we know from Jesus’ response is that life in His eternal Kingdom will be nothing like life?

    Since there is no marriage in heaven, who do the women submit to according to the ESS paradigm? Do they submit to all men? How does that work exactly? And what is the meaning or purpose of gender roles in heaven when the Scriptures say: “It does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If there is a new heaven and a new earth, then what is the meaning or significance of their gender roles for all eternity? Something is rotten in Denmark with these ESS proponents.

  4. What i meant to say is that we know from Jesus response that life in His eternal Kingdom will be nothing like life here on earth.

  5. Darlene wrote:

    One thing we know from Jesus’ response is that life in His eternal Kingdom will be nothing like life?
    Since there is no marriage in heaven, who do the women submit to according to the ESS paradigm?

    Precisely.

    And their Soapbubble Submission nonsense, if I had a guy tell me that he didn’t like the way I did the dishes, I would tell him that any chore he criticized me for he could take over 100% and do it himself.

  6. Daisy wrote:

    This might be neither here nor there, but as the OP uses CARM as a resource, this may (or may not be) pertinent, but CARM are complementarians.
    Further, I read an article or two by a Christian women who used to have one or two web sites (and wrote a book?) defending egalitarianism. She participated at CARM’s forums for awhile and was eventually (she claims) stalked and harassed by one of CARM’s moderators.
    She had a big, long page about this on one of her sites. I don’t think the head phoo-ba at CARM (I forget his name) did much to stop the harassment at the time, if I am recalling her site correctly.
    I think this is one of the pages:
    To Diane Sellner of CARM
    https://www.mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/03/27/to-diane-sellner-of-carm/
    CARM might be an otherwise okay source to quote on general apologetic issues, but I guess bear in mind they are complementarian and apparently not friendly towards Christians who disagree with complementarianism.

    CARM is also blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox (they don’t even believe them to be Christians) and believes that non-Calvinist Christians get the gospel wrong. Years ago I went tried to participate in that site and had to leave. The dialogue there was filled with vitriol and condemnation toward any that did not believe in the Calvinist tenets.

  7. Some of these complementarian Christians are obviously using ESS to shore up their opinion that women should be subordinate to all men for all time. That some of them are now denying this is dishonest.

    I think it’s highly perverse that they are willing to distort teachings about the Trinity to keep Christian women in bondage, second place, and in servitude. It makes me wonder more than ever just how deep their sexism goes.

    This is eye opening for me. They must have some very deep-seated hatred or contempt for women. I’ve felt that way about Doug Wilson for some time, but I guess some of these CBMW guys are just as bad.

  8. “I used to think that complementarianism was a secondary issue, something Christians could amicably disagree about. It isn’t.”

    I thought the same but they upped the game so bad I started to see that it (and the premise of hierarchy in the Body) really undergirds the corruption we talk about here.

  9. Daisy wrote:

    Some of these complementarian Christians are obviously using ESS to shore up their opinion that women should be subordinate to all men for all time. That some of them are now denying this is dishonest.

    They are obviously feeling the heat – Grudem, Ware, and the other Comp prompters – who support Eternal Subordination of the Son.

    Thank goodness for social media and blogs. These guys can’t control the narrative.

  10. Daisy wrote:

    They must have some very deep-seated hatred or contempt for women.

    Or some deep-seated inferiority complex that they have to go to such great lengths to give themselves authority over someone else. They have to have some sort of doctrine that they can use against others that can’t be used against them.

  11. dee wrote up top:

    “Are you confused yet? I certainly was. However, the following article helped me to get a better grip on the issues.”

    Whether it’s 4th century patriarchs or present day ideologues, there’s a word for those who think they’ve got the unfathomable fathomed. I believe it’s called hubris.

  12. @ Darlene:
    I stopped reading there for the same reasons. Any criticism they received was listed as hate mail! No matter how respectfully worded.

    One good thing from my CARM experience, I followed a link from another website that CARM linked to and found myself at the Christian Thinktank site and its Women in the Heart of God series which uplifted my spirit by showing me how God delights in his daughters, unlike CARM which made me feel boxed in and restricted for being a woman. Then I some how found my way to TWW and here I lurk, learning much, enjoying the company and occasionally making the odd comment.

  13. Velour wrote:

    Thank goodness for social media and blogs. These guys can’t control the narrative.

    The Holy See was in pretty much the same boat when Gutenberg’s invention made books readily available. They could no longer control the dissemination of information as before.

  14. Muff Potter wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Thank goodness for social media and blogs. These guys can’t control the narrative.
    The Holy See was in pretty much the same boat when Gutenberg’s invention made books readily available. They could no longer control the dissemination of information as before.

    You read my mind. I almost used Guttenberg printing press in my post.

  15. Ok, let’s say ESS is true. It still has no bearing on the relationship between man & woman. This is wacky in the extreme.
    I don’t currently identify as Christian but I could never go to a church that denied the Trinity. This is something that all pew sitters should be aware of.
    What does your church really believe?

  16. Phil Johnson (not his water carrier, just sayin’) is very certain that J Mac sides with Carl Trueman on this, although he hasn’t talked with him about it.

  17. There are enough hazy decision points, twist and turns in this subordination theology to neutralize any confidence I could ever have in the result. To paraphrase John Adams, their systematic theology is a systematic way of being wrong with confidence.

    Basically I am unable to trust theology rooted in ordering a bunch of tenuous arcane passages. I’ll stick with the more reliable “you will know them by their fruit” and instead of fruit I see a weedy pasture full of thistles. Their prickly theology seems to be all about submission, authority, and abuse.

  18. Mara wrote:

    Or some deep-seated inferiority complex that they have to go to such great lengths to give themselves authority over someone else. They have to have some sort of doctrine that they can use against others that can’t be used against them.

    And the ones who believe women will be eternally subordinate to men???????
    Something is seriously wrong with them if one of their biggest concerns is having authority over women in Heaven. It’s a bit of a “Let’s-forget- about -worshiping -God -and -Jesus -and -let’s -make -sure -we -have -someone -to -boss -around -when- we -get-to-Heaven” attitude.
    I wonder, do they believe women will be eternally subordinated to men in Hades?
    Will slaves and servants be eternally subordinate to their masters, too?

  19. Muff Potter wrote:

    They could no longer control the dissemination of information as before.

    The Guttenberg press also began to be used for printing indulgences. I wonder, if instead of hand written, mass producing indulgences drove down their value and was part of the reason indulgences fell into disuse.

  20. Nancy2 wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    Or some deep-seated inferiority complex that they have to go to such great lengths to give themselves authority over someone else. They have to have some sort of doctrine that they can use against others that can’t be used against them.
    And the ones who believe women will be eternally subordinate to men???????
    Something is seriously wrong with them if one of their biggest concerns is having authority over women in Heaven. It’s a bit of a “Let’s-forget- about -worshiping -God -and -Jesus -and -let’s -make -sure -we -have -someone -to -boss -around -when- we -get-to-Heaven” attitude.
    I wonder, do they believe women will be eternally subordinated to men in Hades?
    Will slaves and servants be eternally subordinate to their masters, too?

    LoL, Nancy! I got gotta say Preach It!

  21. In addition to being the Son, Jesus is also the Word. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Is the Word then also eternally subjugated to the Father?

    When God compares himself to a mother in Isaiah 66:13, who is he in submission to, himself?
    “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem.”

    Sometimes I wonder if God purposely kept the Bible a bit ambiguous and vague so that people would reveal their own hearts in what they draw out of it.

  22. Bill M wrote:

    Their prickly theology seems to be all about submission, authority, and abuse.

    Amen. It’s all about hierarchy and lording it over others and there is no ambiguity as to what Jesus thought about that!

  23. siteseer wrote:

    In addition to being the Son, Jesus is also the Word. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Is the Word then also eternally subjugated to the Father?

    The Bible is the NeoCals’ idol. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Whom are they in the NeoCals’ world?

    Sometimes I wonder if God purposely kept the Bible a bit ambiguous and vague so that people would reveal their own hearts in what they draw out of it.

    There’s an interesting thought!

  24. I can’t help but think this ancient & ongoing dissection of the notion of what is called the trinity has all the usefulness of finding out once and for all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    does any of it really matter?

    I mean, now I guess it has to matter since all the dickles endued with power are co-opting it to make sure women are subjugated to men now and forevermore. so, thankfully a few tank men are man enough to challenge the ball-less wonders in what seems to be a high-profile way.

    I’m grateful for them.

    it’s just nutty that what seems to me to be a pointless waste of intellect, time, and other resources (turning the notion of the trinity into an algebraic equation) is both the foundation of subjugation of women as well as its liberator (to some degree).

    if only the thinkers didn’t think so much (ages ago up to now), but rather invested in improving their fellow human beings’ lot in life. i’m sure we’d be farther along by now than squabbling over “i get to be on top!”

    this really is so embarrassing.

    i’m just struck by how this hyper-intellectualism (I mean, was that goofy language or what!) comes down to such petty things.

    (sure wasn’t succinct here, was I. far too many words.)

  25. @ Velour:

    THAT was funny! watched the first minute or so without sound (didn’t want to wake dearly beloved here next to me snoring) and it was plenty funny!

  26. Daisy wrote:

    This is eye opening for me. They must have some very deep-seated hatred or contempt for women. I’ve felt that way about Doug Wilson for some time, but I guess some of these CBMW guys are just as bad.

    I hope this is not entirely true, but looking back at the earliest treatment of women after the ‘Resurgence’, we see the fate of Dr. Sherri Klouda at the hands of Paige Patterson. And the Deebs have provided ample evidence of the treatment of other women and children at the hands of predator-shielding neo-Cal masters.

    I look at Grudem, Ware, and that jerk from Moscow Idaho, and it occurs that they have enough ego between them to attempt to take down the honored position of Christ within the Holy Trinity. If they would even attempt to do this in order to justify their treatment of women, then women need to run from them.

    I see ESS neo-Cals attempting to ‘put Christ in His place’ and then telling women Christ is their model for submission. The neo-Cals have no shame. And now, they are being called on the carpet by other Calvinists for this ESS heresy, a little late in the ‘game’, but it is happening….

    WHY DIDN’T IT HAPPEN SOONER ???? If I knew the answer to that, I might be able to make more sense of these happenings.

  27. Darlene wrote:

    What I don’t understand is why these Comps are so concerned about women being subjected to men for ALL eternity?… If there is a new heaven and a new earth, then what is the meaning or significance of their gender roles for all eternity?

    Reformed types are very conservative and past-focused. Reformed theology tends not to do eschatology well at all, and any conception of the New Heavens and Earth as being fundamentally different from what what was laid out in the OT just doesn’t fit into their concept of the world. And that concept if founded upon everything being reducible to eternal transcendent truths. If the Son (even if only in His incarnation) was subordinate to the Father at one time, it is logical that He *always has been*. If that relationship patterns male-female relationships, it follows that *that * hierarchical relationship is also eternal.

  28. siteseer wrote:

    Sometimes I wonder if God purposely kept the Bible a bit ambiguous and vague so that people would reveal their own hearts in what they draw out of it.

    Interesting thought! Much of the historic narrative helps us see God’s plan come to fruition. I believe Jesus’ words are meant to give peace, joy, and healing where needed in our individual lives in areas where we might be broken. 🙂

  29. And Now: sport.

    Three England sides are in action today.

    England’s Rugby team are (somewhat surprisingly) 26-13 ahead against Australia in Brisbane. England’s record in Australia is, shall we say, less than stellar. 25 minutes to go there, so plenty still to play for.

    England’s cricketers are, as regular Wartburgers will know, on Day 3 of the Third Test against Sri Lanka at Lords. England took 3 early wickets for 7 runs this morning, reducing Sri Lanka from an imposing 162-1 to a more modest 169-4. Currently 194-4; again, still plenty to play for here.

    England’s fitba’ players begin their Euro 2016 campaign tonight against Russia (Wales are up against Slovakia, in the same group, earlier this evening; that promises to be a more watchable game TBH). Resigned sigh… In an interview a few days ago, Scotland manager Gordon Strachan said that he couldn’t bear to watch the Euros following Scotland’s failure to qualify. He speaks for many England fans as well, albeit for slightly different reasons. I predict a nervous scrappy game ending – if we’re lucky – in a goalless draw.

    IHTIH

  30. It started to matter when false teachers started to undermine the teaching and practices of the original apostles. Heresies commonly change the nature of God, and the use their twisted theology to control people. The early church had to hammer out the doctrine of the Trinity in order to stand against heresy. It’s the same story for us today. ESS is now being used to control people, and the church must stand against it. Not everyone is called and gifted to dive into the theological aspects. But those who are called and gifted have a responsibility to do something.

  31. elastigirl wrote:

    I can’t help but think this ancient & ongoing dissection of the notion of what is called the trinity has all the usefulness of finding out once and for all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    does any of it really matter?

    I meant to link my last comment to this one, but forgot to select the text.

  32. siteseer wrote:

    Sometimes I wonder if God purposely kept the Bible a bit ambiguous and vague so that people would reveal their own hearts in what they draw out of it.

    On a less sportingly frivolous note, I think you touch on a point of tremendous importance there and one that doesn’t receive nearly as much attention as it should.

    Biblians (that is to say, people who believe that the Bible is God’s final revelation of himself to humanity, and that in it, all the fulness of deity dwells in physical form) continuously push the false antithesis that you either utterly worship the Bible as God or else you utterly reject it. (To paraphrase Clive Lewis, they stridently insist that the Bible is either mad, bad or God.) Given that this isn’t true; and that the Bible is neither God nor worthless, what is it, and what part does it play in our walk with him?

    Because this is a big discussion – perhaps more for the Open Discussion page – I shan’t attempt to resolve it with my own fully correct opinions, not least as I need to go for a run very soon (it’s complicated – blood sugar management).

  33. The SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.

  34. I am a simpleton about a lot of things, but sometimes it helps to be a simpleton in that we don’t tend to trip over nuances which we do not even recognize or see. Other people’s lines in the sand may seem secure to them, but we simpletons tend to say that it is sand, for crying out loud, and the wind that blows today means that the lines are gone tomorrow. Grudem may see some line in the sand that he may think makes his aberrant theology safe enough, but I don’t see that to be the case. Saying that there is a Trinity sort of, and that the Incarnate Word is a lesser part of that Trinity as is the Spirit is, like some have said, tritheism but not monotheism.

    That said, it seems to this simpleton that the ESS position is potentially headed down a path in the woods which would end in eventually arguing that there is no Trinity, Jesus is just some dead Jewish rabbi, and we are all incorrect to think otherwise. Worse, we have committed the ultimate idolatry in worshipping a human (or some lesser god) rather than the God Who is One.

    That position that there is no Trinity is of course the position of lots of people of various sorts and the position of both of the other great monotheisms, and the thinking that leads to that position has already been done by better theologians than Grudem. At this time one of the other monotheisms is said to be the fastest growing religion in the world. The ESS position is at least a nod in that direction. Grudem et al are playing with fire and it looks like they could not care less if we all got burned by that fire that they play with.

  35. I always wondered what the ESS guys do with Isaiah 9.

    For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
    And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
    there will be no end.
    He will reign on David’s throne
    and over his kingdom,
    establishing and upholding it
    with justice and righteousness
    from that time on and forever.
    The zeal of the Lord Almighty
    will accomplish this.

    In this passage He is referred to as ‘everlasting father’ which gives us a clue as to how the ancients used such imagery to communicate.

  36. okrapod wrote:

    Grudem et al are playing with fire and it looks like they could not care less if we all got burned by that fire that they play with.

    The fire that burns us warms and energizes them. That is all they care about, as far as I can tell. They are men of small personal stature if they must subjugate others in order to feel significant themselves.

    I have suspected men in the pulpit of being driven by self-interest before, but I met a full-on narcissist wielding the supposed Word of God against people, and it was shocking and sobering. A guy who presents himself as only being about the Gospel and being faithful to the Word was actually about upholding the system from which he draws great benefits.

    I am not at The Village, but my most recent former church could well have had a situation like The Village. Nothing would prevent that, from what I could see. Raw worldly power. In Jesus’ name, of course.

  37. Bill M wrote:

    The Guttenberg press also began to be used for printing indulgences. I wonder, if instead of hand written, mass producing indulgences drove down their value and was part of the reason indulgences fell into disuse.

    This is such a great point. I can remember in the early days of social media being a bit shocked that so many pastors were giving away their game in public without realizing it. They sounded different than their sermons.

    At some point, all those tweets about sanctified testosterone look like a joke. Piper tweets tell us more about him than than he realizes.

    So, If every Johan in the village has a mass produced indulgence certificate, they start to become less valuable.

    Frankly, I think the powers were more upset about the indulgence money going to Rome.

  38. bea wrote:

    The SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.

    IMO, too many SBC leaders would rather have people go to hell than allow a woman to preach or be in ANY position of “authority.”

  39. bea wrote:

    The SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.

    I think the current SBC leaders would rather let the denomination die than ever admit they were wrong about women and apologize.

  40. I think it is very telling that the ESS guys have ignored everyone else who came out against it with fire warnings…. except Trueman who is actually late to the issue.

  41. @ mot:
    They don’t have to worry. I doubt there will be a shortage of gullible boys looking for hero gurus to follow.

  42. so, in ESS, the ‘meek in spirit Jesus’ is seen to eternally serve the will of the fundamentalist God of Wrath;
    but then you get those macho men neo-Cals who will promote a ‘masculine’ Jesus as a tough guy

    These neo-Cals are confused. They use Jesus to justify their male image problems but they get caught out when people realize the neo-Cals can’t have their meek eternally subordinate Jesus and their tough-guy macho Jesus in the same breath.

    Confused? mas

  43. When a pastor is more interested in debating parts of theology (with other Christians) rather than loving and caring for people, I think he missed his/her calling and should have been an attorney.

  44. Christiane wrote:

    These neo-Cals are confused. They use Jesus to justify their male image problems but they get caught out when people realize the neo-Cals can’t have their meek eternally subordinate Jesus and their tough-guy macho Jesus in the same breath.

    Confused? mas

    additional comment:
    there is a kind of ‘projection’ going on when grown men make Jesus over into what best suits their personal needs, either for justification in treating their wives as ‘subordinates’ OR as justification for acting super macho

    The ESS thing started with confusion over ‘Who Christ Is’ and then it evolved into a gnostic-like revealed knowledge delving into the workings of the Holy Trinity that no human person could possible come up with rationally …..

    we simply do not understand the intimate workings of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to that finite detail, and the founders of ESS have claimed a knowledge that cannot be known unless it was revealed to them secretly

    what is that saying in the Church for them what ‘knows’ all the answers about the Holy Trinity:
    “IF YOU COMPREHEND, IT IS NOT GOD”

  45. Hi Dee,

    I appreciate your post. I’d be a little wary of CARM’s trinitarian formulations. It is not obvious that the three divine persons each has his own will. In doing so, CARM uses a presupposed definition of person and forces the Trinity to fit it. The historic, orthodox teaching of Christianity (EO, RCC, and Protestant) have consistently affirmed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one being in three “persons.” We use the word “person” to describe the members of the Godhead, but we are not using it in the modern, western sense that CARM does. Will has always been a property of person, rather than nature. This was clarified in the monothelite controversy leading up to the Third Council of Constantinople in the seventh century.

    I would not say, as do the CARM folks, that each divine person has his own will. I would say that the three divine persons share the divine will, since they are one being. If will were a property of person, then the possibility would exist that the personal will of the Father could differ from that of the Son. They would not be one being, but three. Maximus the Confessor is supremely helpful here.

    Jim G.

  46. “I used to think that complementarianism was a secondary issue, something Christians could amicably disagree about. It isn’t. It has become the lynch pin of the entire Neo Calvinist movement.”

    A few years ago, Al Mohler developed a “theological triage” in which he held that Christians could agree to disagree on secondary and tertiary issues in belief and practice and still be Christian. But he emphasized that we better all come to the same table on orthodox essential matters of faith like the deity of Christ and the Trinity. The timing of Dr. Mohler’s “triage”, a cute comparison of Christian doctrines with medical emergencies, was intended to keep Southern Baptists together despite their differences on soteriology, as New Calvinism began to penetrate SBC ranks. Think about it, he must consider God’s plan of salvation a secondary issue that we shouldn’t squabble about! Well, complementarianism and its link to the Eternal Subordination of the Son is proving to be a very strike at the heart of the Trinity – an essential orthodox doctrine that we all better get right according to Mohler himself. SBC’s New Calvinists should have waited a while before they started professing and practicing comp and ESS doctrines until they had fully won the SBC masses over to their positions on soteriology and church governance. The can of reformed worms has now been opened to reveal all its slimy aberrations. The SBC is in urgent triage status now … will it live or die?

  47. Max wrote:

    will it live or die?

    I am afraid the SBC is already dead! But the leaders keep telling everything is ok as the denomination gasps for life that used to exist in a very vibrant manner.

    I have been in the SBC for over 42 years and I can not believe the nonsense that now drives the leaders. But you dare not tell them.

  48. Nick Bulbeck

    On a less sportingly frivolous note, I think you touch on a point of tremendous importance there and one that doesn’t receive nearly as much attention as it should.

    Biblians (that is to say, people who believe that the Bible is God’s final revelation of himself to humanity, and that in it, all the fulness of deity dwells in physical form) continuously push the false antithesis that you either utterly worship the Bible as God or else you utterly reject it. (To paraphrase Clive Lewis, they stridently insist that the Bible is either mad, bad or God.) Given that this isn’t true; and that the Bible is neither God nor worthless, what is it, and what part does it play in our walk with him?

    What do you think? I’m just curious. It’s interesting for me to read here because with these kinds of responses, I always wonder… Without really knowing where people are truly coming from and who/what they believe the Gospel is, it leave a lot of questions up in the air.

    As for the original post, I essentially agree with Dee’s thoughts at the end. I think that those who push the complementarianism come to that conclusion before even understanding the Trinity. That doesn’t even make sense.

  49. oops my quotation box got left out… my own thoughts start with what do you think… the rest was what Nick Bulbeck said.

  50. @ Max:
    Mohler *says* that he wants people to stay together. Unfortunately, i no longer believe him. I think he wants a split in the SBC. However, as numbers decline, so does the money. So, he keeps saying he wants unity until he can think of a way to fund the whole thing.

  51. Dee:

    I think when the SBC does split many of the current movers and shakers will act surprised. Mohler has definitely been putting into place his side of the coming split.

    BTW, it seems no SBC leader ever challenges Mohler. I think I know why.

  52. dee wrote:

    So, he keeps saying he wants unity until he can think of a way to fund the whole thing.

    Dee:

    Can you begin to imagine the ugly fight over the many millions that come into the SBC coffers?

  53. @ Jim G.:
    Thank you for your comment. The reason that I included the whole *will* thing in the argument is that it keeps cropping up in a number of articles that I read. I used the CARM post because it spelled it out more clearly.

    If you have any further reference for me, I would sure appreciate it.

    I can truthfully say the I believe in the Trinity yet I do not comprehend it beyond some basic points. That is one reason I object to those who attempt to apply the Trinity interrelationships to the human experience. We are not the same by any stretch of the imagination and I think we need to be very, very careful in this regard.

  54. mot wrote:

    Mohler has definitely been putting into place his side of the coming split.

    I agree. I have already moved out of the SBC into a completely different denomination order to avoid this nonsense and game playing.

  55. mot wrote:

    I am afraid the SBC is already dead!

    One of the dirty little secrets is the numbers game. They claim the denomination has shrunk to about 15 million. They know, however, that the numbers are more like 7-8 million. This has to do with the nonsensical way that local churches keep people on their roles long after they have left. Some of those folks get counted twice if they somehow join another SBC church.

  56. Darlene wrote:

    What I don’t understand is why these Comps are so concerned about women being subjected to men for ALL eternity?

    IF they can convince women that the Bible says they are subordinate to men in eternity, they can convince women to do whatever men tell them to do. It’s a demonic twisting of Scripture for their own designs.

  57. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    And Now: sport.
    Three England sides are in action today.
    England’s Rugby team are (somewhat surprisingly) 26-13 ahead against Australia in Brisbane. England’s record in Australia is, shall we say, less than stellar. 25 minutes to go there, so plenty still to play for.
    England’s cricketers are, as regular Wartburgers will know, on Day 3 of the Third Test against Sri Lanka at Lords. England took 3 early wickets for 7 runs this morning, reducing Sri Lanka from an imposing 162-1 to a more modest 169-4. Currently 194-4; again, still plenty to play for here.
    England’s fitba’ players begin their Euro 2016 campaign tonight against Russia (Wales are up against Slovakia, in the same group, earlier this evening; that promises to be a more watchable game TBH). Resigned sigh… In an interview a few days ago, Scotland manager Gordon Strachan said that he couldn’t bear to watch the Euros following Scotland’s failure to qualify. He speaks for many England fans as well, albeit for slightly different reasons. I predict a nervous scrappy game ending – if we’re lucky – in a goalless draw.
    IHTIH

    Already watched Albania and Switzerland this morning….later today the USA plays Paraguay in a win or tie for the Americans to go to the quarters in the Copa America Centenario….I can see the Americans blowing-it…

  58. dee wrote:

    mot wrote:
    I am afraid the SBC is already dead!
    One of the dirty little secrets is the numbers game. They claim the denomination has shrunk to about 15 million. They know, however, that the numbers are more like 7-8 million. This has to do with the nonsensical way that local churches keep people on their roles long after they have left. Some of those folks get counted twice if they somehow join another SBC church.

    The SBC is deader than Dillinger….lose 200,000 people every year, and you run out folks at some point….

  59. CRICKET LATEST

    England bowled Sri Lanka out for 288, a first-innings lead of 128. However, Alastair Cook was hit on the knee (accidentally, I should add) by a drive from Kusal Perera and has not opened the batting for England’s second innings – this has fallen to Compton and Hales, so it may be that Cook will bat later in the innings. With some rain forecast and some time therefore likely to be lost, England will be looking to score quickly, and indeed Compton has already scored six times as many runs as in the first innings, in fewer deliveries… England currently 17-0 after 6 overs.

    England have not won this Test yet by any means, but they are in a strong position; England’s Rugbyists scored a rare away win over Australia earlier today, so it just remains for the fitba’ team to spoil the party tonight.

    IHTIH

  60. Tim wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    What I don’t understand is why these Comps are so concerned about women being subjected to men for ALL eternity?
    IF they can convince women that the Bible says they are subordinate to men in eternity, they can convince women to do whatever men tell them to do. It’s a demonic twisting of Scripture for their own designs.

    Is it just me, or is this mess getting worse and worse? It is like they are throwing anything against the wall, hoping it will stick, so they can keep control of their ” fiefdoms. “

  61. mot wrote:

    I have been in the SBC for over 42 years and I can not believe the nonsense that now drives the leaders. But you dare not tell them.

    A perfect example of such leadership is Frank Page, President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Page once wrote a book entitled “Trouble With The TULIP”, in which he expressed his concerns about the teachings of Calvinism and its rise in the SBC. He subsequently chaired a unity committee to look into concerns about the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC ranks. That committee essentially advised Southern Baptists to compromise, stop wrangling about the issue, agree to disagree, get along to go along, and make room for NC brethren under the SBC big tent. The SBC majority is comprised of non-Calvinists (for a while longer); they have no voice at the executive level to curb the movement. But God …

  62. Understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is at times difficult, but it’s not impossible. In a book I read years ago on how early church leaders dealt with various doctrines, the author emphasized that back in the first few centuries of the church doctrine was based first on what the Bible text said and then rules of reason.

    For example, if someone said “I don’t get how Jesus can be human and God,” the teacher would say, “It’s not a matter of understanding how. It’s a matter of believing the Bible record when it says Jesus got hungry like a human and forgave sins like God.”

    The ESS folks want to take the Bible record and make it mean something that doesn’t stand up to the rest of the Bible. Lydia’s quote from Isaiah 9 earlier in the comments is a good example. The Son who will come as deliverer Messiah is the Father. Another example is in Psalm 18:46 when the LORD (YHWH) is called God and Savior. God is Savior, and that is true whether we are speaking of Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

    Cheers,
    Tim

    P.S. I’ve written on it a few times at my blog. This post contains links to other posts I’ve written: Counting to Three – a lesson in one, two, Trinity. I know these posts include reference to R.C. Sproul and Augustine of Hippo, and many TWW readers dislike them with a passion. My reference to them does not endorse every aspect of them, so please don’t yell at me for mentoining their names. Please.

  63. Professor defends complementarian view against heresy charge
    https://baptistnews.com/article/professor-defends-complementarian-view-against-heresy-charge/
    by Bob Allen, June 10, 2016

    Here’s just the first little bit from that page:

    A Southern Baptist theologian is denying accusations of reforming the doctrine of the Trinity to advance a social agenda that wives must submit to their husbands.

    Bruce Ware, a professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., published an online response June 9 denying his view that roles of authority and submission exist within the Godhead lies outside of orthodox Christianity.

    Liam Goligher, senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, had assailed the doctrine in a two-part blog June 3 and June 6 accusing theologians like Ware of “presenting a novel view of God; a different God than that affirmed by the church through the ages and taught in Scripture.”

    Ware denied that charge in recent blog postings that the view popular in New Calvinist circles like the Gospel Coalition and Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood “is being devised for the purpose of supporting a social agenda of human relations of equality and complementarity.”

    About that last part:

    Ware denied that charge in recent blog postings that the view popular in New Calvinist circles like the Gospel Coalition and Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood “is being devised for the purpose of supporting a social agenda of human relations of equality and complementarity.”

    No, that is exactly why you complementarian guys harp on ESS: you feel it gives you a solid grounding against egalitarian arguments to say all women are to be subordinate to all men for all time.

    Most of us reading these articles have at least average (to higher) IQs. We’re not dummies. I wish these types of complementarians would stop insulting the intelligence of people.

  64. dee wrote:

    he keeps saying he wants unity until he can think of a way to fund the whole thing

    Agreed. The New Calvinist powermongers within SBC are between a rock and a hard place right now. They are sitting on top of the SBC world, after capturing most of its entities, and have no way to fund the huge organization without the millions of non-Calvinist members. The first casualty to fall victim to a funding shortfall was its International Missions Board; as a 60+ year Southern Baptist, this was a sad sight to behold as 1,000+ veteran foreign missionaries were called home. Yep, the powermongers need harmony, if not unity, until they can figure out how to get out of the mess they have created. In the meantime, the SBC I have known for over six decades is gasping for breath.

  65. The debate surrounding the ESS is focused on the definitions of God as Truine, and how the Bible provides us with all that we need to appropriately know and understand the Trinity. The Nicene Creed, for example, has served to clear up mistakes in understanding and application that have occurred over time, and set in place the church’s position which has been used to identify and negate heresy.

    Our definition and understanding of God, and what the Bible reveals to us about the Trinity, directly impacts how we define and identify ourselves as Christians (not as non-Christians, an important distinction).

    I know I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I take offence to Dee’s repeated insistence on identifying Christians as “sinners.” She may have outlined the dynamics of the debate regarding the Persons of the Trinity, and their ontologies, but she’s missing the whole essence of the Gospel when it comes to us, and our identities as those who have been placed in Christ.

    I hate to say it, but this has seriously raised questions in my mind as to Dee’s identity. If she identifies as a sinner then must be true for her. However, But for her to conflate her own experience (or lack of experience) with others (like myself, for example) who are in Christ, is something that appears to be in issue in her life. I know it’s certainly not an issue in mine.

    Why the offense? Not because I’m self-righteous and am butt-hurt that someone would refer to me as a sinner. Not at all. It stems from the fact I know what my Jesus has accomplished in the fullness of its glory. The Gospel, and what Jesus did, was completely sacrificial. God didn’t do it for God. God, out of his great love for us, gave up His life, poured it out as an offering, in order to redeem us completely and unite us within Himself.

    In accomplishing this God remained God. While Jesus gave up His place temporarily and took on the form of a servant for our sake, nevertheless, when he Ascended, He was exalted and not diminished in the slightest! All authority was given to Him! The Name above all names!!

    What changed, friends, is our identity, our status. What changed is WHO WE ARE. We are no longer sinners. Our whole status and identity has changed!! This is something that is ONLY appropriated BY FAITH, as is the righteousness of Christ that has been imputed to us. This is the wonderful, amazing, astonishing, truth about what God has done for us!! He has, out of love, made us one with him through Christ Jesus and placed us in His Don, the Beloved!! In Him we are fully and completely accepted, and when God looks at me, He sees me in His Son, covered by his blood, not as a sinner (No! My sins have been washed away and completely atoned for!) but as His daughter, complete in Him.

    This is the great and glorious truth of the Gospel folks. It is, however, to the carnal mind, too good to be true.

    As gas been discussed here in other places and other topics, God’s revelation of Himself continues to progress and unfold as it has throughout time and throughout the Bible as it has recorded this unfolding, and stands as a Testament (Old and New) of the process of His revelation. The progression never changed God, however. His self-revelation has enabled us to know Him, and thereby to understand who we are both in Him and to Him (again, only referring to those who are actually saved).

    Understand this: God doesn’t change, but we are TRANSFORMED. There is no Gospel that applies to God. The Gospel is to us and for us. The Gospel doesn’t change God, it changes US! And we start from the place of what the gospel has literally done, you see? We aren’t working our way into heaven, we’re already in! We’re not working our way into God’s acceptance! We’ve already received it because we’re in Christ! We’re no longer sinners alienated and estranged from God! We have been brought near and are washed, changed, transformed! The process of our transformation is ongoing, but our transformation never means we’re transforming our status. That’s fixed. We’re not sinners anymore. That is not how we are to think of ourselves. We are saints, sons and daughters, and creation itself groans, waiting for us to be revealed! (Rom 8:19)

    This is the joy folks. And this is also why no woman in Christ is EVER to be regarded in HIS CHURCH as some kind of second class citizen, barred from enlisting in the Army of God, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the men to advance the Kingdom of God hallelujah!!!!

  66. dee wrote:

    This has to do with the nonsensical way that local churches keep people on their roles long after they have left.

    The numbers game is the direct result of “the letter” that local churches send to SBC State conventions each year. In that transmission, they are asked to report church membership, average attendance, baptisms, revenue, and other such stats. It is the unpardonable sin in SBC life to report declining numbers! “Oh, but pastor, Mr. Jones died this year!” … “Count him!!”

  67. Velour wrote:

    They are obviously feeling the heat – Grudem, Ware, and the other Comp prompters – who support Eternal Subordination of the Son.
    Thank goodness for social media and blogs. These guys can’t control the narrative.

    One thing I think is kind of sad about this is that it takes a purely doctrinal issue to raise concern among other Christians and complementarians.

    It takes these guys tampering with the Trinity to raise red flags.

    Where were these same people when complementarians were telling abused women it’s their biblical duty to submit to a husband’s abuse “for a season”? Or the continued insistence that a woman’s only calling in life is to be a mother or wife (which instantly excludes infertile, child free, or single women)? Where were they when John Piper issued a billion weirdo teachings about women – muscular women, is it OK for women to use the bathroom without a man’s permission, it’s not okay for single women to be police officers?

    I cannot believe that other Christians or complementarians stay silent for years of THAT harmful or idiotic teaching, but speak up only when the lunacy crosses into the Trinity.

    (well, a small nod to the MOS folks for calling Piper out on the idiocy of the “women should not really be cops” letter from several months ago).

    Mainstream American complementarianism jumped the shark a long, long time ago.

    It makes me sad they are not being called out or noticed for being incredibly sexist and weird until other complementarians point out they’re messing with the Trinity to support their views on gender.

  68. Max wrote:

    dee wrote:

    he keeps saying he wants unity until he can think of a way to fund the whole thing

    Agreed. The New Calvinist powermongers within SBC are between a rock and a hard place right now. They are sitting on top of the SBC world, after capturing most of its entities, and have no way to fund the huge organization without the millions of non-Calvinist members. The first casualty to fall victim to a funding shortfall was its International Missions Board; as a 60+ year Southern Baptist, this was a sad sight to behold as 1,000+ veteran foreign missionaries were called home. Yep, the powermongers need harmony, if not unity, until they can figure out how to get out of the mess they have created. In the meantime, the SBC I have known for over six decades is gasping for breath.

    I am still waiting for some real answers as to the real why these over 1000 SBC missionaries were called home.

  69. Jim G. wrote:

    I would say that the three divine persons share the divine will, since they are one being. If will were a property of person, then the possibility would exist that the personal will of the Father could differ from that of the Son.

    Thanks for this. I wondered about the “three wills” statement. It seems to fly on the face of many of Jesus’ statements regarding he and the Father being one, when you have seen me you have seen the Father, etc.

  70. Mara wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    They must have some very deep-seated hatred or contempt for women.
    ——
    (Mara said:)
    Or some deep-seated inferiority complex that they have to go to such great lengths to give themselves authority over someone else. They have to have some sort of doctrine that they can use against others that can’t be used against them.

    Oh yeah it could be insecurity too, or some combination of these things.

    There has to be, IMO, some serious psychological problem with these guys for being willing to go to any length to keep women suppressed in church, marriage, society, the home.

    But they like to say, “Oh no, our objections to women doing X or Z are based purely on biblical fidelity!”
    No, I’m not buying what you’re selling. I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.

  71. mot wrote:

    I am still waiting for some real answers as to the real why these over 1000 SBC missionaries were called home.

    Well, the canned answer refers to a budget shortfall, combined with years of over-spending. IMB leadership (David Platt) says the financial dilemma reached critical mass, necessitating the “voluntary” severance of missionaries and other staff. Most (if not all) veteran SBC missionaries would be of non-Calvinist persuasion. It will be interesting to see what theology replaces them if and when IMB funds recover. It should also be noted that NAMB continued to spend its $60 million annual budget to plant new churches while its sister agency, IMB, struggled to make ends meet. What was SBC’s priority?

  72. Max wrote:

    Well, the canned answer refers to a budget shortfall, combined with years of over-spending. IMB leadership (David Platt) says the financial dilemma reached critical mass, necessitating the “voluntary” severance of missionaries and other staff. Most (if not all) veteran SBC missionaries would be of non-Calvinist persuasion. It will be interesting to see what theology replaces them if and when IMB funds recover. It should also be noted that NAMB continued to spend its $60 million annual budget to plant new churches while its sister agency, IMB, struggled to make ends meet. What was SBC’s priority?

    Yes, I have heard this nothing of a response to what I personally consider a scandal. But William Thornton at Voices posted the following this past week, “Our International Mission Board is reporting a spectacular increase in the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions. The total for the 2015 offering is $165.8 million, an increase of $12.8 million over last year.”

    My followup to this is what kind of accounting system is SBC using. Could not some of that 12.8 million kept some of the 1000 called home on the missions fields?

  73. mot wrote:

    Could not some of that 12.8 million kept some of the 1000 called home on the missions fields?

    On one hand, it’s great that Southern Baptists dug deeper in their pockets to support its foreign missions program. They responded to passionate pleas from national and local leaders to increase their giving. On the other hand, they still don’t have a clue what is happening in regard to shifts in belief and practice as Calvinization of the denomination advances unhindered.

  74. Max wrote:

    In the meantime, the SBC I have known for over six decades is gasping for breath.

    …. a house divided against itself … the SBC is not very good at tolerating ‘diversity’ especially when the two sides of fundamentalism and Calvinism each are intolerant to start with

  75. The debate surrounding the ESS is focused on the definitions of God as Truine, and how the Bible provides us with all that we need to appropriately know and understand the Trinity. The Nicene Creed, for example, has served to clear up mistakes in understanding and application that have occurred over time, and set in place the church’s position which has been used to identify and negate heresy.
    Our definition and understanding of God, and what the Bible reveals to us about the Trinity, directly impacts how we define and identify ourselves as Christians (not as non-Christians, an important distinction).

    I know I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I take offense to Dee’s repeated insistence on identifying Christians as “sinners.” I agree with how she outlined the dynamics of the debate regarding the Persons of the Trinity, and their ontologies, but she’s missing the whole essence of the Gospel when it comes to us, which is vital to the debate.

    Why the offense? Not because I’m self-righteous or my feelings are hurt that someone would refer to me as a sinner. Not at all. It stems from the fact I know what my Jesus has accomplished. What Jesus did was completely sacrificial, intended only for us. God didn’t send Christ for God, He gave up His life with only us in kind, pouring out Himself in the process. Amazing love!

    In accomplishing this God remained God. Jesus gave up His place temporarily and took on the form of a servant, nevertheless, when he ascended, He was exalted and not diminished in the slightest! All authority was given to Him! The Name above all names!!

    We’re the ones that changed. That was what the gospel was about. It was SIN that separated us. We are no longer sinners. Our whole status and identity has changed!! This is something that is we appropriate by faith, as well as the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. We are righteous, not guilty, not condemned. Sinners are condemned and guilty, not the righteous.

    This is the wonderful, amazing, astonishing, truth about what God has done for us!! He has, out of love, made us one with him through Christ Jesus and placed us in His Son. In Him we are fully and completely accepted, and when God looks at the Christian, He sees us in His Son, covered by his blood, not as a sinner (No! My sins have been washed away and completely atoned for!) but as His son or daughter, complete in Him.

    This is the great and glorious truth of the Gospel folks. It is, however, to the carnal mind, foolishness. It seems too good to be true.

    As has been discussed here in other topics, God’s revelation of Himself continues to progress and unfold as it has throughout time. The Bible stands as a Testament to this, a literal example of this unfolding. This progressive revelation of God to us over time never changed God, it has only served to provide us with a more comprehensive understanding of Him.

    God has never changed, but because of Him we have been changed, transformed. There is no Gospel that applies to God. The Gospel is for us. The Gospel changes us not God.

    We aren’t working our way into heaven, we’re already in! We’re not working our way into God’s acceptance, we’ve already received it in Christ! We’re no longer sinners alienated and estranged from God, we have been brought near and our sins have been washed away!

    The process of our transformation is ongoing, but our transformation never means our status is transformed because that’s fixed. We used to be sinners, now we are saints, and creation itself groans, waiting for us to be revealed! (Rom 8:19)

    This is where the joy of being a Christian is, folks. And this is also why no woman in Christ should ever be regarded as some kind of second class citizen, barred from serving in the Army of God, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the men to advance the Kingdom of God.

    Note to Dee and Deb: sorry for my last comment that’s stuck in M. Please don’t approve it since this is the same comment, only edited, thanks!

  76. mot wrote:

    My followup to this is what kind of accounting system is SBC using. Could not some of that 12.8 million kept some of the 1000 called home on the missions fields?

    I have a small sample size, but FWIW, my most recent former church did not promote Lottie Moon. When I was younger, Lottie Moon was huge. It may be that now that the IMB has purged the veterans, the YRR pastors are willing to promote it because now the funds are going to missionaries who look like them. I think they want to rally behind David Platt, too, for personal and ideological reasons. Brook Hills was not a CP church until it needed to be because Platt and IMB, and because of that I conclude that his installation was a case of cronyism and ideological purity maintenance. To be fair, he did not create the mess at IMB. But the way that he and the Trustees chose to deal with the mess certainly was stinky.

  77. Oh, and back on topic, Platt is totally ESS and Female Subordinationist. Just the ideology that Southern Baptists need to export to the world.

  78. So for starters, if God is infinite and impassible (both of which are considered orthodox theology proper), the any type of relational subordination collapses into ontological subordination. This is logic 101, and is why any claim of filial subordination is generally pegged as heresy (although technically “false teaching” is the correct term). This is very basic stuff, and why I don’t have any problem calling CBMW and all their allies false teachers. It is also why they started switching from the language of “subordination” to the language of “submission” (which, to be honest, is not a clarification or refinement of their position, but rather propaganda designed to hide and obfuscate – one more reason I have no respect for these false teachers).

    But I really appreciate the Deebs’ ability to cut through the BS. This isn’t about Trinitarianism (or the tri-theism of CBMW); this is about a desire to keep women eternally submissive. It might be funny if it wasn’t vaguely pathetic.

  79. Max wrote:

    On one hand, it’s great that Southern Baptists dug deeper in their pockets to support its foreign missions program. They responded to passionate pleas from national and local leaders to increase their giving. On the other hand, they still don’t have a clue what is happening in regard to shifts in belief and practice as Calvinization of the denomination advances unhindered.

    Max:

    What I found the most shocking about the Voices article was the following quote by Thornton: “It is sadly ironic that it took a plan to drastically reduce IMB personnel to motivate SBC churches and individuals to give more. Nothing like a crisis to motivate some of us into doing what we should have done in the first place.”

    I totally disagree with this comment. Given the lack of accountability for the use of SBC funds I personally find it amazing that SBC members are as generous as they are when it comes to missions. But notice in his comment no SBC leader(s) will be held accountable for the overspending of the 210 million dollars. This is over 1/5 of a BILLION dollars and yet IMO some want to place the blame on the pew sitters. This is beyond incredible-but so goes the current SBC. Just give money and do not ask questions.

  80. Nancy2 wrote:

    And the ones who believe women will be eternally subordinate to men???????
    Something is seriously wrong with them if one of their biggest concerns is having authority over women in Heaven. It’s a bit of a “Let’s-forget- about -worshiping -God -and -Jesus -and -let’s -make -sure -we -have -someone -to -boss -around -when- we -get-to-Heaven” attitude.

    The complementarian position that women will be subordinate to men in the afterlife not only reminds me of what Mormons believe, but it sort of reminds me of the Muslims who tell young men if they get blown up for Jihad, they will get 72 virgins in the afterlife.

    What if you’re one of those virgins and you have no interest in the men? (The woman’s needs and opinions are never weighed in these theologies)
    ——-
    “CNN Islam expert says Quran is mistranslated; it’s 72 RAISINS not 72 virgins – social media explodes”
    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05/24/cnn-islam-expert-says-quran-is-mistranslated-its-72-raisins-not-72-virgins-social-media-explodes-344205

  81. bea wrote:

    he SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.

    Exactly.

    And I’m not in the Baptist denomination, but didn’t it split over the issue of slavery?
    And one branch of Baptists -against slavery – called themselves by a different name and wouldn’t permit the pro-slavery Baptists to join?

    (I think someone posted that once before here.)

  82. Gram3 wrote:

    Oh, and back on topic, Platt is totally ESS and Female Subordinationist. Just the ideology that Southern Baptists need to export to the world.

    I wonder how many of the SBC missionaries hold to ESS and Female Subordination? Does the 2000 BF&M support this? I do not know.

  83. mot wrote:

    Does the 2000 BF&M support this? I do not know.

    IMO, the BFM2k neither teaches nor excludes ESS. It can be read as non-subordinationist complementarian. However, when you understand who the players are and how they operate, it is pretty obvious what their intent is. Language is used to hide the real meaning rather than to explicate it. Someone who is soft complementarian (attitude of submissiveness and no female pastors) will see that. Hard Female Subordinationists will see what they want to see. Dr. Fundy is exactly right, in my experience. If the Usual Suspects are writing or speaking, they are propagandizing.

  84. @ Daisy:

    “One thing I think is kind of sad about this is that it takes a purely doctrinal issue to raise concern among other Christians and complementarians.

    It takes these guys tampering with the Trinity to raise red flags.

    Where were these same people when complementarians were telling abused women it’s their biblical duty to submit to a husband’s abuse “for a season”?…[among other other things]
    ++++++++++++++++++

    I very much agree.

    How is it that professional Christians (to whom people look for answers and as leaders) seem to choose personal convenience and safety in not responding when their peers’ assertions harm people?

    But as soon as such assertions harm principle, then and only then do they rouse themselves in a very public way?

    Why aren’t people more important than principle? Than your precious doctrine?

    Does it all come down to your job security? Your reputation amongst your peers? Protecting your stockpile of personal power? money and power? is that what this is about?

  85. Paula Rice wrote:

    I know I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I take offense to Dee’s repeated insistence on identifying Christians as “sinners.” I agree with how she outlined the dynamics of the debate regarding the Persons of the Trinity, and their ontologies, but she’s missing the whole essence of the Gospel when it comes to us, which is vital to the debate.

    Why take ‘offense’ at those who may or not ‘believe’ as you believe? I mean, how does it advance the cause of building a better world in the here and now?

  86. dee wrote:

    I can truthfully say the I believe in the Trinity yet I do not comprehend it beyond some basic points. That is one reason I object to those who attempt to apply the Trinity interrelationships to the human experience.

    I agree with you Dee.

    “It must also be pointed out, however, that while the Triune God reveals himself as a whole and while it is as a whole that God is the object of our knowing, this does not mean that we can know him wholly or have a comprehensive knowledge of him, for in his transcendent wholeness, God eludes our comprehension. What God does allow us to apprehend of himself breaks through the narrow confines of our grasp, so that in the very act of apprehending something of him we know that we are incapable of comprehending him. Even in his condescension to reveal himself to us God infinitely exceeds what we can grasp or conceive, so that our knowledge of the whole God cannot but be ‘in part’ or partial. As Hilary in his work on the Trinity expressed it, in the mystery of his unfathomable Nature the God whom we know is a Totum, but we do not and cannot know him in toto, yet what God does allow us to grasp of himself is inextricably involved in his wholeness and is not just a part of him.
    Moreover, since God in his wholeness is infinitely greater than we can ever comprehend, what we may say of him in our apprehending of him ‘in part’ is bound to indicate far more than we can ever express. We have to do here with an epistemic point of quite signal importance, of which we have experience in other spheres of knowledge, in the way in which our apprehension of wholes and their constituent parts are cognised in their relation to one another. The whole is much greater and richer in its intelligibility than the sum of its parts, so that when we try to understand something through reductionist analysis and consideration of its component parts we are unable to grasp it in the depths of its reality.”

    Torrance, Thomas F. (2016-01-28). The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (T&T Clark Cornerstones) (pp. 26-27). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

  87. Ignore the “does” in the first sentence. I do not know if most of the remaining IMB missionaries support ESS. I do know that ESS is taught in the SBC seminaries and used in the YRR churches to support Female Subordination. Given how rabid Platt and the other Usual Suspects are, it would not surprise me if significant formal and informal pressure is applied to IMB staff.

  88. Velour wrote:

    bea wrote:
    he SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.
    Exactly.
    And I’m not in the Baptist denomination, but didn’t it split over the issue of slavery?
    And one branch of Baptists -against slavery – called themselves by a different name and wouldn’t permit the pro-slavery Baptists to join?
    (I think someone posted that once before here.)

    Over whether missionaries could have slaves….and of course, it was Calvinist in those days who lead the charge to split, and this whole second-class folks was big in 1845….

  89. Christiane wrote:

    I see ESS neo-Cals attempting to ‘put Christ in His place’ and then telling women Christ is their model for submission. The neo-Cals have no shame.

    I’m sorry to be a broken record, but remember, some of the guys who do that very thing also, simultaneously, flip the script when they are lecturing men.

    Preachers such as Mark Driscoll feels (or felt at one time) that they way to make his church attract more young men was to market a Manly-Man, Tough Guy version of Jesus.

    So, you will see blog posts, sermons, or books by some complementarians who paint this picture of Jesus as though Jesus is a stereotypical Hollywood macho man action movie star.

    It’s only when they market Jesus to women that the complementarians play up Jesus’ meek, gentle, loving, passive, submissive side.

    Complementarians have a Jesus with a divided personality, Jesus can’t apparently make up his mind if he’s masculine or feminine, because they have him jumping between the two depending on who the audience is.

    There is only one Jesus Christ, and he encapsulated the range of human behaviors and emotions most of us would agree are considered by culture to be masculine and feminine.

    And I don’t remember any portion of the Bible indicating that girls are only to copy the ‘soft’ side of Jesus and the boys are to only copy the ‘tough’ side of Jesus.

    That confused me growing up: I could see, as a kid, in the Bible, where Jesus was tough and gentle with people.

    My mother frequently asked me as a kid “What would Jesus do” if I found myself in some kind of moral pickle.

    But my mother really encouraged me to only emulate the “soft” side of Jesus.

    I was taught that nice, Christian girls should not be assertive – but I saw examples of Jesus being assertive.

    I was being told to emulate Jesus but not ALL of Jesus, which really confused me growing up. I was to copy Jesus, but only some of what he did or was.

    And, you also said,

    And now, they are being called on the carpet by other Calvinists for this ESS heresy, a little late in the ‘game’, but it is happening….

    WHY DIDN’T IT HAPPEN SOONER ???? If I knew the answer to that, I might be able to make more sense of these happenings.

    I said the same thing a few moments ago, but I wrote my post before seeing yours.

    I know that some complementarians have been teaching some harmful stuff for some time, but this latest blow up over the Trinity, and with them being dishonest about it now (they are claiming they are not using the Trinity to bolster their teachings on gender) made me see it’s even worse than I originally thought or suspected.

    I do think there is likely a group of Average Joe Complementarians who are naive, who grew up like I did, buying into the propaganda that complementarianism is the only true, biblical way to view men, women, marriage, etc, and to reject it is to walk into secular, left wing, God-hating feminism.

    But I now think that comp is attracting and/or being defended by people (mostly men, but some of the women can be bad) who detest women.

  90. mot wrote:

    Yes, I have heard this nothing of a response to what I personally consider a scandal. But William Thornton at Voices posted the following this past week, “Our International Mission Board is reporting a spectacular increase in the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions. The total for the 2015 offering is $165.8 million, an increase of $12.8 million over last year.”
    My followup to this is what kind of accounting system is SBC using. Could not some of that 12.8 million kept some of the 1000 called home on the missions fields?

    Yes, I wondered the same thing. With a decrease in living members – some 200,000 fleeing the Southern Baptists yearly fed up with the insane teachings of NeoCalvinists, Comp, etc. – giving has to be down across the board, including missions.

  91. elastigirl wrote:

    I can’t help but think this ancient & ongoing dissection of the notion of what is called the trinity has all the usefulness of finding out once and for all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    does any of it really matter?

    On the one hand, I completely agree with you. I gave up studying theology because I found it generally useless in the wider scheme of things. It was cluttering up my head with stuff that I ultimately believe doesn’t matter. I came to the conclusion that I could not hold all the “right” beliefs in my head and in the end I’m just going to have to throw myself on God’s mercy.

    On the other hand, the problem is clear–the desire for female subordination is driving ESS. As this has very real social effects (the effects of a belief that women are intrinsically second-class is incredibly corrosive), I think a discussion pointing out where ESS deviates from long-time creedal teachings is very important. The promoters of ESS want everyone to believe they are operating within the historical belief stream of their church. The facts on the ground are very different. They are believers in a kind of semi-Arianism. People like Grudem and Ware and the rest of the CBMW bunch and their fellow travelers need to be reminded on a regular basis that their beliefs regarding ESS don’t mesh with historical standard teaching.

    But, on the third hand, I am outside the charmed circle of belief myself. So I well understand that the devout and righteous could also bash me as well, which is why I’ve pretty much stayed out of this argument. Now, back to Arabic nouns, which in their own way are as tedious as theology.

  92. Back in 2006 or so, the CBMW journal included an article by some pastor arguing that womanly submission to men would continue on the New Earth for eternity. After it was exposed in the blogosphere, I originally thought somebody had fallen down on the editorial job and allowed that to slip through. With the ESS posts of the past few days, it is becoming obvious that article was no accident. It’s simply the logical end of the ESS comparison.

    I hope the ESS apologists get grilled about this point.

  93. @ Max:

    “Most (if not all) veteran SBC missionaries would be of non-Calvinist persuasion. It will be interesting to see what theology replaces them if and when IMB funds recover. It should also be noted that NAMB continued to spend its $60 million annual budget to plant new churches while its sister agency, IMB, struggled to make ends meet. What was SBC’s priority?”
    +++++++++++++++++

    I think $ could be pooled together and huge ads taken out in the biggest newspapers (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, Chicago Sun, etc.) with an assortment of very direct questions in big bold font.

  94. I just read Grudem rebuttal. Yes, Gram, he is using submission more than they used to use Subordination.

    He also makes it clear, again, none of it works without the word “role”. It’s why I can never get past or as accept the word “role” in spiritual matters.

  95. mot wrote:

    “It is sadly ironic that it took a plan to drastically reduce IMB personnel to motivate SBC churches and individuals to give more. Nothing like a crisis to motivate some of us into doing what we should have done in the first place.”

    This sounds like a bully – blaming the people for not giving enough!?!

  96. Bridget wrote:

    This sounds like a bully – blaming the people for not giving enough!?!

    Exactly! If I was a regular giver to the Lottie Moon offering, I would be more than a little peeved to read that quote.

  97. Lydia wrote:

    I always wondered what the ESS guys do with Isaiah 9.

    One word my dear Lyds. Spin. That’s what theologians of any persuasion do. It’s a highly advanced art form to get various and seemingly contrary passages to agree with the thesis you’re defending.

  98. Velour wrote:

    Yes, I wondered the same thing. With a decrease in living members – some 200,000 fleeing the Southern Baptists yearly fed up with the insane teachings of NeoCalvinists, Comp, etc. – giving has to be down across the board, including missions.

    I hate to say it but I do not believe the SBC numbers. I do not believe the 12.8 million dollar figure. It is just a number to appease the people and avoid the bigger issue of overspending 210 million dollars! As an accountant I wonder what the auditing process is for the SBC. From where I sit I see no accountability–the pew sitter is supposed to send money and then trust it will be spent wisely.

  99. Daisy wrote:

    One thing I think is kind of sad about this is that it takes a purely doctrinal issue to raise concern among other Christians and complementarians.
    It takes these guys tampering with the Trinity to raise red flags.
    Where were these same people when complementarians were telling abused women it’s their biblical duty to submit to a husband’s abuse “for a season”? Or the continued insistence that a woman’s only calling in life is to be a mother or wife (which instantly excludes infertile, child free, or single women)? Where were they when John Piper issued a billion weirdo teachings about women – muscular women, is it OK for women to use the bathroom without a man’s permission, it’s not okay for single women to be police officers?

    You are so right, Daisy. These men should have been questioned about Comp and everything like before messing with the Trinity.

    And I don’t know why they weren’t fiercely challenged. Perhaps because they had friends in high places – who took over denominations and seminaries – who believed and thought the taught the same things? Perhaps too because they use the word “Biblical” in their argument, which means that anyone who disagrees is being “unBibilical”. Perhaps because they’ve also used the “Inerrancy of Scripture” argument, that Chicago Statement that some 200 evangelicals signed in the 70s.

    They’re constantly co-opting words to puff themselves up and their weak arguments. Their constant fights against the culture.

    Perhaps because they’ve equated treating women with common decency, made in the image of God, in the priesthood of all believers, as being – gasp – akin to the evils of feminism.

    Perhaps because they have a defective view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus died for Adam’s sins, but not Eve’s. Therefore Eve is more powerful than Jesus.

    The Holy Spirit is fully-functioning in men but is defective in women and can’t work properly. A woman needs a man to be her guide, her Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit is defective.

  100. I also hope somebody can get Russell Moore to weigh in on this. You know, the guy who wrote Women, Stop Submitting To Men.

  101. mot wrote:

    I hate to say it but I do not believe the SBC numbers. I do not believe the 12.8 million dollar figure. It is just a number to appease the people and avoid the bigger issue of overspending 210 million dollars! As an accountant I wonder what the auditing process is for the SBC. From where I sit I see no accountability–the pew sitter is supposed to send money and then trust it will be spent wisely.

    And if the numbers are played with than Platt makes himself look like a hero.

  102. Muff Potter wrote:

    Why take ‘offense’ at those who may or not ‘believe’ as you believe? I mean, how does it advance the cause of building a better world in the here and now?

    Well, look…we’re discussing important distinctions as to the ontology of God.

    Who God is has a direct impact upon the ontology of the Christian, one who has been placed in Christ.

    Notice, Paul never addressed his letters to the sinners in various places. Why? Paul understood this vital distinction. He understood the true essence of the believer. He knew we’re not sinners.

    How you identify yourself is up to you, your choice. But I’d say if someone snatched your child and took her as their own, changed her name, told other people she was their daughter, when you knew that was true and that she was biologically and ontologically your daughter that you had raised, it would probably offend and anger you deeply – that is, if you loved your daughter (as an example).

    The problem here is ultimately these issues affect the Church, the lives of Christians, and the Gospel. Yes, other people who do not identify as Christians are affected. Naturally! Christians are the salt of the earth! But only the Christian beats with a passion for Jesus, the Church, and the Gospel.

    And that’s why it offends me.

  103. Velour wrote:

    And I don’t know why they weren’t fiercely challenged. Perhaps because they had friends in high places – who took over denominations and seminaries – who believed and thought the taught the same things? Perhaps too because they use the word “Biblical” in their argument, which means that anyone who disagrees is being “unBibilical”. Perhaps because they’ve also used the “Inerrancy of Scripture” argument, that Chicago Statement that some 200 evangelicals signed in the 70s.

    I think the reason few made a challenge was they saw how those that did challenge such things lost their livelihoods if they had one coming from any SBC job. These men and their sycophants are mean beyond mean. Ask Dr. Sherri Klouda how mean and heartless these guys are?

  104. @ NJ:
    The same guy who wrote that he wishes Evangelicals would stop calling themselves Complementarian, and start embracing Patriarchy?

  105. Velour wrote:

    mot wrote:

    I hate to say it but I do not believe the SBC numbers. I do not believe the 12.8 million dollar figure. It is just a number to appease the people and avoid the bigger issue of overspending 210 million dollars! As an accountant I wonder what the auditing process is for the SBC. From where I sit I see no accountability–the pew sitter is supposed to send money and then trust it will be spent wisely.

    And if the numbers are played with than Platt makes himself look like a hero.

    Also the SBC convention is next week. How convenient for this news to come out a week before the convention. I do not trust these guys and I say guys because women are not allowed to be a part of any major leadership roles in the SBC. Snark alert-they just can not have a woman being in authority to them.

  106. @ mirele:

    “On the other hand, the problem is clear–the desire for female subordination is driving ESS. As this has very real social effects (the effects of a belief that women are intrinsically second-class is incredibly corrosive), I think a discussion pointing out where ESS deviates from long-time creedal teachings is very important. The promoters of ESS want everyone to believe they are operating within the historical belief stream of their church. The facts on the ground are very different.”
    +++++++++++++

    Thanks for your comment. I, too studied these things a long time ago in a far away life and while they were very interesting, at the end of the day I found myself saying, “…..so what?”

    I guess my simple thinking in the wee hours this morning was if only the mystery of the inferred trinity could have been left alone (in ages past & now) and accepted as something we can’t completely comprehend, we wouldn’t be in this mess now.

    but i’m sure it’s not quite as simple as this.

    i do think professional thinkers spend too much time thinking and coming up with things so kooky they & others believe them to be divinely inspired.

    when really they’re just the result of brains being turned inside-out like a paper cup. staring at the data for so long it starts to swim, but ‘by golly it must be the holy spirit for it swim like that! hey, maybe that means i’m a prophet! whaddyaknow!’

  107. bea wrote:

    The SBC favored slaveholders and not slaves. They finally apologized in 1995. If their position on women proves similarly wrong (via Baptist Faith & Message and CBMW), we may be seeing an apology quite a long time afterward. Praying they will see the light sooner.

    I just liked this comment 🙂

  108. Lydia wrote:

    Frankly, I think the powers were more upset about the indulgence money going to Rome.

    Yet another of the innumerable instances of people doing the right thing for selfish motives. I have chuckled on several occasions when someone patted themselves on the back for doing the right thing when it coincidentally benefited them, politicians being the worst offenders, “pastors” being a close second.

  109. Paula Rice wrote:

    I know I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I take offense to Dee’s repeated insistence on identifying Christians as “sinners.”

    Paula,
    I am seeking clarification on why you take offense to Dee indentifying Christians as sinners. Yes, we are justified and viewed by God as righteous through Christ’s atoning work on the cross, but do you not agree that in this present world we still sin? I know there are some Christians who hold to sinless perfectionism, but I don’t think you would number yourself in this group.

    In the Anglican church we recite this prayer weekly:

    Most merciful God,
    we confess that we have sinned against thee
    in thought, word, and deed,
    by what we have done,
    and by what we have left undone.
    We have not loved thee with our whole heart;
    we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
    We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
    For the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ,
    have mercy on us and forgive us;
    that we may delight in thy will,
    and walk in thy ways,
    to the glory of thy Name. Amen.

    Additionally James 3:2 states that “we all stumble in many ways.”

    1 John 1:8-9 says:
    “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
    If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

    Perhaps it would be best to take this discussion to the “open forum” since it is off subject?

  110. @ Lydia:
    Another thing too (if I am remember what I read right), back in some ANE cultures, a son who was sent on a task by his father was legally and/or morally considered to be the SAME as his father and to hold the same or as much authority as his father.

    In some parable Jesus told someone (the Pharisees?) about the father who first sent a servant to his workers in a vineyard, but the workers killed that servant, so the father sent a second servant, but they killed him, too. Then Jesus said, the father though, “if I send them my son, they will listen to him.” But in the parable the workers killed the son.

    Anyway, I’m pretty sure I read in a study or two about this that back then, in those cultures, a son sent to represent his Father was to be considered to be the same as Father, in identity and authority… so Jesus was likening himself to the Father in being and/or in authority to the Father.

    But ESS complementarian guys are apparently denying Jesus is equal in authority to the Father, when Jesus himself (if the studies I read were correct) compared Himself to the Father, even in that regard.

  111. most Christian people self-identify as sinners on whom God has looked with mercy, like the publican in the temple who prayed,

    “God have mercy on me, a sinner.”

    A favorite prayer of the early Church was: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

  112. @ Lydia:
    I also don’t know how ESS comps deal with verses such as:

    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28.18)

    Even if ESS comp guys want to argue that in eternity past Jesus was under the Father in authority, in the book of Matthew there, he’s saying he now has all authority. He’s no longer subordinate anyway, in the ESS scheme of things.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    This is such a great point. I can remember in the early days of social media being a bit shocked that so many pastors were giving away their game in public without realizing it. They sounded different than their sermons.

    Oh tell me about it.

    A few weeks ago, people on social media were pointing to posts on Twitter or Instagram of Perry Noble, or some other mega pastor who was auctioning off his used T-shirts and shoes! It was so tacky and money grubbing.

  114. Daisy wrote:

    A few weeks ago, people on social media were pointing to posts on Twitter or Instagram of Perry Noble, or some other mega pastor who was auctioning off his used T-shirts and shoes! It was so tacky and money grubbing.

    And P.S. if my memory serves me, here that pastor was NOT using the money raised for CHARITY but was keeping the money for his personal use.

    I asked several people, and they all said he was keeping the money it was not to help other people out.

  115. mot wrote:

    IMO, too many SBC leaders would rather have people go to hell than allow a woman to preach or be in ANY position of “authority.”

    Someone actually confirmed this. I don’t remember if the man in question was SBC specifically, but he was a complementarian.

    I think one of the women who was involved in this Twitter exchange posted about it here on TWW.

    A woman asked this famous comp guy on Twitter if he would be okay with women proclaiming the risen Lord today, since they did so back in the New Testament, and the man replied no, he’d not permit women to do so today.

    He’s basically rather un-saved men NOT hear the Gospel if it means they hear it from a woman.

    This is not the Bible’s position AT ALL since there are examples in the text of women spreading the Gospel and teaching men.

    Complementarians are not sola scriptura, although they claim to be and/or they claim to respect the Bible and take it seriously.

  116. I am wondering….how will the play out in the secular world? Can you just see some ESS public school board member not hiring a woman as a principal or a Supt. of Schools and they being, well, not extremely bright, quote scripture as his reason why the woman was not hired?
    You know this is going to rear its ugly head at some point in the ” real” world.

  117. Lydia wrote:

    I think it is very telling that the ESS guys have ignored everyone else who came out against it with fire warnings…. except Trueman who is actually late to the issue.

    Yes, that raises red flags with me as well.

  118. Janey wrote:

    When a pastor is more interested in debating parts of theology (with other Christians) rather than loving and caring for people, I think he missed his/her calling and should have been an attorney.

    I agree.

    And Titus 3:9
    But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

  119. mot wrote:

    Given the lack of accountability for the use of SBC funds I personally find it amazing that SBC members are as generous as they are when it comes to missions … some want to place the blame on the pew sitters

    Does anyone remember the recent Great Recession?! Those were the years that IMB giving by the pew sitters declined; that was a tough period for all Americans … many Southern Baptists were out of work and/or helping family members who were. But IMB continued to spend to their budget, rather than what was actually being received. When they should have curtailed their deficit-spending, they continued as if SBC members were not suffering economically. Accountability always floats up; IMB leadership was responsible then and now for putting the mission agency in a predicament which resulted in bringing missionaries called by God home. You are treading on dangerous ground when you do that.

  120. Paula Rice wrote:

    I know I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I take offense to Dee’s repeated insistence on identifying Christians as “sinners.”

    Catholicism and protestantism disagree on justification/sanctification, which is what you are talking about. The issue has been cussed and discussed ad nauseum and there is much disagreement between the two sides. That said, it does not seem to be an issue to which anyone should take personal offense, since it is not personal per se but rather a large theological debate between really big players in the game.

    On this blog there are both protestants and catholics. I personally like it that way, but certainly is such a situation major differences are bound to surface from time to time.

  121. Jim G. wrote:

    If will were a property of person, then the possibility would exist that the personal will of the Father could differ from that of the Son.

    So they would never disagree or fight over which movie to watch on a Friday night?

  122. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Yes, we are justified and viewed by God as righteous through Christ’s atoning work on the cross, but do you not agree that in this present world we still sin?

    Notice I focused on our ontology, our essence, our identity, our status. I mentioned we are being transformed.

    However, what was the main issue anyway. What was it that caused our separation from God? What was it Christ died for, becoming the Way?

    How then, if you remain ontilogically in your sin, identified within yourself as a sinner, that nothing new has taken place, that as a sinner you sin and keep on sinning (that’s what sinners do and cannot help it, which is why they are alienated and cut off from the life of God, under wrath, with no hope), what then, if you claim to be a Christian, has the Gospel accomplished for you if it has left you in your sin, the sinner?

    Has nothing changed? Are you in essence, ontilogically, a sinner? Have you not been translated out of the Kingdom of Darkness where sin reigns over you, in bondage with no escape?

    Has not the Son freed you of your chains, your captivity? Have you not been delivered out if the darkness and translated into the Kingdom of Light, where sin no longer has power or dominion over you?

    And when you sin, do you realize that that never changes your right standing with God which has been secured? That there’s an Advocate there at all times for me and for you, who stands at the ready to wash and cleanse away our unrighteousness? That even that process is something at work I us by the Holy Spirit who convicts us?

    No, we are not perfect, not yet. Regardless, however, nothing we do or don’t do takes away from our not being regarded as sinners.

    If the Son has set you free you are free indeed. We no longer are motivated to sin because it’s no longer a part of our essence. We are new creations. The old man of sin has been cut off. We are risen with Christ and it’s no longer us that lives, but he lives in us? Death (the wages of sin is death) to life, hallelujah 🙂

  123. And Now: today’s final Sports Report.

    It’s been a reasonable day for teams from the British Isles today. England closed on 109-4, a lead of around 230, at stumps on Day 3; despite losing 3 wickets for 5 runs around tea-time. All three results remain possible at Lords. Ireland’s rugbyists pulled off a historic away victory over the Springboks – their first ever win in South Africa. This follows England’s almost-as-rare win in Oz earlier. And a few minutes ago, Wales sealed their return to major tournament finals with a fine 2-1 win over Slovakia, meaning they will top the group after one round of matches unless Russia beat England in the final match of the day starting in (as I type) an hour’s time.

    On the subject of which, you can probably watch the England match on the internet. But unless you really want to watch 90-odd minutes of tedium, errors, optimistic punts upfield, insipid backing away from the opposition and general inability to string three passes together, you are strongly advised not to. Even if you are supporting England’s opponents, there’s only so much time you can spend watching tournament football involving England. There must be some growing grass you can watch instead.

    IHTIH

  124. Gram3 wrote:

    the YRR pastors are willing to promote it because now the funds are going to missionaries who look like them

    Bingo. SBC-YRR church plants in my area in past years have not promoted giving to SBC’s Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon offering, and/or Annie Armstrong offering which support various foreign and home missions. The average member of an SBC-YRR church plant has no idea about any of these funding streams – heck, they don’t even realize their church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention! But the YRR boys will collect church planting funds from SBC. However, as you note, the young reformers are now promoting such giving since SBC’s “theology planting” program is taking shape. As non-Calvinist missionaries are purged from the system, more opportunities will be open in future years for YRR candidates to fill their shoes and collect their checks. It’s a sad world, this New Calvinism.

  125. Tim wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    What I don’t understand is why these Comps are so concerned about women being subjected to men for ALL eternity?
    IF they can convince women that the Bible says they are subordinate to men in eternity, they can convince women to do whatever men tell them to do. It’s a demonic twisting of Scripture for their own designs.

    Someone on here on a thread from a few days ago shows that some of these complementarians are sneakily trying to lump divorced / widowed / never married women in this, even though there is not a specific verse asking unmarried women to submit to men.

    The person provided a few lines from an article by JMac who said it’s the nature for all women to be led and submissive, even single ones, while it’s man’s nature to be in the lead, even single men.

    The Bible does not teach any of that stuff. It’s all made up.

    That one line from Ephesians asks married women to submit to their own husbands, but there is not a verse asking unmarried women to submit to any husband or man… but darn if these complementarians aren’t trying to say that the Bible teaches this, and that it also applies after death, not just life on earth.

  126. TNick Bulbeck wrote:

    And Now: today’s final Sports Report.
    It’s been a reasonable day for teams from the British Isles today. England closed on 109-4, a lead of around 230, at stumps on Day 3; despite losing 3 wickets for 5 runs around tea-time. All three results remain possible at Lords. Ireland’s rugbyists pulled off a historic away victory over the Springboks – their first ever win in South Africa. This follows England’s almost-as-rare win in Oz earlier. And a few minutes ago, Wales sealed their return to major tournament finals with a fine 2-1 win over Slovakia, meaning they will top the group after one round of matches unless Russia beat England in the final match of the day starting in (as I type) an hour’s time.
    On the subject of which, you can probably watch the England match on the internet. But unless you really want to watch 90-odd minutes of tedium, errors, optimistic punts upfield, insipid backing away from the opposition and general inability to string three passes together, you are strongly advised not to. Even if you are supporting England’s opponents, there’s only so much time you can spend watching tournament football involving England. There must be some growing grass you can watch instead.
    IHTIH

    The England vs. Russia match is live on ESPN in America.

  127. mot wrote:

    too many SBC leaders would rather have people go to hell than allow a woman to preach

    Oh, but in their world, the Calvinist God has already saved them or condemned them to hell. No preaching – by man or woman – will make a difference in the eternal destiny of their poor souls. Why would anyone in their right spiritual mind desire to be aligned with such madness disguised as religion? Let a woman preach, let the rocks cry out, for Jesus’ sake; the days are short, the fields are white unto harvest.

  128. @ okrapod:
    Well, then, if that’s true, perhaps those of us here who identify as sinners ontologically, yet claim the Name of Christ, should qualify what they say and limit identifying themselves as a dinner to themselves.

    If Dee, for example, is a sinner then she should say, “I am a sinner, I identify as a sinner, that’s WHO I am” and not put everyone else along with her, who claims to be a believer, in the same lump.

    But that’s what she does. She says we’re all sinners.

    I’m not a sinner. I resent the association. I have appropriated the Gospel in a much different sense altogether.

    And I don’t listen to some guy anymore either who used to tell his followers they were all sinners and that he was the worst sinner he knew.

  129. elastigirl wrote:

    run by Mr. Slime

    talk about rotten fruit!

    http://mmoutreachinc.com/cheryl_slick.htm

    (hoping to be discreet)

    I’m disappointed to read this, as I have benefited from information on the site in the past, also.

    Why are these comp guys so threatened by women?

    Why does the idea of a free woman using her mind send them over the edge?

    Why do they see women as adversaries instead of colleagues?

    Why do they see God as needing them to use sinful human tactics to enforce what they imagine is God’s will? Is God not capable of managing things himself?

    The book of James has a couple thoughts that are relevant; one, “if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth,” and secondly, “human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.”

    An apologetics or discernment ministry must be a ministry of love, as all ministries must be; not an outlet for wrath or bitterness. If you cannot speak to differences with love, you are a clanging cymbal.

    Jesus said ( John 13:34-36):

    “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    If these comp guys cannot even love their sisters in their own faith, how do they imagine they will be known for their love for one another? Are women not part of the ‘one another’ in their minds? They have failed the very first test! The thin veneer of approval that only holds out while women are subservient to their wishes does not qualify as love.

    Galatians 5:13-14
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    Romans 13:10
    Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

    I’m sorry to break the news to these guys but women are their neighbors. They need to stop doing harm.

  130. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    mot wrote:
    I hate to say it but I do not believe the SBC numbers. I do not believe the 12.8 million dollar figure. It is just a number to appease the people and avoid the bigger issue of overspending 210 million dollars! As an accountant I wonder what the auditing process is for the SBC. From where I sit I see no accountability–the pew sitter is supposed to send money and then trust it will be spent wisely.
    And if the numbers are played with than Platt makes himself look like a hero.
    Also the SBC convention is next week. How convenient for this news to come out a week before the convention. I do not trust these guys and I say guys because women are not allowed to be a part of any major leadership roles in the SBC. Snark alert-they just can not have a woman being in authority to them.

    When I was reading the link that Brad/FuturistGuy put up early about American Baptists and Southern Baptists splitting over the issue of slavery (I didn’t realize that Roger Williams and Rhode Island were ABs, and might have forgotten my history), I couldn’t help but notice the parallels between race (blacks) being denied respect and desion-making in the denomination and the same issue with women.

    My new rules for looking for a church:

    *no respect for women = no money from me
    *no women as leaders, teachers (including of adult men) = no money from me
    *no women in leadership positions of the denomination = no money from me

    If women want to drive a point home, they should start boycotting these churches and refuse to give ANY money to them until they change. Ditto for men who want to see change. Don’t fund the current system.

  131. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I though you were going to expound on the issue of the bible and what it is and is not and such, over on the ODP page. Just letting you know that there is some interest in what you have to say.

  132. Daisy wrote:

    I think one of the women who was involved in this Twitter exchange posted about it here on TWW.
    A woman asked this famous comp guy on Twitter if he would be okay with women proclaiming the risen Lord today, since they did so back in the New Testament, and the man replied no, he’d not permit women to do so today.
    He’s basically rather un-saved men NOT hear the Gospel if it means they hear it from a woman.
    This is not the Bible’s position AT ALL since there are examples in the text of women spreading the Gospel and teaching men.

    Preach it, sister Daisy!

  133. These ESS guys remind me of the time Jesus’ disciples were arguing about who was going to be first in the kingdom of God. They don’t seem to remember His response to that.

  134. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    And I don’t know why they weren’t fiercely challenged. Perhaps because they had friends in high places – who took over denominations and seminaries – who believed and thought the taught the same things? Perhaps too because they use the word “Biblical” in their argument, which means that anyone who disagrees is being “unBibilical”. Perhaps because they’ve also used the “Inerrancy of Scripture” argument, that Chicago Statement that some 200 evangelicals signed in the 70s.
    I think the reason few made a challenge was they saw how those that did challenge such things lost their livelihoods if they had one coming from any SBC job. These men and their sycophants are mean beyond mean. Ask Dr. Sherri Klouda how mean and heartless these guys are?

    Spot on. They are ruthless men. Just despicable.

    The trustees voted in the conservative scholar Dr. Sherri Klouda to teach Hebrew at seminary. (Wade Burlson covered this on his blog.) She did a fantastic job. Then Paige Patterson had her terminated because a woman can’t teach. He rendered her destitute, when she was taking care of her extremely ill husband. She had to sell her blood to pay bills and depend on charity from churches, who were outraged at what was done to her.

    If Paige Patterson had really cared why didn’t he just give her her full salary and benefits until retirement and ask her not to work? Wouldn’t that have been the ethical and moral thing to do?

  135. NJ wrote:

    I hope the ESS apologists get grilled about this point.

    That will happen as soon as the Usual Suspects get grilled on Mahaney, Driscoll, Chandler, etc., etc., etc. They will stonewall, pretend nothing has happened, or accuse anyone who questions them of being a liberal.

    I think that Ligon Duncan is an interesting one to watch on this, given that the charge is being led by conservative Reformed guys.

  136. NJ wrote:

    I also hope somebody can get Russell Moore to weigh in on this.

    Russell Moore is all in on ESS. I think he will avoid this particular topic because it does not serve his interests right now to say what he thinks about Female Subordination and how that is grounded in ESS. What is really odd, IMO, is that they are successfully recruiting young black men and women to a theology of subordination of one human to another human. There was an article in the 9Marks Journal some time ago. How tragic.

  137. Velour wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    One thing we know from Jesus’ response is that life in His eternal Kingdom will be nothing like life?
    Since there is no marriage in heaven, who do the women submit to according to the ESS paradigm?
    Precisely.
    And their Soapbubble Submission nonsense, if I had a guy tell me that he didn’t like the way I did the dishes, I would tell him that any chore he criticized me for he could take over 100% and do it himself.

    Exactly.
    This is like when I had long hair down to my knees (saving on a stylist’s expense) and then I got it spiked (my hair is so thick it can be practically sculpted when cut). At church the next Sunday, the guy church leaders were aghast and asked if I had my husband’s permission to do this.

    At home, I told my husband about their questions, and he replied, “What? It’s your hair, for goodness sake. And you always look great!”

  138. Daisy wrote:

    A woman asked this famous comp guy on Twitter if he would be okay with women proclaiming the risen Lord today, since they did so back in the New Testament, and the man replied no, he’d not permit women to do so today.
    He’s basically rather un-saved men NOT hear the Gospel if it means they hear it from a woman.
    This is not the Bible’s position AT ALL since there are examples in the text of women spreading the Gospel and teaching men.

    So this man was contradicting Christ? That’s not smart.

  139. siteseer wrote:

    Sometimes I wonder if God purposely kept the Bible a bit ambiguous and vague so that people would reveal their own hearts in what they draw out of it.

    Joseph Campbell told a story of the a tribal god who walked into town wearing a hat that was red on one side and blue on the other. People on the left yelled the god is wearing a red hat blue, on the other side people yelled “he is wearing a blue hat.” When he came to the end of the road he turned around and headed back out of town. As he turned around he also turned his hat around so that the people continued to see the same color hat. For years after the town was divided over the issue of what color hat the god was wearing. When we make an idol out of our doctrine and dogma, I think God does often allow us to wallow in it. God wants us to worship him and not our feeble, superficial ideas about God. Perhaps we should get beyond what color hat God is wearing and seek to Know and worship him in truth and in spirit.

  140. Velour wrote:

    If women want to drive a point home, they should start boycotting these churches and refuse to give ANY money to them until they change.

    This is a good idea since nowadays, most women have their own income and work.

    Unfortunately, some women will subject themselves and their income to the hierarchy.

    A woman prayer warrior I know had to ask her husband to “use the car.” Unreal. Could not understand how she could justify this. Some of the arrangements in marriages are astounding to me – or maybe I’m just not informed or enlightened?

  141. elastigirl wrote:

    if only the thinkers didn’t think so much (ages ago up to now), but rather invested in improving their fellow human beings’ lot in life. i’m sure we’d be farther along by now than squabbling over “i get to be on top!”

    Preach it sister!

  142. Daisy wrote:

    Complementarians are not sola scriptura, although they claim to be and/or they claim to respect the Bible and take it seriously.

    No, they are not. They are creedalists, and the most important article in their creed is Authority and Submission. Everything else flows from that. Not from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  143. Lydia wrote:

    He also makes it clear, again, none of it works without the word “role”. It’s why I can never get past or as accept the word “role” in spiritual matters.

    Understandably so – That one sticks in my craw, as well.

    “Role” – all tied up in the concept of a stage. Of play-acting a part. A word that can be found as a translation choice in exactly 2 instances in the NT according to a Biblehub search. http://biblehub.net/searchnt.php?q=role

    However, upon reading some of Piper’s suggestions on what women should say and how they should say it to their husbands – a scripted, play-acting ‘role’ is exactly what they want to relegate women to.

    Women – As one-dimensional characters who seem to exist only as props to be moved about at the discretion of husbands/leaders to be utilized as a useful foil as the men perform their Biblical Man part on the world stage.

    That they could read the Gospels and see how Jesus interacted with women – and still think that their view of women is “Biblical” is beyond my comprehension.

    Women were following Jesus.

    Women were ministering to Jesus.

    Women were providing financial support to Jesus.

    Anna, the prophetess came upon Jesus, Mary & Joseph in the Temple and God revealed to her Who Jesus was and she “came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.”

    A woman.

    In the Temple.

    Speaking of Jesus.

    To ALL of those.

    Who were looking for the REDEMPTION of Jerusalem.

    Today, our complimentarian leaders would have silenced her immediately and rebuked her for not checking with the Board of Priests before talking about Jesus and redemption to others in the Temple.

  144. Christiane wrote:

    WHY DIDN’T IT HAPPEN SOONER ???? If I knew the answer to that, I might be able to make more sense of these happenings.

    Why didn’t the Calvinists address the ESS heresy sooner? Perhaps it is the same reason why they didn’t address the serious problems with Driscoll. After all, he got the gospel right. What about C.J. Mahaney? Well, he gets the gospel right. What I really think is that they have to band together because of the Comp. theology, because they losing in numbers.

  145. Max wrote:

    Well, the canned answer refers to a budget shortfall, combined with years of over-spending. IMB leadership (David Platt) says the financial dilemma reached critical mass, necessitating the “voluntary” severance of missionaries and other staff.

    This is from June 2016:
    Amid ‘Evangelism Crisis,’ Southern Baptists Bring In $400 Million More
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/june/amid-evangelism-crisis-southern-baptists-sbc-acp-2015.html

    Over the past year, Southern Baptists went to church less, gave less to missions, and baptized fewer people.

    Yet new churches continued to open, and the people actually in the pews donated more dollars.

    These are among the mixed findings of the 2015 Annual Church Profile (ACP) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

  146. ^^^What I mean is that they’re Comp. theology is only popular among their brand of Reformed theology. Many Christians recognize the problems with Comp/Patriarchy and want nothing to do with it.

  147. okrapod wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I though you were going to expound on the issue of the bible

    Be careful what you wish for. He’s bad enough when he’s talking to Me!

    Best regards,
    God

  148. @ Paula Rice:

    I am confused by your comment, Paula, and I don’t know if I am understanding you.

    Positionally, when we believe, we are accepted in the Beloved, raised up and seated with Christ, made new creations in Christ. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro 8:1). “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 Jn 5:13) Jesus Christ died for our sins (past, present, and future).

    Nevertheless, at the same time, we are still here in our imperfect humanity and yes, we do still sin, though hopefully it is not a frequent occurrence and we quickly repent.

    John made the distinction between the believer who occasionally lapses, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) and “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” (1 John 2:2) and those who do not know Christ, who practice sin as their way of life, as the Amplified Bible puts it: “No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him.”

    It is important to understand the difference between our position and our experience, because becoming a Christian does not make a person immune to sin/error. If it did, then Christian speakers/teachers/theologians could claim that they make no errors. And we, as believers, would not have to be Bereans or practice discernment, we could trust that a person was free from error as long as he is truly a Christian.

    It is necessary for every believer to have humility, knowing that we may be in error or acting out of wrong motives at any one moment, all of us, even famous theologians.

  149. Darlene wrote:

    Why didn’t the Calvinists address the ESS heresy sooner? Perhaps it is the same reason why they didn’t address the serious problems with Driscoll. After all, he got the gospel right. What about C.J. Mahaney? Well, he gets the gospel right. What I really think is that they have to band together because of the Comp. theology, because they losing in numbers.

    The cynic in me says, in all of these cases, because they only backtrack when public opinion forces it.

  150. I know there are some Christians who hold to sinless perfectionism

    Just as people have various working definitions of words like Gospel, Jesus, Trinity, so, too, people define Sin in many various ways.

    What does “Sin” mean to you?

    Some may say things like:

    Eating meat
    Playing cards
    Drinking alcohol
    Wearing red lipstick
    Having a dirty dish in the sink
    A cluttered desk
    Saying $&#@!

    Others might say sin is:

    Doubt
    Legalism
    Unbelief
    Independence from God
    Pride
    Fear

    One day I may write a book and I think I have a title:

    “Yes, I Believe Eve Burned A Lot Of Casseroles In The Garden”

  151. Last night my husband and I had dinner with some friends who joined a Mennonite church about a year ago. Their dresses, headcoverings and beards clashed with out jeans and jewelry. And it was beautful. We weren’t the same but none of us felt uncomfortable or “less than.” It was an experience of unity.

    NeoCalvinists and folks on the good ship ESS destroy unity in the Body. They absolutely wreck it. Makes me heartsick.

  152. I saw this when scanning the news (it’s from Nov 2015):

    Gender roles: Is complementarianism on the wane in the US?
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gender.roles.is.complementarianism.on.the.wane.in.the.us/69406.htm

    According to Baptist Press, Campbellsville University in Kentucky – formerly affiliated to the Southern Baptist Convention, which teaches that “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” – has joined the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) organisation.

    (CBE being egalitarian.)

  153. @ Paula Rice:

    I wonder if you would object to the term or concept of “forgiven sinner.” ?

    I also wonder if you would acknowledge that being forgiven by God of sin is not the same thing as sanctification?

    I don’t think the Bible teaches that the moment a person comes to saving faith she is automatically sanctified but that sanctification is a life long process…

    Which is why you might see something like a genuine convert to Christ never- the- less lose his temper in rush hour traffic on his commute one day and giving the “middle finger” to another motorist?

  154. http://cbmw.org/about/mission-vision/

    “In 1987, CBMW was established primarily to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism. At this time many evangelicals were beginning to experiment with an ideology that would later become known as evangelical feminism. This was a significant departure from what the church had practiced from its beginning regarding the role of men and women in the home and local church. The effects of this departure have not been benign. As evangelical feminism continues to spread, the evangelical community needs to be aware that this debate reaches ultimately to the heart of the gospel.”

    This totally isn’t a social agenda, y’all.

  155. Gram3 wrote:

    I have a small sample size, but FWIW, my most recent former church did not promote Lottie Moon. When I was younger, Lottie Moon was huge.

    Seeing Lottie Moon’s name reminded me of (I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, I’m just putting it out there for any interested readers):

    Are You Funding Terrorism? The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering
    https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/are-you-funding-terrorism-the-lottie-moon-christmas-offering/

  156. Daisy wrote:

    I saw this when scanning the news (it’s from Nov 2015):
    Gender roles: Is complementarianism on the wane in the US?
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gender.roles.is.complementarianism.on.the.wane.in.the.us/69406.htm
    According to Baptist Press, Campbellsville University in Kentucky – formerly affiliated to the Southern Baptist Convention, which teaches that “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” – has joined the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) organisation.
    (CBE being egalitarian.)

    Sounds like the Holy Spirit is getting through to some people.

  157. elastigirl wrote:

    Why aren’t people more important than principle? Than your precious doctrine?

    It kind of reminds me of the Pharisees.

    They seemed to love debating about religious principles until the cows came home and didn’t seem to care how their teachings hurt the people – and they insisted that the people follow their interpretations and teachcngs.

  158. Daisy wrote:

    I wonder if you would object to the term or concept of “forgiven sinner.” ?

    I also wonder if you would acknowledge that being forgiven by God of sin is not the same thing as sanctification?

    Daisy, we must all have an anchor for our faith, and that anchor is Christ. Everyday we’re going to deal with the fact we’re himan, right? There’s a distinction the Bible makes between a person who is unregenerated and one who is not. I trust you understand that.

    So, on any given day where does our peace, our hope, our joy emanate from? Where does your assurance of God’s unfailing love for you originate from? Do you believe that as a Christian nothing can separate you from the love of God in Christ for you?

    There’s not a moment that goes by when this is untrue or changed. I know that there’s nothing I can do to change God’s love and acceptance of me in Christ.

    I face discouragement. I suffer. I deal with hardship. But my joy needs to be rooted in Him. My peace that comes from God has to transcend my circumstance. I have doubts and crisis of faith, yet he’s the one that’s taken hold of me and won’t let go. Sometimes I do, and I am grieved. The Spirit is grieved. I repent and return.

    There are absolute truths for the Christian that apply both to God and Who He is, and to us as well. We must know and cling to these things. They are the weapons of our warfare. They involve our faith in who God is, and also faith in who God has declared us to be in Him.

    I don’t know about others, but I have less difficulty with my confidence in God.

  159. dee wrote:

    This has to do with the nonsensical way that local churches keep people on their roles long after they have left. Some of those folks get counted twice if they somehow join another SBC church.

    Very strange. The numbers game and keeping people in the system. I was cornered and assaulted (attempted?) by a staff member in a prominent church some time ago, but managed to wrench free and run. After quietly reporting this to HR to avoid a sensation, a pastor called me in and facilitated my exit. I assumed, of course, I was out of their system. After reading TWW posts, I called to make sure, but was told by the data keeper that she could not remove me from their system. Weird. Or maybe standard practice?

  160. Daisy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I have a small sample size, but FWIW, my most recent former church did not promote Lottie Moon. When I was younger, Lottie Moon was huge.

    IMO, SBC leaders love to raise money off of Lottie Moons name but secretly wish the name was Lot Moon. The history of this dear saint who begged for men to come join her is too much for these little boys. I can remember when the Women’s Mission Union greatly emphasized Lottie, but the current SBC leaders are afraid of the WMU. What a schizophrenic group of men.

  161. Velour wrote:

    Wouldn’t that have been the ethical and moral thing to do?

    PP and the other takeover leaders are not ethical or moral and they have taught all the young preacher boys their tools of the trade. They are nothing more than religious bullies who haven’t a clue what the love of God and neighbor is really about.

  162. Darlene wrote:

    ^^^What I mean is that they’re Comp. theology is only popular among their brand of Reformed theology. Many Christians recognize the problems with Comp/Patriarchy and want nothing to do with it.

    And plenty of Christians denominations have never heard of this Comp nonsense and have said it’s not Biblical.

  163. Gram3 wrote:

    But the way that he and the Trustees chose to

    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.

    I would love to hear their stories to know the truth of what happened. But Platt and the others will not allow the truth to come out.

  164. JYJames wrote:

    I assumed, of course, I was out of their system. After reading TWW posts, I called to make sure, but was told by the data keeper that she could not remove me from their system. Weird. Or maybe standard practice?

    I think the Deebs say that you should send a letter certified return receipt saying you are no longer a member and to remove you from the list.

  165. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Wouldn’t that have been the ethical and moral thing to do?
    PP and the other takeover leaders are not ethical or moral and they have taught all the young preacher boys their tools of the trade. They are nothing more than religious bullies who haven’t a clue what the love of God and neighbor is really about.

    I gathered as much. What horrible men to cost this dear conservative Christian her job as a professor of Hebrew, cost her her livelihood when she was the sole source of support for herself and her extremely ill husband who could not work. Just unconscionable.

  166. Velour wrote:

    I gathered as much. What horrible men to cost this dear conservative Christian her job as a professor of Hebrew, cost her her livelihood when she was the sole source of support for herself and her extremely ill husband who could not work. Just unconscionable.

    Unless he repents of the horrible way he has hurt so many men and women he will have to give God an account of these actions.

  167. @ Deb:

    That was a hysterical music video about Wayne Grudem. I’ve never heard it before.
    Why was it done and where was it done?

  168. BL wrote:

    Today, our complimentarian leaders would have silenced her immediately and rebuked her for not checking with the Board of Priests before talking about Jesus and redemption to others in the Temple.

    Even the Pharisees did not stop her.

  169. Velour wrote:

    That was a hysterical music video about Wayne Grudem. I’ve never heard it before.
    Why was it done and where was it done?

    The youtube link says:

    “Uploaded on Apr 27, 2010

    This video was shown at New Word Alive 2010 where Wayne Grudem was one of the speakers.
    It was originally filmed at a UCCF Relay Conference in January 2008. It has been posted, with permission, due to popular demand following the event.”

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

  170. siteseer wrote:

    If these comp guys cannot even love their sisters in their own faith, how do they imagine they will be known for their love for one another? Are women not part of the ‘one another’ in their minds?

    I fail to see how they hope to attract new women converts to Christianity in general or to complementarianism in particular.

    I have no desire to be part of a faith or church that teaches me I must, all due to my gender, submit to all men for all time, even after I’m dead. And one who tells me my only worth is in marrying and having a baby (I’m childless, never married). That I’m somehow more sinful, lesser, more easily deceived than men – and other condescending attitudes such as that.

    I also lost the desire a long while back to marry a Christian man, especially one who believes in male headship, as comps teach it and believe it.

    Single women (Christian or Non) aren’t going to want to marry complementarian men (due to all the sexism in the teachings and behavior), so I don’t know who all the comp guys are going to marry, if they’ve not married yet, or if their wife passes away and they wish to remarry.

  171. Daisy wrote:

    Gender roles: Is complementarianism on the wane in the US?
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gender.roles.is.complementarianism.on.the.wane.in.the.us/69406.htm

    Interesting, Daisy!

    From the article:

    Owen Strachan, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, told Baptist Press: “The sea change at the SBC seminaries alone has meant a major uptick in the representation and reception of the complementarian position at numerous schools. If you consider the major numerical presence of M.Div. students at Southern, Southeastern, Southwestern [seminaries], and the surging enrollment of Midwestern, you recognize that a large percentage of all ministers-in-training are at unflinchingly complementarian institutions.”

    Strachan said he was “thrilled by the growth of complementarian conviction among evangelical scholars and pastor-theologians over the last thirty years”.

    What kind of person finds this “thrilling”? I do not understand. There’s something seriously missing.

    The article continues:

    He also said that denying distinct gender roles in the home and at church “sets you up for theological and spiritual disaster”.

    “Every figure, church and denomination that has publicly endorsed homosexuality – ‘gay Christianity’ – and transgenderism has without exception been egalitarian,” he said. “This does not mean that every egalitarian endorses these sins, but it does mean that embracing egalitarianism puts you in tension.”

    Is the subjugation of women driven by homophobia? Is that what it’s all about at base?

    There is something so seriously wrong at base.

  172. Dan wrote:

    Perhaps we should get beyond what color hat God is wearing and seek to Know and worship him in truth and in spirit.

    For the record, it’s purple. God wears a purple hat. I’m glad I could clear that up for everyone. 🙂

  173. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I gathered as much. What horrible men to cost this dear conservative Christian her job as a professor of Hebrew, cost her her livelihood when she was the sole source of support for herself and her extremely ill husband who could not work. Just unconscionable.
    Unless he repents of the horrible way he has hurt so many men and women he will have to give God an account of these actions.

    I’ve been thinking the same way. I wonder how many of these guys think they’re going to heaven and Jesus will say to depart from Him and that He never knew them.

    A lot of these guys think they are among The Elect and say so. I find them arrogant.

  174. JYJames wrote:

    A woman prayer warrior I know had to ask her husband to “use the car.”

    That is how complementarianism infantilizes women – and they think this is normal behavior, or what God wants. Remarkable.

    Asking if one can borrow the car is what a teen-aged son or daughter would do, not a wife.

  175. siteseer wrote:

    Is the subjugation of women driven by homophobia? Is that what it’s all about at base?

    I don’t think so, I think they’re using homophobia in this case to diss egalitarianism – what they see as guilt by association. I.e., they’re using the homophobia they perceive is out there to promote comp – I don’t think homophobia is driving comp.

  176. Daisy wrote:

    Dan wrote:

    Perhaps we should get beyond what color hat God is wearing and seek to Know and worship him in truth and in spirit.

    For the record, it’s purple. God wears a purple hat. I’m glad I could clear that up for everyone.

    Yes, if we can just get on the same page on this issue, the rest will fall into place 😉

  177. mot wrote:

    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.

    This speaks VOLUMES to me!

  178. roebuck wrote:

    I don’t think so, I think they’re using homophobia in this case to diss egalitarianism – what they see as guilt by association. I.e., they’re using the homophobia they perceive is out there to promote comp – I don’t think homophobia is driving comp.

    I wonder how else they think denying distinct gender roles in the home and at church “sets you up for theological and spiritual disaster”? I can’t think of any.

  179. siteseer wrote:

    I wonder how else they think denying distinct gender roles in the home and at church “sets you up for theological and spiritual disaster”? I can’t think of any.

    Not sure what you mean. I think ‘complementarianism’ is just good old-fashioned patriarchy. The age old domination of women by men, because. It’s a primate thing that needs constant push back. I’m not saying these guys aren’t homophobic as heck – I just don’t think that’s what drives them to comp.

  180. Velour wrote:

    And their Soapbubble Submission nonsense, if I had a guy tell me that he didn’t like the way I did the dishes, I would tell him that any chore he criticized me for he could take over 100% and do it himself.

    You are way too polite.

  181. @ roebuck:
    Exactly. Owen BHLH supposedly earned his Ph.D. so he should be able to reason better than that. The two issues are separate, as anyone who stops to think for a second realizes.

    If someone disagrees with Owen’s notion of proper gender roles, then spiritual and theological disaster looms? News to me and Gramp3. ISTM that despite our mutualism, we have been able to see that numerous theological and spiritual disasters have occurred within the conservative church which Owen BHLH has not noticed. Driscoll, Mahaney, Chandler, Doug Wilson, to name a few. Owen, dear, please stop abusing hyperbole so egregiously. And brush up on freshman logic. You will find it thrilling!!!

  182. Yes, I am sharp with Owen, but not as sharp and twisted as someone who would maintain that female human beings are made in the “derivative” image of God, as Owen and his father-in-law, Bruce Ware assert. Jesus is a derivative God, too. Sick and twisted.

  183. Paula Rice wrote:

    If Dee, for example, is a sinner then she should say, “I am a sinner, I identify as a sinner, that’s WHO I am” and not put everyone else along with her, who claims to be a believer, in the same lump.
    But that’s what she does. She says we’re all sinners.
    I’m not a sinner. I resent the association. I have appropriated the Gospel in a much different sense altogether.

    You are singling Dee out as if she were saying something unusual and sinister. That’s how I interpret your lengthy comments about one individual, Dee.

    Dee did not invent the concept of sin or the theology of atonement. Yes, she’s making a theological statement, but it’s not unlike saying we all have flaws, we’re all human, we all make mistakes, we all cause pain to others.

    Jesus did not prevent me from raising my voice at a loved one today: I sinned, and therefore I am a sinner, and thankful that Jesus and the object of my pique have forgiven me. This is fairly standard Christian stuff.

    It’s fine to disagree about the theology and point out the magnificent result of Jesus’ sacrifice. Let’s just not marginalize one another.

  184. roebuck wrote:

    Not sure what you mean. I think ‘complementarianism’ is just good old-fashioned patriarchy. The age old domination of women by men, because. It’s a primate thing that needs constant push back. I’m not saying these guys aren’t homophobic as heck – I just don’t think that’s what drives them to comp.

    I was referring to Owen Strachan’s quote in the article, he claims that denying distinct gender roles in the home and at church sets believers up for “theological and spiritual disaster” but he can’t actually define any “disaster” it leads to, other than supposedly endorsing Christian homosexuality.

  185. roebuck wrote:

    The age old domination of women by men, because. It’s a primate thing that needs constant push back.

    I hear you.

  186. Dee said, in the article above:

    I used to think that complementarianism was a secondary issue, something Christians could amicably disagree about. It isn’t. It has become the lynch pin of the entire Neo Calvinist movement.

    Dee, that’s true from my window now too. Last month our church voted whether to change the by-laws to an elder-led, male-only structure of church government. The attempt failed, for lack of a 2/3 vote, and one of the key proponents of the measure has resigned from the diaconate (he was chairman) and pulled his family out of the church. He cited “God’s revealed word in scripture” and “our understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood” as reasons for leaving. Complementarianism has been elevated to the level of essential doctrine.

  187. Stan wrote:

    http://cbmw.org/about/mission-vision/
    “In 1987, CBMW was established primarily to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism. At this time many evangelicals were beginning to experiment with an ideology that would later become known as evangelical feminism. This was a significant departure from what the church had practiced from its beginning regarding the role of men and women in the home and local church. The effects of this departure have not been benign. As evangelical feminism continues to spread, the evangelical community needs to be aware that this debate reaches ultimately to the heart of the gospel.”
    —————
    This totally isn’t a social agenda, y’all.

    Oh no, totally not. *rolls eyes*

    I don’t recall having read that page before, but I was raised to be a gender complementarian.

    From what I’ve seen of their material the last several years, they claim they are helping women be women or men be men, but the reality of it (especially when I was growing up) is that most of their sermons and articles were more a reaction against secular feminism than pro-Bible or pro-whatever.

  188. @ Paula Rice:

    So you don’t disagree that even a genuine believer in Christ can, on occasion, do something like stub his toe in the dark on the way to the bathroom and then utter a vulgarity?

  189. roebuck wrote:

    I don’t think so, I think they’re using homophobia in this case to diss egalitarianism – what they see as guilt by association. I.e., they’re using the homophobia they perceive is out there to promote comp – I don’t think homophobia is driving comp.

    Oh, I see what you are saying, Roebuck, I think we are both saying the same thing. There are no “theological and spiritual disasters” so he might as well harness some homophobia that’s out there to try to motivate by fear.

    On the other hand, there seem to be plenty of theological and spiritual disasters in their own camp, ESS being a prime example!

  190. Daisy wrote:

    So you don’t disagree that even a genuine believer in Christ can, on occasion, do something like stub his toe in the dark on the way to the bathroom and then utter a vulgarity?

    You should hear some of the oaths and expletives I come up with on occasion.

  191. siteseer wrote:

    “Every figure, church and denomination that has publicly endorsed homosexuality – ‘gay Christianity’ – and transgenderism has without exception been egalitarian,” he said.

    “This does not mean that every egalitarian endorses these sins, but it does mean that embracing egalitarianism puts you in tension.”

    One thing he doesn’t factor in is that there are Christian egalitarians who would love to attend a church that holds similar beliefs as Southern Baptists, except for complementarianism, but such churches don’t seem to exist.

    For example, I have pretty traditional beliefs. I would not feel comfortable attending a church/denomination that thinks homosexual behavior is a-OK, or who says that the Bible is full of error.

    If you could show me a church or denomination that pretty much is like the Southern Baptist one in doctrine (minus gender comp and Neo-Calvinism and authoritarianism), I’d be willing to go there*.

    But no such church exists (apparently).

    If someone could clone Southern Baptist churches, only remove gender complementarianism and replace it with egalitarianism / mutualism, you’d probably see a lot of conservative Christian women flock to it.

    Being a Christian egalitarian (or mutualist) is not necessarily tantamount to supporting homosexual behavior or supporting abortion as birth control.

    He doesn’t get that – but neither do a lot of other people, including secular feminists, atheists, other conservative Christians, liberal Christians, etc.
    —–
    *If I was wiling to go to church again, which I don’t know if I am.

  192. roebuck wrote:

    I don’t think so, I think they’re using homophobia in this case to diss egalitarianism – what they see as guilt by association. I.e., they’re using the homophobia they perceive is out there to promote comp – I don’t think homophobia is driving comp.

    You may be right.

    They do love the slippery slope argument, though.

    They really do push the idea (and have for years) that if you accept gender egalitarianism (or mutualism, whatever term you prefer), this will necessarily cause you or lead you to embracing things such as homosexual behavior or abortion.

  193. Daisy wrote:

    siteseer wrote:
    “Every figure, church and denomination that has publicly endorsed homosexuality – ‘gay Christianity’ – and transgenderism has without exception been egalitarian,” he said.
    “This does not mean that every egalitarian endorses these sins, but it does mean that embracing egalitarianism puts you in tension.”
    One thing he doesn’t factor in is that there are Christian egalitarians who would love to attend a church that holds similar beliefs as Southern Baptists, except for complementarianism, but such churches don’t seem to exist.
    For example, I have pretty traditional beliefs. I would not feel comfortable attending a church/denomination that thinks homosexual behavior is a-OK, or who says that the Bible is full of error.
    If you could show me a church or denomination that pretty much is like the Southern Baptist one in doctrine (minus gender comp and Neo-Calvinism and authoritarianism), I’d be willing to go there*.
    But no such church exists (apparently).
    If someone could clone Southern Baptist churches, only remove gender complementarianism and replace it with egalitarianism / mutualism, you’d probably see a lot of conservative Christian women flock to it.
    Being a Christian egalitarian (or mutualist) is not necessarily tantamount to supporting homosexual behavior or supporting abortion as birth control.
    He doesn’t get that – but neither do a lot of other people, including secular feminists, atheists, other conservative Christians, liberal Christians, etc.
    —–
    *If I was wiling to go to church again, which I don’t know if I am.

    They don’t exist Daisy. There is such a fear of women having some sort of equality in churches, I mean, why, and what do they really fear? Are they really that scared? And women as second class citizens in heaven? Really? Seriously, really? Do we not have more pressing concerns in the church than this?

  194. siteseer wrote:

    I wonder how else they think denying distinct gender roles in the home and at church “sets you up for theological and spiritual disaster”? I can’t think of any.

    Because, if women realize they were not designed by God only to bake casseroles, the Owen Strachans, Mark Driscolls, C J Mahaneys, Doug Wilsons, and John Pipers might have to actually get off their behinds and bake their own casseroles from time to time.

    That is a disaster in their thinking, I’d wager.

    These women married to these guys could also realize in time they have a right to boundaries and to get their own needs met.

    So, instead of ‘performing in the boudoir’ if they weren’t in the mood or felt sick, the husband would have to be celibate for the night. The men would have to learn some self-sacrifice and self-control, and they don’t want that.

    None of that goes down with their selfishness, because they will couch their selfishness in terms of,
    “God wired men to want sex more than women, men NEED sex, and the Bible says wives owe husbands sex whenever they want it,”
    to guilt trip, or somehow convince their Bible-respecting, wives that the Bible says they have to obey the husband’s wants no matter what.

    If women realized what bunk complementarianism is, that it’s being used to control them, and they refused to put up with it any longer, that would be a disaster for Strachan et al.

  195. Daisy wrote:

    JYJames wrote:
    A woman prayer warrior I know had to ask her husband to “use the car.”
    That is how complementarianism infantilizes women – and they think this is normal behavior, or what God wants. Remarkable.
    Asking if one can borrow the car is what a teen-aged son or daughter would do, not a wife.

    What is this—Saudi Arabia?

  196. Marie wrote:

    And I’ll never be able to get it out of my head!

    Which is precisely why I am going to decline to watch it – just the still shot was bad enough.

  197. Ted wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    And their Soapbubble Submission nonsense, if I had a guy tell me that he didn’t like the way I did the dishes, I would tell him that any chore he criticized me for he could take over 100% and do it himself.
    You are way too polite.

    Proof that the Holy Spirit has worked a minor miracle in me.

  198. siteseer wrote:

    On the other hand, there seem to be plenty of theological and spiritual disasters in their own camp, ESS being a prime example!

    Their camp IS a theological and spiritual disaster 🙂 . A bunch of not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are boys playing at being Important Theologians. They are bush-league thinkers, when you really analyze their schtick. And/or deceitful power grabbers.

    It seems to me that they are just stirring up non-existent problems for which they imagine they have some sort of ‘solution’. It really is rather pathetic and disgusting… and saddening.

  199. Daisy wrote:

    These women married to these guys could also realize in time they have a right to boundaries and to get their own needs met.

    The women married to the Usual Suspects or the women who speak on behalf of the Female Subordinationist system have a life which is not the same as life for a female pewpeon. For that matter, the Usual Suspects have very privileged lives and do not have to “be Jesus” to their wives like the male pewpeons. The system is oppressive to all human beings, male and female, because it is a legalistic system with no grace. Like any legalistic system, it is impossible to follow and makes people feel guilty and like failures, making them vulnerable to continuing exploitation by the system. It makes promises of a great family which it cannot deliver, but that is the lure and hook which draws in many young men and women.

  200. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, I am sharp with Owen, but not as sharp and twisted as someone who would maintain that female human beings are made in the “derivative” image of God, as Owen and his father-in-law, Bruce Ware assert. Jesus is a derivative God, too. Sick and twisted.

    I apologize if my post here sounds a little crass, but seeing your post and being reminded of how some of the complementarians view women as “derivatives”. They don’t seem to think that women are fully human, but some kind of lower animal.

    If that is so, why do they marry women and have sexual relations with them?

    Now, I know that HUG might want to interject here how, in the olden days, some ancient societies thought women were breeding stock and men or boys were for sexual expression.

    Regardless of how ancient dudes felt about women, it looks to me that some American complementarians in 2016 view women as being some kind of lower animal life form.
    But as I said, they marry them and have sexual relations with them… but the Bible is opposed to bestiality.

    Why would you want to marry or having sexual relations with a “thing” that you view as not quite as human as yourself?

    The only upside I can see for them is that they get free maid service, if they brainwash this wife to think it’s her Godly duty in life to wash his dirty socks for him.

  201. Muff Potter wrote:

    You should hear some of the oaths and expletives I come up with on occasion.

    Me too. Why, just this evening, after a long and exhausting day, I was trying to get my chickens into their coop, and at the last minute one of them darted out and led me a merry chase, slipping in the mud, trying to get her in. I loudly exclaimed “You get in here, you little rascal!”.

    And then I cut myself on a sharp end of wire fence. and I shouted for all the world to hear (though there’s no one to hear me out where I live) “RATS!”

    Or words to that effect 😉

  202. Daisy wrote:

    I apologize if my post here sounds a little crass, but seeing your post and being reminded of how some of the complementarians view women as “derivatives”. They don’t seem to think that women are fully human, but some kind of lower animal.
    If that is so, why do they marry women and have sexual relations with them?

    I wanted to add some additional thoughts there.

    I would be more concerned with a branch of theology that is teaching that the entire half of the human population (women) is not ‘as fully human’ as the other half, than I would be over some of the stuff they usually hyper-ventilate about, such as-

    Stores removing “girl” and “boy” signs from toy aisles; more women wanting to preach or teach in churches; Bruce Jenner wanting to transition to Caitlyn, etc.

    I’ve read books about war and watched TV documentaries about warfare and how it’s conducted. One thing militaries do (or used to do) is indoctrinate their service personnel to view their opposition as being ‘less than human,’ because that makes it psychologically easier for some of them to kill.

    I do see a parallel with stuff like that and how some complementarians teach men that women are supposedly not as fully human or in the image of God as men are.

    Strachan doesn’t seem concerned about THAT outcome of what ‘his’ side teaches about gender.

  203. Daisy wrote:

    For the record, it’s purple. God wears a purple hat. I’m glad I could clear that up for everyone.

    This is actually a good example of over-interpreting an otherwise genuine revelation. Whilst Daisy has correctly discerned that My favourite colour is purple (Cadbury’s Purple, to be exact), I don’t wear a hat that colour.

    Best regards,
    God

  204. Velour wrote:

    Proof that the Holy Spirit has worked a minor miracle in me.

    For an even greater miracle, pray that the Father or the Son work it in you. 🙂

  205. JYJames wrote:

    Insightful.
    Is there a TWW post about this, specifically?

    I don’t recall TWW making any posts about that point specifically.

    However, I address that topic here and there in a handful of posts at my blog, such as this one
    (under the heading about 1/4th down the page, “Codependency – and Hence Complementarianism – Infantilizes Grown Women”):
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/gender-complementarianism-marriage-singleness-purpose-identity-domestic-abuse/

    I may have discussed it in one or two blog posts at my blog, but I can’t recall at the moment.

    I think the “Under Much Grace” blog (by another woman) covers similar territory: she explains how certain Christian upbringings can hinder a child’s development into an independent adult. I think Deb and Dee have a link to her blog off to the side of this one.

  206. I think a LOT of the strident opposition to certain doctrines on this blog are because those who are teaching these doctrines are also hurting people using these doctrines.

    It isn’t that we don’t want to ‘all get along’, and it isn’t people’s diversity that we find offensive;
    but when a Christian person sees others being persecuted or injured, the Christian person is impelled to come to the aid of the injured and show them kindness and care. If that means exposing and condemning belief systems that support hurting innocent people, then YES, the Christian will speak up.

    Another thing about ‘sin’. We have been given choice in how to live and a part of that choice is being responsible for our actions. I don’t think Christ came so that we could continue sinning without repentance, no. That is not ‘salvation’, that God ever turns His back when we are unkind to others and cause them grief, or worse, lead them into hurting others. Do Christians sin? Undoubtedly, Christians can turn away from God. Can they repent? And be forgiven? Yes. And this involves turning again towards God with a heart broken by the vision of our crucified Lord, Who suffered for those sins we have committed. As He hung on the cross for each one of us, He also suffered from each of the sins each one of us has committed. There is no reason to think our sin no longer matters. We can choose to sin, but we cannot control the evil that may come from it. Repenting is to consciously turn again towards the Lord of Life. We are to ‘choose life that we may live.’

  207. @ JYJames:

    P.S. I know that Kelly Ladd Bishop has noticed the same thing about complementarianism as I have in that regard (she’s mentioned it on social media). She has a blog.

    I can’t recall off the top of my head if she’s done any blog posts on that specific topic, but she does sometimes blog about other subjects related to complementarianism, so you might find something on there:
    http://blog.kellyladdbishop.com

  208. Daisy wrote:

    Amid ‘Evangelism Crisis,’ Southern Baptists Bring In $400 Million More

    Good leadership would have first made a plea to God's people to dig deeper to support its evangelistic outreach around the world (ed.), put the matter in the Lord's hands, and then waited prayerfully on Him to move … 'before' removing veteran missionaries from the field God had called them to.

  209. Deb wrote:

    Now you’ve gone and done it… I can’t get this tune out of my head.

    Whew! Just another entry on the growing list of just how immature these New Calvinists are. There’s still a lot of “young” in those YRRs!

  210. @ siteseer:
    Strachan is way, wsy out there. There are LGBTQ people who are xtian, but apart from the study of “queer theory” (which is a literary-historical approach) there is no “-gay xtianity” per se.

    And yeah, he *would* find the validation of his ideas “thrilling.”

  211. @ Daisy:
    I’m going to avoid speculating on your exact question. The women I have known within the system are in it for two primary reasons. The first is that they sincerely believe that this is what pleases God, so they are really submitting themselves to God when they are submitting to their husbands (or seeing themselves as subordinate to their husband.) The second is that they believe that the system will ensure (as much as possible) that their husband will be faithful and a good provider and a good husband and father.

    For those in the first category, it is very difficult for them to consider that they might be mistaken. Because that runs the risk that they might be displeasing God or being rebellious against his desire for them.

    In my experience it takes a big shock of some sort to wake this first group up. And this is the group where I would place myself mostly, though I was never a Female Subordinationist. It actually took two pretty big shocks before I got out and stayed out (with a little help from the Keyholders), but I am a little slow, dense, and thick. Stubborn, too. Since then, I have had yet a third shock which served to confirm the toxic nature of the system. Two of those involved damage to a female, one to both a male and female, and one to a male.

    The second group is pragmatic, mostly. They stay in the system either because they believe it is working for them (or think it is), or they stay due to the huge social pressure to conform to the group norms. Among the women there is a real submission competition to see who submits the most joyfully under the worst possible circumstances. Gramp3 and I have often remarked to one another about the passive-aggressive swipes that we have heard some women in the system make against their husbands. The gratuitous swipes take the form of amusing anecdotes that are really covert aggression. I am sure the guys have no idea their submissive wives are doing this.

    There is one common thing we have noticed about those who are System Enthusiasts, and that one thing is a total absence of any playfulness between the husband and wife. I seriously cannot think of one couple who actually showed any unscripted joy in the sheer presence of the other. Everyone is always checking and cross-checking to see if they are conforming to the right thought or behavior, so they cannot just relax and enjoy one another. How utterly boring and sad.

  212. @ roebuck:
    I think siteseer is partly right on this, though. They assume that being gay = effeminacy, ergo, being like a woman. Which is both homophobic *and* misogynistic, and speaks to their own fears about themselves.

  213. Ted wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Proof that the Holy Spirit has worked a minor miracle in me.
    For an even greater miracle, pray that the Father or the Son work it in you.

    They have!

  214. Gram3 wrote:

    Like any legalistic system, it is impossible to follow and makes people feel guilty and like failures, making them vulnerable to continuing exploitation by the system. It makes promises of a great family which it cannot deliver, but that is the lure and hook which draws in many young men and women.

    Exhibit A: Josh and Anna Duggar. The System promised morality, a *perfect husband*, a *perfect* adoring wife if she was *perfect* at marriage, did *courtship*, had chaperons.

    And the reality? A husband – Josh – who sexually abused his sisters and family friends, had sex with porn stars, cheated on his wife, had an Ashley Madison account, wasn’t in the moral majority that he claimed for his paid gig in Washington, D.C.

    And what did the homeschooling, repressed, hyper conservative evangelical Christian environment give Anna? No college education, no individual personality, no wings to fly with, her back to the wall, and now a bunch of kids with her too (who in my opinion are also in danger).

    P.S. I ALWAYS knew something was wrong in the Duggar home when they were building the new house, the girls were all crammed together in one room, all of that weird design. I thought, “They have so much space to spread out. What is THAT about? Why are those girls are crammed together in one bedroom?” I just got a bad feeling about it. And I was right. Parents admitted years later it was because of Josh (the layout and design).

  215. @ Christiane:

    The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that is to say that there is a guarantee that the individual will persevere and is therefore assured of eternal salvation is a calvinist doctrine. The doctrine of eternal security/ once saved always saved is found in some but not all baptist traditions, based on the idea that one can choose to get saved but cannot then change their mind an become apostate. A quick google led me to some idea that when one is born of the spirit then one is spirit and spirit does not sin. I don’t know where that idea originated. All of these are ideas of eternal security in that one is assured of a place in heaven eventually regardless of what may transpire in their life in the interim, though the thinking behind the various variations of this concept is not identical.

    Many of the comments here are starting from the assumption of one of these doctrinal positions. These are what I have been calling the ‘protestant’ position though not all protestant traditions believe this by far. These ideas determine what one thinks about sin in the life of a christian, among other things.

    Your explanation of a different theological position is excellent. What you are saying is what I have been calling the ‘catholic’ idea without going into too many specifics. Surely that is understandable including by those who do not agree with what you have said. But carrying on a conversation where there is this much difference in thinking would be difficult.

    I find it interesting that in the four protestant denominations with which I have been affiliated in my life only the Southern Baptists maintained a firm and total belief in any of the ‘protestant’ versions of this. That reality never really struck me until this conversation came up today.

  216. roebuck wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    What is this—Saudi Arabia?
    Be careful! The Morality Police might hear!

    I am just quaking in fear as I don my NeoCalvinist burqa.

  217. When I consider the work of New Calvinist leaders to stretch Biblical boundaries to fit their reformed agenda, enhance their reputations, and secure icon-status in the new reformation, I’m reminded of Timothy’s words to the early church:

    “I am repeating in this letter the advice I gave you … so that you could order certain persons to stop inventing new doctrines and leave old myths and interminable genealogies alone. They only raise queries in men’s minds without leading them to faith in God. The ultimate aim of the Christian minister is to produce the love which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience and a genuine faith. Some seem to have forgotten this and to have lost themselves in endless words. They want a reputation as teachers of the Law, yet they fail to realize the meaning of their own words, still less of the subject they are so dogmatic about” (1 Timothy 1).

    New Calvinists worship their leaders and their teachings, not the Lord.

  218. Gram3 wrote:

    There is one common thing we have noticed about those who are System Enthusiasts, and that one thing is a total absence of any playfulness between the husband and wife. I seriously cannot think of one couple who actually showed any unscripted joy in the sheer presence of the other. Everyone is always checking and cross-checking to see if they are conforming to the right thought or behavior, so they cannot just relax and enjoy one another. How utterly boring and sad.

    And this probably explains why this group of adherents has the highest divorce rate in the nation (when the national divorce rate has been falling). What a joyless life.

  219. @ okrapod:
    thank you so much for your comment, which was clearly written and understandable for someone like me especially

    It is not easy to understand points of view without knowing more of the background of people’s faith sometimes and the more I learn, the better chance I feel there is for me to understand people from other faith traditions

    You are a big help for me here, and I think also a very kind person with a generous spirit towards helping increase understanding among those present here, … you have my admiration and my thanks for your patient kindness

  220. Daisy wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Which is precisely why I am going to decline to watch it – just the still shot was bad enough.
    HNL Hillsong 2010
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGfpUsfz0kc
    “Ed Young’s newly recorded solo rap for Hillsong 2010 – takin’ things in the Kingdom to a ‘Hole ‘Nutha Level!”

    And for those that just want to see some awesome Gospel, here’s one of the most beautiful women – Mama Mosie Burks (soloist) and The Mississippi Mass Choir singing,
    “When I Rose This Morning”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYgrCzuNM0w

    [I saw them years ago in California…and wow. Grammy award-winning choir. Such a fun night! Everybody dressed up. And the place was ALIVE!]

  221. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m going to avoid speculating on your exact question. The women I have known within the system are in it for two primary reasons. The first is that they sincerely believe that this is what pleases God, so they are really submitting themselves to God when they are submitting to their husbands (or seeing themselves as subordinate to their husband.) The second is that they believe that the system will ensure (as much as possible) that their husband will be faithful and a good provider and a good husband and father.

    That was what had me sucked into it for so long.

    I was really raised to think that being a good, pure, God loving, Bible respecting woman meant being a complementarian.

    I do understand the motives of why women buy into it, but I was wondering in that one post more why complementarian men who view Christian women as ‘lesser beings’ bother marrying them in the first place.

  222. Gram3 wrote:

    There is one common thing we have noticed about those who are System Enthusiasts, and that one thing is a total absence of any playfulness between the husband and wife. I seriously cannot think of one couple who actually showed any unscripted joy in the sheer presence of the other. Everyone is always checking and cross-checking to see if they are conforming to the right thought or behavior, so they cannot just relax and enjoy one another. How utterly boring and sad.

    My mother’s upbringing of me resulted in this with me. Not just in romantic relationships, but with every person I ever came across.

    I am naturally an introvert, so I hate social functions anyhow (or even to a job), but having to attend one or two over my life – they were awful due to how my mother raised me to think girls/women are supposed to deal with other people and conflict.

    I was raised to be a good Christian girl, and good Christian girls don’t have boundaries, because boundaries are selfish.

    Nice, good, traditional Christian girls are passive and don’t fight back when wronged or treated poorly (according to my mother, who believe in traditional gender role stuff).

    Mom was perfectly fine with me avoiding fights and nasty people, but I was told that nice, Jesus loving women do not act assertively and defend themselves when mistreated.

    (Leaving the room or avoiding the person was okay and feminine, though.)

    So, I spent most of my time when I was around people (on jobs, parties, where ever I may be) scanning the environment, scanning people’s facial expressions, etc., waiting for the moment they might become rude or abusive, so I could make a quick excuse and leave the room.

    I never did learn to relax around people and just enjoy their company. I was taught to be afraid of them and be nervous around them.

    Ever since I figured out a few years ago that my mother was wrong about this stuff, and it’s okay for me to stand up for myself if I need to, I mostly lost my fear of people and can enjoy just shooting the breeze with them.

  223. Paula Rice wrote:

    Notice, Paul never addressed his letters to the sinners in various places. Why? Paul understood this vital distinction. He understood the true essence of the believer. He knew we’re not sinners.

    Um, no. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15

  224. numo wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    I think siteseer is partly right on this, though. They assume that being gay = effeminacy, ergo, being like a woman. Which is both homophobic *and* misogynistic, and speaks to their own fears about themselves.

    And they are constantly harping about gays. Constantly saying that the Bible says they’re going to Hell. I have never seen more people waste brain power and mouth power over consenting adults whose personal business is none of theirs. It happened all of the time at my former NeoCalvinist church.

    The very same people who ran gays in to the ground the most used it to digress, in my opinion, from their own serious problems that they decided to do precisely ZERO about.

    I could never identify with these people. I work in the real world, at a real job, with a diverse work force, and we’re expected to get along with all kinds of people and we do. My boss, a gay man, is a far nicer human being than ANY of my ex-NeoCalvinist pastors/elders.

  225. Kemi wrote:

    Um, no. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15

    I hope I can weigh in on this in a way that will be helpful. I’ve wrestled with this very subject for years, often finding myself on conflicting sides. I think it boils down to the difference between identity and behavior. We all sin, and the Bible says we do. That is a behavior issue. But is “sinner” our identity as a Christian? I think this is the difference that is at the root of this current discussion. Let me try to give an example. Many people have the capacity to run when needed, but they don’t call themselves “runners” because they don’t purposely set out to run on a regular schedule. People who identify as “runners” typically have a schedule and they track their progress. But for people who don’t identify as runners, it does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of running. It’s just a statement that they don’t identify as runners because they don’t purposely set out to run. I think it’s a similar thing for “sinners.” I’ve heard Christians described as saints with a sin problem rather that “sinners saved by grace.” Interestingly, the only verse I can find in the NT describing Christians as sinners in the present tense is this verse from 1 Timothy, and some translations put it in the past tense. The title of “sinners” in all other cases refers to non-believers. Believers, even grossly sinning believers as in the case of the believers in Corinth, are called saints, not sinners. So to say that we are no longer “sinners” by identity does not mean that we don’t occasionally sin in our behavior. What it does mean is that we no longer set out to do it as a continual practice. It’s an aberration that does not describe the most true thing about our identity, which is “Christ in us, the hope of glory.”

  226. Daisy wrote:

    One thing he doesn’t factor in is that there are Christian egalitarians who would love to attend a church that holds similar beliefs as Southern Baptists, except for complementarianism, but such churches don’t seem to exist.
    For example, I have pretty traditional beliefs. I would not feel comfortable attending a church/denomination that thinks homosexual behavior is a-OK, or who says that the Bible is full of error.
    If you could show me a church or denomination that pretty much is like the Southern Baptist one in doctrine (minus gender comp and Neo-Calvinism and authoritarianism), I’d be willing to go there*.
    But no such church exists (apparently).
    If someone could clone Southern Baptist churches, only remove gender complementarianism and replace it with egalitarianism / mutualism, you’d probably see a lot of conservative Christian women flock to it.
    Being a Christian egalitarian (or mutualist) is not necessarily tantamount to supporting homosexual behavior or supporting abortion as birth control.

    You’d be welcome in the Church of the Nazarene!

  227. Daisy wrote:

    Ever since I figured out a few years ago that my mother was wrong about this stuff, and it’s okay for me to stand up for myself if I need to, I mostly lost my fear of people and can enjoy just shooting the breeze with them.

    Good for you, Daisy.

  228. Marie wrote:

    You’d be welcome in the Church of the Nazarene!

    They are on my list of churches to check out, if and when I return.

  229. @ Velour:

    I had a pretty awful experience at a complementarian megachurch early in my marriage. Thankfully, we got out of there. Have been part of the Church of the Nazarene for almost 8 years and it’s been nothing but a good experience. Not perfect, of course, but good.

  230. Marie wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I had a pretty awful experience at a complementarian megachurch early in my marriage. Thankfully, we got out of there. Have been part of the Church of the Nazarene for almost 8 years and it’s been nothing but a good experience. Not perfect, of course, but good.

    Good to hear. I’ve seen Tara Beth Leach’s tweets that she was hired as the senior pastor of a Nazarene Church in SoCal recently. We all cheered her on!

  231. @ okrapod:
    I think you need to put “high-churvh Protestant” in with Catholic, on this and many other things. Lutherans,for ex, are in no way Calvinists, but the Anglican Communion is, as you knoe, kinda complicated.

    I’d venture to guess thst looking up things in various catechisms shows the general drift of things. Along with views on sacraments and those things held as sscrakents by some, viewed by others as being sacramental in nature.

    God cares for his own; further than that is way beyond my pay grade.

  232. Daisy, when it comes to why patriarchal/comp men marry, aside from free maid service we can’t underestimate good old fashioned horniness. Given the statistics, there’s possible porn use as well.

  233. @ Christiane:
    Christiane, i think Lutherans and many in the Anglican Communion are on the same page with you folks on lots of things. (I’m ELCA Lutheran, like Vhsp. Mike, fwiw, though cradle, not a convert.)

    I do not now understand anything about Calvinism and probably never will. It goes against the grain for me, in terms of many basics of the faith. Nor do i see anything in the NT that makes a case for various Calvinist views on predestination or on irresistible grace, etc. I kind of think Calvinism is… heterodox. But that’s just me, and i am not meaning to judge or condemn anyone who reads or comments here.

  234. Marie wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I’ve not heard of Tara! Going to check her out so I can be part of the cheer squad.

    Yeah! I found her through my twitter friends. Junia Project is also a great blog.

  235. @ Ken F:
    The Lutheran view is that we are both saints and sinners, the latter being because we are imperfect, and human, in this life. But at the same time, redeemed and part of the great company of saints.

    We all screw up, and that isn’t up for debate, really. But we are also free, and living in God’s love and mercy, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    It’s a paradox, like many aspects of both faith snd life. And i know for certain that that is how Dee thinks, because she has said so many times, in posts and comments. I do not understand why anyone would single her out on this.

    Oh well… just my .02-worth.

  236. JYJames wrote:

    This is like when I had long hair down to my knees (saving on a stylist’s expense) and then I got it spiked (my hair is so thick it can be practically sculpted when cut). At church the next Sunday, the guy church leaders were aghast and asked if I had my husband’s permission to do this.

    At home, I told my husband about their questions, and he replied, “What? It’s your hair, for goodness sake. And you always look great!”

    Hahahahaha. I had waist-length hair for several years, for the same reason that you had. I decided to cut it very short, in large part because I had a skin rash on the back of my neck that would not go away. For all the years I had long hair, I heard nothing but “Long hair is unprofessional, you need to cut it short” from my late father. All.the.time. He was only somewhat happy because I had it in a partial braid. By the time I finally had it whacked, he had gone blind. When I went over to “show” him, I had to put his hands on my head so he’d really believe it was really only about three inches long.

    Oh, and by the way, the skin rash disappeared after the hair disappeared.

  237. Gram3, you mentioned a real submission competition among some of the women in comp churches to see who could do it most joyfully in the worst circumstances. I saw that most vividly in Debi Pearl’s book CTBHHM. There seems to be a certain mindset that staying and enduring abuse and other bad things while offering blanket forgiveness is always the higher, more mature, more spiritual path. Like the more you can push yourself in that direction, the more brownie points you gain from your peers, if not God himself. Sometimes it looks like they take the apostle Paul’s teaching to slaves about bearing up under unjust suffering and apply it to spouses.

  238. As the debate continues and the heavy hitters weigh in with their $10 seminary words, I wonder how can God not be offended. Who are we as created beings to think we can fully understand the nature of the divine? We see through a glass darkly. God has revealed much about himself to us through the Bible, but it is so arrogant to think that the God who created the universe can be defined and explained like a species of beetle.

    “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
    declares the Lord.
    “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    That said, the best explanation of the trinity I ever saw was in a children’s Sunday school book. It had a cross section of an apple. It said that the apple was one, but it was made up of the skin, flesh, and seeds. It talked about how the skin is no less apple than the flesh, nor was the seed any less apple than the skin. You could describe each differently but they were the same apple.

  239. Daisy wrote:

    why complementarian men who view Christian women as ‘lesser beings’ bother marrying them in the first place.

    The men have the same reason 1. The pragmatic reason is that the men believe that their wives will not be a pain in the neck. It is similar, really, to the pragmatic reason that women cling to the system. The down side for men is that some women *may* feel entitled to demand that their husband “be Jesus” and that is something no man can do.

    Now, imagine if both husbands and wives based their relationship on mutual love and respect and if both tried to imitate Christ. *That* would make for a marriage that honors the Lord as well as one that works out in the practical, everyday life they have chosen to live together. There would be no need at all for external controls because both are being transformed into the likeness of Christ.

  240. @ NJ:
    Exactly. The Pearls and Ezzos and assorted wackadoodles get the press, but the ideas are far more widespread, if not as extreme. People, including me, like guarantees. We like systems we can understand. We like metrics as long as we come out ahead of others. That is not the Christian faith.

  241. I love reading / studying Complementarianism vs Egalitarianism.

    I have said it before and I will say it again.

    I have been married over 35 years and my wife and I agreed before we got married that I would make all the important decisions.

    Amazingly…nothing important has ever come up in over 35 years of marriage !!

    I believe strongly that it’s not just the New Calvinistas but also a lot of very vocal Arminians in the Southern Baptist Convention that are trying their best to force women into eternal submission and they are flirting dangerously close with heresy in their attempt to keep women eternally in submission.

    To wit: Baptist Faith and Mission 2000 – “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”

    (The BFM 2000 had strong Arminian influence.)

    But wait…now I’m confused…the wife is “equal to him” but yet “submits” to him ?!?!?!

    I’m very glad that the TWW is helping shine a very bright light on this subject so that the we can have a very old fashioned theological debate on the Trinity.

    Many people forget that even though the very first church council established the Nicene Creed of Trinity orthodoxy in 325 – it was ignored for dozens of years by the followers of Arius as they continued to preach their heresy. It was by the grace of God that protected Athanasius as he continued to defend the Trinity doctrine established in 325 which was confirmed in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

    I predict that we will witness heads of many preachers / theologians explode this week.

    P.S. The Southern Baptist Convention 2016 will be this week in St Louis, Missouri – can’t wait to hear this topic being debated this week !!

  242. @ Kemi:
    Hi Kemi,

    Unfortunately, the apple analogy does not work. Here is why. The skin of an apple is part of an apple, but it is not the whole apple. Same goes for the flesh and seeds. If you saw some apple seeds in a jar, you would never say “That is a complete apple right there.” The best you could do would be to say you were looking at only part of an apple, and not the whole thing. In a formula, Whole Apple = Skin + Flesh + Seeds

    In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God. God is not the sum of the three persons in the way an apple is the sum of its three parts. In the Godhead, each person is the “whole apple,” so to speak. The trick is to not get caught up in threes and ones, but to look at what is unified and what is distinct. I hope that helps.

    Jim G.

  243. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    . It is also why they started switching from the language of “subordination” to the language of “submission” (which, to be honest, is not a clarification or refinement of their position, but rather propaganda designed to hide and obfuscate – one more reason I have no respect for these false teachers).

    I finally got the chance to read Grudem rebuttal. I was struck by this language change, too.

  244. Velour wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    Velour wrote:
    Thank goodness for social media and blogs. These guys can’t control the narrative.
    The Holy See was in pretty much the same boat when Gutenberg’s invention made books readily available. They could no longer control the dissemination of information as before.
    You read my mind. I almost used Guttenberg printing press in my post.

    Gutenberg was Catholic.

    And Bibles were being translated into vernacular languages by Catholics before the Reformation came along.

    The Holy See didn’t try to control information or keep it from the masses. Ex-Baptist Steve Ray has a very informative series that makes hash of this myth. I will have to find the link.

    And BTW thanks, Darlene!! CARM = religious bigotry on steroids!

  245. @ Paula Rice:
    The Eastern Orthodox prayer at reception of the Eucharist goes something like this. Oh Lord, receive me today as a communicant. For I believe that this is truly thy body and thy blood and that you have come into the world to save sinners of which I am the worse. I will not betray thee as did Judas but like the Thief will I confess thee. Oh Lord,remember me when you come into thy Kingdom!

  246. Velour wrote:

    And if the numbers are played with than Platt makes himself look like a hero.

    That’s why I don’t buy it. We still don’t know why or how the 210 mill. But Platt, the non CP, Prez now looks like a hero. And the fact it is applauded on Voices. Seen too many staged posts in the past to buy it. And I personally know of one that was completely staged to communicate the exact opposite of what happened because I knew people actually involved in the situation.

  247. @ Gram3:

    “The pragmatic reason is that the men believe that their wives will not be a pain in the neck”
    ++++++++++++

    hold on. ‘will not be a pain in the neck’ — is that how they see women? to be a woman means to be a pain in the neck to a man?

  248. @ David W:
    Amen. Thanks for this.

    Funny how “the communion of saints” and “the forgiveness of sins” are right next to each other in the Nicene Creed…

  249. Gram3 wrote:

    I think that Ligon Duncan is an interesting one to watch on this, given that the charge is being led by conservative Reformed guys.

    Good point. He has ecclesiastical courts to worry about, right? Or they could use him as a unity club: See, we can disagree and accept one another.

  250. Gram3 wrote:

    NJ wrote:

    I also hope somebody can get Russell Moore to weigh in on this.

    Russell Moore is all in on ESS. I think he will avoid this particular topic because it does not serve his interests right now to say what he thinks about Female Subordination and how that is grounded in ESS. What is really odd, IMO, is that they are successfully recruiting young black men and women to a theology of subordination of one human to another human. There was an article in the 9Marks Journal some time ago. How tragic.

    Yes this topic is not suited for one of his editorials in WaPo or the NYT. He has ditched Patriarchy for Racism.

  251. Daisy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I have a small sample size, but FWIW, my most recent former church did not promote Lottie Moon. When I was younger, Lottie Moon was huge.

    Seeing Lottie Moon’s name reminded me of (I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, I’m just putting it out there for any interested readers):

    Are You Funding Terrorism? The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering
    https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/are-you-funding-terrorism-the-lottie-moon-christmas-offering/

    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.

  252. mot wrote:

    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.

    Yes. They had to sign a contract to get the money and it had a clause about not discussing any of it.

  253. Quoting Grudem in the OP:

    As I have written elsewhere, there is an abundance of Scriptural teaching on the eternal authority of the Father and submission of the Son in terms of relationship (not essence). The names “Father” and “Son” themselves would certainly have implied such a relationship in the ancient world in which Scripture was written, for fathers of families still had familial leadership even when relating to adult sons (see Gen. 49:33; 50:16-17; Luke 15:18).

    So, let’s look at his Scripture references that are supposedly supportive of his assertions on the eternal submission of Christ.

    Gen 49:33. Jacob is dying, called his sons together to him, prophesied to each of them and gave them instructions for his burial.

    1 Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in days to come.

    33 When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his last and was gathered to his people.”

    Gen 50:16-17 Jacob has died, his sons have buried him, and Joseph’s brothers are concerned that Joseph may still be holding a grudge against them for selling him into slavery and might act upon such grudge now that their dad is dead.


    16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.”

    Luke 15:18 Jesus is telling the parable of the Prodigal Son, who has decided he is going to leave the pigpens and go back to his former home.

    “18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.

    I’m not seeing evidentiary support of his assertions of either eternal authority or eternal submission in his referenced verses.

    Instead of inferences from narratives, we have the following explicit instruction all the way back in Genesis 2:

    “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife,”

    Grudem offers us descriptive narratives in his verse samples, while Genesis 2 offers us prescriptive instruction.

    In reading Grudem’s complete article, he offers the examples of Eli’s disobedient sons and David’s rebellious son, Absalom as negative support for his assertions. He writes;

    “In the biblical world, there were no commendable examples of a son not being subject to his father or not deferring to the leadership role that still
    belonged to the father, even when the son had grown to adulthood.”

    This is actually untrue.

    We have Jonathan, son of Saul who did not defer to his father’s authority, (who also happened to hold the King’s authority), as he protected David from Saul’s murderous wrath.

    I’m pretty sure that Jonathan’s actions fall under the ‘commendable’ category.
    .

  254. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

    We could argue about the heavy-handedness of the Church in dealing with ideas in print from now until the ice sheets start moving South again and the only thing it would generate is an acrimonious pissing contest. What would be far funner is taking a cue from Ginsberg and Scalia, letting our differences slide, and celebrating the stuff we can agree upon as common to our humanity.

  255. roebuck wrote:

    It seems to me that they are just stirring up non-existent problems for which they imagine they have some sort of ‘solution’. It really is rather pathetic and disgusting… and saddening.

    Another blogger, interacting with Neo Cals said something to this effect to them: you are always giving me answers to questions I don’t have and solutions to problems I don’t have.

    Cracked me up. So true!

  256. Gram3 wrote:

    swipes that we have heard some women in the system make against their husbands. The gratuitous swipes take the form of amusing anecdotes that are really covert aggression. I am sure the guys have no idea their submissive wives are doing this.

    Oh boy. Tell me about it. So glad to be away from that shallow fake world.

  257. Kemi wrote:

    Um, no. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15

    There are some disagreements on the tenses used there. Check the Greek, as they say, and come to your own conclusion. Paul was no longer breathing murderous intent and throwing people in prison. He was changed from that.

  258. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Gutenberg was Catholic.
    And Bibles were being translated into vernacular languages by Catholics before the Reformation came along.
    The Holy See didn’t try to control information or keep it from the masses. Ex-Baptist Steve Ray has a very informative series that makes hash of this myth. I will have to find the link.

    Thanks for this info.

  259. Deb wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Now you’ve gone and done it… I can’t get this tune out of my head.

    All I could think of when watching that video is: Those. Poor. Kids. Especially the females.

  260. mot wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    But the way that he and the Trustees chose to
    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.
    I would love to hear their stories to know the truth of what happened. But Platt and the others will not allow the truth to come out.

    Perhaps these missionaries sworn to secrecy, (which sounds more like blackmail to me, btw) were asked about their views on TULIP and the Doctrines of Grace. Those who didn’t pass the Neo-Cal sniff test were sent home. Now while I do not know what went on behind closed doors, this scenario does not seem beyond the realm of possibility.

  261. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, I am sharp with Owen, but not as sharp and twisted as someone who would maintain that female human beings are made in the “derivative” image of God, as Owen and his father-in-law, Bruce Ware assert. Jesus is a derivative God, too. Sick and twisted.

    Oh wow…Gram3 your statement is frightening and foreboding. Yes, their jesus (purposefully lower case) is a derivative God. The next logical step in their twisted theology is that Jesus is a creature. It is not hard to believe that they or their descendants will become full blown Arians.

  262. Daisy wrote:

    siteseer wrote:
    “Every figure, church and denomination that has publicly endorsed homosexuality – ‘gay Christianity’ – and transgenderism has without exception been egalitarian,” he said.
    “This does not mean that every egalitarian endorses these sins, but it does mean that embracing egalitarianism puts you in tension.”
    One thing he doesn’t factor in is that there are Christian egalitarians who would love to attend a church that holds similar beliefs as Southern Baptists, except for complementarianism, but such churches don’t seem to exist.
    For example, I have pretty traditional beliefs. I would not feel comfortable attending a church/denomination that thinks homosexual behavior is a-OK, or who says that the Bible is full of error.
    If you could show me a church or denomination that pretty much is like the Southern Baptist one in doctrine (minus gender comp and Neo-Calvinism and authoritarianism), I’d be willing to go there*.
    But no such church exists (apparently).
    If someone could clone Southern Baptist churches, only remove gender complementarianism and replace it with egalitarianism / mutualism, you’d probably see a lot of conservative Christian women flock to it.
    Being a Christian egalitarian (or mutualist) is not necessarily tantamount to supporting homosexual behavior or supporting abortion as birth control.
    He doesn’t get that – but neither do a lot of other people, including secular feminists, atheists, other conservative Christians, liberal Christians, etc.
    —–
    *If I was wiling to go to church again, which I don’t know if I am.

    Daisy, the Wesleyan Church might be an option for you. They don’t support Comp theology, allow females to teach and be pastors, and they aren’t Calvinists.

  263. Kemi wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    Notice, Paul never addressed his letters to the sinners in various places. Why? Paul understood this vital distinction. He understood the true essence of the believer. He knew we’re not sinners.
    Um, no. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15

    Kemmi, Indeed. And this was AFTER he became a believer in Christ.

  264. numo wrote:

    @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    I think some of the confusion comes from the following –
    1. Latin was the lingua franca of educated people throughout Europe
    2. Literacy rates were pretty low overall

    Exactly!!! Thanks!!!

    I was going to mention that Jerome’s translation was called the Vulgate because it was in the vulgar tongue — Latin!

    Also, before Gutenberg, the production of a single Bible was a daunting, arduous task. Monk-scribes spent countless hours copying and illuminating manuscripts — precisely to make the Bible available, not to suppress it.

    Thanks so much. I really appreciate your input.

  265. Lydia wrote:

    @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    I dont think you were allowed to NOT be Catholic at that point and time. :o)

    Tell that to the folks in Constantinople. 😉

    But seriously, I know what you’re getting at. But there were non-Catholics (Jews and Muslims) in medieval Western Europe. No, not too many Protestants. I grant you that. 😀

  266. Marie wrote:

    Have been part of the Church of the Nazarene for almost 8 years and it’s been nothing but a good experience.

    Hi MARIE,
    I have heard that the Nazarenes are a lovely, kind Christian people. I’m glad you have found a home with them.

  267. Gram3 wrote:

    Now, imagine if both husbands and wives based their relationship on mutual love and respect and if both tried to imitate Christ. *That* would make for a marriage that honors the Lord as well as one that works out in the practical, everyday life they have chosen to live together. There would be no need at all for external controls because both are being transformed into the likeness of Christ.

    A beautiful comment! Reminds me of this from a letter written by Tertullian to his wife (circa 202 A.D.):

    ” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
    They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
    They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.

    Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
    Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”

  268. I would imagine that most of our heads here are spinning as the proponents of ESS duck and dive and seek to confuse us with words, propositions, or, when that fails, to ask us to admire their superior wisdom and greatness and thereby silence us. However it won’t work! They have been caught out, the cat is out of the bag and their preposterous doctrine is shown to be an age old heresy.

    The best summary of the argument, I think, is to be found here.

    http://www.equip.org/article/is-the-son-eternally-submissive-to-the-father/

    Kevin Giles notes the origins of ESS and highlights the part Wayne Grudem played in promoting it. He says:-“The originator of the contemporary expression of subordinationism that has now engulfed the conservative evangelical world like a raging fire is George Knight, III. In his highly influential book New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, he developed the novel argument that just as women are permanently subordinated in role to the authority of their husbands in the home and to that of male leaders in the church, so the Son of God is eternally subordinated in role to the authority of the Father. He thus speaks of a “chain of subordination” in the Trinity, adding that the Son’s subordination in role has “certain ontological aspects.” Before this time, to my knowledge, no one had ever spoken of subordination in role for women or for the Son of God, and no one had developed the idea that somehow the doctrine of the Trinity justified and explained the subordination of women. This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be overestimated. It is one of the most widely used theology texts in evangelical seminaries. He is emphatic that the eternal subordination of the Son in authority stands at the heart of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. For Grudem, the Father has “the role of commanding, directing, and sending,” and the Son has the role of “obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us.” For him differing authority is what distinguishes the Father from the Son. He writes, “Authority and submission between the Father and the Son…and the Holy Spirit, is the fundamental difference between the persons of the Trinity.” “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”
    Grudem’s Systematic Theology is the first systematic theology text to advocate the eternal subordination of the Son. Bruce Ware’s book, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the first full-length study on the Trinity to develop this doctrine. He argues that the eternal subordination of the Son in authority to the Father “marks the very nature of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. The Father possesses the place of supreme authority…the Son submits to the Father” (emphasis added). Ware thus concludes that a “hierarchical structure of authority exists in the eternal Godhead.””

    Giles also makes the following important point. He says:- “That Arius ontologically subordinated the Son to the Father is well known. What is less well known and less adequately recognized is that he and all the other so-called fourth century Arians also set Him eternally under the Father’s authority, depicting Him as obedient to the Father. Richard Hanson, in his monumental study of Arianism, says that the Arians consistently taught that the Son “does the Father’s will and exhibits obedience and subordination to the Father, and adores and praises the Father, not only in his earthly ministry but in Heaven” (emphasis added). In their important study, Early Arianism, historical theology scholars Robert Gregg and Dennis Groh actually make the eternal submission and obedience of the Son the primary element in Arian theology; the Son’s ontological subordination, they argue, was simply a necessary logical outcome. They assert, “At the center of Arian theology was a redeemer obedient to his Father’s will” (emphasis added).”

  269. Darlene wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    But the way that he and the Trustees chose to
    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.
    I would love to hear their stories to know the truth of what happened. But Platt and the others will not allow the truth to come out.

    Perhaps these missionaries sworn to secrecy, (which sounds more like blackmail to me, btw) were asked about their views on TULIP and the Doctrines of Grace. Those who didn’t pass the Neo-Cal sniff test were sent home. Now while I do not know what went on behind closed doors, this scenario does not seem beyond the realm of possibility.

    I still can not believe over 1000 missionaries were called home and there has been little to no outcry among the SBC. How can this be?

  270. Lydia wrote:

    mot wrote:

    My understanding is these missionaries got some type of package but had to sign a piece of paper not talking about their recall.

    Yes. They had to sign a contract to get the money and it had a clause about not discussing any of it.

    How “christian” of those that said to these missionaries-sign on the dotted line to be quiet or no money for you.

  271. @ mot:
    I don’t understand it. Apathy? Ignorance? And those pastors who publicly opposed it still still send them money.

  272. Lowlandseer wrote:

    They have been caught out, the cat is out of the bag and their preposterous doctrine is shown to be an age old heresy.

    They were caught out as early as 2006 and a few took them on. The Neo Cals brushed them off like mosquitos until Trueman. So they respond to Trueman’s piece because what? Presbyterian? He was one of them? He is considered an intellectual by them?

  273. @ Friend:

    Groups, large or small, take on a character over time that can be judged, that reflects, by and large, the beliefs and values of those who created or formed the group.

    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner. It is undoubtedly true for many people here, who, like yourself, take no exception to it. It is, however, not true of me, and what’s more important is that it’s a falsehood. It’s biblically insupportable.

  274. About Paul referring to himself as a chief of sinners. I think it was Kemi who mentioned this earlier in these posts…

    I think this whole sin issue is something CJ Mahaney drills into his congregation. Never went to any of his churches, but I’ve heard enough of his sermons. It’s as if it makes him sound humble, but yeah, it doesn’t.

    When Paul wrote this he was referring to his past, not who he was currently. This was not an off-handed or an incorrect self-depreciating comment. It’s not something Paul said to make himself sound humble. (as CJ Mahaney would probably do :-P) If a person is a Christian, we were sinners before coming to Christ, but we are sinners no more. Wouldn’t it be awesome if our slate would be wiped clean? What if all of our mistakes would be forgotten? Well, that truth is our reality. Yes people may remember our old life and sins but God will not. God does not see us as a sinner.

    Hebrews 8 God promises us that He will never remember our sins!
    I will make a new covenant.. It will not be like the covenant. I made with their ancestors. I will be their God. I will forgive their wickedness and I will remember their sins no more. Hebrews 8:8-12

  275. Paula Rice wrote:

    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner. It is undoubtedly true for many people here, who, like yourself, take no exception to it. It is, however, not true of me, and what’s more important is that it’s a falsehood. It’s biblically insupportable.

    numo wrote:

    The Lutheran view is that we are both saints and sinners, the latter being because we are imperfect, and human, in this life. But at the same time, redeemed and part of the great company of saints.

    As I posted above, I think this is a semantics issue that could easily divide believers. The title “sinners” is not used in the NT to describe believers. But that does not mean that believers don’t sin. It means that “sinner” is not what is most true about us anymore. Our new identity is “in Christ.” This is why Paul consistently calls believers “saints.” The concern is how to describe us due to the fact that we still sin. 1 Cor 6:11 says, “but such were some of you.” It does not say, “and such are some of you.” It seems to identify believers as “has been” in terms of being identified with sin. For those who have been taught “you are a dirty rotten sinner” since youth, this new identity is very important.

    The bottom line is we should not let the semantics divide us. The YRR crowd pushes every argument to polar opposites, and there is a danger of this argument likewise being pushed to the extreme views. When Christians call themselves sinners, I think I understand where they are coming from. I think it represents too low a view of redeemed mankind, but I won’t go apoplectic over it because it’s not an issue that should divide us.

  276. Lydia wrote:

    Plat

    Lydia wrote:

    That’s why I don’t buy it. We still don’t know why or how the 210 mill. But Platt, the non CP, Prez now looks like a hero. And the fact it is applauded on Voices. Seen too many staged posts in the past to buy it. And I personally know of one that was completely staged to communicate the exact opposite of what happened because I knew people actually involved in the situation.

    I think Miller and the others think they are a part of the PR of the SBC. I truly believe this “good news” is staged also. Do none of these guys have a problem with not telling the truth to those that read this blog and take what is own it at face value.

  277. @ Lowlandseer:
    I’m so glad the ESS is being challenged hallelujah! And that Carl Trueman is sticking his Sword into the body of Grudem’s work!

    The ESS been used as the platform for hierarchy in which some assume authority and lordship, a model Jesus forbade (Matt 20:25-28). Blind guides! Those who promote it should be removed from their jobs until purged of their contempt.

    The ground underneath the ESS is shaking! The pillars of sand are crumbling!

    And where might Jeff Purswell be? He who edited Grudem’s Systematic Theology and CJ Mahaney’s right hand man? Does the big cat have his tongue? Aww, there’s a good kitty.

  278. Lydia wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Gram3 wrote:
    I have a small sample size, but FWIW, my most recent former church did not promote Lottie Moon. When I was younger, Lottie Moon was huge.
    Seeing Lottie Moon’s name reminded me of (I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, I’m just putting it out there for any interested readers):
    Are You Funding Terrorism? The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering
    https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/are-you-funding-terrorism-the-lottie-moon-christmas-offering/
    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.

    Two different Lottie Moons. ( Believe it or not)
    Lottie Moon missionary was from Virginia.
    Lottie Moon spy was from Ohio. ( She later became a journalist.)

  279. K.D. wrote:

    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.

    Don’t you think this SBC pastor would know Lottie was not a Confederate Spy?
    BTW, KD I can remember when WMU was actively involved in the Lottie Moon offering but the boy leaders are afraid of the WMU IMO.

  280. Ken F wrote:

    It means that “sinner” is not what is most true about us anymore. Our new identity is “in Christ.” This is why Paul consistently calls believers “saints.”

    A good read of 1 John should set the record straight for some. But, this is not a matter that can be bridged. It’s important to take notes though. The authority to speak into these matters is determined by which side of the bridge one lives, however. But some do a good job of sounding fearsome and authoritative!

  281. mot wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.
    Don’t you think this SBC pastor would know Lottie was not a Confederate Spy?
    BTW, KD I can remember when WMU was actively involved in the Lottie Moon offering but the boy leaders are afraid of the WMU IMO.

    I can too. When I was in seminary, the professors often laughed about the power of the WMU…..I doubt today they even mention the WMU…

  282. K.D. wrote:

    mot wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.
    Don’t you think this SBC pastor would know Lottie was not a Confederate Spy?
    BTW, KD I can remember when WMU was actively involved in the Lottie Moon offering but the boy leaders are afraid of the WMU IMO.

    I can too. When I was in seminary, the professors often laughed about the power of the WMU…..I doubt today they even mention the WMU…

    I have done quite a bit of reading on the WMU and without the help of the WMU in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the SBC would have financially died.

  283. mot wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    mot wrote:
    K.D. wrote:
    There was a comment on SBC Voices recently by a pastor claiming Lottie Moon was a Confederate spy.
    Don’t you think this SBC pastor would know Lottie was not a Confederate Spy?
    BTW, KD I can remember when WMU was actively involved in the Lottie Moon offering but the boy leaders are afraid of the WMU IMO.
    I can too. When I was in seminary, the professors often laughed about the power of the WMU…..I doubt today they even mention the WMU…
    I have done quite a bit of reading on the WMU and without the help of the WMU in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the SBC would have financially died.

    At one time, the WMU Headquarters in Nashville was a bigger and better looking building than the SBC’s…..totally separate from the SBC’s….not sure if that is still true….it has been 30+ yrs since I have been to Nashville.

  284. mot wrote:

    .I doubt today they even mention the WMU…

    KD: I am sure these professors know they better not pique the curiosity of their students about the WMU or they just might go do a little reading on and find out the truth about the WMU.

  285. K.D. wrote:

    At one time, the WMU Headquarters in Nashville was a bigger and better looking building than the SBC’s…..totally separate from the SBC’s….not sure if that is still true….it has been 30+ yrs since I have been to Nashville

    I know you are aware the WMU is an Auxiliary of the SBC. The men even in the beginning were afraid of the wimmin.

  286. mot wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    At one time, the WMU Headquarters in Nashville was a bigger and better looking building than the SBC’s…..totally separate from the SBC’s….not sure if that is still true….it has been 30+ yrs since I have been to Nashville
    I know you are aware the WMU is an Auxiliary of the SBC. The men even in the beginning were afraid of the wimmin.

    They always have been…..as old Leon Marsh explained it, they ” hold the keys to the kingdom.”
    Think about it…..yep, that’s what he meant.

  287. Jim G. wrote:

    If you saw some apple seeds in a jar, you would never say “That is a complete apple right there.” The best you could do would be to say you were looking at only part of an apple, and not the whole thing. In a formula, Whole Apple = Skin + Flesh + Seeds

    Oh, it’s too bad I could quote the whole book. It also said that this apple can’t be cut and is never separated which I think addresses your point.

  288. BL wrote:

    In reading Grudem’s complete article, he offers the examples of Eli’s disobedient sons and David’s rebellious son, Absalom as negative support for his assertions. He writes;

    “In the biblical world, there were no commendable examples of a son not being subject to his father or not deferring to the leadership role that still
    belonged to the father, even when the son had grown to adulthood.”

    This is actually untrue.

    We have Jonathan, son of Saul who did not defer to his father’s authority, (who also happened to hold the King’s authority), as he protected David from Saul’s murderous wrath.

    I’m pretty sure that Jonathan’s actions fall under the ‘commendable’ category.

    Well stated! That’s the beauty of the Bible, there are always exceptions which makes legalism logically impossible.

    They ignore the story of Abigail too. Totally not submissive to her husband and yet commended by all.

  289. @ Lowlandseer:
    THANK YOU for this information. I’ve been waiting for years to discover who it was who started the ESS (modern version of the semi-Arian heresy) and who attempted to pass it off as ‘orthodox Christianity’. Anyone who’s been around for more than a few decades knows that ESS was not a part of what they heard mentioned when they were young, nor was it in their parents’ or grandparents’ knowledge of the Holy Trinity.

    JIM G. has been very helpful here concerning exposing ESS, and now I can add your comment to the list of really helpful information. Thanks again. 🙂

  290. @ K.D.:
    Yeah, I had to look it up after reading the comment. I can imagine his entire congregation believes the Lottie Moon of China was a Confederate spy. If I remember correctly this was in the context of why they did not give to Lottie Moon.

    These days that is a good thing even if for the wrong reason. The last thing Al Mohler needs is more of other people’s money to spend. :o)

  291. @ Christiane:
    It is uncanny how this “roles” silliness tracks back to George Knight’s book which I have to assume became the go to text in seminaries years ago. Most have never heard of him.

    It became accepted doctrine. It just goes to show me how such beliefs can start as a small seed of an idea and permeate many levels without really being questioned.

  292. @ mot:
    I think stories are planted by the big cheeses and the voices guys are flattered the big cheeses give them attention. At least I know that is exactly how one story came to be on that blog. It was pure spin.

  293. @ Ken F:
    From the bit of research I did on this subject it seems to have its roots in inherited guilt.

    It bothered me from the standpoint and that I think it actually desensitizes us to real sin. For example it puts me and CJ mahaney in the same category. And I become arrogant because I don’t think I’m a sinner like CJ mahaney. After all we are all sinners. We are all Driscoll’s. We are all Jordan Roots, the child pornographer. And so on.

    With inherited guilt we are all sinners and we can never Escape it. Our very existence is sin.

    This is a huge topic and really deserves some attention in Academia. And we must start with the definition of sin. Perhaps a good place to start is the Israelites relationship with God in terms of sin. I think we have set up standards of perfection that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

  294. Lydia wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    Yeah, I had to look it up after reading the comment. I can imagine his entire congregation believes the Lottie Moon of China was a Confederate spy. If I remember correctly this was in the context of why they did not give to Lottie Moon.

    It makes you wonder just what other ” stories” the pastor has told his congregation that are just not true?

  295. Stan wrote:

    This totally isn’t a social agenda, y’all.

    Certainly not! 😉 And we are not messing with the trinity either, how dare anyone say much a thing.

  296. Lydia wrote:

    Perhaps a good place to start is the Israelites relationship with God in terms of sin.

    Lydia, in Judaism there remains the idea of ‘turning away from God’ and ‘teshuva’ or ‘returning to God again in repentance’. In a way, I think I understand Paula a little bit (not sure, though) because maybe her thinking is similar to ‘metanoia’, or the idea of having turned towards the Light of Christ, we do not look back and focus on the Darkness. That, I can understand. In my Church, we see ourselves as ‘weakened’ by the Fall and prone to sins of the flesh when we are tempted, so there is a big effort to AVOID those ‘occasions of sin’ (places or people or events which we know may lead us into temptation). We don’t hold to ‘total depravity’, no. But we acknowledge our need for the Great Physician and His grace in our lives, and we trust in His merciful awareness that we are ‘weary and in need of Our Shepherd’.

  297. @ Lydia:
    Just as a companion to 1 Tim 1:15, it is usually helpful to read it in context. He is writing Tim about false teachers, frauds, etc. God has great Mercy for those who act in ignorance. But not for those who deceive on purpose. Paul considers himself in the former category and to be a changed man.

    8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

    12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

  298. K.D. wrote:

    It makes you wonder just what other ” stories” the pastor has told his congregation that are just not true?

    It sounds more like the pastor didn’t do his due diligence before he wrote and presented his paper . . .

  299. Lowlandseer wrote (quoting Grudem, or perhaps someone who is in turn quoting Grudem):

    “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”

    It occurs to me that the statement in the blockquote may actually be true. That is:

    If we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think of the members of the Trinity as being in a hierarchy, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think about them at all, because they only important attributes we understand are hierarchy and status. We (the adherents of ESS) cannot conceive of two or more people in agreement together; we (the adherents of ESS) can only conceive of a pyramid with someone at the top. If there’s no pecking-order and no visible chain of command such as we (the adherents of ESS) grew up with and are comfortable with, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t understand it, and have no recourse but to reject it and replace it with something we (the adherents of ESS) do understand and are comfortable and familiar with.

    I don’t share their perspective, but it would at least make internal sense.

  300. @ Christiane:
    What you mention above is part of what I think is meant in 1 John about walking in the light vs walking in the dark. And we are given the ability to fight our flesh which is not as easy as it sounds! John says those who keep on sinning do not know our Lord. But we really do need to go back and Define sin. Many people think it is being like God. And sinning is “missing the mark of being like God”. I do not think that was ever the intention. We would probably have to delve into what being ‘the image of God’ means. It is a huge topic that fascinates me to no end.

    I don’t approach it in the legal manner like Paula does with our “position” vs. our behavior. I just don’t buy into the legal forensics of spirituality popularized by ST. That is just me. :o)

  301. Ken F wrote:

    When Christians call themselves sinners, I think I understand where they are coming from. I think it represents too low a view of redeemed mankind,

    Yes, but for people coming from certain church backgrounds, it is a huge trigger to the spiritual abuse that they have lived with for all of their lives, and not just their Christian lives. Some people have to divide over it because the use of the term takes them to dark places where spiritual leaders, husbands, adults, parents, etc. held them captive as “the worst sinners.” I cannot even begin to tell you what this concept reaps in the lives of children who have been abused, much less adults.

  302. elastigirl wrote:

    hold on. ‘will not be a pain in the neck’ — is that how they see women? to be a woman means to be a pain in the neck to a man?

    Yes, that is exactly what they believe and what they teach, though they do not use those exact words. The exact words I have heard are that due to the Fall, wives desire to “buck” their husband’s authority. Yes, wives are compared to horses and cattle which resist the will of humans. Other words I have actually heard are “undermine” or “rebel against” or “overthrow” or “usurp.”

    I think they have no concept of mutuality because they feel no empathy at all. Empathetic people do not try to rule over others and do not try to be difficult.

  303. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”

    Which means, I guess, that without a [medievalist] “chain of subordination” in the Trinity in which to ground all else, the inherent result is no more racial hierarchies, no more gender hierarchies, no more Gothard’s “umbrellas of protection,” no more authoritarianism.

    Brothers and sisters in Christ, the stakes are high on hierarchy …

  304. Christiane wrote:

    Lydia, in Judaism there remains the idea of ‘turning away from God’ and ‘teshuva’ or ‘returning to God again in repentance

    This seems to have been Eve’s mistake in Gen 3. She “turned” to Adam instead of God.

  305. Gram3 wrote:

    I think they have no concept of mutuality because they feel no empathy at all. Empathetic people do not try to rule over others and do not try to be difficult.

    If you love someone you also do not try to rule over them or cause difficulty. Instead, you want the best for them which includes maturity and strength, not a broken will and subservience.

  306. Max wrote:

    it’s great that Southern Baptists dug deeper in their pockets to support its foreign missions program. They responded to passionate pleas from national and local leaders to increase their giving. On the other hand, they still don’t have a clue what is happening in regard to shifts in belief and practice

    Do they have a clue what is happening with their money, really, when they pony up, dig deep, and give? Is that transparent in the SBC? Just asking…

  307. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    But Nick, would’t that be creating God over into our own image?

    Seriously though, I believe many people truely believe that the world cannot function without hierarchy. They call it many things, including “order” (because God is orderly, right?). In their minds (black and white thinking) chaos is the opposite of order, and there is no in between. If there is not order (hierarchy) then we.have.chaos(.)

  308. Bridget wrote:

    Yes, but for people coming from certain church backgrounds, it is a huge trigger to the spiritual abuse that they have lived with for all of their lives, and not just their Christian lives. Some people have to divide over it because the use of the term takes them to dark places where spiritual leaders, husbands, adults, parents, etc. held them captive as “the worst sinners.” I cannot even begin to tell you what this concept reaps in the lives of children who have been abused, much less adults.

    Thank you, that actually explains a lot of the emotion behind this debate. It just seemed like unnecessary quibbling over semantics to me until I read your post as I don’t have that association with the word.

  309. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote (quoting Grudem, or perhaps someone who is in turn quoting Grudem):
    “If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all.”
    It occurs to me that the statement in the blockquote may actually be true. That is:
    If we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think of the members of the Trinity as being in a hierarchy, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think about them at all, because they only important attributes we understand are hierarchy and status. We (the adherents of ESS) cannot conceive of two or more people in agreement together; we (the adherents of ESS) can only conceive of a pyramid with someone at the top. If there’s no pecking-order and no visible chain of command such as we (the adherents of ESS) grew up with and are comfortable with, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t understand it, and have no recourse but to reject it and replace it with something we (the adherents of ESS) do understand and are comfortable and familiar with.
    I don’t share their perspective, but it would at least make internal sense.

    Good points!

  310. Bridget wrote:

    If you love someone you also do not try to rule over them or cause difficulty. Instead, you want the best for them which includes maturity and strength, not a broken will and subservience.

    Absolutely. I think it is telling that these men insist that authority is necessary, even within the Trinity. Perhaps they are lawless men themselves? Perhaps they have not experienced real love as either the giver or recipient? Something is very broken, ISTM.

  311. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think of the members of the Trinity as being in a hierarchy, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think about them at all, because they only important attributes we understand are hierarchy and status.

    Because all we understand is Power Struggle.
    Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip. Nothing else.
    Even within the Godhead.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER. And those who are too weak to have it.”
    — Lord Voldemort

  312. Darlene wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, I am sharp with Owen, but not as sharp and twisted as someone who would maintain that female human beings are made in the “derivative” image of God, as Owen and his father-in-law, Bruce Ware assert. Jesus is a derivative God, too. Sick and twisted.

    Oh wow…Gram3 your statement is frightening and foreboding. Yes, their jesus (purposefully lower case) is a derivative God. The next logical step in their twisted theology is that Jesus is a creature. It is not hard to believe that they or their descendants will become full blown Arians.

    Why don’t they just go all the way and become Jehovah’s Witnesses?

  313. Deb wrote:

    @ Gram3:

    Now you’ve gone and done it… I can’t get this tune out of my head.

    North Korea or Scientology?

  314. Deb wrote:

    @ Gram3:

    Now you’ve gone and done it… I can’t get this tune out of my head.

    North Korea or Scientology?K.D. wrote:

    I am wondering….how will the play out in the secular world? Can you just see some ESS public school board member not hiring a woman as a principal or a Supt. of Schools and they being, well, not extremely bright, quote scripture as his reason why the woman was not hired?

    He can always claim “PERSECUTION!!!!! SCRIPOTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!” when the resulting lawsuits kick off.

  315. Dee, Deb, I assume I am in permanent moderation and this comment will not see the light of day, but here goes:

    Our prime reason for leaving the SBC was they STOPPED PREACHING JESUS. Literally. Like weeks without mention of His Name at our local SBC. Well, what do you expect when He has been demoted from final arbiter of our faith in favor of man made “timeless truths” being the arbiter.

    If we want change in the SBC, or evangelicalism, or many of the mainlines, etc., we need to hold feet to fire.

    The earliest creed I am aware of is simple: Jesus is Lord. Meaning Jesus is God. Not lesser class deity, but LORD. The Great I AM.

    Until we return to preaching Jesus, we will continue to have all sorts of abuse within and without the church, the world, and the family. Hot button issues disappear if Jesus is Lord in each life. Extreme liberal approval of sin goes away as does extreme fundamentalism.

    It is enough. Jesus is Lord.

  316. @ Kemi:
    I don’t think it is “emotion” to question things we have taken for granted as truths that might need to be reconsidered as they were presented to control and condemn people.

    For example, the ‘we are all sinners’ was used to pressure a 3 year old “sinner” into instantly forgiving her 16 year old sinning molester. (SGM)

    People say, but that is not what we mean by it! I get that. But why is the 3 year old considered a sinner? Based on what? Her existence as a human? (Imputed guilt). A lot of this thinking comes from the progression of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. It is accepted. No one questions it enough.

    Frankly, when CJ kept telling us what a sinner he is, we should have believed him instead of thinking it made him humble.

    When are we to get off our Mats and walk in the light?

  317. Gram3 wrote:

    Perhaps they are lawless men themselves?

    Jesus called the Pharisees, “lawless”. We have a hard time wrapping our heads around that one because the dichotomy has become “law/grace” as in either/or.

  318. Lydia wrote:

    The Protestants do it too.

    You bet they do. Throckmorton has called out Eric Metaxas over at his blog for trying to spin the Puritans as paragons of tolerance. Even though Metaxas was raised in a Greek Orthodox environment, he’s long been a goto guy for Protestant religious conservatives who lean right.

  319. Lydia wrote:

    They were caught out as early as 2006 and a few took them on. The Neo Cals brushed them off like mosquitos until Trueman. So they respond to Trueman’s piece because what? Presbyterian? He was one of them? He is considered an intellectual by them?

    They’re in quite the pickle now huh? They never anticipated this level of blow-back from one of their own.

  320. @ Darlene:

    “Perhaps these missionaries sworn to secrecy, (which sounds more like blackmail to me, btw)…”
    ++++++++++++

    perhaps a filmed program where people are interviewed & kept anonymous (their image in shadows, voice obscured), where they can speak candidly. 20/20, frontline, other investigative journalism programs — but I imagine a big story would be needed for them to consider it.

    what about freelancers, who may have credibility — the program could be broadcast on YouTube, linked to on websites. I don’t know a whole lot about these things.

    Just seems to me that many people have a story to tell concerning their most deeply-held convictions and being blackmailed into compromising them (& into silence) for the sake of the institution’s profit and control.

    A venue is needed for them to safely tell their story.

  321. Kemi wrote:

    Thank you, that actually explains a lot of the emotion behind this debate. It just seemed like unnecessary quibbling over semantics to me until I read your post as I don’t have that association with the word.

    To be fair, I don’t believe the issue is all emotion. I also do not identify as a sinner, though I sin at times. In reading the NT, “sinner” is not the prominent adjectives used by the apostles or Jesus to describe those who are in Christ.

  322. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    “We (the adherents of ESS) cannot conceive of two or more people in agreement together;…”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    what’s it like when they get together with their pals? I reckon hierarchy ceases to exist and has never existed. I presume they decide on what they want to do and how they want to do it in very natural ways. a bit of give and take, a bit of compromise and cooperation, all working it out together.

    this hierarchy, chain of command thing… it’s like putting a metal vice grip on things that work out just fine on their own.

    “just fine” — not necessarily perfect, but what’s perfect? each individual getting their way? (a sheer impossibility) success the way each individual defines it?

    “just fine” — perhaps it’s not perfect enough, therefore too chaotic. too much chaos. perhaps chaos is anything short of perfection.

    I bet these people are terrible campers. I bet they hate camping.

    it’s a messy journey, camping, with a fair amount of improvising in the moment. the process is messy, but the process is fun and memory-making and full of learning how to get along. you get home and all you have to show for it is piles of dirty things to be washed and put away. but inside, it was fun, we made memories, laughed, and we grew closer in the process.

  323. JYJames wrote:

    Do they have a clue what is happening with their money, really, when they pony up, dig deep, and give?

    No, the average Southern Baptist simply trusts that SBC leadership is on the right track … so they give with blind trust. For example, they have no clue that SBC’s North American Mission Board is spending $60 million per year to plant churches – the majority of which are led by YRR pastors with a theology contrary to mainline Southern Baptist belief and practice. Blind trust.

  324. siteseer wrote:

    that sums it all up perfectly

    Yep, the Word has a way of doing that! If the enemy of the Cross wanted to get one of the largest soul-winning organizations distracted, he would drop by with aberrant theology to get God’s people debating rather than preaching the Gospel.

  325. Paula Rice wrote:

    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner. It is undoubtedly true for many people here, who, like yourself, take no exception to it. It is, however, not true of me, and what’s more important is that it’s a falsehood. It’s biblically insupportable.

    It has taken me a long time, reading all the comments, to finally understand the gist of your argument, Paula. You wanted to point out that our identity in Christ is not that of sinner, although we do still sin, and you felt that Dee should have made the distinction clear in the article.

    Does this pretty much sum it up or am I still missing something?

    The context of what Dee was saying was comparing the Godhead to human beings, contrasting the holy God, who has no disagreement or battle of wills within him, with human beings who have a propensity to sin, error and disagreement. In this sense, she said ‘we are sinners’ and, in this sense, I understood her point, so the word did not stand out to me.

    Your argument came across at first as over-reacting to semantics. After pondering the replies of others, I see now how the statement triggers people who have been abused by having the identity of perpetual sinner forced on them. I agree that our identity as believers in Christ is not as sinners, “old things have passed away; behold new things have come.”

    I do think your points would be better made without attacking or accusing anyone:

    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner

    Really, is this comment necessary? Wouldn’t it be more helpful to explain the concept you want to share without alienating anyone? Why the accusation? Why assume the worst about others? Rather than taking offense and becoming resentful right away, why not give others the benefit of the doubt?

  326. Deb wrote:

    Young, impressionable, and dare I say gullible and easily deceived.

    Good descriptors of followers of New Calvinism. NC leaders knew that Generation Xers and Millennials would be easy targets for aberrant theology, so they have used them to their advantage.

  327. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think of the members of the Trinity as being in a hierarchy, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t think about them at all, because they only important attributes we understand are hierarchy and status. We (the adherents of ESS) cannot conceive of two or more people in agreement together; we (the adherents of ESS) can only conceive of a pyramid with someone at the top. If there’s no pecking-order and no visible chain of command such as we (the adherents of ESS) grew up with and are comfortable with, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t understand it, and have no recourse but to reject it and replace it with something we (the adherents of ESS) do understand and are comfortable and familiar with.

    I think you explained it perfectly.

  328. On this blog:
    -“Doug Wilson on Doing The Dishes and Discernment Blogs” – April 2013

    Dee on Wilson’s dirty dish post:

    I cannot help myself. Can you imagine rebellion [by a wife] being defined as refusing to do the dishes???

    -“John Piper and the CBMW Soap Opera Lady Demonstrate Why Complementarians Can Be Naive and Dangerous” – March 2016
    Re: CBMW post ‘Soap Bubbles Submission’ post (about a woman who felt guilty if she did not clean the dirty glasses to her husband’s specifications)

    Today:
    Ex-wife of suspected Orlando shooter: ‘He beat me’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ex-wife-of-suspected-orlando-shooter-he-beat-me/2016/06/12/8a1963b4-30b8-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

    “He [Omar Mateen] beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”

    (The shooter, Mateen, has been identified in other media as being Muslim.)

    There is something kind of parallel there, with these different religions, where the religious views teach men and women that one of women’s (a wife’s) only roles or purposes is doing housework, and it’s thought a wife who isn’t up to snuff in that area should be punished in some way.

  329. @ Muff Potter:
    That was a treat to read! Yes, we need more wrestling with our conscious! Even having a conscious is a good thing these days in the upper levels of Christendom. :o)

    It’s a good time to remember Jesus was Jewish and was “breaking the law” of the Pharisees all over the place. But was sinless. Why do we use perfect instead of sinless?

  330. Velour wrote:

    P.S. I ALWAYS knew something was wrong in the Duggar home when they were building the new house, the girls were all crammed together in one room, all of that weird design. I thought, “They have so much space to spread out. What is THAT about? Why are those girls are crammed together in one bedroom?” I just got a bad feeling about it. And I was right. Parents admitted years later it was because of Josh (the layout and design).

    There are certainly different ways that family could’ve handled the Josh issue, but IMO, one way that could’ve possibly helped:

    The situation reminds me somewhat of mine, though my parents were not in some ways nearly -AS BAD- as the Duggars.

    But, I think the Duggar parents taught their girls to be godly, Biblical women, which, in that sort of family, translates to, ‘be a passive doormat, don’t have boundaries.’

    This is exactly how my mother raised me.

    When that happens, it’s ten times easier for a guy to take advantage of you sexually (or emotionally or financially).

    If the Duggar girls had been taught it is perfectly fine, biblical, and feminine to have boundaries and be assertive, they could have known if Josh tried to grope them, they could punch his lights out or tell him to take a leap, or taken some other action to defend themselves.

    Teaching girls that it’s feminine, God’s design, and biblical for girls to be a passive, sweet doormat, to always put others needs and feelings before their own, and one who quietly tolerates mistreatment, leaves girls and women wide open to being abused much more easily than girls who are taught otherwise.

  331. Christiane wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:
    the timing? why now? there’s a story there, I’m betting

    It has the feel of a patriarchal family fight. Surely the intellectual Trueman recognized the ESS before? It has been everywhere. And in everything…. including the Scream of the Damned.

  332. Lydia wrote:

    With inherited guilt we are all sinners and we can never Escape it. Our very existence is sin.

    I like the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this. If I understand it correctly, they state that we inherited morality, not guilt, from Adam (see Romans 5:12 – “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…”). And as a consequence of our morality, we are all slaves to sin through our fear of death (see Hebrews 2:14-15 – “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.”).

    They stress that we are all guilty because of our own sin, not because we inherited original sin. That makes a lot of sense and it fits better with what was handed down to us in the Bible. I’m still working through this, but right now the Eastern Orthodox view seems better than anything else I’ve heard.

  333. Darlene wrote:

    Daisy, the Wesleyan Church might be an option for you. They don’t support Comp theology, allow females to teach and be pastors, and they aren’t Calvinists.

    Thank you.

    Someone else above suggested Church of the Nazarene. I’ll have to jot some of these down, or I’ll forget.

    I don’t even know if I want to step foot in a church ever again, but if I do, it would be nice to go to one where the beliefs align more than my own.

  334. Ken F wrote:

    They stress that we are all guilty because of our own sin, not because we inherited original sin.

    I wonder when this concept of inherited original sin took hold?

  335. Ken F wrote:

    morality

    I meant to type “mortality” – cannot blame spell checker this time, just bad typing. It’s mortality that we inherited, not guilt.

  336. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    We (the adherents of ESS) cannot conceive of two or more people in agreement together; we (the adherents of ESS) can only conceive of a pyramid with someone at the top. If there’s no pecking-order and no visible chain of command such as we (the adherents of ESS) grew up with and are comfortable with, then we (the adherents of ESS) can’t understand it, and have no recourse but to reject it and replace it with something we (the adherents of ESS) do understand and are comfortable and familiar with.

    I think you nailed it.

    I wonder where they place the following in their hierarchical chain o’ command structure?

    Jesus speaking:

    Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

    .

    Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

    .

    For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

    Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus. So, Jesus was in the Father when the Father sent Him. And the Father was in Jesus, when Jesus came.

    That looks like it would be difficult to diagram out into a pyramid, doesn’t it?

    Then we have the Father is living in Jesus, doing the Father’s work.

    Wonder how that fits into their chain of command? The Father issues a command to Jesus, then the Father, in Jesus, does the work?

    And finally, “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

    The whole ESS emphasis and use as a tool to assert their doctrine on the submission of women, really exhibits man’s attempts to get God all boxed up into a container of their own making.

    That would be their attempt to containerize the One Who said, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.:

    Their focus on hierarchy and chain of command as eternal constructs, blinds them to the concept of *relationship*.

    Jesus speaking to the disciples:

    I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

    Relationship – from servants to FRIENDS.

    But, it doesn’t stop there!

    Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

    From servants, to friends, to brothers & sisters.

    How does that fit into their concept of eternal regimental hierarchy?

    Relationships.

    They attempt to codify in the flesh, that which is of the spirit.

    Of God Who said:

    “I myself said, “‘How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me.

    They look at God, at family, at ‘church’ – and to them the priority is about the structure, the hierarchy, the organization, the ranking, the levels, the authority.

    Even though God reveals repeatedly in Scripture, that He does not look upon these things as man does.

  337. numo wrote:

    @ Ken F:
    The Lutheran view is that we are both saints and sinners, the latter being because we are imperfect, and human, in this life. But at the same time, redeemed and part of the great company of saints.
    We all screw up, and that isn’t up for debate, really. But we are also free, and living in God’s love and mercy, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    It’s a paradox, like many aspects of both faith snd life. And i know for certain that that is how Dee thinks, because she has said so many times, in posts and comments. I do not understand why anyone would single her out on this.
    Oh well… just my .02-worth.

    Excellent description, Numo. Sinners & Saints at the same time. Paradox is a difficult thing for our minds to comprehend – holding two opposing ideas in tension at the same time.

  338. Bridget wrote:

    I wonder when this concept of inherited original sin took hold?

    All roads seem to point to Augustine. He was also the one who invented total depravity and limited atonement. But those last ideas did not get any traction until the reformation.

  339. Ken F wrote:

    They stress that we are all guilty because of our own sin, not because we inherited original sin. That makes a lot of sense and it fits better with what was handed down to us in the Bible. I’m still working through this, but right now the Eastern Orthodox view seems better than anything else I’ve heard.

    I wasn’t raised EO but this is what we were taught as kids in the SBC.

    We are born in corrupted bodies into a corrupted world that we are to overcome and help make better. You were responsible for your sin.

    I honestly do not recognize 90% of what I am hearing out of the SBC as Baptistic…. of the type I knew.

  340. Christiane wrote:

    the timing? why now? there’s a story there, I’m betting

    Maybe it has to do with the OPC General Assembly this year. Maybe Trueman has been corresponding (fruitlessly) with Grudem, Ware, or one of their proxies and it has become clear that this issue is not going away. Trueman has written in the past about the Gospel Glitterati’s odd insistence on one narrow view of gender relations while accepting various views of baptism. Maybe Trueman, a professor at Westminster Philadelphia, sees young seminarians from the PCA/OPC being drawn into this aberrant theology and sees it as his duty to draw the line. Maybe he sees that the soft Complementarian view is threatened by conflation with the virulent YRR strain. I think that the YRR strain of Complementarianism is unstable without unquestioned acceptance of ESS, and I think that the Gospel Glitterati know that.

  341. Gram3 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    why complementarian men who view Christian women as ‘lesser beings’ bother marrying them in the first place.
    The men have the same reason 1. The pragmatic reason is that the men believe that their wives will not be a pain in the neck. It is similar, really, to the pragmatic reason that women cling to the system. The down side for men is that some women *may* feel entitled to demand that their husband “be Jesus” and that is something no man can do.

    Gram3: This is one of the big Fails in comp teaching, I believe. No matter how much a wife may expect her husband to be like Jesus, he will fail at the task because he is not Jesus and further, because he is a creature he will fail. So, then the debate takes shape like this: I know I need to submit to my husband, but what if he asks me to do something that is wrong, what if he asks me to sin? Of course the normal response is that she shouldn’t sin if her husband wants to? But this causes a problem with staunch Comps & Patriarchy who say that the husband knows better what the needs of his wife are than she does. So, her judgment about what is right or wrong is taken away. The husband becomes the arbiter, the decision maker in all things, and the wife becomes like an adult child without any input in the marriage, except perhaps how to clean the house and what to make for dinner.

    This is why I think just like trying to put the Trinity into an exact, flawless formula is just as problematic as trying to put description of marriage as Christ and the church into a exact, flawless formula is problematic. Actually, it enters into the danger territory, because if a wife actually treats her husband AS IF he is Jesus Christ, she will be worshipping him.

  342. @ BL:
    Great comment. It reminded me of the time I heard Paul Washer say that the hymn, ‘what a friend we have in Jesus’, was bad Doctrine. It made me like it even more. :o)

  343. Another thing, the men in Comp & Patriarchy can end up being very alone and feel like failures. Who can be perfect like Jesus all the time? And a man living with a wife who is really a child can cause a man to feel overwhelmed. Instead of having a coheir in Christ, he has an overly dependent, weak, helpless person that he must think for. It can be likened to him being her Holy Spirit. What unnecessary pressure for a man.

  344. Lydia wrote:

    @ BL:
    Great comment. It reminded me of the time I heard Paul Washer say that the hymn, ‘what a friend we have in Jesus’, was bad Doctrine. It made me like it even more. :o)

    Not surprised. Paul Washer, imo, is one of the most dangerous preachers in the Neo-Cal camp. In fact, I just read a comment about him at a Calvinist blog, basically saying the message from Washer is: Nobody can do anything right and we all suck all the time.

  345. Lydia wrote:

    For example, the ‘we are all sinners’ was used to pressure a 3 year old “sinner” into instantly forgiving her 16 year old sinning molester. (SGM)
    People say, but that is not what we mean by it! I get that. But why is the 3 year old considered a sinner?

    When you have established your rules & regulations in your structure, *that* is what you focus on. So, you take no notice of the actual *people* as people, your primary concern is getting all the participants fitted into your structure.

    The structure is your focus and is all-important, so you take no notice that you are taking a 3-year old sexually abused girl and and her adult abuser and treating them exactly the same as you force them both into and through your structure.

    They focus on the importance of their structure, Jesus focused on the importance of people.

    I wonder why they were not trembling before God for concern that they not cause further damage to the child.

    The disciples asked Jesus:


    “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

    He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.

    And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Jesus doesn’t seem to view children and their offenders as ‘same’.

  346. @ Gram3:
    My comment about a “family fight” was meant as inside Reformed seminaries that are not SBC. The seminaries are where most of this stuff historically originated.

    Evidently some are feeling secure in taking it on…. which communicates even more to me knowing how that world works.

  347. @ siteseer:
    Siteseer,

    I think there’s more to it than semantics. And this all ties into the discussion of the Trinity and relates directly to us and our relationships with one another in the Body of Christ. Whenever the identity of Christ is tampered with, the identity of those who are in Christ is also tampered with because we have been made one with Him.

    Attempts to redefine the Trinity happen at its’ most vulnerable point: the definition of the relationship between the Son and the Father. While this remains an issue, today the vulnerable relationship that under attack is the definition of who we are in Christ, and the relationship between men and women in the church and home.

    Is it correct to conclude, as Dee did, that “it is unhelpful and illogical to attempt to apply the relationship between the members of the Godhead to the relationship between men and women. We are not the same by any stretch of the imagination”?

    No, I do not believe that it is. This leads to minimizing the Gospel, our union with God, and our oneness together in Christ’s Body. Notice what Jesus prays in John 17:

    “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

    We become sons and daughters and Jesus is the firstborn among many brethren. Paul says in Galatians 3:

    “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    So while it is Dee’s opinion that it is unhelpful and illogical to attempt to apply the relationship between the members of the Godhead to us, the fact is we are inextricably linked to God, and the definition of the Trinity has a direct impact upon our identity as those of us who have been placed in Christ. This is logical, not illogical. The New Covenant makes clear that we have been united with God, and our relationship with one another is to reflect this union, the bond of which is love.

    Did I explain that well enough? I tried not to be snarky!

  348. Lydia wrote:

    @ BL:
    Great comment. It reminded me of the time I heard Paul Washer say that the hymn, ‘what a friend we have in Jesus’, was bad Doctrine. It made me like it even more. :o)

    Not surprised. Paul Washer, imo, is one of the most dangerous preachers in the Neo-Cal camp. In fact, I just read a comment about him at a Calvinist blog, basically saying the message from Washer is: Nobody can do anything right and we all suck all the time.David W wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:
    The Eastern Orthodox prayer at reception of the Eucharist goes something like this. Oh Lord, receive me today as a communicant. For I believe that this is truly thy body and thy blood and that you have come into the world to save sinners of which I am the worse. I will not betray thee as did Judas but like the Thief will I confess thee. Oh Lord,remember me when you come into thy Kingdom!

    Yes, as an Orthodox Christian I can say you are on the mark. We confess ourselves to be the chief of sinners before partaking of the holy mysteries. But such a confession is not meant to lead us to despondency, but rather, to appreciate humility and strive for it. Who knows ourselves better than we? In such a confession we strive to acknowledge our own weaknesses – which are like logs – before taking the speck out of our brother’s eye.

  349. https://youtu.be/Wp1lTaJNIEA

    Please help this is the rhetoric that is stuck in my soul, the type of didactic black and white thinking that says God has to hate us and we are utterly evil little hitlers and God only loves us for His Glory because He wants to make a name for Himself. Also the rape reference to his wife, and beating the witness that did nothing. This is the type of preaching I so remember though the stuff I heard was sometimes a bit harsher. How can God create such wonderful beings full of life and not love them for what He created and the wonderment found in each person especially children and babies. I honestly dont get it.

  350. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    “The pragmatic reason is that the men believe that their wives will not be a pain in the neck”
    ++++++++++++
    hold on. ‘will not be a pain in the neck’ — is that how they see women? to be a woman means to be a pain in the neck to a man?

    Or a nag, a harridan, termagant, or biddy….the latter three being Doug Wilson’s favorite descriptions of women who do not support Patriarchy.

  351. Daisy wrote:

    But, I think the Duggar parents taught their girls to be godly, Biblical women, which, in that sort of family, translates to, ‘be a passive doormat, don’t have boundaries.’
    This is exactly how my mother raised me.
    When that happens, it’s ten times easier for a guy to take advantage of you sexually (or emotionally or financially).
    If the Duggar girls had been taught it is perfectly fine, biblical, and feminine to have boundaries and be assertive, they could have known if Josh tried to grope them, they could punch his lights out or tell him to take a leap, or taken some other action to defend themselves.
    Teaching girls that it’s feminine, God’s design, and biblical for girls to be a passive, sweet doormat, to always put others needs and feelings before their own, and one who quietly tolerates mistreatment, leaves girls and women wide open to being abused much more easily than girls who are taught otherwise.

    I’m sorry your sweet mother taught you to be a doormat. I’m glad you’re breaking free from that and spreading your wings.

    Besides the problem of women and girls, taught in this System, to not protect themselves from abuse, they are taught to not protect others too who are endanger (siblings many times, their own children).

  352. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I think that Ligon Duncan is an interesting one to watch on this, given that the charge is being led by conservative Reformed guys.
    Good point. He has ecclesiastical courts to worry about, right? Or they could use him as a unity club: See, we can disagree and accept one another.

    Yeah, how does that work? Ligon baptizes babies (as do all in the Presbyterian churches) and the other Credo Baptists are ok with agreeing to disagree. But on the comp issue – NO WAY! Now I’m all for agreeing to disagree, but how is it that these folks are ok with doing it when it comes to baptism – a more highly contested and debated issue in Christendom (imo) than Complementarianism. I’m thinking there’s more at stake with the latter in their eyes. The erosion of family values, feminism, homosexuality, liberalism being some of their concerns.

  353. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    NJ wrote:
    I also hope somebody can get Russell Moore to weigh in on this.
    Russell Moore is all in on ESS. I think he will avoid this particular topic because it does not serve his interests right now to say what he thinks about Female Subordination and how that is grounded in ESS. What is really odd, IMO, is that they are successfully recruiting young black men and women to a theology of subordination of one human to another human. There was an article in the 9Marks Journal some time ago. How tragic.
    Yes this topic is not suited for one of his editorials in WaPo or the NYT. He has ditched Patriarchy for Racism.

    I don’t know much about Russell Moore other than his Patriarchy views. What makes you say he is racist?

  354. David W wrote:

    The Eastern Orthodox prayer at reception of the Eucharist goes something like this. Oh Lord, receive me today as a communicant. For I believe that this is truly thy body and thy blood and that you have come into the world to save sinners of which I am the worse. I will not betray thee as did Judas but like the Thief will I confess thee. Oh Lord,remember me when you come into thy Kingdom!

    I just noticed this comment. I wish David would add his own thoughts! Seems like he threw this out there like, “Here, catch!”

    I don’t have to partake of the Lord’s Supper to be part of the Body of Christ. It is a remembrance, a reminder of fact that I am.

    The prayer seems to draw from Paul’s words when he described himself as the Chief Sinner, referring to his state of affairs pre-conversion.

    Because the Spirit dwells within me, so too does the Kingdom. Why would I pray for God to remember me when he already knows me by name? Will God forget me? Should I live in fear through the praying of this prayer, similar to a child that prays, “and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take?”

    No offense but this prayer doesn’t do it for me!

  355. BL wrote:

    Their focus on hierarchy and chain of command as eternal constructs, blinds them to the concept of *relationship*.

    Their only concept of *relationship* then becomes “Suck up to those above you, Stamp on the faces of those under you.” Kiss Up, Kick Down. Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip. A Great Chain of Being of boots stamping on their inferiors’ faces, starting with the Father and the Son at the top.

  356. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    swipes that we have heard some women in the system make against their husbands. The gratuitous swipes take the form of amusing anecdotes that are really covert aggression. I am sure the guys have no idea their submissive wives are doing this.
    Oh boy. Tell me about it. So glad to be away from that shallow fake world.

    In some sense, can you blame the wives? They aren’t permitted in that system to assert themselves and contribute their ideas as full fledged adults. Whether they consciously realize it or not, these women with covert aggression are angry that they are not respected or appreciated for their gifts. Instead, they must suppress their minds, their skills and anything else that even hints at attempting to take over their husbands’ roles.

  357. @ Lydia</b

    elastigirl: "what’s it like when they get together with their pals?"

    Lydia: "It works great. Everyone knows their place…..until they don’t."
    +++++++++++++

    but don't you think they just go with the flow when hanging out with their friends, deciding what to do, where to go eat, when, etc.? Just decide all together, minus any hierarchy? (what a ridiculous idea this word is)

    I think these knuckleheads lose sight of the fact that getting along and making plans, decisions, and carrying them out happens quite well even in their own lives without the hierarchical overlay.

    (or are they so far gone that even a stop at a fast food joint among friends has to follow the chain of command?)

  358. elastigirl wrote:

    but don’t you think they just go with the flow when hanging out with their friends, deciding what to do, where to go eat, when, etc.?

    Do they have friends?

  359. Lydia wrote:

    I think we have set up standards of perfection that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

    I grew up a Cold War Kid Genius and a Genius was expected to be Perfect:
    Know Everything about Everything without ever having to learn it.
    “What do you mean, ‘I don’t know’? You’re a GENIUS!”
    Master Everything Perfectly on the first attempt.
    “How could you? You’re a GENIUS!”
    No matter how much I did, it was never enough.
    “Why couldn’t you have done more? You’re supposed to be a GENIUS!”
    No matter how perfect I did something, it was never good enough; as a Genius, everything I did was nitpicked through an electron microscope for any imperfection and pounced upon.

    I don’t know the origin of this expectation. Maybe it’s low-end Aspergers literalism plus the Fantasy of the Kid Genius (think Wesley Crusher and/or Doogie Houser), maybe it’s my parents and other adults in awe of my IQ (forgetting there was a young scared kid attached to that IQ), maybe it’s the isolation of always being fast-tracked since kindergarten, maybe it was my NPD younger brother making his monkey dance with constant teasing and nitpicking and teasing and belittling and teasing. All I know is the damage is still there. The 24/7/365 expectation of Utter Absolute Perfection never lets up.

    And the time in-country with a splinter church that also demanded Absolute Godly Perfection or You Weren’t Really Saved (this in the heyday of Hal Lindsay and Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War — any minute now — do You KNOW Where You WILL Spend Eternity?????) sure didn’t help.

    “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”
    — The Grateful Dead

  360. roebuck wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    but don’t you think they just go with the flow when hanging out with their friends, deciding what to do, where to go eat, when, etc.?

    Do they have friends?

    Or just Inferiors?

  361. Darlene wrote:

    In some sense, can you blame the wives? They aren’t permitted in that system to assert themselves and contribute their ideas as full fledged adults.

    So the only way they can fight back is indirectly — through covert aggression, cattiness, and “P-whip” manipulation. Asymmetrical warfare from a one-down position. Always “Staying Sweet”. This sounds like a recipe to produce a Sweet Smiling Sociopath/Manipulator.

    Which sparks additional distrust and fear among the men involved (and watching the dynamic from the sidelines), which means he has to Stay in Control and Keep Her Down or else, and it just keeps building back-and-forth.

  362. @ Paula Rice:
    Kind of like the parable of the ublican and the Pharisee, i think. I also believe the OP intended to give us all something to think about.

  363. @ Paula Rice:
    Please understand that for many of us, communion is a sacrament, not merely a remembrance. Communion, not preaching, is the central focus in services in liturgical churches. Christ invites us to His table. It is an entirely different approach, i believe, than what you are familiar with.

    Let’s give each other some leeway, yes? It might allow us to learn from one another. Jumping in with absolute statements (“it is”) just doesn’t allow for any possibility of dialogue, and that’s really a shame.

  364. Darlene wrote:

    In some sense, can you blame the wives?

    Women contribute to the problem just as much as as the men.

    I have particular difficulty with the women who assume the role of men/professionals, who set themselves up as God’s mouthpiece and promote complementarianism. How handy that the women who buy their books are so conditioned to receive. Charming!

    I wonder if they might be willing to do some pioneering work on the moon? After all, wouldn’t it be important to establish things there right, based on “God’s order”?
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/technology/private-moon-shot/

  365. Darlene wrote:

    The husband becomes the arbiter, the decision maker in all things, and the wife becomes like an adult child without any input in the marriage, except perhaps how to clean the house and what to make for dinner.

    Not that I’m totally disagreeing with you here, but just to say that some complementarians (if you scroll back up to see my post about comps, Muslims, and beating or disciplingin wives about dirty laundry and dishes)-

    Complementarians think men should even be allowed to micro-manage or dictate HOW or WHEN a wife cleans dishes or dirty laundry, or whatever around the house.

    Complementarians really do not think the wife’s domain is the home, because they teach at other times that the husband gets to boss the wife around in how or when she does housework.

    Complementarians are absolute micro-managers: it’s bad enough you comp guys entertain these sexist notions that a woman’s only godly or appropriate duty in life is to marry, have kids, and clean a house, but then you issue her 567 million rules from men telling her HOW to go about all that, and you say the husband gets to dictate HOW she maintains the house.

  366. @ Paula Rice:

    “So while it is Dee’s opinion that it is unhelpful and illogical to attempt to apply the relationship between the members of the Godhead to us, the fact is we are inextricably linked to God, and the definition of the Trinity has a direct impact upon our identity as those of us who have been placed in Christ. This is logical, not illogical. The New Covenant makes clear that we have been united with God, and our relationship with one another is to reflect this union, the bond of which is love.”
    ++++++++++++++

    My take on it is that dee was referring to the idea that patterning relationships between men and women based on the Trinity is unhelpful and illogical. nothing more and nothing less.

  367. @ Paula Rice:

    But nobody completely understands how the Trinity works, how it is 3 can be 1 and 1 is 3, therefore, it’s not the wisest idea to try to map a marital relationship between one man and one woman married to that of the Trinity.

    I think that may be all Dee was getting at – and there are a lot of other Christians out there on other sites who have said the same thing.

  368. Velour wrote:

    I’m sorry your sweet mother taught you to be a doormat. I’m glad you’re breaking free from that and spreading your wings.
    Besides the problem of women and girls, taught in this System, to not protect themselves from abuse, they are taught to not protect others too who are endanger (siblings many times, their own children).

    In my case, as my mother never taught me explicitly that I could not defend other people, when I was a kid (and older), when and if I saw other people getting bullied and picked on, I would usually march up to the bully and confront him or her on the victim’s behalf.

    (The bully usually backed down.)

    It’s just that my mother expressly forbid me from defending myself, so I normally did not fight back verbally or physically when I was harassed, beat up on, or picked on.

    But she didn’t say I could not defend others, so I usually would stop and help someone if I saw them being picked on by another party.

  369. Lydia wrote:

    My comment about a “family fight” was meant as inside Reformed seminaries that are not SBC. The seminaries are where most of this stuff historically originated.

    Westminster has seen its share of controversies over the years. Young guys are taken in by novelty, even seminarians. It may be that a tipping point has been reached at various Reformed seminaries like WTS, RTS, etc. such that the youngest guys have never heard anything else but ESS being orthodox. For them, their history is History, just like any younger person. Last I heard, George Knight III was at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, so evidently not all of the Reformed see ESS as problematic.

    I agree that the SBC is another kettle of fish entirely. Your point about the ecclesiastical courts is a good one, but let’s just say that the results there are mixed, hence the reference to Robert Letham who believes in a form of subordinationist thinking. People are people, and people like to be liked. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, first among the Reformed and then among the Baptists who hopefully are following along.

  370. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    So the only way they can fight back is indirectly — through covert aggression, cattiness

    American girls and women are not permitted to be direct and assertive (not by culture, churches, parents, schools, etc), so the only way we can channel our anger, or get our disagreements addressed, is through in-direct means, by being passive aggressive.

    Once you realize (like me) that it’s Okay to be direct and address conflict head on, some in culture than declare you “bossy,” because only men are allowed to be blunt, direct, and assertive.

    It’s a no-win situation for girls and women.

    I left this link for you on a previous thread, you might find it interesting:
    The Most Insidious Forms of Patriarchy Pass Through the Mother
    http://www.womboflight.com/the-most-insidious-forms-of-patriarchy-pass-through-the-mother/

  371. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Friend:
    Groups, large or small, take on a character over time that can be judged, that reflects, by and large, the beliefs and values of those who created or formed the group.
    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner. It is undoubtedly true for many people here, who, like yourself, take no exception to it. It is, however, not true of me, and what’s more important is that it’s a falsehood. It’s biblically insupportable.

    Paula, just as all Christians do not agree on Once Saved Always Saved, or a host of other things – so also this is true of the subject that you are addressing. I remember meeting a Christian once who said: “Even my flesh loves Jesus.” I think somehow she could not reconcile the paradox, that we have both a godly nature but yet still have our fleshly nature, i.e. earthly nature that still has a desire to sin. Hence, the life long struggle to put to death the deeds of the flesh – yes, even as Christians. Now, this is my understanding and I grant that there is more yet to add to this discussion and I can learn from other Christians. But what I see from your statements is: It’s my way or the high way. I am right and I take offense at anyone who disagrees with me. I don’t think this is the way to go about dialoguimg with folks who have different views than yourself.

  372. @ brian:
    Ignore Paul Washer. Listen to the Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Your comments here show that your heart is attuned to that Jesus, and I always read them because you encourage me.

  373. Daisy wrote:

    It’s just that my mother expressly forbid me from defending myself, so I normally did not fight back verbally or physically when I was harassed, beat up on, or picked on.

    I’m glad you defended others from bullying, but it’s too bad you weren’t permitted to defend yourself. Some, however, aren’t like you and if they were trained to have no boundaries and not to protect themselves, that also translates to others.

  374. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    In some sense, can you blame the wives? They aren’t permitted in that system to assert themselves and contribute their ideas as full fledged adults.
    So the only way they can fight back is indirectly — through covert aggression, cattiness, and “P-whip” manipulation. Asymmetrical warfare from a one-down position. Always “Staying Sweet”. This sounds like a recipe to produce a Sweet Smiling Sociopath/Manipulator.
    Which sparks additional distrust and fear among the men involved (and watching the dynamic from the sidelines), which means he has to Stay in Control and Keep Her Down or else, and it just keeps building back-and-forth.

    In my personal experience, yes, this, very much so.

  375. Darlene wrote:

    I’m thinking there’s more at stake with the latter in their eyes. The erosion of family values, feminism, homosexuality, liberalism being some of their concerns.

    Those are some of the concerns, but I think the overriding concern is that admitting women to the Clerical Guild will drive down compensation because Econ101. Allowing wives to be fully human beings is too threatening to these guys because of their own personal insecurities because Psych101. Those two reasons account for the strident and really ridiculous rhetoric and arguments. The real concerns are selling points that seem reasonable to conservative Christians.

  376. Paula Rice wrote:

    I understand that the majority of the people that participate here have no problem being designated a sinner.

    For the record (and since a few others have weighed in on this), I don’t if I like the label of “sinner” for myself or not. I don’t know what I think about that topic.

    My understanding of the New Testament is that you accept Christ as your savior and therefore God considers you justified, so you get to go to Heaven when you die.
    However, this does not make you instantly sanctified in this lifetime.

    It is further my understanding that if you have genuinely converted to Christianity, that you can be more or less expected to consistently live a godly life style, yet you may occasionally still sin from time to time.

  377. Darlene wrote:

    In some sense, can you blame the wives?

    I do not blame them at all for just the reasons that you said. I do think that it is very telling that The System does not produce the results that it promises. It does not build unity at all but rather a faux veneer.

  378. elastigirl wrote:

    My take on it is that dee was referring to the idea that patterning relationships between men and women based on the Trinity is unhelpful and illogical. nothing more and nothing less.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  379. K.D. wrote:

    mot wrote:
    K.D. wrote:
    At one time, the WMU Headquarters in Nashville was a bigger and better looking building than the SBC’s…..totally separate from the SBC’s….not sure if that is still true….it has been 30+ yrs since I have been to Nashville
    I know you are aware the WMU is an Auxiliary of the SBC. The men even in the beginning were afraid of the wimmin.
    They always have been…..as old Leon Marsh explained it, they ” hold the keys to the kingdom.”
    Think about it…..yep, that’s what he meant.

    Or as the adage goes: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

  380. Gram3 wrote:

    Those are some of the concerns, but I think the overriding concern is that admitting women to the Clerical Guild will drive down compensation because Econ101.

    I read an interesting article or two a year or more ago that discussed how many occupations that were considered “woman’s work” did not pay very much and were not well respected…

    Until men entered into those professions, they were then considered “men’s work,” those professions were esteemed, and the compensation went up considerable, and the women were edged out.

    This may have been one of the articles I read at the time (well, I guess it works in reverse too, according to this headline):
    As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html

    Women’s median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s. Why is progress stalling?

    It may come down to this troubling reality, new research suggests: Work done by women simply isn’t valued as highly.

    That sounds like a truism, but the academic work behind it helps explain the pay gap’s persistence even as the factors long thought to cause it have disappeared.

    Women, for example, are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers. No longer can the gap be dismissed with pat observations that women outnumber men in lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work.

    I did see another article or two that said when it was mainly women who were employed to do X, Y, and Z, the pay was small, but the minute men entered those same professions, the pay went up. I can’t remember what all the specific professions were, though.

  381. @ Darlene:

    Gram3: “The pragmatic reason is that the men believe that their wives will not be a pain in the neck”

    elastigirl: “hold on. ‘will not be a pain in the neck’ — is that how they see women? to be a woman means to be a pain in the neck to a man?”

    Darlene: “Or a nag, a harridan, termagant, or biddy….the latter three being Doug Wilson’s favorite descriptions of women who do not support Patriarchy.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    first of all, an infestation of crickets of all kinds to dw.

    second of all, the way comps/pats/ESSers frame things only validates men and how the like things to be done. man and his ways = good, and the standard for the woman. woman and her ways = bad, not allowed, must conform to the man.

    a man and a woman come together and make a new family of 2 (themselves, for starters). they each have different ways of doing things, different approaches, ways of communicating, ways to plan & negotiate plans.

    the woman’s approaches to all these things are labeled annoying. they are given a stamp of ‘annoying’ as if it’s one of those ‘self-evident truths.’

    actually, the woman’s approaches are just different. that is all. in the same way that his approaches are different from hers.

    trust me, they are no more annoying to him then his are to hers. the label ‘pain-in-the-neck’ is a coed, unisex, ambigender, equal-opportunity word.

    comp husbands, you’re a pain in the neck.

  382. numo wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:
    Please understand that for many of us, communion is a sacrament, not merely a remembrance. Communion, not preaching, is the central focus in services in liturgical churches. Christ invites us to His table. It is an entirely different approach, i believe, than what you are familiar with.

    Let’s give each other some leeway, yes? It might allow us to learn from one another. (snip)

    There needs to be some understanding, as well, that Orthodox speak of salvation, daily sin, sin in the ontological sense, repentance, union with Christ, communion, and so on with different inflections of understanding.

    It’s like a tapestry–and one can’t pull out “a red thread” and say that it makes no sense…because it doesn’t, outside the tapestry made by the rest of the threads.

  383. elastigirl wrote:

    My take on it is that dee was referring to the idea that patterning relationships between men and women based on the Trinity is unhelpful and illogical. nothing more and nothing less.

    Problem is our relationships in the Church are supposed to be patterned on the Trinity because are made in God’s image and are to reflect His likeness. We were created to build community just as we see in the Trinity, for God is the perfect Community of Oneness.

    Since sin separates the sinner from God, then of course the sinner has to look elsewhere for a pattern because there’s no experience there, no relationship. But the Christian has a relationship with God that has been consummated, which makes all the difference.

  384. @ PaJo:
    I wasn’t solely referring to the Orthodox. This is, to varying degrees, common ground for msny Protestants who are psrt of liturgical churches. (Like me.)

  385. Daisy wrote:

    It is further my understanding that if you have genuinely converted to Christianity, that you can be more or less expected to consistently live a godly life style, yet you may occasionally still sin from time to time.

    Right. But what does that mean to you?

    We all know that to some Christians a godly lifestyle means no, no, no, no, no.

    No dancing
    No drinking
    No playing cards
    No mowing the grass on Sunday
    Nothing but long skirts for the women (only exception kilts for Scottish men)

    etc etc etc [you fill in the blank]

    If there’s no impact of the Holy Spirit upon your heart and mind on a daily basis, it could be you simply don’t have a relationship with God.

    I’ve known people who assumed they were saved and it was helpful for them to realize they weren’t. I can tell when someone is saved because there’s fellowship there.

  386. @ elastigirl:
    You mean as in the Golden Rule? How do you assume that is fulfilled anyway?

    Jesus said the Golden Rule sums up all the laws and the prophets.

    How do you feel about all the laws and prophets? Or about Jesus for that matter?

  387. Lydia wrote:

    @ Ken F:
    From the bit of research I did on this subject it seems to have its roots in inherited guilt.
    It bothered me from the standpoint and that I think it actually desensitizes us to real sin. For example it puts me and CJ mahaney in the same category. And I become arrogant because I don’t think I’m a sinner like CJ mahaney. After all we are all sinners. We are all Driscoll’s. We are all Jordan Roots, the child pornographer. And so on.
    With inherited guilt we are all sinners and we can never Escape it. Our very existence is sin.
    This is a huge topic and really deserves some attention in Academia. And we must start with the definition of sin. Perhaps a good place to start is the Israelites relationship with God in terms of sin. I think we have set up standards of perfection that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

    Inherited guilt is a foundational teaching within Reformed theology. That is why little babies – even those still in the womb – are considered vile sinners, i.e.- vipers in diapers. They’ve inherited not only Adam’s guilt, but his sin as well, i.e. – their teaching on original sin.

    I once heard a young lady while giving her testimony in how she came to Christ that when she considered the Ten Commandments, she was convicted that she was an idolater, a thief, an adulteress, etc. – you get the picture. While I think that it is necessary for us to recognize that we are sinners when we first hear the gospel message, I don’t think it is necessary for us to believe that we are guilty of every abominable sin that has ever been committed. I’m not sure of where this view came from, but I think it is misleading.

    It brings to mind three things. The conversation that ensued between Janet Mefferd and J.D. Hall after her husband denied that he was a rapist at heart. To which Hall said, “Our view on total depravity calls baloney on that.” And then you have Paul Washer’s sermon “All Men are Born Evil” which points to babies being evil and in which he claims to know that the audience has committed vile sin in their thoughts within the past hour, while he is preaching to them! Oh, and we mustn’t forget the Piper tweet: “God does not punish innocent children for the sins of guilty parents. There are no innocent children.” J.D.Hall, Washer, and Piper are contributing to this destructive view that we are guilty of every vile abomination that has ever been committed.
    Here is the sermon from Paul Washer, if you can handle watching till the end.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOqxibhCxU

  388. @ elastigirl:
    Just to be clear, I agree with that. There are some men who generally find women annoying, and there are some women who generally find women annoying. In other words, there are markets for that kind of thinking to be exploited.

    A secure male values a secure female and vice versa, but insecure ones do not value secure persons. Too threatening. It is sad because it is a huge missed opportunity for individuals and for marriages, and for children who are observing all of this.

  389. @ numo:
    True. The words don’t always mean the same thing. It is probably good to listen to what people mean by the words they say, and how the teachings are connected to each other.

    No offense intended.

  390. Bridget wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I think they have no concept of mutuality because they feel no empathy at all. Empathetic people do not try to rule over others and do not try to be difficult.
    If you love someone you also do not try to rule over them or cause difficulty. Instead, you want the best for them which includes maturity and strength, not a broken will and subservience.

    And this becomes a problem – the ruling over the wife aspect – for a man who is gentle in nature. He is made to feel as those he is effeminate, or weak – not up to par for the job of ruling over his wife. Such men are marginalized within Neo Cal communities.

  391. Darlene wrote:

    While I think that it is necessary for us to recognize that we are sinners when we first hear the gospel message, I don’t think it is necessary for us to believe that we are guilty of every abominable sin that has ever been committed. I’m not sure of where this view came from, but I think it is misleading.

    My guess is that it’s another form of Christianese One-Upmanship.

    As in “I’m a More Depraved Sinner Than Thou — GOD FORGAVE ME MORE THAN YOU, SO THERE!”

  392. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    The Protestants do it too.
    You bet they do. Throckmorton has called out Eric Metaxas over at his blog for trying to spin the Puritans as paragons of tolerance. Even though Metaxas was raised in a Greek Orthodox environment, he’s long been a goto guy for Protestant religious conservatives who lean right.

    This exchange between Throckmorton and Metaxas would be interesting to read.

  393. Lydia wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:
    The Puritans were tolerant? Seriously? Tell that to the banished Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson.

    Or the women declared as witches in Salem and drowned or burnt at the stake.

  394. Darlene wrote:

    And this becomes a problem – the ruling over the wife aspect – for a man who is gentle in nature. He is made to feel as those he is effeminate, or weak – not up to par for the job of ruling over his wife. Such men are marginalized within Neo Cal communities.

    So he has to remake himself into a Control Freak and Abuser to be accepted as a Real Christian Man in his community.

    But the longing to have a Someone just at his side will still be there. Like upper-class Victorians who married an Angel in the House for Respectable Dynastic reasons and got their emotional connections by keeping mistresses on the side.

    Remember when Josh Duggar got outed signing up for Ashley Madison? How the “Jezebel Harlot” he was looking for for a fling sounded a lot like what we’d call “an ordinary Girl Next Door”?

  395. Muff Potter wrote:

    Throckmorton has called out Eric Metaxas over at his blog for trying to spin the Puritans as paragons of tolerance.

    Just like North Korea spins itself as The Paragon of Democracy.
    Ees Party Line.

  396. Lydia wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    @ Muff Potter:
    the timing? why now? there’s a story there, I’m betting
    It has the feel of a patriarchal family fight. Surely the intellectual Trueman recognized the ESS before? It has been everywhere. And in everything…. including the Scream of the Damned.

    Huh? Scream of the Damned? What’s that?

  397. Daisy wrote:

    (The shooter, Mateen, has been identified in other media as being Muslim.)

    There is something kind of parallel there, with these different religions, where the religious views teach men and women that one of women’s (a wife’s) only roles or purposes is doing housework, and it’s thought a wife who isn’t up to snuff in that area should be punished in some way.

    According to the link in Daisy’s comment, said shooter didn’t show any signs of radicalization until after his wife left him. (She also said that he didn’t show any signs of being an abuser until AFTER the wedding, another familiar pattern.) I wonder if he dived into X-Treme Islam for the Hypermasculinity angle, i.e. his version of the Manosphere? (But then why didn’t he preferentially mass-shoot women like the Santa Cruz Shooter? Both of them left a LOT of Selfies behind.)

  398. Daisy wrote:

    But, I think the Duggar parents taught their girls to be godly, Biblical women, which, in that sort of family, translates to, ‘be a passive doormat, don’t have boundaries.’

    So the only way to protect their Virginity (not necessarily them) was to effectively lock them in a harem within the house.

  399. Ken F wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    With inherited guilt we are all sinners and we can never Escape it. Our very existence is sin.
    I like the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this. If I understand it correctly, they state that we inherited morality, not guilt, from Adam (see Romans 5:12 – “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…”). And as a consequence of our morality, we are all slaves to sin through our fear of death (see Hebrews 2:14-15 – “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.”).
    They stress that we are all guilty because of our own sin, not because we inherited original sin. That makes a lot of sense and it fits better with what was handed down to us in the Bible. I’m still working through this, but right now the Eastern Orthodox view seems better than anything else I’ve heard.

    As an Orthodox Christian, I must concur. 😉 However, I think you meant to write “we inherited mortality, not guilt.” Not *morality*

  400. Darlene wrote:

    As an Orthodox Christian, I must concur. However, I think you meant to write “we inherited mortality, not guilt.” Not *morality*

    Yes, typo. 🙂

    I am very grateful for my recent exposure to Eastern Orthodox theology. Reading the Orthodox perspective has been eye opening.

  401. Daisy wrote:

    American girls and women are not permitted to be direct and assertive (not by culture, churches, parents, schools, etc), so the only way we can channel our anger, or get our disagreements addressed, is through in-direct means, by being passive aggressive.

    While there is certainly more than enough passive-aggressive gaming coming from both sexes, I think you are overstating your case regarding what culture ‘permits’ for girls/women.

    Obviously, historically, exactly what you say is true. But for the last couple-three decades, at least, the culture is clearly encouraging girls/women to be assertive, empowered, etc. There are plenty of men, and more than a few women, who don’t like it – they feel the tide turning… but they’re a fading force. The younger folk don’t seem to worry about it so much.

    Not to minimize the

    I think this is exactly what the comp people are reacting to – they’re completely freaked by it.

  402. Darlene wrote:

    Or as the adage goes: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

    I think the current 9 or 10 year decline in the SBC is directly related to its ungodly treatment of women IMO.

  403. @ Darlene:
    I would link if I could. Google Piper, Mahaney Scream of the Damned.

    Sermons they did at a conference in Palm Springs a while back.

  404. mot wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Or as the adage goes: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
    I think the current 9 or 10 year decline in the SBC is directly related to its ungodly treatment of women IMO.

    Spot on.

  405. brian wrote:

    https://youtu.be/Wp1lTaJNIEA
    Please help this is the rhetoric that is stuck in my soul, the type of didactic black and white thinking that says God has to hate us and we are utterly evil little hitlers and God only loves us for His Glory because He wants to make a name for Himself. Also the rape reference to his wife, and beating the witness that did nothing. This is the type of preaching I so remember though the stuff I heard was sometimes a bit harsher. How can God create such wonderful beings full of life and not love them for what He created and the wonderment found in each person especially children and babies. I honestly dont get it.

    Ugh…Paul Washer again. What damage he is doing among Christians. And make no mistake about it, he is very popular. Hell Fire and Damnation – he delights in preaching it. He makes Jonathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” look like child’s play. Please warn other Christians to stay away from this man. By the way, he recently spoke at John MacArthur’s Shepherd Conference.
    https://www.gracechurch.org/sermons/events/366

  406. Darlene wrote:

    Or the women declared as witches in Salem and drowned or burnt at the stake

    Unfortunately, many women through the ages have been burnt at the stake, but none in Salem. Most were hanged.

  407. Daisy wrote:

    But nobody completely understands how the Trinity works, how it is 3 can be 1 and 1 is 3, therefore, it’s not the wisest idea to try to map a marital relationship between one man and one woman married to that of the Trinity.

    I disagree and here’s why:

    It is in God that we find the perfect relationship of oneness, equality, mutuality, co-creation and love. God is not just one Person but Three, and in a marriage, there should also be Three – man, woman, joined together in God.

    The problem that happened with the first married couple involved their wanting their independence from God and they took the bait. The fruit, the serpent said, would give them the power when consumed to be like God. When you’re like God you don’t need God and can function quite apart from Him. Wrong. We are the creatures and were created to function in Him, not apart from Him.

    So, too, within Christian marriage and in our relationships with one another in the church, we need to stay connected to the source of our life for love and unity to occur. Sin is what causes disunity and division.

    But we have to be freed from the law of sin and death that we’re all born under the power of. Its like a marriage relationship we need to get out of because the law is like a fault finding spouse who never lifts a finger to help you, but all day long just points out your faults. There’s no escaping this miserable relationship because you’re bound for life aaaannnndd there’s no hope because the law will never pass away!

    Oh, and the law is also impotent. There’s no way your marriage to the law is going to produce any life of any kind because it only brings death! Oh, and a curse! Sweeeet, right?

    So, whats the solution? How do we get out of this horrible, miserable, dysfunctional, lifeless marriage?

    Paul explains it in Romans 7. Here’s how: We die to the law through the Body of Christ.

    Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

    So, it’s only when we are released from sin that found advantage in our lives through the law, can we be free to have relationships with other believers where life occurs because of our mutual relationship with God.

  408. brian wrote:

    https:
    Please help this is the rhetoric that is stuck in my soul, the type of didactic black and white thinking that says God has to hate us and we are utterly evil little hitlers and God only loves us for His Glory because He wants to make a name for Himself. Also the rape reference to his wife, and beating the witness that did nothing. This is the type of preaching I so remember though the stuff I heard was sometimes a bit harsher. How can God create such wonderful beings full of life and not love them for what He created and the wonderment found in each person especially children and babies. I honestly dont get it.

    Paul Washer again. That man is doing so much damage among Christians. Please warn others to stay away from this man’s preaching. He seems to revel in Hell Fire and Damnation sermons. He makes Johnathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” look like child’s play. By the way, Washer preached at John MacArthur’s recent Sheprherd’s Conference. That speaks volumes about that camp.

  409. Paula Rice wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    In some sense, can you blame the wives?
    Women contribute to the problem just as much as as the men.
    I have particular difficulty with the women who assume the role of men/professionals, who set themselves up as God’s mouthpiece and promote complementarianism. How handy that the women who buy their books are so conditioned to receive. Charming!
    I wonder if they might be willing to do some pioneering work on the moon? After all, wouldn’t it be important to establish things there right, based on “God’s order”?
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/technology/private-moon-shot/

    I understand what you are saying, Paula. However, I wasn’t referring to the Queen Bees – the ones who promote Comp through speaking engagements or books. Rather, I was referring to the average wife who, through feeling beat down and suppressed, uses covert aggression in return. The average, pew peon woman who is just trying to survive in that system. Not the Female Comp Promoters at the top of the hierarchy of women.

  410. Daisy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    The husband becomes the arbiter, the decision maker in all things, and the wife becomes like an adult child without any input in the marriage, except perhaps how to clean the house and what to make for dinner.
    Not that I’m totally disagreeing with you here, but just to say that some complementarians (if you scroll back up to see my post about comps, Muslims, and beating or disciplingin wives about dirty laundry and dishes)-
    Complementarians think men should even be allowed to micro-manage or dictate HOW or WHEN a wife cleans dishes or dirty laundry, or whatever around the house.
    Complementarians really do not think the wife’s domain is the home, because they teach at other times that the husband gets to boss the wife around in how or when she does housework.
    Complementarians are absolute micro-managers: it’s bad enough you comp guys entertain these sexist notions that a woman’s only godly or appropriate duty in life is to marry, have kids, and clean a house, but then you issue her 567 million rules from men telling her HOW to go about all that, and you say the husband gets to dictate HOW she maintains the house.

    I agree with you, Daisy. The staunch Guardians of Patriarchy seek to control EVERY aspect of the woman, even her daily, mundane chores. So even having some sort of autonomy as to how to clean the house or cook dinner is verboten. Everything must be approved by the Master. I picture Debi Pearl’s life like this, and the Soap Bubbles Submission lady. That guy with the Gender Roles Blog – who still remains anonymous – exemplifies this paradigm. Of course, one could think that blog is a parody. But do we even need him when we’ve got Piper, Wilson, Hall, Strachan, Grudem, Ware – just to mention a few?

  411. PaJo wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ Paula Rice:
    Please understand that for many of us, communion is a sacrament, not merely a remembrance. Communion, not preaching, is the central focus in services in liturgical churches. Christ invites us to His table. It is an entirely different approach, i believe, than what you are familiar with.
    Let’s give each other some leeway, yes? It might allow us to learn from one another. (snip)
    There needs to be some understanding, as well, that Orthodox speak of salvation, daily sin, sin in the ontological sense, repentance, union with Christ, communion, and so on with different inflections of understanding.
    It’s like a tapestry–and one can’t pull out “a red thread” and say that it makes no sense…because it doesn’t, outside the tapestry made by the rest of the threads.

    Pajo, yes, it is a much different mindset. And until one is immersed in it for awhile, it can be misunderstood by those who have been raised in the Protestant churches.

  412. @ Darlene:
    Yes I see what you’re saying and I know from experience how frustrating it can be to seek help for a troubled marriage within a system that is totally rigged against you. I turned a part of my brain off, not knowing what I was missing to flip the switch. I cannot tell you how glad I was to discover the truth of God’s word that freed me from the bondage of complementarianism! All the lights came on!

  413. Paula Rice wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I can tell when someone is saved because there’s fellowship there.

    Hmmm….and who would be the arbiter of what that fellowship should consist of? I recall a time, a few decades ago, when my husband attempted to have fellowship with a Christian woman who lived downstairs from us. He asked her a particular question, believing it would generate fellowship. Instead, the woman responded, “I don’t think that is any of your business.” At the time, both of us took offense at her words. Now, looking back, I recognize that our expectations of fellowship were imprudent and inappropriate. Since there are a myriad of views that exist within the context of the Christian faith, we can end up wrongly judging another according to our own misconceptions.

  414. Patriciamc wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Or the women declared as witches in Salem and drowned or burnt at the stake
    Unfortunately, many women through the ages have been burnt at the stake, but none in Salem. Most were hanged.

    Yes, now that you mention it. That was in Europe. Also, many of the women supposed to be witches were drowned.

  415. Paula Rice wrote:

    If there’s no impact of the Holy Spirit upon your heart and mind on a daily basis,

    Who is the arbitrator of the movements of the Holy Spirit in one’s life?

  416. Today’s report from Mark Driscoll’s House of Grift:

    * 57 cars (down from 68 last week). Using Phoenix Open math (3.2 per car), that’s 182 people. Using “my they have a lot of kids” math (six per car), it’s 342. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, but megachurches are not made of these numbers.
    * Cars with California, Nevada, Washington and Illinois plates, in addition to (obviously) Arizona.
    * I talked to three people, received one sermon on CD and a bottle of water.

    I’m in Massachusetts next weekend, so unless someone else takes up the banner while I’m gone, Driscoll will not get a protest.

  417. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:
    your questions came across as accusations. I was hoping for dialogue.

    @elastigirl,

    I appreciate reading your questions on a wide variety of topics, insights, experiences,
    and humor. You’ve got me thinking about lots of things I hadn’t thought about.
    Thank you.

  418. mirele wrote:

    * I talked to three people, received one sermon on CD and a bottle of water.
    I’m in Massachusetts next weekend, so unless someone else takes up the banner while I’m gone, Driscoll will not get a protest.

    Thank you for being out there again. Glad somebody gave you some water. If I were there, I’d sub for you next week, but I’m not.

  419. Paula Rice wrote:

    I cannot tell you how glad I was to discover the truth of God’s word that freed me from the bondage of complementarianism! All the lights came on!

    Yes. It’s an insufferable system – the Comp system. Lies and more lies. Such bondage.

  420. @ Paula Rice:

    sorry. I know you have passion on these topics, and I believe you mean well. your questions felt like a machine gun.

    but I could have responded differently. to do it over, you asked,

    “You mean as in the Golden Rule? How do you assume that is fulfilled anyway?

    Jesus said the Golden Rule sums up all the laws and the prophets.

    How do you feel about all the laws and prophets? Or about Jesus for that matter?”

    I don’t know what I feel about the law and the prophets. what do I feel about jesus? a huge question… a loaded question (?) not sure what this question is designed to elucidate.

    but my answer: he’s the God in human form, awesome person, allowed himself to be sacrificed, went the distance down to death and defeated it, rose back to life, restored relationship between humans and God…. there’s lots more I could say, of course.

    in all of my consideration over theological matters, my reasoning always boils down to “treating others the way I want to be treated”. in my own life, i’d rather cut to the chase and make that my modus operandi. just don’t see how I or anyone could ever go wrong. (now how well I do with that is another story)

  421. Paula Rice wrote:

    We all know that to some Christians a godly lifestyle means no, no, no, no, no.

    No dancing
    No drinking
    No playing cards
    No mowing the grass on Sunday

    My 2-year old grandson thinks his name is “No No”. I mowed my lawn this morning, but I didn’t dance, drink or play cards. At the end of the day, I still feel Christian.

  422. @ mirele:

    mirele,

    I just have to say,

    I really do admire your dedication! If Driscoll pulled up in my town, I think I’d have to do the same…

  423. Max wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    We all know that to some Christians a godly lifestyle means no, no, no, no, no.
    No dancing
    No drinking
    No playing cards
    No mowing the grass on Sunday
    My 2-year old grandson thinks his name is “No No”. I mowed my lawn this morning, but I didn’t dance, drink or play cards. At the end of the day, I still feel Christian.

    The first thing I did when I was free, free, free at last of that legalistic, authoritarian NeoCalvinist ex-church…was listen to The Blues! Woo hoo.

    Quinn Sullivan, age 8, playing with Buddy Guy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix4TNJvVk8M

  424. @ elastigirl:
    They were honest questions. The Golden Rule isn’t some human invention that you can pull out on a whim you know. I was curious to know your approach to its application in your own life. Is it a religion onto itself, you think?

    Oh sorry, look. There’s still a Y at the end of Sunday.

  425. Max wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    We all know that to some Christians a godly lifestyle means no, no, no, no, no.

    No dancing
    No drinking
    No playing cards
    No mowing the grass on Sunday

    My 2-year old grandson thinks his name is “No No”. I mowed my lawn this morning, but I didn’t dance, drink or play cards. At the end of the day, I still feel Christian.

    I mowed the lawn, worked in my garden, and uh-oh! Had a couple of beers at the end of the day. And yet, and yet, I still feel Christian… 🙂

    Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said “beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy”?

    But for you teetotallers out there – good for you, and probably just as well. I might just join you one of these days…

    But a cold beer at the end of a day of yard work in June… *sigh*

  426. Max wrote:

    My 2-year old grandson thinks his name is “No No”.

    Max, haven’t you heard? Children thrive best without boundaries, rules, or being told “No!” 😛

  427. roebuck wrote:

    Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said “beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy”?

    Ben hadn’t heard of pizza.

  428. Paula Rice wrote:

    Problem is our relationships in the Church are supposed to be patterned on the Trinity because are made in God’s image and are to reflect His likeness.

    But there are 3 persons in the Trinity, only two people in a marriage. I’m not even married, never have been.

  429. Paula Rice wrote:

    The Golden Rule isn’t some human invention that you can pull out on a whim you know. I was curious to know your approach to its application in your own life. Is it a religion onto itself, you think?

    I believe it to be a universal thing. Part of the divine image in all humans. How else do those without the law (eg. pagans) practice it of their own volition (eg. Romans chap. 2)? Even the Apostle Paul said that the heathen justify themselves by choosing to practice it.

  430. Paula Rice wrote:

    Right. But what does that mean to you?
    We all know that to some Christians a godly lifestyle means no, no, no, no, no.
    No dancing
    No drinking
    No playing cards
    No mowing the grass on Sunday
    Nothing but long skirts for the women (only exception kilts for Scottish men)

    If someone says he’s a Christian but he also says he beats puppies for fun every day, is he saved?

    Paul says some matters of sin are to be determined by a person’s conscience as mentioned in
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14
    if the Bible does not clearly spell out if a certain action, such as playing cards, is right or wrong.

    However, there are other places where the Bible does say thus and so is a sin, such as committing adultery.

    I would hope that someone who is married who is also “truly saved” would not commit adultery. I’m not sure if I’d say a guy who has an affair is saved or not. Maybe a truly converted person could have an affair(?) but I’d at least expect him or her to feel remorse for it and not make it a habit to cheat on his or her spouse.

  431. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    So the only way to protect their Virginity (not necessarily them) was to effectively lock them in a harem within the house.

    I was raised in a similar type of family (maybe not as extreme in some regards), but I maintained my own virginity. So… I don’t know what the deal is with the Duggars.

  432. roebuck wrote:

    Obviously, historically, exactly what you say is true. But for the last couple-three decades, at least, the culture is clearly encouraging girls/women to be assertive, empowered, etc

    Girls and women still face discrimination and push back for not following the stereotypical gender roles for females – including in schools and the workplace. I’ve seen a lot of studies and news reports on this the last few years.

    Lean Out The Dangers for Women Who Negotiate
    http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-for-women-who-negotiate

    June 2014
    by Maria Konnikova

    She’s [Hannah Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and the director of the Women and Power program] repeatedly found evidence that our implicit gender perceptions mean that the advice that women stand up for themselves and assert their position strongly in negotiations may not have the intended effect. It may even backfire.

    In four studies, Bowles and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon found that people penalized women who initiated negotiations for higher compensation more than they did men. The effect held whether they saw the negotiation on video or read about it on paper…

    …One reason for the bias may be that the person hiring—or giving a raise—values different qualities in male and female colleagues. Women are potentially being evaluated according to different criteria, even if the person doing the evaluation doesn’t realize it.

    You might see some secular, feminist- sponsored viral videos online the last few years that encourage girls and women to speak up and all that, but there is still a strong pressure by girls/women to be passive, deferential, not get their needs met, etc.

    Women are encouraged to be assertive, but in real life, when they do so, they often get penalized for it.

  433. @ Paula Rice:

    Once I saw the “I disagree, and here’s why” in your post, I pretty much stopped reading, though I do think I glanced a sentence segment here or there.

    I kind of figured you’d disagree with most anything I say.

    The topic of the Trinity is mysterious to a lot of people.

    The topic of the Trinity is debated not just by rank and file Christians, but is misunderstood by cults and world religions, who say Christians worship 3 gods.

    Christian scholars and apologists with phDs or other advanced university degrees cannot agree with each other about the Trinity – on how the Trinity works, or exactly how it is 1 are 3 and 3 are 1.

    We have Christians disagreeing with each other on the ESS view of the Trinity.

    Nobody has the Trinity completely figured out and never will, not this side of eternity. I do wonder about anyone who does think they have the Trinity all figured out in the here and now.

  434. @ roebuck:
    Bwahahaha. I was just thinking the same thing. I am around this movement a lot and I would say there is an inner ring even in the outer ring. Yes, there is a pecking order even in friendships based on who is where and how close one is to some guru, etc. It permeates their very thinking. It is masked well with a lot of dudebro type of language. But it is there.

    We are not talking about people who are capable of authentic simple equal relationships. Think SGM wikileaks.

    In some ways they remind me of middle school girls in their attempts to feign these dudebro relationships.

  435. Muff Potter wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    The Golden Rule isn’t some human invention that you can pull out on a whim you know. I was curious to know your approach to its application in your own life. Is it a religion onto itself, you think?

    I believe it to be a universal thing. Part of the divine image in all humans. How else do those without the law (eg. pagans) practice it of their own volition (eg. Romans chap. 2)? Even the Apostle Paul said that the heathen justify themselves by choosing to practice it.

    NT Wright says that even little kids on the playground understand “fair”. They may not practice it but they understand it.

  436. roebuck wrote:

    But for you teetotallers out there – good for you, and probably just as well. I might just join you one of these days…

    I’m a teetotaler. It comes with its own set of issues.

    A lot of drinkers assume if you are over 21 years of age and don’t drink alcohol, that you are a prude-ish, religious, judgmental scold / kill joy, or you must be a recovering alcoholic.

    The truth is, a lot of us simply do not drink because we find it tastes crummy to us personally but don’t care if other people drink.

    I’ve experienced drinkers judge me over my non-drinking (I’m made out to be a fuddy duddy or a wet blanket though I don’t judge anyone else for their drinking), when I’m out at social functions. I’ve also received pressure from them to drink.

  437. @ Velour:
    John Immel always said to run from those places and go get a big ice cream. For no other reason than Just because YOU like it.

    You, however, should cook a giant extravagant brisket for your new TWW friends! :o) See, we would be honored by your gesture.

  438. @ Darlene:
    I heard enough Washer 10 years ago to last me a lifetime, thanks. Quite familiar.

    Did you know that babies would rip off your shiney watch and leave you bleeding because of their depravity?

    Where do they get this ridiculous hyperbole?

    His wife did a talk on the importance of beautifying yourself like Esther for your husband.

    That is right. See, Your husband is just like a brutal pagan king who rips young beautiful girls from their families to satiate his lust when he wants.

    I knew Washer went on over the cliff when he was promoting Doug Phillips as a manly man.

    Creepy alert.

  439. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    John Immel always said to run from those places and go get a big ice cream. For no other reason than Just because YOU like it.
    You, however, should cook a giant extravagant brisket for your new TWW friends! :o) See, we would be honored by your gesture.

    Oh, Miss Lydia, you have sweet, sweet healing words. Ice cream. A big one. You know. I just may recover yet from the terrible NeoCalvinists at that church because I do LIKE ice cream.

    Gram3 named it Sacred Cow Sundae (TM). I think I shall indulge and get the fixings to make one.

    I may cook you all a bbq beef brisket IF – Scout’s honor – you all promise not to berate me for being too “lavish” as the ingrate NeoCal pastors/elders did. I suppose you want sides, potato salad, etc.

    Roebuck wants beer.

  440. @ Paula Rice:
    Are you familiar with Romans 2? The Gentiles did not have the law. See verse 15 for what I mean.

    This idea of treating others as we want to be is more of a universal thing (doing right) than I think most Christians will admit– for some reason. And it has always been part of the law. Still is.

  441. Lydia wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    I heard enough Washer 10 years ago to last me a lifetime, thanks. Quite familiar.
    Did you know that babies would rip off your shiney watch and leave you bleeding because of their depravity?
    Where do they get this ridiculous hyperbole?
    His wife did a talk on the importance of beautifying yourself like Esther for your husband.
    That is right. See, Your husband is just like a brutal pagan king who rips young beautiful girls from their families to satiate his lust when he wants.
    I knew Washer went on over the cliff when he was promoting Doug Phillips as a manly man.
    Creepy alert.

    Lydia, wow, thanks for the info. Yeah, I just recently heard the segment from that sermon about the vile baby that would rip off your watch and leave you bleeding. Sick, sick, sick. That was the same sermon where he excoriated the audience by telling them that they would be petrified if their vile thoughts for the past hour would be made public for all to hear. He was telling his audience that they were having deplorable thoughts *while* he was preaching, as if he knew their hearts and minds. This man is dangerous to all Christians, and I don’t say that lightly. Recently, while he was preaching at the MacArthur’s Shepherd Conference, J.D. Hall was bragging on Twitter that Washer was the best speaker at the conference. Just look at the folks who are enthralled with him….that says it all.

  442. @ Velour:
    Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream is so rich you can only take one scoop at a time. Take the other 2 scoops home. :o)

    Your Brisket was like the vile of perfume broken for our Lord…. (that made Judas angry). They missed that part. Their loss. You wanted the best for your fellows in a ship.

    He knows.

  443. Darlene wrote:

    Recently, while he was preaching at the MacArthur’s Shepherd Conference, J.D. Hall was bragging on Twitter that Washer was the best speaker at the conference. Just look at the folks who are enthralled with him….that says it all.

    Pack of sewer rats.

  444. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream is so rich you can only take one scoop at a time. Take the other 2 scoops home. :o)
    Your Brisket was like the vile of perfume broken for our Lord…. (that made Judas angry). They missed that part. Their loss. You wanted the best for your fellows in a ship.
    He knows.

    Miss Lydia, I have not been to The South. Aren’t you in The South? I think I need to try the Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream, grits, biscuits, etc. Is there anything I’m missing from the list?

    Signed,

    Future Southern Bell (ding a ling)…Velour

  445. @ Paula Rice:
    Your comment about being able to tell when someone “is saved” baffles me. You’re going on some kind of Christian version of gaydar, or… ???

  446. JYJames wrote:

    @ Velour:
    and Black Stallion Cabernet Sauvignon (NZ)

    Is that what you’re bringing to the bbq beef brisket party? A case?

  447. @ Paula Rice:

    “They were honest questions. The Golden Rule isn’t some human invention that you can pull out on a whim you know. I was curious to know your approach to its application in your own life. Is it a religion onto itself, you think?

    Oh sorry, look. There’s still a Y at the end of Sunday.”
    +++++++++++

    I’m having a hard time with your comments. you seem pissed off at everyone.

    I’ll think about & apply said golden rule as i choose.

    Treating people the way oneself would like to be treated is ubiquitous human kindness that is as old as dirt. it’s one reason the human race survives. it makes life bearable for all, and makes the world a beautiful place. I’m sure it’s the deposit of God in all human beings. with that, over and out.

  448. @ Paula Rice:
    Why are you going after elastigirl’s hide? And Dee’s? And goodness knows how many others’? Does this make you feel better about yourself? Or are we all just here for target practice?!

    I am not OK with any of this. Discussion is cool, but accusations and ad hominem attacks – nope. I think we are all weary of it. Not of you, but of how you engage with people. I wish you could just *talk* with others here, on the level.

  449. I posted on here a few weeks ago that my husband had fallen from a 12′ ladder.
    First and foremost, I want to thank those of you who prayed for and thought of us.

    It has been a trying time. My husband had a head injury, too, that affected his memory. He also has a very low heart rate that caused complications for his jaw surgery. He was completely out of commission for a while. I took care of everything for about 6 weeks: doctor’s apps., transportation, paperwork, real battles with bone-head insurance reps about referrals, preparing meals that he can consume with a broken jaw, making sure takes his meds, badgering him into consuming food …….. the list goes on. (The day he was injured, I basically went into mama bear mode when I got to him at the emergency room triage center. He was out of his head and combative with the doctors and me for 3 or 4 days. He couldn’t remember anything …..). In times like this, I thank God for blessing me with an unsubmissive type-A personality.

    Saturday was our anniversary. On the card my husband gave me, he wrote how grateful he is that I, in his words, “for everything you do and for taking care of me when I was down.” He has never been in a situation like this before- ten foot tall and bullet proof. No one has ever had to “take care” of him.

    If any of these “complementarianism is gospel” men wind up in a situation similar to that of my husband, I hope their wives sit on their submissive little fannies and do nothing while they wait for the husbands “lead”!!! It would serve them right, and hopefully wake them up!

  450. Nancy2 wrote:

    I posted on here a few weeks ago that my husband had fallen from a 12′ ladder.
    First and foremost, I want to thank those of you who prayed for and thought of us.
    It has been a trying time. My husband had a head injury, too, that affected his memory. He also has a very low heart rate that caused complications for his jaw surgery. He was completely out of commission for a while. I took care of everything for about 6 weeks: doctor’s apps., transportation, paperwork, real battles with bone-head insurance reps about referrals, preparing meals that he can consume with a broken jaw, making sure takes his meds, badgering him into consuming food …….. the list goes on. (The day he was injured, I basically went into mama bear mode when I got to him at the emergency room triage center. He was out of his head and combative with the doctors and me for 3 or 4 days. He couldn’t remember anything …..). In times like this, I thank God for blessing me with an unsubmissive type-A personality.
    Saturday was our anniversary. On the card my husband gave me, he wrote how grateful he is that I, in his words, “for everything you do and for taking care of me when I was down.” He has never been in a situation like this before- ten foot tall and bullet proof. No one has ever had to “take care” of him.
    If any of these “complementarianism is gospel” men wind up in a situation similar to that of my husband, I hope their wives sit on their submissive little fannies and do nothing while they wait for the husbands “lead”!!! It would serve them right, and hopefully wake them up!

    Nancy, I am so sorry that you have had to go through such a tough time. But from your interactions and comments here at TWW, I can tell that you are a strong woman. Your situation is one in which the comp. women would be unprepared. All of sudden they would find themselves in a Role Reversal Mode. There would be no such thing as looking to your husband to be as they say “Servant/leaders.” And the husbands would have to be DEPENDENT (YIKES) upon their wives, something they never figured would happen.

  451. Nancy2 wrote:

    In times like this, I thank God for blessing me with an unsubmissive type-A personality.
    Saturday was our anniversary. On the card my husband gave me, he wrote how grateful he is that I, in his words, “for everything you do and for taking care of me when I was down.” He has never been in a situation like this before- ten foot tall and bullet proof. No one has ever had to “take care” of him.

    Happy Anniversary to you and your husband.

    I have been praying for your husband and you. I will continue to pray for you folks.

  452. Deb wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    My take on it is that dee was referring to the idea that patterning relationships between men and women based on the Trinity is unhelpful and illogical. nothing more and nothing less.
    That’s it in a nutshell.

    And not just relationships between men and women. Remember Mary Kassian’s puzzle-piece people? There aren’t just 3, but 4. There’s the blue christ head over the pink church body, and the blue husband head over the pink wife body. They get these wrong, but at least they get them from Ephesians 5. Then they add ESS, with the blue godfather head over the pink christson body. This gets really wierd, not to mention unhelpful and illogical. But wait! There’s more! It’s the blue churchelders head over the pink believers body! Here’s where pewsitting husbands can perhaps empathize with the blue/pink christ’s difficulties. He’s got to be all macho whilst lording it over the church, but feminine and submissive whilst Dad is lording it over him. But he can pull it off ’cause he’s god. Pewsitting husbands have to try to be macho whilst lording it over wives, kids, dogs, and barbarians. But toward churchelders, they must kowtow like girly men. Not being god, this is hard to pull off. Wives, kids, dogs, and barbarians have it “easier”, being able to maintain their subordinate roles at all times. IHTH

  453. Darlene wrote:

    Paul Washer again. That man is doing so much damage among Christians. Please warn others to stay away from this man’s preaching. He seems to revel in Hell Fire and Damnation sermons. He makes Johnathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” look like child’s play. By the way, Washer preached at John MacArthur’s recent Sheprherd’s Conference. That speaks volumes about that camp.

    These men are accusers of the brethren, just like the devil. They misrepresent the nature of God, changing him from love to hate, and they drive people away from him. They drive a wedge between God and the believer, making it impossible to trust and to know him. They are haters of humanity and of themselves.

    I believe they are practicing projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    Matthew 7:15
    “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

  454. Paula Rice wrote:

    the definition of the Trinity has a direct impact upon our identity as those of us who have been placed in Christ. This is logical, not illogical. The New Covenant makes clear that we have been united with God, and our relationship with one another is to reflect this union, the bond of which is love.

    Paula, I wonder if you see the irony here?

  455. Velour wrote:

    Miss Lydia, I have not been to The South. Aren’t you in The South? I think I need to try the Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream, grits, biscuits, etc. Is there anything I’m missing from the list?

    Corn bread

  456. brian wrote:

    https://youtu.be/Wp1lTaJNIEA

    Please help this is the rhetoric that is stuck in my soul, the type of didactic black and white thinking that says God has to hate us and we are utterly evil little hitlers and God only loves us for His Glory because He wants to make a name for Himself. Also the rape reference to his wife, and beating the witness that did nothing. This is the type of preaching I so remember though the stuff I heard was sometimes a bit harsher. How can God create such wonderful beings full of life and not love them for what He created and the wonderment found in each person especially children and babies. I honestly dont get it.

    Brian, my heart goes out to you. I spent time in a church like that as a young Christian. It practically destroyed my relationship with God. I finally got to the breaking point one day when the pastor espoused violence towards little children in his sermon. I was so upset I got up and left, never to return. I should have done it so much sooner! The Holy Spirit was trying to tell me, by the discomfort these teachings caused my soul, but I didn’t recognize it as such. I thought these men knew God, I thought they knew the scriptures, I thought they were telling me the truth.

    It took me a long time to recover. I could not even pick up the Bible and read it for many months because I would hear those men’s voices instead of God’s.

    Finally, one day I was sitting in despair pondering these things. The person of God had been so polluted by these hateful teachings that I was sorry I’d ever heard of him. I felt as though I’d been robbed of God, robbed of my relationship with him, robbed of all hope and peace. And suddenly in the midst of this, I felt as though the Lord was standing with me, his hand kindly on my shoulder, saying to me, “maybe all the things you’ve been told about me are not true.”

    I’m not saying I had a vision or anything like that, but just that this unexpectedly popped into my mind and it shocked me. I suddenly felt happy and free, like my eyes were opened. I ran and got my Bible out and opened it up to 1 John and just started reading. I got to verse 4:18-

    “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.”

    -and suddenly everything clicked. These men are liars, they misrepresent God because they don’t know him. God is love.

    I did not instantly get over the damage that was done to me. I still struggle with some of it. But I could read and study my Bible again and the more I did, the more I saw that I’d been lied to.

    I will be praying for you, Brian, I’ll be praying as Paul’s prayer in Eph 1. I enjoy reading your posts because your kind heart shines through them. I hope that you can forget all of this rot that you’ve been told and come to be convinced of the love of God that surpasses knowledge.

  457. @ Nancy2:
    Praying for you and your husband, Nancy! May God grant him complete healing, continue to strengthen and encourage you, and provide for your every need.

  458. Lydia wrote:

    This idea of treating others as we want to be is more of a universal thing (doing right) than I think most Christians will admit– for some reason.

    Yes …. the ‘law’ written upon the hearts of all mankind, a law that guides the conscience away from what is wrong and towards what is good ….. I think we bear witness to this imprint of the Imago Dei every time we humans respond instinctively as well as decisively with a selfless ‘kindness’ like that of Our God, a ‘Kindness’ not unlike the ‘Chesed’ of God.

  459. Patriciamc wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Miss Lydia, I have not been to The South. Aren’t you in The South? I think I need to try the Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream, grits, biscuits, etc. Is there anything I’m missing from the list?
    Corn bread

    Fried Okra
    Fried Green Tomatoes

  460. Daisy wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    But for you teetotallers out there – good for you, and probably just as well. I might just join you one of these days…

    I’m a teetotaler. It comes with its own set of issues.

    A lot of drinkers assume if you are over 21 years of age and don’t drink alcohol, that you are a prude-ish, religious, judgmental scold / kill joy, or you must be a recovering alcoholic.

    The truth is, a lot of us simply do not drink because we find it tastes crummy to us personally but don’t care if other people drink.

    I’ve experienced drinkers judge me over my non-drinking (I’m made out to be a fuddy duddy or a wet blanket though I don’t judge anyone else for their drinking), when I’m out at social functions. I’ve also received pressure from them to drink.

    Plenty of my friends are non-drinkers – it doesn’t seem to stop them from having a good time. And they never make drunken fools of themselves :-). In any case, pressuring people to drink who don’t want to drink is very wrong, IMO.

  461. some of the strongest signs of disfunction among ‘testimonies’ of how ‘submissive’ wives need to behave towards their husbands usually indicate the husband ‘testing’ his wife to see if she really IS truly submissive to his wishes;
    but he does it publicly in front of other people in order to humiliate her and to show himself to be ‘in charge’

    now, I’m not a fundamentalist-evangelical, no; but even among evangelical women, I know that kind of treatment at the hands of one’s husband has got to be a disgusting, hateful thing, certainly unworthy of any man who says he loves his wife.

    There are limits to just how much a human person can attack the dignity of another human person, without losing their own dignity in the process. Some of the ‘examples’ strict patriarchal complementarians display before the world are more signs of a warped mind-set where abusive treatment is rewarded by compliance to prove that the ‘submission’ thing is working in the marriage.

    I mean, any person brought up with the idea of ‘the dignity of the human person’ and of respect for the dignity of others ….that person will see displays of a husband’s public poor treatment of his wife as something sick, more out of ‘the pit’ than coming to us from Our Lord.

    For ESS folks to expect acceptance in either their attack on the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity or acceptance of a disfunctional relationship pattern in marriage that celebrates humiliation of the wife . . . those ESS folks may as well be barking at the Moon.
    People of real faith know the difference between a cult and a Christian community of faith. The ESS folks are in a bubble that will never be accepted by mainline Christianity, no.

  462. @Nancy2:

    I second Deb. Praying for your husband and for a full recovery.

    @Lydia: LOL, I don’t remember ever having denied the bloodiness of medieval history. When did that ever even come up? SMH here. Goodness! When has history *not* been bloody? Anywhere?

    Nonetheless, it is historically demonstrable that Christians, Jews, and Muslims did coexist in medieval Western Europe. No, not always amicably, not by a long, lonnnnnng shot. But they weren’t at constant war, either. Heck, they even traded with each other and stuff.

    Many moons ago, I remember reading a book (I think it was by Huizinga) which argued that the 12th century was much more open to “the Other” than subsequent medieval centuries, and that relations among various groups were much more fluid during that period in western Europe. I don’t know whether that thesis is widely accepted; it’s been a while since the book came out, and scholarship sometimes dates pretty quickly.

    But anyway, the point is: History is messy and complicated, which is why historians argue about it all the time. Unlike the denizens of the Internet, they don’t claim to have it all figured out. 😉

  463. @Brian, I cannot imagine having that cr@p hammered into my head all the time. God is truly not like that at all!

    I think some of the most profound theology of all time is contained in the little Sunday School ditty, “Jesus Loves Me, This I Know.” Jesus loves you infinitely, unconditionally, unfathomably. He loves you to folly. He loves you as if you were the only person on earth. He loves you with every beat of His Heart. His loving, merciful gaze is completely fixed on you. He loves you.

  464. Daisy wrote:

    Women are encouraged to be assertive, but in real life, when they do so, they often get penalized for it.

    I think women can be assertive, but they have to do it with a different style than men to be affective. Right or wrong. This is not true in all settings, probably, but in many.

  465. Patriciamc wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Miss Lydia, I have not been to The South. Aren’t you in The South? I think I need to try the Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream, grits, biscuits, etc. Is there anything I’m missing from the list?
    Corn bread

    Barbecue, burgoo, fried green tomatoes, and sweet iced tea!

  466. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    I think that particular interpretation of European antisemitism is very suspect… if anything, the Islamic world was far safer for Jewish people during and after the Middle Ages. A whole lot of Spanish and Portuguese Jews fled to North Africa and the Ottoman Empire after the reconquest of Andaludia, and subsequent Inquisition.

    Also, both England and France expelled their respective Jewish populations during the High Middle Ages.

  467. Velour wrote:

    Miss Lydia, I have not been to The South. Aren’t you in The South? I think I need to try the Comfy Cow Bourbon Ball ice cream, grits, biscuits, etc. Is there anything I’m missing from the list?
    Signed,
    Future Southern Bell (ding a ling)…Velour

    Come visit! W