Council for Bibl. Manhood & Womanhood, Kevin Swanson, Patriarchal-Complementarian Movement, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Women and the Church

CBMW: Christian Feminists, Complementarians, and Are Men Protecting Their Position of Privilege?

Julie Anne

*     *     *

medium_1086008649
photo credit: deflam via photopin cc

*     *     *

Last year when I started blogging and connecting with other blogs/bloggers, there were two big words that meant nothing to me:  complementarian and egalitarian.   In fact, at first the words just plain annoyed me and I didn’t bother to look them up.  Pardon the brief break:   It is bugging me like crazy that each and every time I type that “c” word, a squiggly underline appears telling me that I have misspelled it.  Because those words were new to me last year, I’m not going to assume that everybody knows the meaning of those “c” and “e” words.  Now I know the “c” word it’s a made-up word.  That’s why my computer does not like it.

Truth be told, I am unsettled on this whole complementarian/egalitarian issue.  And I will explain why in a bit, but in case you are unfamiliar with these terms, here’s a brief overview and I’m pretty sure this is an unbiased source.  You can tell me if I’m wrong.

*     *     *

The Complementarian view of marriage maintains that gender-based roles and a husband-headship structure in marriage is biblically required.  A husband is considered to have the God-given responsibility to provide for, protect, and lead “his” family, while a wife is to collaborate with her husband, respect him, and serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. Complementarians assert that the Bible instructs husbands to lovingly lead their families and to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, and instructs wives to respect their husbands’ leadership out of reverence for Christ.

The Complementarian position has been articulated and defended by several evangelical and reformed leaders in what is called the Danvers Statement. It is so called because it was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December 1987.  Their understanding of the necessity for gender-based roles and authority structure in marriage and in ministry is based on their interpretation of scriptures such as Eph 5:21-33, Col 3:18-19, Tit 2:3-5, 1 Pet 3:1-7.

*     *     *

And here are a couple key paragraphs describing egalitarian viewpoint:

Egalitarians’ interpretation of Scripture brings them to the conclusion that the manner and teachings of Jesus, affirmed by the Apostle Paul, abolished gender-specific roles in both the church and in marriage. Accordingly, this view teaches that God calls believers to roles and ministries in the church without regard to class, gender, or race, and all have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God, with no limitations or privileges according to gender. They conclude that male headship is not biblically-ordained either in the home or in the Church.

Egalitarians teach that roles in the church and home are to be gift-based rather than gender-based. They advocate for mutual submission within marriage as well as the ordination of women as pastors, elders, and other authoritative teaching positions within the body of Christ. Egalitarians deny that any differences related to gender call for strictly prescribed roles. They argue that such distinctions are best utilized by including both women and men at all levels of ministry leadership.

Now let me explain why I have a problem with some of this.   If you were to take all of my tweets and look at them, you’d get a good idea about what I stand for:

  • I strongly dislike abuse of all kinds
  • I strongly dislike it when people who have the capacity to speak up about abuse do not defend the abused
  • I like meaningful words that heal
  • I like a good healthy dose of humor and sarcasm

In my Twitter feed, I am easily able to tell who is very concerned about complementarian issues and the church.  A few weeks ago, my Twitter feed exploded with tweets and retweets from Owen Strachan, Council for  Biblical Manhood and  Womanhood (CBMW),  Ligon Duncan, etc.  Owen Strachan recently accepted the appointment to the Executive Director position at Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  He along with many other people connected with CBMW had a media blitz about the new and improved website, reorganization, new announcements, new staff, etc.  These tweets lasted during the week.  If you were to look at some of these folks’ tweets, you will see that CBMW and “biblical” roles is very, very important to them.

*    *     *

CBMW1.17 PM    Screen shot 2013-04-01 at 12.56.52 PM

*     *     *

Are you familiar with Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?   John Piper and Wayne Grudem were co-founders of CBMW following the release of the  The Danvers Statement.

Here’s a brief summary from the CBMW website.

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.

The above quote came from here where you can also find CBMW’s vision and mission statements.

Note the phrase “role of men and women.”  We will be discussing this more in future articles, too.

But why all the hype?  Why do we need a website dedicated to Christian men and women to tell us about our Biblical roles?  How many verses can we find in the Bible on this topic and why do those verses not suffice?  Do they really needed a whole organization with a team of people to take it upon themselves and inform us of our “biblical roles” and what we should and should not be doing?  This website is evidently a clearinghouse of sorts for you and me, church leaders, to gain very important information on the roles of men and women.  Are we all having problems understanding what God says about men and women?  CBMW apparently thinks so.

Stay with me – – – remember Kevin Swanson and the embedded baby comments he made in a radio interview in which he never provided sources to back up his claims?  His words were rhetorical, fear-inducing, and ignorant.  But he intentionally said them, without owning up to his fasehoods and now avoids the topic like a plague.  Why?  Because he has an agenda.  The agenda is part of the patriarchal Reconstructionist agenda.  It doesn’t seem to matter to him whether or not he has truthful information to spread, just as long as the information that supports his agenda is spread.  This is wrong.

It’s one thing to have a sermon on “Biblical” roles, but to have a whole website dedicated to it?  I’m sorry – – it just smells fishy to me.

Trying to understand where this drive is coming from, I think I stumbled across something from Albert Mohler’s article from 2006:  A Call for Courage on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  Keep in mind, Mohler has been a staunch supporter and board member of CBMW for years.

The fault lines of controversy in contemporary Christianity range across a vast terrain of issues, but none seems quite so volatile as the question of gender. As Christians have been thinking and rethinking these issues in recent years, a clear pattern of divergence has appeared. At stake in this debate is something more important than the question of gender, for this controversy reaches the deepest questions of Christian identity and biblical authority.

I must have had my head in the sand, then, because as far as I’ve been concerned,  I haven’t had any gender confusion.

Of course, the pervasiveness of this theory explains why radical feminism must necessarily be joined to the homosexual agenda. For, if gender is socially constructed, and therefore differences between men and women are nothing more than social convention, then heterosexuality becomes nothing more than a culturally-privileged form of sexuality.

And more:

The feminist argument is reducible to the claim that patriarchal forces in society have defined men and women so that all the differences ascribed to women represent efforts by men to protect their position of privilege.

Is there any truth to the above statement?  All I know is that my Twitter feed has far more tweets from men than women on this subject.  Why is that?

The last paragraph of the article perhaps captures the urgency that Mohler, Strachan, and others are feeling:

For too long, those who hold to the biblical pattern of gender distinctions have allowed themselves to be silenced, marginalized, and embarrassed when confronted by new gender theorists. Now is the time to recapture the momentum, force the questions, and show this generation God’s design in the biblical concept of manhood and womanhood. God’s glory is shown to the world in the complementarity of men and women. This crucial challenge is a summons to Christian boldness in the present hour.

Ok, so here is Mohler’s method:  force the questions on this generation about “biblical” manhood and womanhood.  This is their agenda.  Whatever happened to the agenda to spread the gospel, spread the love of Christ?  Where does “biblical” roles line up in this?

The following was posted on the CBMW site 1-1/2 yrs after the above article.  Mohler is still pushing this agenda and wanting others to join him in this effort:

Albert Mohler, CBMW Council Member and President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, addressed the attendees at GodblogCon last Thursday, November 8, 2007.  This gathering for “God bloggers” issued a call for more Christians to engage culture through the new media options available on the Internet. (Source)

Here Mohler comments on Owen Strachan’s appointment as CBMW executive director:

“Owen Strachan is one of the brightest lights among a cast of extremely bright and committed young evangelicals. He is exactly what the CBMW needs as it aims for the future and reaches out to a new generation. I am enthusiastic about his leadership and confident of the future effectiveness of CBMW and its vital work.” (Source)

Why am I posting on this topic?  Because in my opinion, this agenda is going over the top.  What is all of this feminist agenda stuff and how does it relate to biblical roles?  It seems to me, the religious right have been telling me for years about a “feminist agenda” that ruins traditional family values.  I’m trying to make sense of what the big deal is.  Is it wrong for women to want equal pay for equal work?  Is it wrong for women to want to have voting rights?  Is it wrong for women to be able to get a job that they are capable of doing because they are a woman?  Are we all in agreement on these topics?   When reading people like Mohler, Stinson, Duncan, Piper, etc, we know that the word “feminist” is a negative word.  These lines are very blurry for me.
Oh, and one more thing.  I never would have been so familiar with names of people on the CBMW board except for the fact that many of them are the very same men who have defended C.J. Mahaney and allowed him to speak at their conferences.  And so I have to tell you, it is making this whole complementarian thing seem suspect to me.  You see, Piper (remember, he was co-founder of CBMW) is one who mentioned that wives should put up with smacking from their husbands:

If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.  ~John Piper

 

We’ve read countless stories of abuse and even domestic violence among women and children at Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) churches.  Yet these CBMW folks hold CJ up high on a pedestal.  In fact, in one interview I listened to, the panel of men said that they could all learn a thing or two from C.J. to take home to their own churches in how SGM churches has seemed to grasp “complementarianism” so well.  They viewed CJ and his family of SGM churches to be the model of compementarianism to other churches.  This is where JA breaks to say ::::this creeps me out – – – these men hold CJ up as a model for his views of complementarianism, meanwhile, back at the ranch, SGM is being sued by numerous people for failure to report abuses, etc :::::::.    I’m sorry, but if there is abuse going on unchecked and church leaders are not dealing appropriately with those abuses, I do not think all is well at the CBMW camp.

And here’s the crux of the matter as I see it:

If those men who are presuming to tell me what my Biblical role is fail to protect those in harm’s way and fail to call for accountability among their peers, then how can I trust them to have my best interest in mind as a woman.  It makes their work at CBMW as rubbish to me.   I am far better off reading the Bible and learning for myself what my biblical role is, thank you very much.

Read this quote again from Mohler in light of the SGM abuse scandals and see if there is any merit to it.  Bolding done by me:

The feminist argument is reducible to the claim that patriarchal forces in society have defined men and women so that all the differences ascribed to women represent efforts by men to protect their position of privilege.

*     *     *

Disclaimer 4/2/13:  In the comments below, we have been discussing this topic and it was suggested that the type of complementarianism discussed in this article may be an extreme form of complementarianism.  This seems to prove my point that complementarianism is very difficult to define within even the CBMW camp.

179 thoughts on “CBMW: Christian Feminists, Complementarians, and Are Men Protecting Their Position of Privilege?”

  1. I do agree with mohler that the question of gender identity is really big. But I think I break with him on what I think is right on this topic. JA, this gets back to a rabbit trail I went on in the comments a couple weeks ago concerning gay rights. I do think the fates of feminism and gay rights are tied together. Do you think otherwise?

    Like

  2. Oh boy – – I think someone might have a cow and say that the lady in the above picture is immodest. I’m not changing it! LOL.

    Seth – – You are right – – they are saying that both feminist and homosexual agendas are the root of the breakdown of biblical families. So where do you draw the line on this topic? That “line” is so fuzzy for me and I want to discuss more of that soon.

    Like

  3. We must be mind-melding! Haha! Seriously, I can’t believe that you posted this after what I read today. I have to go to work – yes, I work outside the home – in a few minutes so I will post more tonight.

    I will leave you with this….I do not believe that feminism and the gay rights movement are tied together. And, I contend that the complementarian’s view point started with a woman. Phyllis Schlafly wrote “The Power of the Positive Woman” in 1977 as a response to the radical feminists. So, anything these men say is riding off the coat-tails of a woman.

    Like

  4. Kathi – Isn’t that funny how that happens? I was planning on doing this post right when CBMW changed their site and well – – other things took precedence. But there’s more to come.

    You have a good point about Phyllis Schlafly. I used to get her stuff in the 80s. Another proponent is Mary Pride – a quiverfull pillar in the homeschool movement.

    Good thing you don’t go to one of those family-integrated churches we know about in your area. Your husband might be getting lectured about not taking care of the family. Oh, and if he didn’t have a home business, he might get lectured about that, too. Ick.

    Like

  5. On the other side of this is a great evangelical organization: Christians for Biblical Equality. Their statement of faith is as evangelical as it comes. They publish a scholarly journal and a more “popular” magazine, both dedicated to explicating how the Bible supports egalitarianism. There is a lot of digging into the actual use of words and meanings, including the fact that many languages use the male form as the default in all mixed or indefinite gender situations. E.g., in Spanish, three sisters and one brother are called together “hermanos” or brothers. And in many languages there is no gender neutral “one”. As in “One does not leave the restroom with one’s pants unzipped!” Also a lot of study of the culture of various NT communities and the OT Israel/Judah at various points in time. Really interesting stuff.

    Like

  6. CBMW got hacked a couple of times, and that is why all the changes. That group BUGS me to no end! I have received notes via email from them after pointing things out about their beliefs that are – I’ll say it – nuts, crazy, and extremely over the top! I got tons of mail after I uploaded the Piper/Abuse video on youtube years ago (from desiring god site). They are so focused on the 1960’s Feminist (ya know the 50 year old movement), and the 50 year old book by Friedan its poisons their core message. Yes, of course if you don’t grasp their point of view – but oppose – they will tie that opposition into the whole homosexual debate. I still don’t grasp how they connect those dots, but they do and people are buying right into it.

    Mary Kassian – another one that drives me nuts – has CBMW as part of her claim to fame in its founding. All that poor woman is to them? A female mouth piece that will say things in a more nasty fashion, because they figure she can being a women.

    Ugh – don’t even get me started on Phyllis Schlafly! Right now the women is in bed with the Father’s rights movement. I have video on her on my website when she speaks about domestic violence. How she has NEVER known anyone that has experienced this, and if you have friends that have? Her response – get new friends! I’m all for father’s rights, but there are certain elements within that movement that are dangerous. They are her biggest fans.

    Poor CBMW is so far behind the times I doubt they realize the waves of feminism have changed since the book they tout as the downfall for the family. There are so many flavors nowadays? Who can keep up with what they stand for – not stand for, etc anymore.

    That crowd gets so silly. It seems like they make up things as they go along. I think its just an avenue to promote all the sister websites, programs, books, sermons, etc. They are in bed with SBC as well.

    Okay. rant over….sorry. I suppose you can tell by my tweets WHOM bugs me at times! (laughs)

    Like

  7. Ok, Hannah, I need to walk over to your blog and check out those Schlafly videos. Piper tried to re-explain his video in light of the fact that it went crazy viral against him, but it sounds like Piper and Schlafly have been drinking the same stuff. Hannah, your tweets are nothing compared to these guys. That’s why it got my attention.

    But don’t you find it astounding that these guys are the very same ones who have defended CJ or have remained silent or have not allowed anyone to question about him on their blogs? I wonder if they feel they will lose their complementarian momentum knowing they have labeled him as a hero in the movement if they call CJ out? The silence is deafening.

    Like

  8. Why are these people so worried about girls and gays getting equal rights but don’t seem to have the energy to lift a finger or eyebrow when one of their guys (SGM is chock full of their kind of guys) is down right abusive in power?

    And if people tire of their privileged whining, they will become shrill with fearmongering about embedded tiny babies.

    Get a grip, boys and start acting like men. In fact, stop telling me how to be a woman because it is as silly as one of your boys at sgm teaching moms how to breast feed.

    Like

  9. this complementarian vs. egalitarian thing really has had me going too lately. Why is there even a need to put specific labels, and parameters within those labels on relationships? I know why, it’s control. And when you can control, then you can abuse.

    But it bugs me on both sides of the coin. that somehow i have to define my marriage to “these” people in order to justify myself before them? I have no idea what my marriage is considered to be. Kinda complimentarian, but definately not patriarchal, but not full egalitarian either. I certainly don’t stay up nights worrying about what I should label my marriage – frankly it’s none of “their” business. But obviously these people (on both sides of the coing) think it is since they have to devote an entire website, business structure around it.

    I also think it’s interesting that the complimentarian camp is largely led my men, and the egalitarian camp by women.

    But lets look honestly as scripture and determine what God had in mind for marriages and relationships. I think you’ll find a healthy balance in between both extremes. And i certainly don’t need whole websites and books to expain it to me.

    In so many of these matters what happens is we start to look to men (ie: humanity, could be a specific man or woman) for rules, and lists and parameters to live by, instead of seeking God directly for each and every aspect of our lives. It’s harder to do, and likely will move us out of our comfortable, safe, boxes………….

    Like

  10. Opinemine – You were just hypothetically saying that bit about boys teaching moms how to breastfeed, right? I must know! LOL

    Marie – You nailed it for me. I had an idea where the line was drawn, but am more confused now more than ever. And the more these complementarians (you know, the ones who avoid dealing with CJ) yap with their mouths, it’s making me not want to do anything that resembles their ways because their behavior of remaining silent I find repulsive. How can you call yourself a church leader and abandon victims? That wreaks of evil, nothing godly.

    Like

  11. http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2008/09/phyllis-schlafly-domestic-violence.html

    That has the video in question on it.

    Piper waited 4 years to respond to a video that I uploaded – and it went viral 3 years, and 11 months prior! Yet you notice the man said a WHOLE lot of nothing. He should have saved his breath. He just doesn’t get it. You could almost feel the ‘if you call the police on your spouse WHO will take care of you’ type of message. He tends to repeat that theme pretty often – covert of course.

    Wartsburg I think it was found an old article from Mohler, and he was speaking about Paterno. He was preaching to the choir about how we should respond to spiritual abuse, and yet he goes against his own advice with CJ. I tweeted that today sometime.

    Honestly? I think their pride would kill them if they had to admit they MIGHT have made a huge mistake. It may effect the dollar signs I guess, or maybe just the pastor worship.

    I guess with every movement you need to have a devil, and they found it in feminism. Then of course they worship the roles.

    I feel sorry for them. I have to admit I was angry about it for a while. No doubt God softened my heart in that area. I feel pity now.

    Personally? I hate labels.

    Like

  12. Have you by chance glanced at my blog post of today? Seriously – ironic!

    I really am going to read more into this, especially since the teacher’s notes in our curriculum have the women’s lib movement marked in two weeks. Of course, I will use none of the teacher’s notes for my teaching – just for my own reading! 😉

    I cannot tell you how fascinated I was by reading a small chapter in our main history text (A History of US: All the People Since 1945, Joy Hakim). When I got to the section on the conservative New Right and read about Phyllis Schlafly, her words sounded so familiar. Hmmmm…could it be? The CBMW?

    Now, claiming ignorance, do the folks who started CBMW claim their ideas to be their own? Really, her words sound exactly like what CBMW states. As though they took her words and made them their own ideas.

    Why are these organizations holding on to something that will not return? Society has moved too far for it to be brought back to post-WWII idealization.

    Like

  13. Well, I’m going to need to ask for prayer for my anger issues, because I just washed that Schlafly video and I want to scream. I remember listening to her radio show in the 80s and also hearing her on Focus on the Family. Wow. That’s where it started with me – I was a young mom in my early 20s with no tv and I listened to a lot of Christian radio.

    Check out this Schlafly quote I just found. The anger is going to turn into health problems if I don’t be careful:

    In March 2007, Schlafly said in a speech at Bates College, “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

    Like

  14. Kathi – I did read your blog earlier and was going to leave a comment then, but got too distracted with the rest of your articles. I’m jealous that you find time to knit (must do that again) and love the fun things you do with your kids. (ok, just took a brief detour and left a comment – lol)

    Like

  15. re: Seth’s comment

    I wouldn’t think so. In the arguments over DOMA and Prop 8, there’s no assertion that marriage must be gender-arbitrary because gender roles are socially constructed. That seems to be a fear of the conservative crowd, but it’s not actually coming to fruition. The pro-equality crowd focuses much more on the effects of marriage itself.

    Like

  16. It is part of the curse following the fall that a wife will desire her husband, who will be prone to dominate his wife. Genesis 3:16. My belief is that the woman’s desire is a curse in that it may result in her tolerating and otherwise enabling a husband’s sinful domination, which can be downright misogynistic. My analysis may offend some, but I submit that what I suggest is at least part of the explanation for why, in my profession as a lawyer, I see so many women obtain court orders for protection from abusive men, only to drop the whole matter within a few weeks, or even days. It was a domestic abuse counselor, who was female, who first suggested this to me.

    The ESV Study Bible commentary has a different explanation of the Genesis passage. This commentary adopts a complimentarian view, speaking of “the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall.” The commentary justifies this position by a reference to Ephesians 5:21-32, which reads in part, “. . . submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” (ESV).

    But wait a minute. In this passage the word “submit” following “Wives” does not appear in the Greek. It is an instance of the translators (perhaps I should say interpreters) engaging in a practice of inferring-and-inserting. A more literal translation would be “. . . submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” The sense of the Greek is that in submitting to one another, it is to her OWN HUSBAND that the wife is to be in MUTUAL submission—not to her neighbor’s husband, not to her father, NOT TO HER PASTOR, but to her husband.

    I contend that the manner in which the Ephesians passage is mistranslated and misapplied encourages the perpetuation of the misogynistic domination of women by men. It was largely Christians who were in the forefront of the abolition of slavery (which Paul accepted and enabled, by the way). How sad that it is largely the non-Christian world that is in the forefront of attempts to abolish the misogynistic domination of women. How sadder yet that so many Christians are pushing back at these efforts, attempting rather to perpetuate those aspects of the curse that are expressed in the disrespectful, demeaning, controlling, abusive, and generally sinful treatment of women.

    Like

  17. Yes, Julie Anne, Schlafly seems to feel that women need to take a sex ed course prior to marriage so they know what is involved, and how its part of the package. She can’t grasp the difference between a healthy relationship with a spouse, and a violent one.

    She is so fricken nasty about her approach towards these types of issues. She and Kassian drive me nuts. They speak DOWN to their audience, and pretty much call them stupid. How is that for Grace?

    Like

  18. Hannah – I thought how ironic that this is a woman who seems to want all women to be home barefoot and pregnant. It seems she spent quite a few years in the workforce and in school to become an attorney. And it seems that at least some of those years were after she got married.

    Like

  19. Gary W.,

    You did not offend me, but I am not easily offended. I noticed right after I tweeted about the article and posted it on my Facebook page, I lost a handful of followers. That has never happened before. I don’t think it’s a coincidence – this is such a hot topic. That’s too bad because I think there is much to be gained by having discussions with diverse opinions.

    I really appreciate your very clear explanation of that passage. Thank you so much. As I have said before, the complementarian lines are fuzzy for me (especially the way the CBMW folks talk about it), so I’m still working things out in my own mind. I want to own my belief based on thoughtful inspection of scripture, studying, not by having a church leader spoon-feed me his agenda.

    Like

  20. Let me begin with full disclosure so I don’t get in trouble again 🙂 .

    My wife and I are complimentarians.
    I am also a pastor of a church.
    I am not a supporter of the organization that this article attacks/exposes.

    Now there are several problems with the tenor of this article from my perspective.

    1. The article seems to intimate that male leadership is by default abusive while female leadership is benevolent. This is not true.
    2. The article seems to be promoting the IFB doctrine of secondary separation that teaches that I will not associate with those who associate with those who I do not agree with. I know that when practiced in an IFB church this would be considered an act of control/abuse but it seems to be an act of valor for this audience to do the same thing.
    3. The article seemed to imply that complimentarians were opposed to women’s suffrage, equal pay, or equal job opportunities when this is not their goal at all.
    4. The article joins CBMW with SGM as if they are Siamese twins when in reality they are separate entities with separate goals.
    5. The article seems to indicate that CJ’s failure to oversee the SGM churches, which is an unbiblical approach to church ministry anyway, means that CJ is a failure in every area of life. I am sure this is not true and I am sure there are some things that CJ has done correctly.
    6. This article seems to be missing the grace for CBMW that this audience requires others to show them less they be demonized as insensitive and abusive.

    I think the complimentarian view should be presented as it is. It is simply the biblical belief that God created men and women equal but different. These differences fit us better for particular roles in life. This is significant because the Gospel reconciles humanity to God and to each other. This would include our relationship roles with God and each other and our roles in ministry to each other. This is evidenced in the parallels that God draws between marriage relationship roles and Christian roles with Christ.

    Let me move beyond theory and illustrate the point. God has created us so that husbands and wives complete each other so that the two become one according to Scripture. This is an age old doctrine that has nothing to do with the recent writings of some woman or man. This plays out differently in every relationship. For instance, my wife is an uncanny judge of human character while I am a optimist. Through experience I have learned that my wife’s evaluation of the character of people from just a short interaction is correct 99.95% of the time. So I seek her opinion on the character of people and readily defer to her judgment over mine in this area. I am very task oriented so when we are trying to get some task accomplished she defers to my planning even if she thinks it is over the top because she realizes this is an area that I am much better at. Complimentarianism is not a dictatorship but is much like our secular employment where people agree to take instructions from others because they realize we are equal as humans but do not possess equal skill sets.

    Those who take the egalitarian view must be careful to show the same grace and deference that they would expect from those who are complimentarians. I didn’t notice this in the comments that accompanied this article.

    Like

  21. Recently, Mohler went on a Ladies radio show to speak about the Genesis portion of scripture. He claims they are finding ‘errors’ there. It should be changed to: desire against your husband to dominate him They say its the same type of desire you find with Cain, and how God told him sin’s desire was for him – how it wants to dominate him. They get this theory from Susan Foh – a ‘woman’.

    If you buy into the theory that feminism is taking over the world? This way of reading scripture would fit right in there.

    It’s strange to me that they will tell you how scripture has been read for years a certain way when it comes to participation of women within the church one day. Yet the next day want to change Genesis to show how their theory of feminism is correct as well. Also they feel that women are not to ‘teach’, and yet LOVE Foh’s paper.

    It’s mind boggling.

    Like

  24. No, actually it’s the same smoothie every morning. I don’t drink coffee (except if I’m having a rich dessert).

    1 cup almond milk
    1/2 cup rolled oats
    1 frozen overripe banana, broken into chunks
    2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa
    1-1/2 tsp flax seed
    handful of raw almonds

    Yummmm!

    Like

  25. I found this interesting quote recently. Gender equality is a much broader topic on the world stage. It speaks to our basic humanity.

    “Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a pre-condition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.”

    ~ Kofi Annan Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1997 to 2006

    Like

  26. Mohler’s view as described by Hannah Thomas is consistent with the view expressed in the ESV Study Bible Commentary. If memory serves (I’m now at the office and can’t double check) the ESV Commentary also expresses the view that the breakdown of the relationship between husbands and wives was imposed as a judgment by God. No, God was simply making Adam and Eve aware of the consequences of their actions. It’s rather like a child touching a hot stove top after being told by a parent not to do so. The burn they receive is the natural outworking of their disobedience, not a punishment imposed by the parent. What parent would hold the child’s hand to the burner a second time as some sort of retributive punishment? Wesley Roy’s well considered defense of complimentarianism notwithstanding, I respectfully submit that we should roundly denounce any suggestion that male authority over women is justified as an implementation of God’s judgment. Jesus died that we might be delivered, not held in continuing bondage to sin or its consequences.

    Like

  27. Mr. Roy:

    CBMW’s belief systems are extreme. To me their ‘flavor’ of complimentarian is a bit off the charts. I state ‘flavor’ because there are many differing belief systems under the title complimentarian. They don’t agree even among themselves. Not all that uncommon, because its the same with just about any group.

    There as a program on Focus on the Family recently that had Kassian and DeMoss as their guests. One the strange things they stated was if others didn’t respect the roles they believe in? They don’t ‘love’ their children. You are only capable of doing so by living life as they show you.

    It would be nice if life could work like that, but it doesn’t. They ‘demonize’ people much too often, and place them into some strange box of genderless blobs (confused about the gender IOW). They also coined the phase: evangelical feminism. Its code word for Egalitarian. You will notice that Egalitarian’s don’t use that phase. Granted the two groups have differing views on scripture, and I realize they worded it that way because they view Egalitarian’s as feminist. YET they tell others not to ‘label’ them in ways they do not view themselves. Why then would they do that to others then? That makes no sense.

    I have friends and family members that would claim they live both groups – comp or egal. I would say in most realms their belief systems are very similar. I think that makes life interesting!

    Sadly, I don’t think the extremist groups realize the damage they cause at times. I think they do at other times, but feel its God’s will. Its not even in the thought process that maybe something is wrong. Sometimes I wonder if they tend to try to be to academic, and then lose that humanity part.

    Like

  28. Thanks for the disclaimers. That is helpful for readers to have an idea where you are coming from.

    The article seems to intimate that male leadership is by default abusive while female leadership is benevolent.

    This is not true.
    Can you please point to what you are reading that led to this conclusion?

    The article seems to be promoting the IFB doctrine of secondary separation that teaches that I will not associate with those who associate with those who I do not agree with. I know that when practiced in an IFB church this would be considered an act of control/abuse but it seems to be an act of valor for this audience to do the same thing.

    I’m not promoting any doctrine. Are you reading the same thing I wrote?



    The article seemed to imply that complimentarians were opposed to women’s suffrage, equal pay, or equal job opportunities when this is not their goal at all.

    Ok, Wesley – – are you putting words in my mouth? Once again, please show me where you are finding this in my article.

    The article joins CBMW with SGM as if they are Siamese twins when in reality they are separate entities with separate goals.

    I completely disagree with you. They are clearly two different entities. It doesn’t seem like you are following along with the point of my article. Here is how the Tolling Bell blog summarized my article. They seemed to have gotten it quite well:



    The Tolling Bell quote: Spiritual Sounding Board latest post scrutinizes Complementarianism: SSB believes the push is over the top as far as its attacks on feminism as well as how it blindly venerates Mahaney (despite the crumbling of his ministry and the history of fumbling abuse cases).

    Wesley says: The article seems to indicate that CJ’s failure to oversee the SGM churches, which is an unbiblical approach to church ministry anyway, means that CJ is a failure in every area of life.

    I am sure this is not true and I am sure there are some things that CJ has done correctly.
    Once again – point out the specific wording that indicates this. I believe the man is unfit for ministry. There is a reference to a millstone in the Bible when it comes to taking care of little ones. Mahaney has failed in this area. Did I talk about every area of his life? Am I supposed to?

    This article seems to be missing the grace for CBMW that this audience requires others to show them less they be demonized as insensitive and abusive.

    I’m sorry, Wesley, I don’t feel the need to coddle people who show no care or concern for abused.

    I think the complimentarian view should be presented as it is.

    That’s a nice answer, Wesley, but I can’t see people in the complementarian camp giving a straight answer and defining the boundary lines very clearly. Even within the CBMW group, it is a confused mess.

    Those who take the egalitarian view must be careful to show the same grace and deference that they would expect from those who are complimentarians. I didn’t notice this in the comments that accompanied this article.

    Well, of course not. This is the Spiritual Sounding Board. You are going to read passionate responses for and against various subjects. For the record, I do not believe that those who espouse the complementarian viewpoint have come across very gracious. They are shoving it down our throats telling everybody it is the “biblical” (read: ONLY) way despite the fact that there are biblical scholars on the other side of the camp who disagree with their interpretations.

    Like

  29. Hannah, you touched on an important part of my article – – the extremes.

    Sadly, I don’t think the extremist groups realize the damage they cause at times. I think they do at other times, but feel its God’s will. Its not even in the thought process that maybe something is wrong. Sometimes I wonder if they tend to try to be to academic, and then lose that humanity part.

    It was Kevin Swanson’s extreme comment about embedded dead babies that caused me to question him and his agenda. It is CBMW’s extremes that cause me to look further at their agenda. Usually when you find extreme talk, you find an agenda. And it just so happens that the same people who are being extreme with this agenda are the same ones ignoring the victims of SGM by remaining silent. Why is that connection there? That causes me great concern. We have heard of several cases of domestic violence among SGM. CBMW leaders have come out publicly saying domestic violence is wrong, yet their complementarian hero, Mahaney, has not done anything about the domestic violence in his own churches and now is part of a large class action lawsuit. That begs the question: WHY?????

    Like

  30. Wesley, welcome back! I was waiting for your name to pop up. 🙂 so I have to say your personal example sounds egalitarian to me. How does it actually differ?

    Like

  31. Well here goes.

    Point #1 is a result of the feel of the article. Male leadership is painted as a controlling/abusive thing that leads to abuse so since there has to be some type of leadership female leadership would be the obvious choice for benevolent leadership.

    Point #2 and Point #5 are a result of reading this statement–” They viewed CJ and his family of SGM churches to be the model of compementarianism to other churches. This is where JA breaks to say ::::this creeps me out “. Because CJ failed to carry out a duty of overseeing multiple churches which God never gave to any person that does not mean he doesn’t understand complementarianism as taught in Scripture.

    Point #3 is a result of reading this statement in the article–“It seems to me, the religious right have been telling me for years about a “feminist agenda” that ruins traditional family values. I’m trying to make sense of what the big deal is. Is it wrong for women to want equal pay for equal work? Is it wrong for women to want to have voting rights? Is it wrong for women to be able to get a job that they are capable of doing because they are a woman?”

    JA I have trouble finding the Scripture that indicates that we are allowed to mistreat people who are mistreating us. I think there is a text that says something about when Jesus was reviled He did not revile back.

    No problem though. I simply wanted to let you see how those who are not egalitarians may see the article. If the intent is to educate and persuade those who are wrong to repent then the information should be presented in a way that does not shove it down their throats and demean them 🙂 unless theological scholars on the complimentarian side of the reading of Scripture do not deserve the same courtesy as those on the other side.

    Thanks for the reply.

    Like

  32. Seth my example is biblical complimentarianism. That is why I say that complimentarians who understand and practice what the Bible is teaching on the subject of male and female roles in the home and ministry are not being factually represented in the article.

    Like

  33. Julie Anne,

    What a brilliant exposure of the way Wesley seeks to discredit you by setting up multiple straw men, accusing you again and again of saying and meaning things you never said or meant! Perhaps I should repent of having described Wesley’s defense of complimentarianism as well considered. I will attempt to save face by submitting that it was well considered in the sense of his having put a lot of thought into it. You, however, clearly prevail on the substance of the various points in question.

    Still, I hope that Wesley will continue the conversation. For my part, I hope I can now resist the temptation to participate further until this evening. Until then, I really do need to get to work.

    Like

  34. Gary W you have me all wrong. The rhetorical claim of straw men or tin men is useless. I am also not attempting to discredit JA. I like JA and I am sympathetic towards her cause. I, however, after reading her article felt the need to let her know how her article was coming across because I do not believe that is the way JA intends to come across. I am thankful for her clarification and pointed out the particular statements that gave that feel to the article.

    Thanks for being honest in your first response and condescending in your second response :-). I had forgotten how much fun this can be.

    Like

  35. Wes, I’m happy you are representing then. 🙂 but here’s the rub; if there s a major (or minor) decision to make and your wife disagrees with you, do you do it anyway? I grew up under complementarianism but am feeling myself skew toward egalitarianism. The reason being I feel in my own marriage ( not speaking for anyone else) for me to make a decision my disagreed with would be sin, and likewise for her. The complementarianism I’ve talked to say, the husband should say yes over his wife’s no. But where’s the faith in that? If God revealed something to me, is He so weak that he can’t show my wife too?

    Like

  36. There are ties between the two groups, and its not that hard to find them. I realize some will say they are two totally different groups, but you can’t ignore the evidence. Mohler for example as praised Mahaney, and they have spoken together at conferences, etc. On my jaded side? If you tell my secrets I will tell yours could be part of it. If you look at the Southern Baptist’s they have a run of child molesters. They like to use that ‘independent’ clause to not deal with it. No doubt they both have skeletons in their closet. It could be that downright human factor of fear if one goes down they all could.

    They could also be like most of secular world in the sense that they will not say anything unless they are forced to. Mahaney and his group of churches are ‘friends’ with the second group. He is innocent until proven guilty. Its one of those odd circumstances in which they can call out others – outside the group of friends – on things because its evident. Yet, they hide behind the legal terms when it suits them. It looks really bad, and yet I think within their bubble they don’t grasp HOW bad! Their insulated – lets face it! What influence they maybe able to peddle within the bubble doesn’t always work outside of it. They have only begun to realize this.

    The Southern Baptists have been losing membership for years. They have been griping about it as well. They aren’t as close to rock bottom as Mahaney is right now.

    What always boggled my mind about losing memberships? They get defensive and blame the world for the demise, and never EVER look within to see if something they are doing COULD be part of the issue. If they do admit something? Its normally along something pretty minor. The rest (those outside the church) are just not right with God, and that excuse satisfies them.

    They will speak in time. When the lawsuit is over, and some things come to the surface? Everyone makes mistakes, Everyone is a sinner, We need to forgive, etc. The normal stuff that is floated out will be offered, and they will lose more members in response. They are big on ownership on your own stuff – outside the bubble – but sadly they truly can’t grasp that it means the same within. Their own insulation could be part of their demise. They might be surprised at how accepting people could be if they could get real, but sadly I think they are to afraid to do that.

    Like

  37. Seth the answer is that depends. I will ask her to clarify why she doesn’t agree and to present her case for her desire. I will then make the final decision. I know that statement will kill some of this audience but that is ok. I will generally decide which way I will go based on several factors. The first being her happiness & security, secondly family stability, thirdly my wisdom 🙂 . If the decision is not the one she desired she is supportive because she knows what drives the decision making. I think this more closely parallels Christ’s leadership of the church through His own sacrifice for our good which for me is complimentarianism in the biblical sense.

    Like

  38. Gary, I agree with some of Wes s points. I didn’t think he was mis representing. I personally need ppl like him around to explain his side.

    Like

  39. Wesley,

    O.K., I can’t resist responding to you. It seems that to say something nice is to be honest, but to qualify the compliment (or whatever it is that you find objectionable) is to condescend. No. I simply think Julie Anne got the better of you in the particular discussion you initiated this morning. And, by the by, is it possible that to accuse somebody of being condescending can in and of itself be an act of condescension? I’m not saying you consciously intended it that way.

    As to the substance of these discussions, have you studied Koine Greek? If so, what do you think of my analysis of Ephesians 5:21 ff, posted at 7:43? Whether or not you have studied Greek, do you happen to agree, at least, that husband and wife are to be in mutual submission to one another? Or do you think that the wife is to be more submitted to the husband than is required of the husband with respect to the wife?

    Like

  40. Hannah – I thought how ironic that this is a woman who seems to want all women to be home barefoot and pregnant. It seems she spent quite a few years in the workforce and in school to become an attorney. And it seems that at least some of those years were after she got married.

    Three words, Julie Anne: QUEEN. BEE. SYNDROME.

    Like

  41. You didn’t kill me Wes, lol. You’re consistent with other complementarians I’ve read. I guess I don’t see the Christ-church analogy as helpful. I view communion within the Trinity as what my marriage should be like.

    Like

  42. It was Kevin Swanson’s extreme comment about embedded dead babies that caused me to question him and his agenda. It is CBMW’s extremes that cause me to look further at their agenda. Usually when you find extreme talk, you find an agenda.

    And we are living in an Age of Extremes, where the Prime Virtue is “More Extreme Than Thou” and Ideology overrides Reality.

    And it just so happens that the same people who are being extreme with this agenda are the same ones ignoring the victims of SGM by remaining silent. Why is that connection there?

    Simple: “HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE! WE CAN DO NO WRONG! HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE! HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE!”

    Like

  43. How True:

    …Age of Extremes, where the Prime Virtue is ‘More Extreme Than Thou’ and Ideology overrides Reality.

    Its sad as well. You can’t debate or discuss anything if people are hell bent on being irrational.

    Like

  44. Seth,

    I also agree with some of Wesley’s points. I would be hard pressed to find a lot of fault with anything he says in his paragraph that contains the sentence, “God has created us so that husbands and wives complete each other so that the two become one according to Scripture.” My problem is in the way apparently sound principles get applied in real life. My problem is in the way so many men (and women) twist Scripture so that an injunction to be in mutual submission gets boot strapped into an imposition of male “authority” on the “subordinate” woman.

    But please, don’t tell Wesley that I agree with him on anything. At least, not just yet. 🙂

    Like

  45. Point #1 is a result of the feel of the article. Male leadership is painted as a controlling/abusive thing that leads to abuse so since there has to be some type of leadership female leadership would be the obvious choice for benevolent leadership.

    That seems to be a wild assumption that never entered my mind. Read more closely, Wesley – I’m talking about a specific group of men, not all men.

    Because CJ failed to carry out a duty of overseeing multiple churches which God never gave to any person that does not mean he doesn’t understand complementarianism as taught in Scripture.

    Wesley, I am very concerned that a man who has been held up as a model/spokesman for complementarianism could be so wrong in handling abuse cases. He is very highly respected among this group, yet if you talk to women from SGM churches, many would not call it complementarianism at all, but patriarchal. What I’m saying is that Mahaney talks from both sides of his mouth. When he’s with his CBMW friends, he says one thing, but what we see at his own family of churches is different. He considers the men to be priests of the home. The women, if they have an issue with their husband, are told to pray for their spouses. They are not told to go to authorities if they are being abused. Their voices are squelched. This is not complementarianism as I see it at all.

    Point #3 is a result of reading this statement in the article–”It seems to me, the religious right have been telling me for years about a “feminist agenda” that ruins traditional family values. I’m trying to make sense of what the big deal is. Is it wrong for women to want equal pay for equal work? Is it wrong for women to want to have voting rights? Is it wrong for women to be able to get a job that they are capable of doing because they are a woman?”

    You are reading far more into this than is written. Maybe I didn’t word it right, but I’m essentially asking what is this “feminist agenda” because I believe we all are on the same page as far as equal rights at work, voting, etc.

    JA I have trouble finding the Scripture that indicates that we are allowed to mistreat people who are mistreating us. I think there is a text that says something about when Jesus was reviled He did not revile back.

    Who is being mistreated, Wesley? I’ve read that women in SGM churches are being mistreated and leaders have failed to protect them and in some cases turn a blind eye encouraging women to remain with abusive spouses. Am I mistreating CJ for failure to protect his sheep? Guilty as charged.

    No problem though. I simply wanted to let you see how those who are not egalitarians may see the article. If the intent is to educate and persuade those who are wrong to repent then the information should be presented in a way that does not shove it down their throats and demean them  unless theological scholars on the complimentarian side of the reading of Scripture do not deserve the same courtesy as those on the other side.

    I think you are missing the point – – I’m pointing to a specific group of people promoting complementarianism: CBMW and Mahaney, specifically. I’m identifying those people as ones who use extreme verbiage which causes me to wonder what their agenda is.

    Like

  46. I get you JA. Did I miss a disclaimer to the effect that you are speaking of one extreme brand being billed as complimentarian when in reality their teachings are quite different from the majority of complimentarians. I think that disclaimer like my disclaimer would have let everyone know where you are coming from :-).

    Like

  47. Wesley said:

    I, however, after reading her article felt the need to let her know how her article was coming across because I do not believe that is the way JA intends to come across. I am thankful for her clarification and pointed out the particular statements that gave that feel to the article.

    Actually, Wesley, I would think you would be in agreement with me. I’ve said before that I have friends who call themselves complementarians. I like the way their marriage works. I see mutual respect with no lording over one another. The brand of complementarianism that Mahaney touts and what is actually going on in his churches is not the same.

    I’ve gotten the idea that you are not keen on abuse: spiritual, physical or otherwise. You’ve come to a blog that defends the battered sheep. We’ve got a couple of issues that I can see: church leaders who fail to deal appropriately with abuse and church leaders who go overboard in promoting their agenda of complementarianism (whose definition seems to vary as far as the east is from the west). I will have more on this topic to share. Maybe there will be better understanding as we continue.

    Thanks for being honest in your first response and condescending in your second response . I had forgotten how much fun this can be.

    HAHAHAHAHA!!! That’s good, Wesley!

    Like

  49. I have to respectfully disagree with the complementarian view of marriage. I do not believe that the Bible gives a “blueprint” of what men’s and women’s roles are in a marriage. Placing men and women in a box of what they should and shouldn’t do denies the person for being able to use the gifts that the Spirit bestows on each of us individually. Amazingly, the Bible does not indicate that the Spirit gives specific gifts based upon gender.

    When the women of the 60’s and 70’s started their movement, they were using their experience from their hard work during the civil rights movement. Remember, during that time, many believed that blacks were treated separate, but equal. This just wasn’t true. Women during this time felt the same way. They believed they had separate and unequal roles in society.

    I guess what I have a hard time understanding is why this issue is so important to many religious leaders and believers. To make distinctive marriage roles a primary issue, especially when all are one in Christ – male and female (Gal. 3:28), takes away from the gospel – the death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus. BTW – I have seen sites that will list the complimentarian view of marriage as a primary issue. I have even been in church services where this boxed view of men’s and women’s roles is preached on a Sunday morning.

    Like

  50. It’s too late Gary W. 🙂 .

    Seth, I don’t understand how the communion within the Trinity would help. I would think that the Father-Son relationship would produce a greater authority inequality than the Christ and church. I would also think that since God gives the analogy of Christ and the church to describe marriage and not the triune nature of God that it would be the best pattern to use. I think I know what you are saying but JA has cautioned me to read more closely………LOL.

    Like

  51. Ok, I just added the disclaimer, but even when typing it, I was shaking my head. I’m still struggling with the whole thing. Why is this so difficult? Why is it that even the CBMW people can’t agree on what it is and define the boundaries? If this is soooooo important as these men want to convince us, you would think that God would make it very perfectly clear and easy to understand. It is not. That’s why my gut tells me a lot of their rhetoric is pure nonsense. How many verses are there on this subject? Not many. If God wanted to make that big of a deal about it, I think we would see it all over scripture.

    Like

  52. Kathi – you are right – – I’ve heard in an interview with Stinson, Ware, Mahaney and one more person the gospel-importance of this complementarian issue.

    Like

  53. I’ve also seen an unhealthy, if unspoken attitude in regards to submission that yeah, somehow all women are insubordinate to men and must submit to almost any man in their lives. I had to correct a young woman because she thought that because she lived in the home of a husband and wife (who were trying to help parent her, but she’s now over 18), that she had to submit to him. I told her no, That passage says women are to submit to their own husbands. Of course, there would be certain house rules to submit too, but as far as his input on her future and what she should choose to do, he couldn’t dictate those things to her.

    I think my hubby and I are really middle of the road compimentarian/egalitarian. we both recognize strengths and weaknesses in each other and appreciate them as such. We make most decisions together and in prayer. If it comes down to hubby saying “I really think this is the way to go on this.” I usually listen because it’s soooo infrequent that he “puts his foot down” or desires his own way. And I’ve found that those rare occasions were profound and important and I was very happy I’d listened and agreed.

    Like

  55. Marie said:

    I’ve also seen an unhealthy, if unspoken attitude in regards to submission that yeah, somehow all women are insubordinate to men and must submit to almost any man in their lives. I had to correct a young woman because she thought that because she lived in the home of a husband and wife (who were trying to help parent her, but she’s now over 18), that she had to submit to him.

    Good for you for correcting her, Marie. This is a very dangerous situation we often see in patriarchy, where men think or act like they own women and children. Men are one status and women/children are below them in hierarchal structure. This is so wrong.

    Like

  56. Oh I’ve also been called a “feminist” by my Homeschooling friends, because I took offense at a class offered at a H.S. conference. It was for the dad’s and it was something along the lines of how to teach their sons how to manage money for the household. And i said, and why can’t they learn this to teach to their daughters as well????
    now my friends were kind of joking as they all admitted that most of them did the finances at home as well. But I think I also made them uncomfortable in pointing that out…at questioning something at the conference……

    Like

  57. and yet, it seems the women are the ones asking for this?? I don’t understand that at all. How many women are trying to turn their own families and husbands into these sorts of roles? It’s quite puzzling to me.

    Like

  58. I looked on the CBMW website and it looks like most (if not all) of their organization is guided by Leaders that would make the “who’s, who” list of modern day Calvinist.

    This may or may not be relevant, but I thought I would waste some space and bring it up anyway.

    Like

  59. Marie: You’ve just given me an idea to scour the internet world for workshop descriptions. I think people outside of homeschooling would be surprised at the classes offered by the Homeschool Movement.

    Like

  61. Have you read Rachel Held Evan’s “The Year of Biblical Womanhood?” I think she deals with the questions you have very well.

    Like

  63. Wesley, the Father and Son are equals. You believe that right? And I don’t think God makes a decision unless Father and Son agree. Hence, “let Us make man in our image.” I think that’s a better model for marriage than the Christ church one.

    Like

  64. Kathi to think that God would not address male and female roles is inconsistent with God’s pattern in Scripture. God seems to be very specific in the roles of people in relationships and to use Gal. 3:28 to eradicate the clear teaching and pattern of gender specific roles in Scripture is not orthodox hermeneutics.

    It would also seem strange to say that God describing gender specific roles would be “putting people in boxes” is to ignore the fact that it is simply a description of God’s design that has been marred by sin. The Gospel is restorative in that it restores humanity to a relationship with God by aligning us with God’s original intent for us. That would include God’s original intent when He created humanity. To deny that God created Adam to keep the garden and tend it and Eve to be a fit helper for him is indefensible. It is also unthinkable that having the role of a helper is demeaning when the same role is ascribed to the Holy Ghost.

    These role definitions are important to Christians simply because we believe that they reflect the wisdom of God in our design. Because we believe God to be a benevolent God we believe that the roles that He has established for us as children, parents, citizens, members of congregations, employees, employers, and yes women and men are for our good.

    Hope this helps.

    Like

  65. Wes’s position is almost middle of the debate between comps and egals. Most egals say that who makes what decisions in the family should depend not on gender but on capability (gifts?), which Wes seems to support. Then there are the places where skills seem fairly equal and the two disagree (rare to close to the vanishing point), yet something has to be done. The first century church was into casting lots, and sometimes my spouse and I will toss a coin on those few, narrow, but necessary decisions. Or we alternate.

    Like

  67. A prof at Moody Bible Institute, who is fully complementarian, registered some of his deep concerns with how the comp. position has been played out in some places. ‘Wounds of a Friend: Complementarian’ is an article by John Koessler June 25/08 at Christianity Today.

    Here are a few excerpts that stood out to me regarding John’s concerns:

    “Complementarians need to recover a fully biblical view of women —and of handling theological disagreement.

    I am a complementarian. I believe the Bible teaches that God created men and women to serve different roles in the church and the home. But I am deeply concerned that some complementarians are missing the mark. In their efforts to restore God’s ideal, I fear they may actually distort it.

    Instead of focusing on what the Bible says about the relationship between men and women, complementarians too often give the impression that they care only about the place of women. This one-sided perspective is unhealthy and ultimately unbiblical.

    It is often said that men and women bear the image of God equally. But it might be more accurate to say that men and women bear God’s image together. Men and women collectively reflect the divine image; one without the other is incomplete. In addition, the Book of Genesis affirms men and women’s joint mandate to exercise dominion over creation. Men and women share this responsibility; neither can fulfill God’s mandate alone.

    Too often, complementarians approach theology only through a male lens. But in order to see the complete picture of what’s being taught in Scripture, we need the theological perspective of both sexes. If it is true that men and women see things differently, as we complementarians often assert, then stifling the feminine perspective can only lead to an inadequate theology. Adam’s first sin was his silence in the garden when Eve was being tempted.
    His subsequent sin has been to silence the voice of his God-given partner. . . .

    Is the complementarian assumption about a woman’s “highest calling” accurate? The Bible speaks highly of the roles of wife and mother. But if they are a woman’s highest calling, then why doesn’t Paul advise the unmarried in Corinth to seek marriage (1 Cor. 7:25-38)? Why does he admonish the married to “live as if they were not” (1 Cor. 7:29)? Even more striking, why didn’t Jesus commend Martha instead of Mary (Luke 10:42)? After all, her work in the kitchen reflected a woman’s traditional role. . . .

    I fear that complementarians, too, have gone beyond the Scriptures in our effort to preserve God’s design. Have we added our own traditions to the Bible’s teaching in an attempt to preserve biblical manhood and womanhood?
    While complementarians assume that men and women both have roles to play in society and in the church, we often give the impression that we are most interested in telling women what they can’t do. . . .

    I think part of the problem is that complementarians often extend the designated roles of men and women in the church into all areas of male-female contact—that is where it starts to get offensive.”

    Like

  68. Seth, I thought that was what you were getting at. I do believe that God the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal but I also believe that Scripture teaches that God the Son is in submission to God the Father and God the Spirit is in submission to God the Son. Passages like Jesus saying “I do always those things that please my Father” or “I have come to do my Father’s will” or “God sent the Son or Gave the Son” indicate this along with the normal usage of the words Father and Son. The Spirit appears in submission as He is sent by the Son, speaks of the Son and not Himself, etc. I don’t see a great difference between this dynamic and that of Christ and the church. Not a problem though Seth since you and I seem to both arrive at the same point.

    Like

  69. Mark asked about distinct difference between Calvinism and New Calvinism. I’m pretty sure a Calvinist can claim they are a Calvinist if they are on any point level of the 5-point scale. I understand a New Calvinist is a 5-pt Calvinist and perhaps adds more to it. Please don’t quote me, this has been my understanding over the last year of Calvinist/New Calvinist exposure. I just did a quick search and it seems this topic is as varied as the current complementarian one – there are many definitions/interpretations.

    In my limited experience, as one who has been observing abuse patterns for the past few years, what I see in New Calvinism circles is a very heavy emphasis on sin, but not balanced with grace. I see a strong hierarchal structure between church leaders/laity (not found in scripture). There is a devotion to Calvin, Edwards, and anything Puritan – – in fact, sometimes I see NCs quoting so much of these heroes, it makes me wonder how much Bible they are reading.

    Like

  70. ”’Oh I’ve also been called a “feminist” by my Homeschooling friends, because I took offense at a class offered at a H.S. conference. It was for the dad’s and it was something along the lines of how to teach their sons how to manage money for the household. And i said, and why can’t they learn this to teach to their daughters as well????”’

    This bothers me as well. I mean there is no common sense attached to it.

    I remember years ago we were at my folks house having dinner. We had just moved the grandparents up near us, and my parents had to take over their estate, finances, etc. Dad had mentioned that my mother took care of most of it, and basically said it was because she was good at it – AND the fact she did a much better of job than he would. I think she actually enjoyed doing so as well. In that way it was a positive all the way around. Dad didn’t like to do it – Mother did. Dad didn’t think he was good at it, and mother knew she was.

    They approached it as WHOM had the gift, and not so much the gender role deal. It didn’t make my father less of a man, and it didn’t give mother ‘power over’ or leadership in that sense. In that circumstance it was just the best thing to do.

    I think most of the time people use the ‘feminist’ label, because they feel its a less sinful way of name calling. Back to CBMW – if you look at their statements about feminism? What they describe most of the time doesn’t line up with the definition. What they describe is matriarchy overall. No doubt they would say there is no difference, but if you get outside their bubble? There clearly is. Their definition is women wanting power over men. Not all who advocate for gender equality are advocating for a woman’s “right” to “rule over” a man. That is just silly.

    Yet that is the definition they use. They insist that the definition (anything other them being their brand of comp) is all inclusive of wanting power over or rule over if the gender’s don’t follow their lists. I’m waiting for their dictionary to come out next, so other’s can follow their points. They seem to make up terms, and definitions as they go along. It gets confusing at times to truly see their points, and you have wonder why at times they are purposely vague. They may have a grain of truth in there, but you lose their overall message if you aren’t familiar with their lingo.

    Like

  71. Wesley,

    In what we accept as God’s Word, the Bible, Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters. He actually returned a slave to a slave’s master. Paul clearly accepted and even enabled the institution of slavery. Surely you do not believe that Paul’s teaching and practice with regard to slavery is binding to require that we also accept and enable slavery. Do you nevertheless believe that Paul’s teaching on the role of women in the church is binding today? I recall that you may be part of a denomination that does not have women pastors. How is it that we can look to Paul to justify the imposition of a subordinate role on women in the Church, while laughing (I trust) at the notion of honoring Paul’s teaching and practice with regard to slavery?

    Please note that the points I make in the preceding paragraph do not relate to the respective roles of husband and wife in marriage–only to the role of women in the church. Likely my wife would celebrate were I to more successfully emulate Jesus in my relationship with her. Although an abusive religious establishment took it on the chin from Jesus, I cannot think of a single example where Jesus is shown to have pulled rank or lorded it over his bride, the Church. Nor can I think of an example of Jesus lording it over or imposing his will on any individual member of his corporate bride. Maybe I’m missing something?

    Like

  72. Wesley, here is what I believe…

    Women and men are equally:

    Created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27).

    Share authority, dominion and agency in the world (Genesis 1:28).

    Responsible for and distorted by sin (Genesis 2:17, 3:11-19).

    Redeemed by Christ (John 3:16).

    Gifted by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17-18; Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 28; Ephesians 4:11-13).

    Responsible for using our God-given gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7, 2 Timothy 1:6-7).

    I have heard the arguments that you give for Bible based gender roles before. I’m sorry, but we will not agree on that issue.

    I think that both sides of the argument – complimentarian and egalitarian – often pick and choose scripture to meet their needs. I believe that the Bible should be read within its own culture and context. I also believe that the Bible is relevant today because God’s story is one of love, redemption and hope. That story is still as relevant today as it was in ancient times and in the early first century.

    Like

  73. Julie Anne,

    I get it. I isolated the word “Calvinist”. I am discovering that some Calvinist are distancing themselves as being recognized as a Calvinist. (New or Otherwise)

    Whether they admit to embracing 1 Point or a 5 Point Doctrine they are beginning to identity themselves as more Reformed and probably have given themselves a other titles in order to shake themselves of being recognized as an any point Calvinist..

    I expect at some point the Calvinist will distance themselves from being called Calvinist but still embrace some or all parts of TULIP.

    I have to admit, I don’t think you can be part Calvinist. I think being a “Luke Warm” Calvinist is risky.

    No disrespect to women including my own wife, but I thought if you are 1 Point Pregnant or 5 Point Pregnant you are still very Pregnant.

    Like

  74. Hannah – You make some interesting points @ 12:12 regarding the seminars at homeschooling conventions. It seems that over the last couple of year that my state’s Christian homeschool group has dramatically changed it’s seminars to where it is about 60% home/relationship based and 40% academic based. The last couple of years has seen more seminars geared toward men bringing back their roles in the home.

    Which kind of made me laugh a little. Honestly, every single homeschool friend that I have known over the past 10 years has very little involvement from the husband in what happens during school time. But, the agenda in the Christian homeschooling circuit has dramatically changed. I sense more fear based messages coming from “leaders” than anything else.

    As far as CBWM’s response to feminism, it seems that they are stuck on addressing radical feminism, which did want to see men overthrown. Many of the radical feminists started their own feminist organizations and would only do business with women-owned companies. Honestly, I think that our country has moved past this point of radical feminism that popped up in the 70’s. I think that people are just wanting equal opportunities for all women (and men).

    Like

  75. Gary W. if you realize that first of all Roman slavery and American slavery were two totally different animals with two totally different motivations his statements become quite sensible and applicable. Romans slaves were paid and could purchase their freedom. American slaves were exploited and usually slaves for life. You also miss the fact that Paul told the slave owner to receive the man back as a brother not as a servant. Most people do not own their brothers.

    I am afraid that I do believe that what Scripture teaches on the gender roles of humans is as applicable today as ever. Disregarding texts because they do not line up with American culture is dangerous at the least. It is the way that people justified American slavery in spite of the fact that it had no resemblance to slavery in the Egyptian or Roman Economy.

    Kathi, you are right. We will not agree because the texts are to clear for me to be guided by American culture. I am aware of the depths of depravity that American culture has sank in the past and find Scripture much more reliable.

    Like

  76. Wesley – In our 4 year chronological study of history, I have often thought of this, “Nothing new is under the sun.” (Ecc 1:9) Honestly, I don’t believe that we are any worse than many other cultures at different points in history. What we experience now is unique to our time and place, and so it seems as though we have sunk well below the depths of depravity.

    While I would love to see justice and equality for all people, no matter where they live, I know that Jesus offers us a greater peace and hope because he has overcome with world (John 16:33). That is the message people need to hear.

    Grace and peace to you.

    Like

  77. Wesley, I don’t think there’s much difference between the two sides when they are both more moderate. However, I’ve never heard a good answer from a complementarian on what exactly are biblical roles for men and women. Can you give me specific examples? Most can’t it seems, and ones I have heard don’t seem scriptural and also a little crazy. 🙂

    Like

  78. Arce

    @ APRIL 1, 2013 @ 5:09 PM – You mention – “Christians for Biblical Equality.”
    I thought they were for Equality until they refused to post some of my comments. 😉
    Seems my opinions are NOT quite equal with their opinions. LOL

    What their title does NOT say is – “Christians for Biblical Equality for ALL Christians.”

    CBE is interested in women being able to be “Pastor/Leaders” in “Todays Religious System.” And being considered equal with men “Pastor/Leaders.” BUT – Now, when a sheep, male or female, becomes a shepherd – We are NO longer equal. They are a shepherd and I‘m still a sheeple. They become a “Leader” and I’m still a follower – We are NO longer equal. They become the “Teacher” and I’m the student – We are NO longer equal.

    To me, Egals are similar to Comps and both are similar to the head Pig, Napoleon, in “Animal Farm,” who wanted the authority and control over others, who wanted the – Power – Profit – Prestige – who said…

    “All animals are Equal, but some animals are more Equal than others.”

    Egals now divide by gifts and talent – Comps divide by gender, gifts and talent – BUT – Still NO equality for ALL – Some are still more Equal, more important, then others. Still “us” and “them.”

    BUT – In the Bible, I see – we’re ALL brethren, ALL “ONE” in Christ, and “ONE” body. And when we come together ALL can teach, ALL can get revelation from Jesus. And Jesus is the “ONE” leader. And Jesus is the “ONE” shepherd.

    I like Jesus – A Lot. 😉

    Oh yea – and CBE, are like TGC, and the Comps I’ve debated. When they do NOT like the questions they ban you, delete you, or moderate you for eternity. 😉

    Oh – and I’m neither Comp nor Egal – there is another option…

    Jesus loves me this I know. 🙂

    Like

  79. Arce

    Here is what was NOT allowed to be posted on their blog.
    “When We Need Women Behind the Pulpits”
    http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2013/03/when-we-need-women-behind-the-pulpits/

    ———————-

    Since leaving “the Abusive Religious System” and fellowshipping with, and learning from, women on a regular basis. Yes – The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead lives in both male and female.

    I was wondering…
    Why Suggest we should have – “women behind the pulpits”

    Why would anyone want to punish women like that?

    Do you know the horrible statistics for those earning a living behind the pulpit?
    Paid – Professional – Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching – to People in Pews?

    Being “behind the pulpit” is “The Most Risky Profession” – so says Christianity Today…
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/mostriskyprofession.html?start=1

    According to – Francis A. Schaeffer’s ministry “Into Thy Word” researching pastoral trends – Pulpiteers – “are in a dangerous occupation… the single most stressful and frustrating working profession, more than medical doctors, lawyers, politicians…
    http://www.intothyword.org/articles_view.asp?articleid=36562&columnid=
    • 77% say they do “not” have a good marriage.
    • 71% have felt burned out or depressed.

    And, “Pastoral Care Inc.” A ministry working with “Hurting pastors” writes…
    http://www.pastoralcareinc.com/statistics/
    # 80% of pastors’ spouses wish they would choose a different profession.
    # 80% believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.
    …………..Many pastor’s children do not attend church now
    ……………because of what the church has done to their parents.
    # 50% of the ministers starting out will not last 5 years.
    # 33% state that being in the ministry is an outright hazard to their family.
    #1 reason pastors leave the ministry — Church people are not willing to go
    the same direction and goal of the pastor.

    Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
    NOT one of His Disciples had the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called them self – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called another Disciple – pastor/leader/reverend?

    What is popular is not always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is not always popular.

    Like

  80. Thanks Kathi. Grace and peace to you as well.

    Seth I will have to wait to respond to your comment. I have to leave work and make the 40 minute drive home and then attend a civic meeting a 5 pm so it will be a while.

    Like

  81. Arce

    And Pastor/Leades think they are the ones responsible for building God’s kingdom.
    And they can NOT even manage their own life and want to run mine. 😉

    This is who is telling us about Comp and Egal – Shhhheeeessshhh – 😉
    This is who is telling us – They are running the show. 🙂

    # 80% of pastors’ spouses wish they would choose a different profession.
    # 80% believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.
    • 77% say they do “not” have a good marriage.
    • 71% have felt burned out or depressed.

    ——————

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Like

  82. How do roles or absense of roles work for someone who’s single? Am I complementarian because I do jobs I probably wouldn’t do if I had a husband to do them (changing seasonal tires, laying flooring, putting up Christmas lights), or am I egalitarian because I do them myself rather than find and hire a tradesman? 😉

    Like

  83. Great question, Shannon. I know one way you can get simple answers: move into a patriarchal home and let daddy decide everything for you until he decides to choose a spouse for you and let you get married.

    Like

  85. Hmm, you’ve given me an idea, Julie Anne. I could also go to a patriarchal-teaching church and tell the minister I need men of the church to do these jobs for me. Free labour! LOL

    Like

  86. It might put a crimp in your social life, though. Be forewarned, Shannon 🙂

    That makes me wonder – – how would a patriarchal man treat a young lady visiting their church who didn’t adhere to the patriarchal lifestyle? Do they brush their role aside and let her do her thang or do they hang onto their perceived notion of authority. Shannon – – can you go test this out for us and report back? LOL

    Like

  87. It’s very silly, Hannah! The Bible doesn’t even talk all that much about marriage and families yet these people make such a huge issue of it. God gave people brains and free will, so why on earth do these men want to take that away from women?

    Like

  88. Amos – So it’s interesting you touched a hornet’s nest for both Comp and Egal groups – – -so both sides want to hold on to that pastor/church leader role as a hierarchal position. I’m always disappointed when I hear of people banned from a blog for having a different viewpoint. It seems wussy to me.

    Like

  89. “Shannon – – can you go test this out for us and report back? LOL”

    Well, I’m 49 so I’m not young. I suspect they’d try to match me up with a widower or ignore me. And well, um, I’m not anxious to find out. LOL

    Like

  90. LOL – I don’t blame you. It would be interesting to find out. In many patriarchal circles, all men are revered – doesn’t matter if he’s your dad or not. Again, women are 2nd class.

    Like

  91. Julie Anne

    Yes – Turning over tables with both Comps and Egals – Having to much fun. 🙂

    And – IMO – you are correct…
    “both sides want to hold on to that pastor/church leader role as a hierarchal position.”

    Yup – I see both sides are fighting for the – Power – profit – Prestige – Honor – Glory – Recognition – Reputation – etc, that comes with the “Title/Position” pastor/leader/reverend. Oy Vey!!! 😦

    To be a liitle fair with the folks at CBE – I wasn’t banned – NOT yet anyway. 😉
    They just would NOT post that comment. I e-mailed and asked why?

    They did say “While what you have to say is no doubt true…” And still did NOT post.
    Here is part of the response –
    “We decided that it did not really contribute to the poster’s intention or add meaningful comment to the discussion at hand. While what you have to say is no doubt true in an ideal world the fact is that we do have the organised church and it will be with us until Christ returns.”

    I have been discussing this with them with e-mails behind the scenes since Mar 11th. I kinda like these folks but we certainly dis-agree about stuff. And, of course they pulled out their trump card, Heb 13:17, for having “Leaders.”

    Hmmm?
    Does Heb 13:17, sound familiar? I just got started today explaining my take on that.
    And the qualifications for those who think they are the “Leaders” in Heb 13:17.

    So, the CBE folks are keeping me busy. 🙂

    And, this was a great article about – Screwy Louie Comps
    And I say that with all due respect.

    Comp – A Four letter word if I ever heard one. 😉

    Like

  92. Yup, Amos, there’s that famous hierarchal verse they like to use and twist to mean what they want. What a shame. And it’s odd that they would agree with you behind the scenes.

    Like

  94. Julie Anne

    Like you, it was only a couple of years ago I first heard of “complementarian and egalitarian” and my spell checker freaked out.

    Today I’m neither Comp nor Egal – I see another option 😉

    Today I see the “egalitarian” stance as someone moving to New York City and telling the “Organized Crime Families” – Women can lead as well as men – And women should be leading an “Organized Crime Family.”

    Would any “egalitarian” here demand that?

    Questions I ask often is…

    Why do women seek equality In “The Corrupt Religious System?”

    Why do women want to be leaders? When Jesus taught His Disciples
    NOT to be called leaders? – for you have “ONE” leader – Jesus? – Mat 23:10 NASB

    Why do women want to be a “leader” and have sheeple follow them?
    When Jesus asks His sheep – To Hear His Voice – And Follow Jesus?

    Leadership – Is EX-clusive – Only for a special few.
    Servantship – Is IN-clusive – Available to ALL.

    If I have a choice on who to follow – A Man? A Women? Or Jesus?

    Guess which “ONE” I choose?

    Like

  95. Amos, to give a quick answer to your question. You have made some thoughtful points. And yes, the whole issue of being a leader in a church, whether male or female, can be problematic. This could be a rather huge discussion. You have described some things that come to mind.

    On the other hand, I believe that you have short changed the egalitarian view. As one person pointed out, they came to an egalitarian view through seeking a deeper understanding of the NT Scriptures. Biblical equality and mutuality is a healthy place for churches and for homes. Gender equality is a healthier way for society to be as a whole.

    The point that I referenced earlier is that: an egalitarian view ought to be much broader, a more world view focus, rather than just a view of what women should or should not do in the local church. Grasping how women are oppressed worldwide causes the heart to long for a glimpse of egalitarian beliefs and practices that offer hope and healing in a broken world.

    “Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a pre-condition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.”
    ~ Kofi Anna Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1997 to 2006

    Like

  96. I think we have 2 separate issues going on here, Amos: comp/egal situation we’ve been discussing and whether any church leader/pastor should have any sort of hierarchal position over someone else spiritually or otherwise. I understand your frustration with both. I, too, have difficulty with both of the issues. I personally don’t have a problem with the pastorate if they are following biblical guidelines and leading, guiding, like a shepherd. There are many decent pastors who take that job seriously. Once they take that authoritarian position in a way that crosses the line, I have issues.

    Interestingly, I started this blog discussing dangerous and abusive things pastors do to warn others and along the way I’ve made friends with pastors who are coming along side me in this battle. These friends are very dear to me and even though they are not “my” pastor, I know they care for my soul and pray for me.

    Like

  97. Wesley,

    So then, you defend the authority of Paul with regard to all his instructions, without exception, even if it means justifying the practice of the Roman form of slavery. Does this mean you think it is Biblically acceptable to own slaves even today, so long as the Roman form of slavery is followed? Do you really mean that, if the law permitted it, and so long as the Roman model is followed, it would be morally and Biblically acceptable for you or me to own slaves? Would American slavery have been acceptable if it had been in accordance with what you say was the form of slavery accepted and enabled by Paul?

    For the record, the answer to every one of these questions is a resounding “no.” Yet, you must answer each question “yes” if you wish to protect the position that Paul’s teaching, or supposed teaching, on the place of women in the church is as binding today as it was some 2000 years ago. After all, if Paul’s acceptance and enabling of slavery does not apply today, then maybe, just maybe, his instructions or supposed instructions regarding the role of women in the church are not binding except in the particular legal, cultural, social and ecclesiastical context of his day.

    Polygamy was tolerated by God and men for thousands of years before the practice was finally seen to be objectionable, at least in most places and cultures. It took maybe another 2000 years for mankind to come to the realization that the ownership of one person by another is morally abhorrent. Surely it is past time to realize that in the Kingdom of God there is no distinction between the status of men and the status of women. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 ESV).

    Like

  98. Amos,
    I have been in a church that practiced an egalitarian approach to church governance. The monthly business meeting was the deciding body, and neither the deacons nor the pastor had any particular say about church business. In part that was because the pastor was committed to the priesthood of each and every believer and chose to resist acts that could influence church discussions and votes. The church had a democratically elected nominating committee that sought suggestions from the congregation for teachers and committee members for the committees that would be responsible for watching an area of church life and reporting to and making suggestions for church action in the business meeting. All meetings were open. Worked phenomenally well.

    And yet, there often was a query during a discussion: “Pastor, what do you think about that.” And his response was always something like “Well, I think that this discussion has been helpful to you all in making a decision, so perhaps it is time for you to vote.” Obviously avoiding making his thoughts known b/c he knew it would carry more weight with some that the ideas of any other.

    So it was not hierarchical in operation, but that took a studious effort by the pastor to avoid being lured into a situation where he would have the final say. He was truly a servant of the congregation, and believed his position was at the bottom of the chart, not the top. And a good preacher in exegeting the scripture, visiting the sick and grieving, and helping the deacons carry out their ministry to the congregation as well.

    Like

  99. Gary W. Roman slavery does not exist now because there are no conquered nations. OT slavery does not exist today because debts are erased at the lenders expense by bankruptcy.

    I am more willing to accept slavery as presented in the Bible than to force the Scriptures to bow to our cultural norms instead of transforming our cultural norms. When your hermeneutic is applied then people are able to justify enslaving Africans and African-americans because they are different. When the writings of Paul are taken in their entirety this becomes unacceptable because we are to proclaim the gospel to all people and we are to treat them as siblings and people don’t usually own their relatives.

    I am not willing to disregard the biblical teaching beginning in Genesis and continuing throughout Scripture by principle and example that females were created to operate in the same way that Scripture says the Holy Spirit operates as a parakaleo or help. I am especially uncomfortable doing this to bow to an American culture that still has problems with the equal and just treatment of African-Americans. I will go with the entirety of Scripture.

    Like

  100. Another healthy way of church governance is having a team of godly, biblically trained, and willing leaders who seek to serve. Rich is the church community who engages both genders in ministry. Paying attention to giftings in a community and mentoring others in their callings also enriches a local assembly.

    There is much pain that the spiritually abused have felt in the institutional church, but there are pockets of Holy Spirit growth and activity and the Kingdom of God is advanced. The Holy Spirit also moves through those who have been disenfranchised by the church. It is an opportunity for those who have ‘been there, done that’ and those who seek healthy places for God’s people to worship and serve together to share their insights, if at all possible, so that everyone can benefit.

    People who have processed their own experiences of spiritual abuse and have healed from it can be a wealth of knowledge and wisdom for all kinds of folks who ‘gather’ in the name of Christ.

    Like

  101. Wesley – You touched on another thing that has struck me among those who get on the American culture bandwagon. It kind of reminds me of a postcard I got in Texas a while back depicting a map of the US in which Texas took up 80% of the land – indicating that everything is big in Texas. We all laughed.

    I think Americans have the same attitude about the US – as if the world exists only in America. When Schlafly and CBMW and these folks talk, they keep talking about culture, but they seem to be talking about primarily American culture. Aren’t there Christians all around the world? Where do they fit in? And why do American church leaders get to speak for the worlds’ Christians as if they are the experts of the world? Surely I can’t be the only one who has noticed this.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)