ESV Gospel Transformation Bible: Complementarian Conflict of Colossal Proportions

*     *     *

Oh boy.  I did not know this.   There is a new ESV Bible by Crossway to be released later this month:  Gospel Transformation Bible.   Look at this quote:

A team of over 50 pastors and scholars contributed to the Gospel Transformation Bible notes and book introductions.

 

Screen shot 2013-09-03 at 12.03.49 AM

In the quote above, when it says “50 pastors and scholars,” did it ever occur to you that they could be referring to WOMEN in that number?  Whoa, blow me down.

Why would strong complementarian men endorse and contribute to a Bible which has notes written by women in addition to men?  Think about it – when you are reading the notes in your Bible, you are being taught.     A woman teaching a man through the notes?  That’s not going to fly with complementarians, right?

Are these men compromising their strong complementarian standards?

Let’s take a look at who is endorsing this Bible.  Are you ready for this – how about Mark Driscoll?!?!

“This is a fantastic tool for Jesus-centered Bible study compiled by a world class team of Bible teachers.”
MARK DRISCOLL, Founder, Mars Hill Church, Resurgence; Co-Founder, Acts 29

And then there’s Carl Trueman:

“Crossway has done a fine job in recruiting an able list of contributors and the thoughtful Christian will find much here that is encouraging, challenging and transforming. I anticipate this will be useful tool for preachers, Bible study leaders, and individual Christians who wish to study the Bible more effectively.”
Carl R. Trueman, Paul Woolley Professor of Church History, WTS

But check this out – CJ Mahaney!!!!    So many YRR pastors fawn over Mahaney and highly respect him for his strong stance on compelmentarianism.  I’ve heard mention that in Sovereign Grace Ministry church’s membership agreement, married couples sign that they are in alignment with the complementarian view of marriage.  So, let’s think this through.  He wants all of his church members to be complementarians – and yet he’s okay with women teaching men in the notes in the Bible?    hmm

Now this one is one of the bigger surprise endorsements – Owen Strachan, the Executive Director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood  – you know, the organization that is in existence to remind and interpret for us Biblical gender roles because we can’t figure it out ourselves.    Here is Strachan’s endorsement:

“This is a remarkably helpful resource, both an accessible Bible commentary and a theology of redemption. The Word of God is a living symphony, with many sections and parts, and in this unique resource we hear the harmony of salvation.”
Owen Strachan, Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History, Boyce College

Here is a complete listing of endorsements.  You will probably recognize more names.

In light of some very strong teachings on women’s roles in the church and specifically who women are allowed to teach Biblically, it was very surprising for me to see that Bruce Ware went even beyond endorsing this Bible – – he was a contributor along with other women.  :::::ja’s head is sooooo confused:::::

Bruce Ware, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is a council member at Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).  The following excerpt comes from an ethicsdaily.com article which has been removed, but I found the entire original article linked at theopotic musings blog.  It is common knowledge that anyone who is a member of  CBMW is a strong proponent of complementarianism.  You tell me if it sounds like he is agreeable to women in a teaching position over men.

“It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God’s ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as–for the most part, generally this is true–as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man’s position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men,” Ware said. “Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God’s design for her as a woman.”

Kevin DeYoung is another contributor to this particular ESV translation.  It took me one minute on Google to find this excerpt written by Kevin regarding men/women roles and teaching:

3.  Most importantly, Christians must affirm and teach and model that men and women are different—biologically, emotionally, relationally. There are a lot of passages I could turn to make this point, but I’ll limit myself to 1 Corinthians. Here we see that the husband is the head of his wife (1 Cor. 11:3). We see men have a teaching role in the church that women do not have (14:34).  Source

Who can explain this disconnect for me?  I’m completely baffled.

 

*     *    *

Related link:  

Photo credit:  Source

I need to give a special h/t to Tony Miano for tweeting about this (you know, that Tony Miano).

431 comments on “ESV Gospel Transformation Bible: Complementarian Conflict of Colossal Proportions

  1. @ JA 11:06~

    “Diane – I had to do it:
    Julie Anne @DefendTheSheep
    I see that Street evangelist @TonyMiano is busy at work debating on Twitter while wife works to bring home the bacon = egalitarian? 1Tim5:8”

    I don’t know…maybe he thinks since Jesus had women supporting Him, he can too. (Luke 8:1-3). But one of those supporting Jesus was Joanna, who was married. How was she able to do that?

    If Jesus is a complementarian…..(I think he meant complementarian)

    “Tony Miano ‏@TonyMiano 32m
    “. @jon_michael21 @fergbreen @micahjmurray @BethelRedding Jesus the Creator is not an egalitarian. He is a complimentarian.””

    (Btw I agree. Jesus gives lots of compliments.)

    ….then why didn’t Jesus set Johanna straight and get her back home intelligently and joyfully submitting to Chuza? That whole Joanna following Jesus around and supporting Him while married to Chuza can’t have looked too complementarian.

    Like

  2. Eric I am afraid that you have me all wrong. I am adamantly opposed to the paternalism that goes on in America across racial lines so I am very careful not to speak to others in that way. I would assume by paternalism you mean the tongue-lashing that you have been giving out for the last few posts. I don’t think any of my posts exhibit the same attitude.

    I have not personally insulted anyone or assumed that anyone’s position would have to arrive at “my logical conclusion” but I have been subjected to it. I have come to expect that in this arena though this should be the last place that it takes place.

    Is it a word game when I say that I am Baptist and you realize that that could mean anything? There are nuances and I have simply stated that the same is true for those claiming to be comp. You and others seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that like you do not want to be categorized by some pastor who thinks he is the final authority along with his henchmen, I refuse to let others define me. I will go with the dictionary definition of the word complementary as “completing or supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks”. It is that simple.

    Like

  3. @ JA~

    And his twitter debate re: Bethel/Bill Johnson…well, Miano won’\t get any argument from me regarding the utter wackiness that is Bethel in Redding, CA.

    But I will say that since he thinks it’s so horrid there, and people are being deceived, (imo they are) and it’s a satanic this or that and souls are perishing and let’s tweet about how bad it is there every 2 seconds…then I have to ask…why the delay? He posts how he is heading to Bethel “in the spring” to given ’em the gospel because they sure do need it there.

    Spring? That’s 6 months of soul perishing on his head. Why wait? I say when he gets his $200, he should gas up the car load up and start yelling. It’s only a 7 hour drive from his home to Redding. Surely preaching the gospel to the satanic, deceived twitter-worthy souls at Bethel is much more important than funding a rap song, right?

    Like

  4. @Eric,

    I’ve gone many rounds with many people on many topics for many years. I blogged for about 12 years and stopped last year, though I’ve had plenty of other work going on, which I recently finished and now have some extra time. That’s how I wound up here (that, and a Facebook post). And if you visit my blog (http://www.fether.net) or books site (http://books.fether.net), you’ll see that I don’t pull any punches either… which is probably why I’m not popular. 🙂 But then, people of conviction rarely are.

    And one recurring theme of mine has been this very issue of trying to conduct a polite garden party in a “jungle”. As Han Solo put it, “I prefer a straight fight to all this sneakin’ around”. But we are in someone else’s home, and I give them the same respect I’d hope to have from them if we were in mine.

    But the point is well taken and agreed with: This is a war; it is a war that tears apart the Body of Christ. Whether clergy/laity or male/female, such divisions are the very things we were warned about in scripture. And regardless of the efforts of organizations such as CBE and many egals in blogs just like this, the church and the world walk lockstep in hierarchical chains. And yet those of us who would break those chains are told not to make too much noise, not to upset the taskmasters, not to look or speak if we don’t like the chains. (Note to blog owner: not directed at you personally 🙂 ) If reasoned discourse were possible, it would be the norm. But experience has taught me that it truly cannot happen, and will not happen, as long as the disciples are still vying for places of prominence at Jesus’ right and left.

    So while I do respect the blog owner’s wishes, I also agree with your point: that this war is raging all over the world, not in a quiet library. And I don’t know what to tell you to do, because as we both know, it wouldn’t change a thing.

    Like

  5. I think that what has been noted here, is that both Brian and Wesley shows that the definition of complementarianism is different than that of what is being taught by complementarians.

    I say, forget that word altogether, and just live NATUARALLY. My golly goodness. What comes naturally is neither comp, nor egl. It just is what it is.

    Live like Adam and Eve lived BEFORE THE FALL. How did they live? IF Jesus restored us, then why all this talk about compl/egl in the first place?

    Submitting to Christ is freedom, not domination, not the RULE that some wish to define it as. God is not about rules. The rules were set up in order to make us fail. We failed. Get rid of the rules and we win.

    Women submit NATURALLY, without rules. I said that before on this thread. I also prefaced that with that the man must earn that submission/respect. If the men are not submitting to Christ’s freedom, then how can he expect respect? Men are not to demand it, because that is what they THINK that the Bible demands that the man have respect. There is a prerequisite for the man. And from what I have seen in numerous variations of this topic, men really are not submitting to the freedom of Christ. They see it as a bunch of rules and regs to be “obedient” to.

    We are to be obedient to faith. That is what it is to be obedient to God. Not rules/regs.

    When are people going to open their eyes? Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind, while telling the Pharisees that if they were blind, they would have no sin, but since they claim to see, they remain in their sin.

    BE FREE PEOPLE. Stop with the rules and regs. Submit to freedom, do not submit to bondage. Comp is bondage. It is defined as freedom, but disguised as bondage. False advertising, and Brian is being the salesman, and Wesley bought two of what Brian is selling.

    Ed

    Like

  6. I was with you chap until you said I bought what Brian was selling. I am afraid I was comp in practice before I knew what it was called. It is quite natural and we have the liberty in Christ to order our marriage and home as comps. Thanks for the plug for freedom. I feel so much better.

    Like

  7. “Women submit NATURALLY, without rules. I said that before on this thread. I also prefaced that with that the man must earn that submission/respect. If the men are not submitting to Christ’s freedom, then how can he expect respect? Men are not to demand it, because that is what they THINK that the Bible demands that the man have respect. There is a prerequisite for the man. And from what I have seen in numerous variations of this topic, men really are not submitting to the freedom of Christ. They see it as a bunch of rules and regs to be “obedient” to.”

    What?

    “Women submit naturally?” If that were true, no woman would ever fail to submit, and there’d be no debate. The fact that this debate rages is proof enough that submission, for either gender, is unnatural. The natural thing to do is be selfish and demand our own way. Part of growing up is learning to relate to others in healthy, MUTUALLY-beneficial ways, as equals. If anyone needs to learn submission, it is the many, many men who demand that others submit to them. Respect must indeed be earned, but it is not the exclusive domain of men. Women, as adult human beings of equal worth, have every bit as much right to that same respect as men.

    When, oh when, will people treat each other as people first, and not flesh first? I despair of this simple point getting across.

    Like

  8. Wesley Roy,

    You know my banter with you is all in fun. For the most part, I’ve agreed with what you said, but you put a label on it. My only label is the word “natural”.

    When I was married, I wasn’t a Christian, and I did the dishes from time to time. My ex was a mechanic on cars. I was a pencil pusher, she was mechanically inclined.

    Remember the movie, My Cousin Vinney?

    Ed

    Like

  9. I thought it was our normal banter Chap….LOL I am not partial to labels either. They seldom accurately disclose the contents of the package.

    Like

  10. Boatrocker,

    You had said:
    ““Women submit naturally?” If that were true, no woman would ever fail to submit, and there’d be no debate. The fact that this debate rages is proof enough that submission, for either gender, is unnatural. The natural thing to do is be selfish and demand our own way. Part of growing up is learning to relate to others in healthy, MUTUALLY-beneficial ways, as equals. If anyone needs to learn submission, it is the many, many men who demand that others submit to them. Respect must indeed be earned, but it is not the exclusive domain of men. Women, as adult human beings of equal worth, have every bit as much right to that same respect as men.”

    The debate is due to rules and regs.

    When I say naturally, I am saying to get rid of the books that define compl/egl.

    My mom respected my dad. She submitted to him. There was no debate. The natural thing is NOT to do it our own way. That is only if you live in the flesh.

    If you live in the flesh, you are adhering to rules and regs to attempt to control the flesh, therefore, debate debate debate, not solving anything.

    But if you live in the spirit, as what is advised to Christians, then you are submitting to freedom. Both sexes. I agree with you in your last few sentences, that it goes both ways. I should clarify that my stance is both ways, not one way, as both are to submit to each other. My focus was more on the woman submitting to the man because the man demands it.

    Keep rocking the boat. I like what you rock!!

    Ed

    Like

  11. “Tony is on his way to become Taliban lite.

    Soon his wife and daughters will be wearing a burka.”

    Funny you should say that… I call the bonnet/prairie dress outfit the “Christian burqa”.

    Like

  12. “Women submit naturally?” If that were true, no woman would ever fail to submit, and there’d be no debate.

    *******

    I think I get this. Let me see if I can share my thoughts. When a man is loving his wife the way Christ loves the church, a woman is naturally inclined to move toward her husband. That kind of love is attractive/appealing – she wants more of that and that will look like “submission” – it’s a choice on her part to respond. It’s when a man demands submission and wants to exercise authority that a woman reacts. So, it makes sense to me that if a woman is reacting, then the man ought to do a heart check and see what his attitude/behavior was like. Does that make sense?

    Like

  13. Funny you should say that… I call the bonnet/prairie dress outfit the “Christian burqa”.

    * * * * * *

    Does denim jumper = prairie dress outfit? Oh no . . . .
    I’m so messed up.

    Like

  14. What gives? I say it and I get blasted Chap says it and he gets nods and agreement. That’s it! I’m changing my name. All of my posts from now on will be as “Chapmaned25 formerly known as Wesley Roy”………LOL

    Like

  15. “Brian Thornton
    September 4, 2013 @ 12:35 PM
    Uh oh…I sense dissension in the egal camp. Must have been a shift in the space-time continuum. 🙂 ”

    Nice to see you quietly following the convo here in “the jungle”, Brian.

    Speaking of convos, care to answer my repeated question to you? The one about Baucham-to whom you link on your blog?

    In case you forgot, it was this:

    If Baucham insisted on first time obedience with reference to your toddler being shy and refusing to look him in the eye, shake his hand and greet him, and Baucham said if you didn’t correct your child he would, would you agree to that?

    Like

  16. @Julie Anne,

    That’s half of it. 🙂 The other half is that this is not a one-way street. The egal position is mutual respect, mutual submission, mutual love. So it would be just as valid to say that “When a woman is loving her husband the way Christ loves the church, a man is naturally inclined to move toward his wife”. This is what equal human beings do. This is what happens when there are no labels, no roles to play. And it would be equally wrong for a woman to demand that a man take care of her for life, absolving her of all adult responsibility. Both men and women are harmed because neither has to grow up completely. Both need to do the heart checks. Hope that helps!

    Like

  17. Boatrocker wrote ( in addition to a lot of other smart stuff): “So while I do respect the blog owner’s wishes, I also agree with your point: that this war is raging all over the world, not in a quiet library. And I don’t know what to tell you to do, because as we both know, it wouldn’t change a thing.”

    It’ll never change the opinions of those who defend the status quo, but tossing out hand grenades of experimental psychology as I often do reveals a lot about people when they respond. Go back and look at the responses. You’ll see a justified response of shock from someone who truly practices neutrality, an “oh, I’m being persecuted” response, and an “I’m not like that at all, you’re mischaracterizing me” response.

    Which responses are the ones that are truly being intellectually honest? Which are filled with false indignation at being treated the same way they’ve treated other people in the various threads? Which are merely attempts at deflection?

    As long as the band keeps playing, everyone just looks like all the other polite dancers, acting like they’re not trying to seduce a bedmate. When the song stops abruptly is when people will reveal their real intentions

    Like

  18. Wesley Roy,

    Gotta give the credit to Julie Anne…she explained it much better than even I did. Maybe you should change your name to Julie Ann, without the “E”?

    Also, boatrocker “complemented” Julie Anne’s explanation.

    Ed

    Like

  19. And a question for anyone who was offended by my statement that Calvinists aren’t Christians: Do you offer that same defense to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as to Calvinists? They claim to be just as Christian as Calvinists, they simply have doctrinal differences as do Calv and Armins.

    Since those two groups are outside of Trinitarianism, I’ll ask if you extend that same kind of defense to Evangelical Universalists that agree with all of Trinitarianism except for the doctrine of hell.

    If you don’t, then you’re not extending grace nearly as much as you might think…

    Like

  20. Lydia,

    I’ve been giving some more thought as to where Brian might be coming from. Maybe you’d prefer not to answer, but if you don’t mind saying, but does Brian happen to remind you of any late 30’s to early 40’s age SBC youth pastors you’ve come across?

    Like

  21. Oh, I know that Randy Seiver does not consider non-Calvinists as Christians.

    In the Calvinist thread He wrote:
    “This god of yours wanted to help you, but he just couldn’t intervene because he has no control in the universe. In his universe, all is controlled by free will. The God Calvin worshipped is one who has promised to bring judgment on oppressors.”

    Our god (small g) vs. his God (Big G). From his perspective, our god is a false god, which is no god at all. Based on that, to him, we are not Christians here.

    Ed

    Like

  22. Exactly, Ed.

    At least he had the intellectual honesty to admit to what is the prevalent mood that pervades the Calvinist camp, i.e., that they are the only true defenders of the real truth about God.

    Like

  23. “Does denim jumper = prairie dress outfit? Oh no . . . .
    I’m so messed up.”
    😀 That’s the great thing about egal… you can wear whatever you want, and only dress like other women if you choose.

    Like

  24. @Eric, 😀

    Yes, the double standards… also the sugar-coated insults, and what I call 2/3 of a syllogism: giving two premises that lead to an unexpressed conclusion. That way, nobody can pin them down on having actually said what they so heavily inferred. The charge of “pots and kettles” flies in all directions, and then each side shakes their head at the other. But I have to say, that such apparently pointless exercises do make us know our scriptures and find any holes in our own position.

    Like

  25. “It’s when a man demands submission and wants to exercise authority that a woman reacts. So, it makes sense to me that if a woman is reacting, then the man ought to do a heart check and see what his attitude/behavior was like. Does that make sense?”

    BINGO! A man who demands submission does not understand complementarianism at all. A man who feels like he HAS to demand submission is not loving his wife as Christ loved the church.

    And Wes, it is quite funny how when the same thing is said by another person, all of a sudden is gold when before it was heresy! 🙂

    Like

  26. If I am correctly understanding that is is Brian writing in one of the articles on his blog, he mentions that a Rockdale Community Church is his church. If it is Rockdale Community Church in Conyers, Georgia, the bylaws ( http://tinyurl.com/lecbzcw ) say that one of the membership requirements is that you “submit sweetly.” Sweetly??

    Only the castrati need apply. Then again, they wouldn’t need no women for the choir. All the men could sing soprano. Except, who would sing bass?

    Like

  27. Eric Fry said:
    “And a question for anyone who was offended by my statement that Calvinists aren’t Christians: Do you offer that same defense to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as to Calvinists? They claim to be just as Christian as Calvinists, they simply have doctrinal differences as do Calv and Armins.

    Since those two groups are outside of Trinitarianism, I’ll ask if you extend that same kind of defense to Evangelical Universalists that agree with all of Trinitarianism except for the doctrine of hell.”

    I consider Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to be Christians, but not orthodox (small “o”). I consider Evangelical Universalists to be Christians and orthodox. As to how the non-orthodox relate to God’s salvation, that’s His business, not mine.

    That said, Eric, I’m afraid I disagree with both you and Boatrocker that reasoned discourse is impossible or that a presumption of goodwill is out of place. As MLK said, hate cannot overcome hate; only love can do that. However,I respect your position and understand why you take it– Boatrocker and I have met elsewhere and agreed to disagree on this point.

    Like

  28. Brian, if what you say is true, then you are leaving out what is being taught, which is “roles” of each sex. Therefore, your definition does not define what is taught. You get people in the door thinking one thing, but they leave, indoctrinated with something else.

    Ed

    Like

  29. Gary, why the attempt to check up on me? You must either be really bored or you don’t mind completely wasting your time. I haven’t updated that blog in years. I no longer am a member at RCC, which, by the way, is an incredible body of believers who truly exhibit love for one another.

    Like

  30. Brian,

    The reason you have piqued my curiosity is that you won’t answer my question whether or not you are a pastor. I wonder why.

    I’ve pretty much decided you aren’t a pastor, but you are coming across more and more like a youth pastor. Am I near the mark? If you aren’t willing to say, why not?

    Like

  31. Brian said:

    “‘It’s when a man demands submission and wants to exercise authority that a woman reacts. So, it makes sense to me that if a woman is reacting, then the man ought to do a heart check and see what his attitude/behavior was like.’ . . . And Wes, it is quite funny how when the same thing is said by another person, all of a sudden is gold when before it was heresy.”

    You left out the part where the egalitarians agreed that the quoted statement should be read as mutual. In other words, that women shouldn’t demand submission or want to exercise authority either,

    I think that Christians walking in the Spirit will “naturally” want to be submissive to one another. When one starts wanting power, however, those they want power over are going to react negatively.

    Like

  32. I consider Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to be Christians, but not orthodox (small “o”). I consider Evangelical Universalists to be Christians and orthodox. As to how the non-orthodox relate to God’s salvation, that’s His business, not mine.

    That is not only the graceful position to take, krwordgazer, it is the logical one. You, however, are in the minority of the vocal Christian adherents by holding that position.

    That said, Eric, I’m afraid I disagree with both you and Boatrocker that reasoned discourse is impossible or that a presumption of goodwill is out of place.

    Reasoned discourse is impossible when dogma is treated as divinity, and people presume that they speak with Apostolic authority.. Likewise, why should I presume any goodwill when none has been shown by those I criticize? Just because the venom of dogma is covered by saccharine words doesn’t make it any less venomous.

    There’s also a serious logical disconnection when people make a claim that tone or words such as I used earlier aren’t “Godly.” If that’s the true case, then a lot of the Bible is un-Godly

    The main point is that no matter how logical and reasoned you believe yourself to be regarding theology, you’re still expressing your emotions and psychology when you present your theology. And yet people act shocked and indignant when a purely emotional reaction is presented to the veiled emotional discourse of theology. All I have done is point out that the Emperor wears no clothes.

    Like

  33. krwordgazer,

    I am sorry, but I don’t consider them to be Christians, because they believe in a different Jesus, a different gospel.

    2 Corinthians 11:4
    4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

    Galatians 1:8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

    Galatians 1:9
    As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, and the Mormons believes that Jesus is the Son of God, who has a father, who has a father, who has a father, and so on. They also believe that Satan is the brother of Jesus, and that they can attain to be God themselves, being a savior of their own creation of man on another planet. They believe that they can baptize dead unbelieving relatives, too.

    Ed

    Like

  34. I think that Christians walking in the Spirit will “naturally” want to be submissive to one another. When one starts wanting power, however, those they want power over are going to react negatively.

    Yes, I agree 100%, Kristen.

    That said, Eric, I’m afraid I disagree with both you and Boatrocker that reasoned discourse is impossible or that a presumption of goodwill is out of place.

    And I also agree with this statement with regard to the discussing Calvinism (did I say the C word?). I’m thinking of Wesley – – there’s an awful lot of what he says that now, after reading, and trying to understand, I can agree with. But initially (and it might be partially my fault because I do say things strongly at times), we were really butting heads.

    Like

  35. Chapmaned24 — I agree that they believe a different gospel. I agree that Paul said let someone who preaches a different gospel be accursed. Because of this, I must beware of believing these teachings. But salvation is about more than what we mentally think. Is it possible to still follow Christ with one’s heart and soul, while in one of these systems? Is it possible to trust in Christ while having mistaken beliefs about Him? Perhaps. It’s not my job to decide that.

    Paul can say, “Let him be accursed!” That doesn’t prevent me from saying, “But please still save him if you can, Father.”

    Like

  36. Also, if a man is focusing on the need for his wife to submit to him, he is neglecting his duties to love his wife as Christ loved the church.

    We are definitely in agreement here, Brian.

    Like

  37. “I am sorry, but I don’t consider them to be Christians, because they believe in a different Jesus, a different gospel.”

    Well, shiver me timbers! Ed and I agree on some things! Although he will hate to see that. 🙂

    It is true. JW’s do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah God. They believe he was the first created thing, and they also do not believe he bodily rose from the dead.

    Mormonism is THE MOST polytheistic religion on the face of the planet. Ther is no one true God, but anyone can become as Jesus is.

    Like

  38. Brian,

    I know that you were trying to bait me in regards to “Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead?”

    Yes, he did. The JW’s think that he is a ghost, for they say that he has a “spirit” body. But the 1 Cor 15 shows that he has a spiritual body, not a spirit body.

    But, I say that the body that he rose from is NOT the same body, because Jesus walked thru walls, changed his appearance so that the 2 on the road did not recognize him, etc.

    If he had the body that he had prior to his death, he couldn’t walk thru walls. Bodies that die are made of the earth, whereas bodies that don’t die are made from Heaven. Yes, Jesus has the holes in his feet, and hands. That is for showing his brethren that they killed him. Our bodies will not have any defect, whatsoever. We will not bleed, because we will not have blood. The Bible clearly states what the purpose of blood is for, and there is no need for blood in a body that doesn’t die.

    So, yes, while we agree that Jesus rose in a physical body, we disagree about the molecular compositions of that physical body.

    I had hoped that you had done that 2 column thing that I asked, but you refuse. Maybe you don’t have a bible, or maybe you just have no interest?

    Ed

    Like

  39. We all tend to forget what the gospel is sometimes. The plainest I can put it is this: to believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and that there is salvation in no other Jesus. Whoever puts their trust in this Jesus alone, “forsaking all others”, for the purpose of being reconciled to the one true God, is saved. Period.

    By that definition, neither JW or LDS are Christians. JW demote Jesus to a lesser deity, and LDS defy God’s own statement, “I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me”. The apostle John tells us in no uncertain terms that one must have both the right God and the right Jesus, for they are inseparable. One cannot join God to other gods as a kind of spiritual group marriage, and one cannot know the real God while denying that Jesus is the One “in whom the fullness of deity lives in bodily form”.

    So while the gospel itself is quite simple, its implications are far-reaching and exclusive. We are of one Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, yet one God. This one fact is all we need to tell us who is saved and who is not.

    Like

  40. krwordgazer,

    You had said:
    “But salvation is about more than what we mentally think. Is it possible to still follow Christ with one’s heart and soul, while in one of these systems? Is it possible to trust in Christ while having mistaken beliefs about Him? Perhaps. It’s not my job to decide that.

    Paul can say, “Let him be accursed!” That doesn’t prevent me from saying, “But please still save him if you can, Father.””

    My response:
    Yes. I do believe that there are Christians in those churches who are ignorant. It is those who reject the truth that are accountable. It is the teachers who are accountable. And, your prayer to have the Father save them is acted out by YOUR good works. God works thru you, as you are the ambassador of Christ. What does an ambassador do? Some people have no choice in the matter, say like a son/daughter under 18 going to mommy and daddy’s church. But once they learn of the error, and they reject, then they are accountable.

    Ed

    Like

  41. Wesley,

    Based on some of your comments I think you may have misunderstood my “flip a coin” comment (which I made in response to you on another thread). On that thread, if I remember correctly, you asked about a scenario where a decision needed to be made and all attempts at getting the husband and wife to agree had failed. What I was trying to show, though perhaps poorly, is that such a scenario makes the final choice meaningless. The results are arbitrary whether the husband pulls out his final choice card or the couple resorts to a coin flip. I’m not an adherent of coin flipping. I want meaningful choices. In my years of marriage when there have been disagreements about decisions that need to be made (and there have been more than a few) we’ve never flipped a coin nor have we had to resort to some sort of “I get the last say”. Real decisions, in my view, don’t look like that.

    Like

  42. ‘’ve been giving some more thought as to where Brian might be coming from. Maybe you’d prefer not to answer, but if you don’t mind saying, but does Brian happen to remind you of any late 30′s to early 40′s age SBC youth pastors you’ve come across?”

    More like early 20’s to late 30’s. In the biz if you are a youth pastor at 40 people tend to think it strange. And it IS a biz. And I think that is a dumb rule but it is rare to find one close to 40 that is his profession…… as in career.

    Brian reminds me of the YRR around here, yes. You can almost see them salivate if they come near Piper or Mohler. Sproul? They would fall down and worship as he drives by in his limo.

    Like

  43. ‘It’s not just you, RMR. I’m just trying to expose what is really going on here. Sometimes people have to be shocked and offended to see reality.”.

    Julie Ann, You get it. This is why 5 years will pass before people get to the end of their rope and start talking back to the arrogant YRR boys who have taken leadership in their church. By then it is too late and there is a split coming. But they were tolerant and nice thinking love would win the day and we should embrace all sides. . And most folks HATE conflict of any kind.. Disagreement makes them nervous and they look down on others who engage it. That is why abuse continues. Most folks don’t want to be involved at all.

    Does love win the day with bullies? Did love win with CON? No, it only buys them time and more people are hurt than ever.

    Like

  44. “BINGO! A man who demands submission does not understand complementarianism at all. A man who like he HAS to demand submission is not loving his wife as Christ loved the church”

    Hold on a doggone minute. There is another aspect to this. And I am very well aquainted with it. Guys like Piper and his ilk have been this so much it is presented as a salvic doctrine. People who are immersed in this doctrine think you live it out or you are not really Christian. It was elevated for years as salvic without saying so directly.

    Go google Piper on egalitarian. Google the big comp leaders on it. They do not think egals are the real deal.

    So Julie Ann, don’t be fooled. If you don’t submit you are rebellious. You are in sin. Bruce Ware at SBTS taught that “unsubmissive wives trigger abuse”. Piper taught that “women should take abuse for a season”, etc, etc. The list is long on such thinking/teaching. It is evil.

    That movement is eat up with it.

    Like

  45. “Also, if a man is focusing on the need for his wife to submit to him, he is neglecting his duties to love his wife as Christ loved the church. ”

    But Brian, You always have that “final say” trump card just in case. After all, you did tell us that women (including your wife) are easily deceived.

    Like

  46. But in all fairness it shouldn’t be ok to discuss the JW’s or Mormon’s in this thread either.

    *****

    I see your point, Eric, but we don’t have JW or Mormon’s come over here and if we did, I guess I’d have to open up a Mormon/JW thread. The reason I did the Calvin one is because we keep coming back to that topic again and again and it interrupts the threads.

    Like

  47. Some people here claim that complementarianism is great, and the default way that everyone lives, but we must accept *their* definition of complementarian, not our definition.
    Yeah, and I am better at golf than Tiger Woods – but you must accept *my* definition of golf, not *your * definition.
    And by their definitions, male leadership is mutual submission… There can be no real conversation with someone if words are not used to say what they mean.

    Like

  48. Retha, You are spot on. That is why there has to be agreement on definitions. And if you notice most threads like this end up being about definitions.

    Wesley has redefined comp and he is allowed to but it sure makes conversing with him confusing! He has me suspicious because he thinks Patriarchy is not sin. I still like him, though, as he is very irenic about all of it. Maybe he will grow a beard!

    Like

  49. Wesley, what does Patriarchy mean to you? That might help us to get some better understanding here. I know what Doug Phillips and Doug Wilson and others within the “Homeschool Movement” have a different meaning than what others might consider as Patriarchy.

    Like

  50. Not that it really matters at this point, but I dare say Brian is guilty of another misrepresentation. Yesterday at 2:13 PM he claims he hasn’t updated his blog in years. The fact is, his most recent post is August 11 of this year. Yes, keep a very sharp eye on Brian.

    Like

  51. “The Head of the House to the spouse”

    The Head of the house says to the spouse about the mouse in her blouse: “bargle nawdle zous”.

    Okay, that had nothing to do with anything, but Ed was a poet and didn’t know it, and I decided to rhyme some more words.

    Like

  52. Brian Thornton –

    I am really interested in your response to my comment from yesterday.

    ————————-

    I have been reading along this thread and came to this:

    September 4, 2013 @ 7:43 am

    Brian Thornton said:

    “You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.”

    God did not say, “Eve, you are going to desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.” It’s NOT there. God didn’t talk about “heads” or “households” in that verse. You are taking your beliefs, and our current culture and words, and reading them back into the scriptures.

    What are you saying that God declared would happen?

    That men would rule over women? That women would be oppressed up till and including the 21st century (still). That women, children, and people of “other than my” cultures would be oppressed? That men would rule and have advantages over women until Jesus returns? THIS HAS BEEN THE REALITY (for emphasis). What you claim is happening, in fact, hasn’t happened. Women have not taken over the world . . . seems men have had a lot to due with ruling over others throughout history (and I’m not excluding the occasional woman).

    Also, I haven’t heard one woman on this thread say that they want to have authority over, or rule over any one. Did you read or see this somewhere? I see that women want equality . . . to be brothers and sisters in Christ with the same Father. A Christian husband and wife are brothers and sisters in Christ first, during marriage, and in eternity (even when marriage is done away with), before they are husband and wife.

    Like

  53. I placed this comment on Crossway Publishers Facebook page. It probably will not be up there for long, but others of you may wish to take similar action:

    “I am wondering how you can, in good conscience, have an endorsement of your new Gospel Transformation Bible by C.J.Mahaney? I find this repulsive and will not be purchasing one.”

    https://www.facebook.com/CrosswayBooks

    Like

  54. Good for you, 2Samuel127. I scrolled down and found this comment. It is a direct cut and paste. You’ll see that he responds to himself and then Crossway responds to him two times. (https://www.facebook.com/CrosswayBooks/posts/10151700650203632)

    Gary Thompson
    Hi.

    Please confirm the following regarding the new ESV Gospel Transformation Bible:

    1. The new 2011 ESV text version will be used.
    2. Each of the contributors to each of the books of the Bible will have their comments/notes independently reviewed.
    3. That all the comments and notes hold to Calvinism, the Reformed Faith or as is sometimes nicknamed, “Biblical Christianity”.
    4. That any women contributors are not violating any Scriptural prohibitions pertaining to women being teachers of men in the church.

    Kind regards

    Gary Thompson
    Like · · July 25 at 9:36am near London, England, United Kingdom
    Top Comments
    2 people like this.

    Gary Thompson Thanks. However, Dane Ortlund has responded to me. He confirmed all 4 questions. That’s a “Yes” on all counts. I was particularly concerned about question 4 though.
    Like · Reply · August 1 at 11:09am

    Crossway Great to hear you already received that response. Thanks Gary.
    Like · August 2 at 9:00am

    Crossway Gary,

    Thanks for your questions regarding the Gospel Transformation Bible.

    I will seek to confirm all of your questions, but my initial inclination is almost certainly a yes on all counts.
    Like · Reply · August 1 at 10:36am

    Like

  55. Ok, this annoys me. These 2 men: Tony Miano/Frank Turk tweeting all the time, busy with their “ministries,” defending men (CJ, CON) who have allowed abuse in their churches and I’m the problem. Crazy!

    Like

  56. Comp, as a doctrine, states that certain roles are assigned to men only by God and others to women only, and among them are that the man has the final say regarding everything in the relationship between a married couple. Any deviation from that is considered to not be comp. And in some Conservative circles where Comp is taught as doctrine, any failure to live out the Comp doctrine means one is not a practicing Christian, and is subject to discipline.

    Like

  57. You don’t have to worry about the beard Lydia. I hate shaving but the Native American and African genetics will not allow for growing a beard.

    My understanding of patriarchy is derived from Scripture. Patriarchs were fathers/husbands responsible for guiding those under their influence in spiritual and life matters as they followed God. They were responsible for providing for their families. They were responsible for protecting their families. Much of Abraham’s life is an example of this. Abraham like all the patriarchs and other humans was not perfect and Scripture records the imperfections as a warning and to kindle an appetite for God the Father who these patriarchs pictured.

    The patriarchal system much like the monarchical system was put in place to picture for us the perfect King and Father and show our need for Him. Neither system was perfect and both had potential for abuses like every other social of governmental system because sinful humans are involved. Neither system was innately sinful though each could and was used for sinful purposes.

    Like

  58. Thank you, Wesley. But in the Patriarchy of today’s culture, the men rule over their wives spiritually – even on behalf of her. We do not see that with Abraham and Sarah. It was by Sarah’s faith that she conceived, so obviously this implies a woman is responsible for her own faith. So, today, we have a complete distortion of mens “responsibilities” as it pertains to their relationship with their wives. Patriarchy of today oppresses women and looks more like we’d see in Muslim culture.

    Like

  59. JA I agree with you completely based on what they are saying. They should call it Neo-patriarchy. I also doubt that they are really being honest about how their neo-patriarchy plays out in their daily lives.

    I forgot to thank Lydia for the new word “irenic”. Thanks for the vocabulary boost.

    Like

  60. boatrocker God used the monarchy and patriarchy to demonstrate His Fatherhood and Kingship anyway. If I remember correctly when Samuel was all worked up over their demand of a monarch God was the one who authorized the appointing of a king. He even used the opportunity to show them the error of their request by giving them Saul before He gave them David from whose line Jesus would come.

    God has this uncanny ability to work all things to our good and for His purposes.

    Like

  61. By the way boatrocker I did not equate patriarchy and the monarchy. I just used the monarchy as an illustration of a system that God used to foreshadow coming revelation of His relationship with humanity. I could have used the sacrificial system or the priesthood but I simply chose an imperfect public social system to parallel an imperfect private social system.

    Like

  62. The word neo-patriarchy works for me, Wesley.

    ” I also doubt that they are really being honest about how their neo-patriarchy plays out in their daily lives.”

    Yes, I agree with you there, too.

    Like

  63. Wesley,

    You missed the point completely. God said that monarchy was a bad thing, yet he worked around it. Same with patriarchy; it was never meant to be (per Jesus), but God worked around it. He did not want either of those things to happen, but he let them go their way. Can God use bad decisions to teach a lesson? Can he take our blunders and make them work for good? Absolutely. But the point is that neither monarchy nor patriarchy were what God wanted people to practice.

    Now bring this issue to the church: Did Jesus not come to radically change “religion”, to lift burdens and free prisoners? Or did he come to upgrade us to Judaism 2.0? Is the curse of sin removed from us who are in Christ, or is it not? And if it is, then we dare not try to keep parts of it— including monarchy and patriarchy. Remember what scripture says about there being no more tolerance for ignorance, as God had allowed in the past?

    Think about what I’m saying; consider what it means that “there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). No slave or free, even though the patriarchs practiced it and it was encoded in law by Moses; no male and female, either. Either Paul and Jesus are right, or comp is right; they cannot both be right.

    As for your other objection, equate was not the best word; how about drawing an analogy? And again, the point is that these are not the ideal or will of God, but tolerance for “hard hearts”. Consider how much Jesus changed beyond only paying for sins.

    Like

  64. boatrocker I think we are both missing the point. I am trying to remember when patriarchy was said to be sin in Scripture and I am drawing a blank. If you could give the passage where patriarchy is in view contextually I may be able to see your point.

    Contextually Galatians 3 is about salvation. It actually supports the concept of patriarchy with all of the blessings flowing through Abraham by his Seed to his seeds that include males, females, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and free. This text which is clearly about salvation is not social instruction. This passage simply stresses the equal accessibility of salvation in contrast to the view of those who are teaching that they are “more” saved because of their works or lifestyle. It serves to remove the barriers to salvation that have been erected by human social constructs.

    Like

  65. Wesley, where in scripture was polygamy or slavery said to be sin? If you can find a passage declaring slavery a sin, I’ll be obligated to find one saying patriarchy is a sin.

    Conversely, where are the regulations or general principles showing patriarchy to be ideal, divinely mandated, or to be perpetuated in the church?

    From those two points come the one I’m driving at: Patriarchy does not have to be explicitly labeled a sin to be wrong, and we are under a New Covenant wherein “there is no male and female”. Appeals to the OT for a mandate for patriarchy are irrelevant and nonsensical for us who are in Christ.

    What did Jesus mean by “Not so among you”, Wesley? Are there loopholes? Are the loopholes flesh-based? Does washing the disciples’ feet not apply when women are present?

    Like

  66. :boatrocker God used the monarchy and patriarchy to demonstrate His Fatherhood and Kingship anyway. ”

    And God was angry they begged Him for a king like the pagans had. Yet He gave them one.

    Like

  67. “Contextually Galatians 3 is about salvation.”

    It is about full inheritance which salvation is a big part. FULL inheritance for ALL believers.

    Do people forget these letters were written to professing believers?

    Like

  68. Wow, JA. Turk seems to be going to the bottom of the barrel these days to get his name out there. Where are his high and mighty blogging celebs? .

    Steamtunnel get it about Turk:

    Like

  69. “. . . and no comments from Piper! Is he asleep at the wheel? Seriously, this might have happened because of allowing women to contribute to the new ESV — No? (snark over)”

    * * * * *

    Bridget, I’m glad you said it, because my mind was going there 🙂

    Like

  70. boatrocker the guiding principles of American slavery are all explicitly forbidden in Scripture. Slavery for an explicit amount of time to pay of a debt has nothing in common with American slavery. No connection.

    Like

  71. Jesus said his servants should not “lord it over” others. What is being the owner of another person (slave) but being a lord over other people. Further, the second great commandment of Jesus, to love those we encounter as we love ourselves, contradicts slavery. The same analogy applies to patriarchy. To disobey a commandment of Jesus is surely a sin!!!!!

    Like

  72. Arce I don’t see the correlation. Patriarchy does not equal the ownership of another human being or lording over another person. Check out Sarah and Abraham’s relationship and it is clear that Abraham does not own Sarah or lord over Sarah. Check out Lot and Abraham’s relationship. It is clear that Abraham doesn’t own him or lord over him.

    As JA and I discussed earlier, neo-patriarchy theory would be a better label for what you are describing.

    Like

  73. Just received an Arise Newsletter from Christians for Biblical Equality. Arise Newsletter is free and can be delivered to your email. This article is by Mimi Haddad, PhD, President of CBE. Topic: Male Rule a Biblical Ideal? (Part 1)

    “Why is patriarchy so entrenched not only within the major faith traditions, but particularly among Christians? One obvious answer is that the “he will rule over you” of Genesis 3:18 was one of the first consequences of sin in the garden. But unlike the other effects of sin—death, toil and work, or even pain in childbirth—male rule has been elevated and advanced as a biblical ideal by religious leaders from the early centuries to the present day. What would happen if Christians also enshrined the other effects of sin, like death for example, as we have male rule?

    On the contrary, Christians consistently resist death; we oppose the thorns and thistles of labor through technology and agriculture, just as we work to improve the experiences of childbearing. Yet, male authority receives an enduring endorsement from the church, making it harder to question and challenge, without the fear of opposing God as well.

    Weeks after Barna released their 20-year study showing the significant drop in women’s involvement in American Christian churches (the first drop in its history), two separate conferences were held to equip pastors in advancing male authority. Featured speakers, both popular and highly educated theologically, made an appeal to male authority based on what they perceived as a “masculine orientation” of Christian faith. Here we observe a new turn of events in the Christian patriarchal movement. These pastors believe that there is something about God’s being that is “masculine.” Why do they believe this?

    They arrive at this position by drawing on the male language of Scripture. For example, Jesus was male and Scripture reveals God as father, not mother. Jesus selects twelve male disciples and teaches them to pray to God as father. Further, males are frequently noted as the leaders in Scripture. They are described as the “head” of women, and wives are described as being called to submit to their husbands. Most tragically, those pastors supporting male authority believe that Jesus submits, eternally, to God the Father.

    They make this case because they wish to extend hierarchy they suppose exists within the Trinity on males and females. Hence they promote the incoherent—or inconsistent—notion of equal in being, but unequal in role, or authority. How can you be equal in being but unequal in authority? To do so renders the word “equal” meaningless. This “separate but equal” or “equal but different” rhetoric was used in the Unites States to segregate schools, restaurants, restrooms, hotels, buses, and even churches according to skin color. However, the courts decided that separate is never equal because “separate” too easily creates segregated social structures that are inherently unequal and unjust.

    Even so, Christians employ the same flawed logic to exclude women from positions of authority in the church. To deny females equal authority not because of their character, their intimacy with Christ, or their giftedness, but solely because of gender—which is a fixed and unchangeable condition—is to create communities, organizations, churches, or marriages that are inherently unjust.

    As these teachings attribute hierarchy to the Trinity, and further, connect this hierarchy to the masculinization of God, they construct the most extreme patriarchal worldview in all of church history. It is riddled with biblical and theological errors. Yet we can be thankful that decades of careful egalitarian scholarship means a reasoned response can be made.”

    Like

  74. Barb:
    As someone who has been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention for 39 years it continues to stun me how over the last 20 years women have been excluded from most positions of leadership. I truly believe this is one of the major reasons for the significant decline of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Like

  75. Yes, Tom. I have also observed that when you meddle with the ‘woman thing’ among God’s people, especially how women are treated in the church, things tend to get spiritually and otherwise unhealthy. It is so missing what the Creator-Savior God intended for his Kingdom!

    I would like to recommend a podcast done by Carolyn Custis James at Dallas Seminary. Topic: ‘The Role of Women in Both Ministry and Life’ based on the Genesis passage and Ruth. Well stated Carolyn!

    http://ficfellowship.org/index-e.html#

    Like

  76. boatrocker the guiding principles of American slavery are all explicitly forbidden in Scripture.

    Here’s a news flash for you. The guiding principles of ANY kind of slavery are expressly forbidden in the New Testament.

    You want to know why the NT seems to give an ok to Greco-Roman slavery?

    Do you?

    Really?

    It’s because the NT was interpreted in light of the prevalent culture at the time. Just the way it is meant by God to be interpreted today.

    Like

  77. “Patriarchy does not equal the ownership of another human being or lording over another person.”

    I beg to differ. If the man has final say, he is the guardian and legal authority over his wife. According to Piper, she MUST have male “covering” and control. This is slavery.

    Now I must insist that you answer this question: Where are the loopholes in “Not so among you” for men when women are around?

    Like

  78. Boatrocker,

    You had said: “Wesley, you equate patriarchy to monarchy. How can you not know that monarchy was something God warned the people of Israel not to demand?”

    It might surprise you…it surprised me…that long before God warned people about that, well…

    Deuteronomy 17:14-15

    14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  79. Lydia,

    You had said:

    :boatrocker God used the monarchy and patriarchy to demonstrate His Fatherhood and Kingship anyway. ” And God was angry they begged Him for a king like the pagans had. Yet He gave them one.”

    My response:

    Deuteronomy 17:14-15 14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

    This was long before God was angry.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  80. Yes, this is an interesting verse tucked away in the Pentateuch, written by Moses. Looks like he was predicting something that would actually take place in the nation’s future. Yet, the circumstances surrounding the ‘desire for a king’ with the aging and grieved Samuel as well as his sons not being good candidates for leaders, presented a very distressing request for Samuel to work through with Yahweh’s help.

    Like

  81. Lydia said,
    Now, all the comps teach that Eve wanted to rule over Adam. They totally twist it.

    Yep, and the truth is that it’s the complete opposite.

    A lot of women rely on men too much. Wives will look to their husbands to be their little gods, instead of looking to the One True God to get their needs met. It’s called codependency, and gender complementarians are passing codependency off as being a biblical role for women to play, when God condemns it through out Scriptures.

    Some wives are afraid to stand on their own so they turn all power and decision making over to a spouse, hoping he will provide and protect them. Not only is that “fear of man” going on (codependency) but they’ve also idolized their husbands (turning him into a little god).

    Like

  82. chapmaned24 said
    “”Many times Jesus scolded people for not knowing scripture…but they did indeed know it. They knew the literal…but they couldn’t figure out the spiritual.

    For example, how many of us believe that the story of Noah’s Ark is about a boat with animals, and that God saved 8 souls? Yes, that is what it is about, in the literal sense. But it goes much much much deeper in the spiritual sense. How many have put on spiritual lenses to see what the spiritual story is? Here is a hint: Jesus is the Ark”

    Yes, I get that there is foreshadowing in literal stories in the Bible and shades of Jesus can be seen in the OT. I wasn’t disputing that. That wasn’t quite what I meant.

    Being a “biblical literalist” is often used as an insult or put down on emergent, liberal, or spiritual abuse recovery blogs. As someone who feels that is the best, most accurate way of understanding the text, it bothers me to see it dismissed.

    If you are a “biblical literalist,” it will be automatically assumed by some you are an ignorant, uneducated hayseed, or a judgmental, unloving Pharisee.

    Also, it will generally be claimed by anti-literalists that the Bible is a free for all, nobody can understand any of it at all with any degree of certainty, and that portions of it on certain teachings are too vague for anyone to understand, and/or large portions will be allegorized or spiritualized away.

    Like

  83. Totally agree, missdaisyflower. I’ve said this many times myself. When the Bible is taken out of its historical, linguistic context, it’s putty in the hands of whoever wishes to fashion it. Combined with the heaping of shame and scorn on anyone who doubts this “higher” knowledge, it has routed out many who are weak in faith. Yet none of them stops to ask why they should believe Jesus rose from the dead, if everything else is allegory. Symbols point to realities, not to more symbols.

    Like

  84. Wesley Roy said, Lydia you are not being honest when you accuse comps of teaching sin as virtue. Polygamy is condemned in Scripture but Patriarchy is not.

    I don’t remember any Bible verse that says God approves of, agrees with, or endorses patriarchy.

    I think you are just assuming God approves of it because there is not an out right condemnation of it, but neither are there out- right condemnations of abortion, slavery, or genocide in Scripture, either, but most Christians realize those things are wrong, based on other biblical principles.

    Also, gender comp is indeed sin taught as virtue, as I explained in my post above.

    Gender comp is codependency taught under another name, and God condemns it because it makes the wife make the husband into an idol, (or excuses the female tendency to do that), and it relieves the woman of any, or most, of her personal responsibility before God and other people.

    Like

  85. @ Gary, per your SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 @ 6:36 AM comment.

    It’s not just institutional church, or submission doctrines and such that have caused me to head more into agnosticism, but the Christian faith itself.

    I don’t wish to get into a big long story about it, or all the details, but it’s the Christian faith itself that is not making a lot of sense to me the last couple years.

    There are tangential issues driving me away from the Christian faith too, some that deal with how the church at large mistreats never married adults, but there are other reasons.

    Like

  86. Brian T said, You guys keep addressing something that has not been depicted here by the proponents of complementarianism. This makes it sound like the whole marriage relationship is just one long power struggle where the man is always supposed to win. I pity the couple whose marriage is even remotely like that. True biblical complementarianism is not about winning.

    If you watch, listen to, or read the views of gender comps, they do in fact teach that in an argument or dispute that the husband gets the last word.

    Pat Robertson, host of The 700 Club, is a gender complementarian.

    Anytime a wife writes in saying she and her husband disagree about X, Robertson always declares that the husband should get the last word. Robertson is not the only comp I’ve heard/seen who believes this, but he is one of the ones whom you can probably find examples easily of on You Tube if you do a search.

    BrianT said,
    When the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church, and the wife respects her husband, complementarianism truly is a wonderful thing.

    So in practical terms how does that work? If wife and hubby have a dispute, and they cannot reach a compromise, then what?

    Comps like you say this stuff, but it’s not how you really believe.

    Some of you may live your marriage out differently, where the husband is like the boss and the wife the subordinate, she is expected to take orders from the spouse (so at least you are living consistently with your views), but lots of other comps spew compism yet their marriages are egalitarianism in daily life.

    I suppose this is all fairly irrelevant to me, since if I ever marry, I will not be “submissive” to a spouse. I will be a full, equal partner in the relationship, not an underling who defers to her husband.

    Like

  87. Brian T said,
    You know it’s funny. God declared this would happen all the way back at the fall when he told Eve that her desire would be for her husband. He wasn’t talking about sexual desire, but desire to take the place of Adam as the head of the household.

    What God was saying is that a wife’s desire would be for her husband, not her husband’s position or control.

    And many women do indeed have a tendency to want to latch on to husband for financial security, provision, and protection, and to get their needs met.

    God was warning women of this tendency, that they would look to a human male (usually husband) to get all their needs met, which is codependency and a form of idolatry, both of which God condemns through-out Scripture as sin, yet gender comps want women to continue in this sinful and dangerous pattern.

    One reason women stay in abusive relationships is codependency, the belief they need a man (husband) to make it in life, they need a husband to meet their emotional and financial needs, and they believe they cannot stand alone and be independent, or they are afraid to do so.

    So, God was actually teaching the opposite of what gender complementarians think He was in Genesis. God was warning women against an excessive dependence on men, but that there would be a shift due to sin, where women would turn to men too much, and men would abuse that vulnerability. And you are defending that sinful pattern. Jesus Christ came to set women free from that.

    Like

  88. Brian T wrote,
    ““The phrase ‘he shall rule over you’ and the parallel wording in 4:7 suggests that her desire is to dominate.”

    So some author thinks it “suggests” that, but it does not actually say that.

    Like

  89. Wesley Roy said, Explain this to me boatrocker:
    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Ephesians 5:23)

    Either you or some other comp guy up thread just said comp is not about hierarchy, but you clearly believe that Eph. 5.23 is teaching that there is a hierarchy in marriages, where the man is head (which you must think means “boss of”). If you do not feel that compism teaches hierarchy, why ask what “head of” means in Eph 5.23? Christ came to serve the church and be in relationship with her, not be ‘boss over.’

    Many biblical egalitarians have written about alternative understandings of ‘head’ that does not involve a hierarchical understanding.

    Here is a page which responds to your inquiry (it is a PDF):
    “Does Kephale [Head] Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature?”: A Rebuttal by Richard S. Cervin

    Like

  90. Wesley Roy said, just that people exercise complementary roles in life.

    Egalitarians believe that the genders are complementary, but they disagree with the comp position that the man is head (boss, ruler, in authority over) the wife, and that the husband always or should get final say by simple fact of his gender.

    Like

  91. @ boatrocker said,

    “It is only by your insistence that comps don’t practice what they preach that tries, vainly, to erase those differences.”

    I actually agree with him about that part of it: a lot of couples who say they are gender complementarians say they believe in gender compism, yet they live out their marriage in egalitarian terms, which actually undermines the gender complementarianism teaching.

    One gender comp leader (I’m sorry I can’t recall who it was) actually came out a few years ago and mentioned this.

    He said egalitarians were correct that in day to day life, people who profess to be gender comps have egalitarian marriages in practice, so he wants gender comps to embrace the term “patriarchy” and admit that is what they are and what they believe. This guy thinks patriarchalism is biblical and that Christians should model their marriage on it.

    Maybe Wesley is in that camp and why he is coming across as so confusing or duplicitous about this. Maybe he thinks gender complementarianism does not go far enough and that Christians should embrace patriarchalism?

    Like

  92. Wesley R said

    boatrocker thanks for your efforts to get me to accept your view of something you do not practice. I would be interested for you to show me the examples of comp marriages that in practice are ran as a dictator would run a country.

    If you go to blogs by Christian women who divorced their Christian husbands for being abusive and/or controlling, you can find examples of those.

    When these women go to their preachers to find relief or a solution to the abuse, their preachers often tell them to “submit to” their husband even more, which keeps these poor ladies trapped in abusive marriages. Some of them eventually find the courage and strength to break away.

    Like

  93. boatrocker said,

    What you will be “hard pressed to supply” is justification for your personal, unique, self-contradictory “comp-lite”.

    Other comps would shame him and chew him out for not taking a tougher stance.

    Men who are reluctant to lord authority over their wives, yet who say they are comp (they often identify as “soft comp”), would be made to feel like they are not being the “spiritual leaders” of their families by the more hard line comps.

    I’ve seen this come up on other blogs, where women said their husbands were shamed or humiliated or criticized by a comp preacher or church member for not being more hard line.

    Like

  94. It really is bullying, missdaisyflower. The comp leaders bully their underling men, and the men are supposed to bully their wives.

    Reminds me of an excellent point someone raised a few years ago. Many patriarchal households train toddlers to not touch things they might break; that is, they house-proof the toddler rather than toddler-proof the house. Yet when the male toddlers becomes a grownup, suddenly the world must be made “toddler-proof”; the men are not held responsible for what they see and want and might break; it’s the fault of the “vase” that enticed the toddler to break it.

    Like

  95. “Yet when the male toddlers becomes a grownup, suddenly the world must be made “toddler-proof”; the men are not held responsible for what they see and want and might break; it’s the fault of the “vase” that enticed the toddler to break it.”

    It is more Islamic thinking instilled in them. She is making me lust sort of thing…it is her fault I am turned on by her. Part of the problem is that sex has become a major topic in Christendom. And you couple that with patriarchal/comp thinking and women are objectified over and over. She cannot be a sister in Christ of in that sort of environment.

    Like

  96. Saw this on Twitter “Saw #ShouldShePreach by @tonymiano in my Twitter feed. Must be a short book. Answer is “no” & roll of duct tape included for emergencies.”

    Yes, Jim, I saw that, too. I think it was a retweet, but disgusting. That really shows Miano’s heart, doesn’t it?

    Like

  97. Jim posted Miano’s retweet:

    Saw this on Twitter “Saw #ShouldShePreach by @tonymiano in my Twitter feed. Must be a short book. Answer is “no” & roll of duct tape included for emergencies.”

    Here’s Tony’s new tweet this morning and my response in light of the above disgusting retweet.

    Like

  98. “Saw this on Twitter “Saw #ShouldShePreach by @tonymiano in my Twitter feed. Must be a short book. Answer is “no” & roll of duct tape included for emergencies.”

    Yes, Jim, I saw that, too. I think it was a retweet, but disgusting. That really shows Miano’s heart, doesn’t it?

    Oh but she can work to support the family, though. What manly men.

    Like

  99. “Oh but she can work to support the family, though. What manly men.”

    Yes, exactly. She can work while he stays at home mingling and debating on social media, frequently giving pleas for donations: We need $2,000 in the next 3 days!!’

    Give me a break.

    Like

  100. Really REALLY slow on the uptake here, but couldn’t the subtitle of this thread have been “Complementarian Conflict of BIBLICAL Proportions?”

    Like

  101. Yes indeed God has chosen some women to teach in writing to men. Proverbs has writings and teachings for men And women of the church and Israel . Dont understand your Foolish complaints at all.

    Like

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

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s