* * *
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.
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).
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Hi Julie Anne, so far as I know, most big name complementarians say that a woman may write a book about the Bible, and even a book about doctrine. So that’s probably how they think it’s okay for a woman to write study notes in a Bible.
I am not going to try to defend their argument, but I think it goes something like this: a man in a pulpit holding a regular teaching and preaching ministry is different from a woman doing an occasional face to face teaching in a non-worship-service Christian event. And a woman writing biblical teaching is not speaking out loud so that is even less ‘authoritative’ than speaking the teaching is; readers can choose whether or not they want to read her work, unlike the situation in an auditorium or church service where the audience is in some ways more captive.
I know. It sounds a bit equivocating. . .
I do know that while the comps may say that a woman is allowed to write a book about doctrine, my book (which is about the doctrine of divorce) has been studiously ignored by the vast majority of complementarians. I have several stories of ways that American complementarians and even big name ones were initially interested in my book, or willing to publish a review of it, but in each case the outcome was a stony, ignoring silence. Hmm.
The wonderful exceptions were David Clyde Jones (former Professor of Ethics at Covenant Seminary) and William Heth (who is think is probably comp; he certainly was very conservative about divorce doctrine in earlier days) who both endorsed my book.
So what they say and what they do…. as we well know, there can be a gulf between the two.
Sorry for the little rant.
LikeLike
Julie Ann:
What a shame in the year 2013 that the Bible is being used by some to take women back into the 1800’s. These guys make me sick the way they twist the Bible to match their warped views of how women may be used by God.
LikeLike
Julie Ann:
There is no way to explain the disconnect here. These guys make the rules and then anything they do is ok with them. IMO their religious minds are warped.
LikeLike
I agree with Tom. There is no way to explain the disconnect with complementarian beliefs and practice regarding women Bible teachers who write.
I like what Michael Bird has said on this inconsistency:
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/michael-bird-complementarians-and-women-teachers/
LikeLike
Maybe there is no disconnect. Maybe this simply validates the fact that no one is purely comp or purely egal. As a matter of fact, I would think that this is an opportunity to congratulate them for getting it right by including females in the list of contributors to the study notes of this Bible.
LikeLike
This is very interesting. It will be even more interesting to see who the 50 pastors and scholars are. One thing I notice is that none of the people giving endorsements are said to be affiliated with Wheaton College, nor for that matter with Fuller Theological Seminary or Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I once checked the Wikipedia pages for Piper, Mahaney, Mohler and several others of their stripe to see if they had attended Wheaton. Piper attended, but did not graduate. If any of the others spent time at Wheaton, it isn’t mentioned on their Wikipedia bios. This has caused me to be concerned that maybe I have been a bit precipitous in having walked away from everything evangelical.
Speaking of which, in a dream I had last night I had the opportunity to spend several days on the Wheaton College campus speaking to students. I must say they were all quite pleasant compared to the one or two examples of Bob Jones students who have come to my attention. I do not recall the content of most of my discussions (I think they related to the topic of spiritual formation), but the highlight of the dream was when I was privileged to make the point to a group of students and professors that, having been freed from the law, I do not now consider myself to be in bondage to Paul. that is, I do not consider myself to be bound by Paul’s instructions regarding social relationships. The response was silence, but it was a polite silence.
O.K., it was only a dream, but I am wondering if anybody has any information about any teachings on the topic of patriarchy and complementariansim coming out of places like Wheaton, Fuller, and Trinity (yes, recall that Grudem taught at Trinity, but he’s not there now). I’m actually hoping that I can come to the conclusion that maybe I have painted all of evangelicalism with too broad a brush when I react to the garbage coming from Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, T4G, TGC, CBMW, Vision Forum and so on.
LikeLike
Certainly, though there is a good deal on which we disagree, I do not include Wesley Roy in the same category as Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, T4G, TGC, CBMW, Vision Forum and so on. God morning Wesley. Do please take this as the compliment it is intended to be.
LikeLike
As an alum of Wheaton’s graduate school, I can say that the only place I ran into anything approaching comp was in theology classes–both taught by women, might I add.
LikeLike
If I had to guess based upon experience, I would have to say it is about marketing. There was a time money was flowing into the comp coffers in the way of donations to CBMW, comp conferences, books, etc. Those days are pretty much over and they are re-imaging themselves. This is just part of the new branding effort. It is not like they had a Damascus road conversion.
It is typical because the comp focus back in early 80’s was a response to what was going on in the culture from the 60’s to 70’s. But now, the culture is such that many women earn more than their husbands. That is just the way it has played out for many reasons. The past comp message of strict roles is not playing well to more and more people who are not making a living in ministry. It is simply not reality.
I did not see Piper’s name on endorsements. Remember, his church decided that woman reading scripture aloud in church would be akin to women teaching men so it is now verboten. And why anyone would want something endorsed by Mahaney is chilling.
LikeLike
O.K. I found the list of contributors at:
http://gospeltransformationbible.org/contributors
There are 3 contributors from SBTS. Not Good. There are 2 from Trinity. Not sure if that is good, bad or indifferent. Grudem spent 20 years there. There is nobody associated with Wheaton or Fuller. Probably not good.
Kevin DeYoung is a contributor. They’ve lost me. I may get around to purchasing this new Bible-with-commentary, but it will be for the purpose of conducting opposition research.
LikeLike
Gary, Wheaton is where some of my family members became totally enamored with Piper and even went to study and work with him after graduation. That was probably something like 15 years ago. They became totally different people. Arrogant, condescending to the point they did not think any of us knew the true Gospel. Including their own grandparents who had labored in missions for 40 years. But were not Calvinists. That was when I started checking Piper out closely.
My guess is like many places there is a mixture. For many years, Wheaton was very Billy Grahamish. Most are not like SBTS where it became basically Al Mohler’s brand. One pretty much stays on the Mohler reservation there or they are out. What you will see are approved “degrees” of disagreement that are totally benign so they can say they are independent thinkers.
LikeLike
“[T]he only place I ran into anything approaching comp was in theology classes–both taught by women, might I add.”
A disconnect, much? Guess these professors hadn’t read the appropriate authorities on the proper interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. Or maybe the classes were restricted to Women only?
No, I’m still holding out hope that Wheaton hasn’t fallen into the darkness of Patriarchy and complementarianism.
LikeLike
Probably I should come clean. The reason I have an interest in Wheaton, and likely the explanation for the dream I recounted above, is that I came of age at Wheaton. (I graduated, but I won’t say when or with what degree, just in case my anonymity isn’t already completely blown.) I really do have fond memories. Lydia is right, there was a mixture of views while I was there. My impression is that there was a leaning in the direction of the Westminster Confession, but very few students, and none of the professors, were going to get all bent out of shape if you embraced a free will point of view. I don’t have ANY sense that it was thought that women were in any way limited by gender to certain roles, other than maybe many or most would have said they shouldn’t preach (well, with certain necessary exceptions on the mission field), but I really don’t know.
LikeLike
Thanks for the compliment Gary.
LikeLike
There’s a hyperlinked word, “contributors,” in the article which links to all “contributors.” 🙂
LikeLike
Gary, I agree with you about Wesley – that is a compliment with an “i.”
LikeLike
Wesley said: “As a matter of fact, I would think that this is an opportunity to congratulate them for getting it right by including females in the list of contributors to the study notes of this Bible.”
HA – maybe so! Good point, Wesley.
LikeLike
This is a major reason why I can’t stand commentary Bibles. It’s just another form of manipulation. I don’t mind commentary when it tells me how to convert shekels into dollars, but other than that, leave opinion out of it. Study Bible alone, and not anyone’s commentary. No ones. Not even mine. This is a relationship between you and God alone. Ye need not that any man teach you. And yet, men are teaching. I believe that what the men that are teaching is out of bounds of what they have the authority to teaching. They are trying to be the Holy Spirit, which is equated to, that they are trying to be God. When it is said in the Bible that He appointed teachers, I don’t think that God intended for them to teach bondage, slavery, etc., but freedom. Paul said that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach. That’s him. He’s kinda dead right now. He gave his opinion on the matter. That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it. Take for example 1 Cor 7. His opinion, not a commandment.
So, we have,
1. Ye need not that any MAN teach you, to
2. I don’t permit a woman to teach.
No man or woman. So, who can teach? Transgenders?
Who is relying on God to teach? What are the boundaries of what man has the authority to teach vs. letting the Holy Spirit teach…one on one alone.
I can just visualize a man telling the Holy Spirit to shut up, because he is teaching.
That is where the disconnect is. Who taught Sarah how to be a wife? Didn’t it just come naturally? Why all the rules and regs? I thought that God was about freedom from that kind of mindset of rules and regs, because the law represents death, not life. Was Abraham given the bylaws by God on how to be a husband, or did it just come naturally? Women will submit to their husbands naturally, without rules. But, there must be a prerequisite for that submission. The husband must earn that respect, not demand it.
Are we not to live in the spirit and not the flesh? Do people really know what that really means. Law is for the flesh, not the spirit. If we died with Christ, we are not in the flesh, and therefore, not the law. So, why are people trying to conform to laws that are non-existent to Christians?
I hate commentary Bibles. It’s not my opinion written in them, it’s someone else’s opinion. My opinion matters, your opinion matters. What doesn’t matter is when someone else is indoctrinating their opinions forcing you to conform to their opinions.
Ed
LikeLike
Remember that silly article by Piper stating he can read and recite a ‘biblical’ book by a woman, because she wasn’t in his presence ‘pushing’ her femininity upon him?
(snickers) No doubt that is why he wrote it! You have to put it out there before you present this new bible. Now we know why his wriedness put it online. He basically ‘endorsed’ it before we knew about it.
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2013/04/john-piper-women-teaching-men.html
LikeLike
Gotta love Twitter parody accounts – lol:
LikeLike
“I don’t mind commentary when it tells me how to convert shekels into dollars, but other than that, leave opinion out of it”
Totally agree, Ed.
LikeLike
Thanks JA for the compliment with an “i”.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t understand all of these special Bibles that have been produced over the years. It only shows that you can turn the Bible into what you want it to mean, kind of like manipulating numbers for statistical purposes. It also shows me that publishers are only interested in making money because they know certain markets will buy their product.
LikeLike
“Who can explain this disconnect for me? I’m completely baffled.”
It’s not a disconnect. It just proves that you either don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) what complementarianism is actually about.
LikeLike
Piper recently said it’s all about whether he can see the woman face-to-face. If he can’t see her, it’s OK. (Seriously!) There were several blog posts about this abusrdity a few months ago-
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/legalism-gender-roles-exhibit-c-piper-commentary
LikeLike
Brian, the ones who want to understand complementarianism are those who love to control. It’s a control freak’s paradise. Others who wish to understand it, do so in order to know how to avoid it.
LikeLike
So Piper and Miano obviously need to get to the bottom of this mass confusion.
LikeLike
Piper and Miano (and their ilk) are AT the bottom of this mass confusion.
LikeLike
Brian predictably said:
Thanks, Brian, your comment is surely to generate a number of comments. 🙂
I think actually, what it is clearly showing is that THEY don’t know what complementarianism is. Those who call them comps cannot keep it straight. Grudem says women can teach deaf men. Wassupwiththat? Deaf men? Deaf men have brains and every other faculty – – they are just hearing impaired. So what? Why do the rules change for hearing-impaired? Do you know who Grudem is and how he connects w/complementarianism?
LikeLike
“It’s not a disconnect. It just proves that you either don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) what complementarianism is actually about”
Hee Hee. Here we go. Oh, I understand it alright. Spent many years facilitating comp conferences in the mega world and met many of the big comp stars making bank off of it. And believe me, there was good money in comp doctrine in the 90’s. Not so much anymore. It has always had many faces.
I always got a kick out of the comp wife who back stage was General Patton and it was obvious to us who wore the pants. However, on stage she was the consummate comp wife and him, the spiritual leader.
The whole comp world became a joke and some were laughing all the way to the bank.
Jesus Christ teaches Mutuality.
LikeLike
Bwahahaha!
Oh yes, the scholarly Grudem, who with Piper, claimed Junia was a man based on what evidence? Oh yes! Epiphanius! But they failed to point out that Epiphanius, in the same treatise, claimed Priscilla was really a man, too!
Such scholars. Actually they are “deceivers”.
LikeLike
Ed
Much agreement when you write…
“…I can’t stand commentary Bibles. It’s just another form of manipulation.”
“Who is relying on God to teach?”
Well – It does take a step of faith to believe and trust that God, that the Father,
that Jesus, that the Holy Spirit “can speak to you” and **teach you** “ALL” truth.
And we do have some examples – In the Bible…
Jesus, as man, learned directly from God. – Jn 8:28
Peter learned directly from God. – Mt 16:17
Paul learned directly from God. – Ga 1:11-12, Ga 1:16
Jesus taught, God will teach you. – Jn 6:45, Jn 14:26, Jn 16:13.
John taught, God will teach you. – 1 Jn 2:20-27
Paul taught, God will teach you. – Eph 4:21, 1 Thes 4:9, 1 Cor 14:26.
John 6:45 KJV
It is written in the prophets,
And they shall be *ALL taught of God.*
Deuteronomy 4:36 KJV
Out of heaven he made thee to **hear His voice,*
that *He might instruct thee*:
Psalms 32:8 KJV
I will *instruct thee and *teach thee
in the way which thou shalt go: I will *guide thee with mine eye.
And the best teacher is…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Brian:
You said:”It’s not a disconnect. It just proves that you either don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) what complementarianism is actually about.”
I sure as heck know what comp sadly actually is and the way it has been presented I want no part of it. It is anti-women and Jesus was not anti-women.
That is the bottom line for me.
LikeLike
More slick marketing with the intent of separating the American Christian from his dollar. I have enough study Bibles already. The only thing lacking is my studying them. And endorsements from C.J. Mahaney and his posse of enablers? Please! If I did have any thoughts of purchasing a copy of this latest outpouring of the Holy Spirit they were quickly quenched. I will keep the 50 bucks out of the hands of these racketeers and instead make a donation in the name of C.J. Mahaney to GRACE.
http://netgrace.org/give/
LikeLike
Those who think it is about control, power, or money (whether for or against it) demonstrate their lack of understanding. Simply put, it is about mutual submission within a framework of defined roles.
But I don’t expect you guys to actually engage that. Instead you want to attack the people who promote and who may even distort it themselves. Biblical complementarianism is an incredible thing.
And please don’t pretend to even begin to understand my position on it based upon affiliations I may or may not have with certain others.
LikeLike
“Those who think it is about control, power, or money (whether for or against it) demonstrate their lack of understanding. Simply put, it is about mutual submission within a framework of defined roles.”
Maybe people are against it because the way it is presented repeatedly seems to perpetuate systems and beliefs of control, power, or money.
And what is the framework of defined roles and who decides what it is?
LikeLike
To Brian Thornton: As far as I can tell, complementarians agree on two things: men should be in authority of some sort over women, and women should be restricted in certain ways. But no two groups of complementarians seem to be able to agree on the nuts and bolts of either of these– just how far male authority extends or how much restriction to put on women. And then every time someone points out an inconsistency, some complementarian somewhere will point out that the problem is just a misunderstanding of complementarianism, a straw man, etc. However, “I’m a complementarian and I don’t believe women should be restricted in doing X” really doesn’t translate to “complementarianism as a whole doesn’t believe women should be restricted in doing X.” In fact, it’s impossible to tell what complementarianism as a whole believes about any particular activity of women. And that includes writing teaching articles in ESV Bibles.
LikeLike
Brian:
You said:”But I don’t expect you guys to actually engage that. Instead you want to attack the people who promote and who may even distort it themselves. Biblical complementarianism is an incredible thing.”
Baloney!! Brian, when you and others deny women to use their God given gifts I fail to see this as incredible.
LikeLike
Brian said: Biblical complementarianism is an incredible thing.
For whom, guys? That must be why I see a huge amount of guys pushing it. Funny thing, they are also in high authoritarian churches having a title of “Senior Pastor” with strict membership contracts/covenants, etc. Oh yea, I’m sold already – lol.
LikeLike
Isn’t that the truth, Kristen?!
LikeLike
There’s a distinctive pattern I am beginning to see on here, and that is that you are not able to view something objectively. Everything gets lumped into the CON/Miano/Mahaney group and then is attacked relentlessly and without mercy.
As a result, no real constructive dialogue is able to take place.
LikeLike
Brian:
You said:”There’s a distinctive pattern I am beginning to see on here, and that is that you are not able to view something objectively. Everything gets lumped into the CON/Miano/Mahaney group and then is attacked relentlessly and without mercy.
As a result, no real constructive dialogue is able to take place.”
Could it be that you are not objective?
LikeLike
I remember something similar (either here or somewhere else) where a pastor spending hours on the phone with women whose husbands were at work wasn’t really adultery because they weren’t face-to-face.
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
LikeLike
In the sense that I can differentiate between the junk from the CONs and Mianos and not throw out the baby with the bathwater because of their distortions of the truth, yes, I think I am more objective about things like complementarianism than you all are.
LikeLike
Brian:
You said:”As a result, no real constructive dialogue is able to take place.”
If you are just going to tell us that disagree with you that no dialogue is possible unless we agree with you then no real constructive dialogue is going to take place here.
BTW–according to you comp is incredible–tell that to the Southern Baptist ministers who have lost their churches–(shown the door) for daring to support the equal treatment of women by God.
LikeLike
Good memory. That would be Chuck O’Neal.
LikeLike
You raise a good point, Brian. I typically point out the extremes here because I find them glaringly obvious. Who would you recommend as good complementarians? Help us see what your balanced and healthy version looks like.
LikeLike
I never could find a baby in that bathwater. And I used a sieve.
LikeLike
Julie Anne:
You said to Brian:’You raise a good point, Brian. I typically point out the extremes here because I find them glaringly obvious. Who would you recommend as good complementarians? Help us see what your balanced and healthy version looks like.”
I bet we will only hear the crickets chirping from Brian on this one.
LikeLike
“Who would you recommend as good complementarians? Help us see what your balanced and healthy version looks like.”
Nice try. Thanks, but no. All that will do is give you more fodder for the trough. Instead of researching their views and teachings on complementarianism, you guys will predictably look at their affiliations and other theology and villify them as you do so many others.
LikeLike
Tom Parker said “I bet we will only hear the crickets chirping from Brian on this one.”
THEN Brian says “Nice try. Thanks, but no.”
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
Nice call, Tom!
LikeLike
There’s also a glaring irony in this post. This group is being ridiculed for doing something you would applaud from anyone else. The contributors include women, but instead of affirming that, you have turned it into yet another point of contention.
Perhaps their actions might serve to teach you a little bit about what they really understand complementarianism to be.
LikeLike
“Perhaps their actions might serve to teach you a little bit about what they really understand complementarianism to be.”
What do you consider complementarianism to be?
LikeLike
“What do you consider complementarianism to be?”
Mutual submission to one another through distinct roles as all submit to Christ.
LikeLike
“Mutual submission to one another through distinct roles as all submit to Christ.”
What do you mean by “distinct roles”?
LikeLike
(otherwise, egalitarians would agree with the rest of your statement about mutual submission and submitting to Christ)
LikeLike
Shepherds/Pastors/Elders/Overseers are men.
Deacons can be men and women.
Leaders in the home are the husbands.
Everything else is pretty much fair game.
Attack away…
LikeLike
“Shepherds/Pastors/Elders/Overseers are men.
Deacons can be men and women.
Leaders in the home are the husbands.”
Says who? (to save you time, simply stating “God” or “the Bible” will not be enough)
LikeLike
Says Brian.
LikeLike
Mutual submission. Husbands as leaders. Can anybody spell oxymoron? Mutual submission with husbands as servants, yes. That would be just like Jesus.
LikeLike
I think that my first comment is the best commentary on this issue. No one is pure comp or egal.
As a matter of fact, I would say that everyone is comp in practice. No one believes everyone can do everything as well as everyone else can. I would think that everyone would also be willing to concede the fact that women and men have differences beyond our physiology. I think all of us who are married would have to admit that their are times that we have no idea how our spouses process information and arrive at the conclusions that they do. As a comp I have to admit that there are some things that my wife does a much better job at than I do so I do like all other comp’s and egal’s and stay out of her way while she does it or ask her what can I do to help her. For example, I have the accounting skills with formal training in accounting, Quickbooks, Peach Tree, etc. but my wife handles the day to day finances. It’s simple she is a much more disciplined spender and likes the job. I don’t think there is a home that operates successfully that does not take advantage of the strengths of the members of the family in their respective areas. Unfortunately, she does make me do the taxes….. lol.
The argument is not whether or not the genders operate in complementary roles or not. It is clear that we do complement each other since we are not the same. The debate is really over who will define the roles. I would venture to say that comp is just as much a result of mutual submission as egal with the only difference being in theory not practice.
I think Crawford Loritts is comp and “balanced” and a little better known than I am.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. We should be more objective. Here are a list of “Biblical Womanhood” gender roles:
1. Driving a tent peg into a man’s head
2. Hiding Spies
3. Cleaning out the pantry to feed the king and his men because your husband is a jerk who insulted him and is going to get the entire family killed
4. Sitting under a palm tree and making judgments for an entire nation
5. Demanding your personal maid sleep with your husband when you cannot bear a child
6. Leaving your husband back at the palace while you travel around with Jesus and support Him out of your own resources.
7. apostle
8. deacon
9. evangelists
10 Teacher
11. Prophetess who spoke the Word of God to men
Just a sampling of Who is who?
LikeLike
“As a matter of fact, I would say that everyone is comp in practice.”
Actually Wesley, we tracked these trends for about 10 years in the comp/mega world and found that most couples practice egalitarian/mutualism at home. Yet they call themselves comp. ;It is like they put on the comp badge for church but don’t live it in every day life.
Russ Moore picked up on this a few years back and wrote about it for the Henry Institute. He said comps are wimps and we need more patriarchalism,
LikeLike
Good comment, Wesley Roy.
My issue with complementarianism, as least as it is practiced in the circles Julie Anne refers to, is that it seems to assume all men are exactly the same and all women are exactly the same, when the reality is that very few people fit their gender stereotypes. I like how you define it, that the spouses support each other in wherever their strengths lie (which may or may not fit predefined “gender roles”).
LikeLike
“Shepherds/Pastors/Elders/Overseers are men.”
Tis means “anyone”. If they have to be men they HAVE to be “married” men. That would exclude Paul and Jesus right off the bat.
LikeLike
Thanks RMR you got the heart of my post.
LikeLike
The word “complementarian” was coined for a reason. It is Orwellian. It was meant to instill a patriarchy with a more palatable name for that generation (1980’s). It does not mean what it says. You can map it to their ESS stuff. There are “hierarchy” in the “roles”. (I always thought roles were for the stage and screen where you pretended to be someone else but now the same is encouraged in Christianity!)
For an overview of where it came from and who was involved google the Danvers Statement and it’s signers. Piper was redefining words and concepts long before “Christian Hedonism” and “Scream of the Damned”.
LikeLike
Wesley: I really enjoyed and agreed w/so much of your comment. Don’t faint! You raise a great question here: who will define the roles
And my question is who defines them and why do they get to define them? Why aren’t we all able to define them as we read through scripture and God speaks to us? Why is their way the only right way? Even the comps can’t agree on their own rules.
LikeLike
The word “complementarian” was coined for a reason. It is Orwellian. It was meant to instill a patriarchy with a more palatable name for that generation
Exactly. It is nothing more than an attempt at deception.
LikeLike
Who will define the roles? I’m thinking John Piper is disqualified. He has had problems in his own marriage:
http://tinyurl.com/k3c9wrh
The author of the linked article, who is quite gracious about it, notes that “when I was doing research on the complementarian worldview was that the leaders who were the most transparent admitted that especially in the early years of their marriage, the complementarian lifestyle brought problems into their marriages.”
By their fruits shall we know them.
LikeLike
JA I would say that both parties are part of the role defining since neither has the ability to enforce their will upon the other. Again it may be my experience that is radically different but in my marriage and church experience no party can be compelled to remain in the relationship or be limited in their responsibilities and privileges without mutual consent.
I don’t think we can nail down a definition to complementarian that is free of nuances any more than we can do it with any other word. So when someone says they are comp I listen to what they are saying to determine if it is definition #1, #2, etc. I don’t know anyone personally that equates comp with patriarchy and the guys on the national scene who say they do are probably not being honest about their practice as one of the earlier posters pointed out.
LikeLike
Gary, Had she been his true ministry partner this might not have been needed. But during that time where was Piper? In Europe doing .research for a book or project
Piper was running around teaching women in conferences all about marriage and all about their roles. Where was Noel? No where to be found. It was like that for many years. She homeschools so it is not l like they could not travel together. She simply was not part of his life.
You want to know just how silly and hypocritical Piper is? He does this ridiculous article on women building muscle and how it is wrong. In the meantime, Noel has a blog post about going to the gym to “build muscle”. Now there is a couple that does not communicate.
LikeLike
JA I would say that both parties are part of the role defining since neither has the ability to enforce their will upon the other. Again it may be my experience that is radically different but in my marriage and church experience no party can be compelled to remain in the relationship or be limited in their responsibilities and privileges without mutual consent.
********
Wesley – I wish you’d go to homeschool conventions and see the nonsense I post about here. I’d like to hear you raise some abyss (thanks, Gary W.) because I think you’d surely see problems in that camp.
LikeLike
Wesley, Complementarian was an attempt to “redefine” Patriarchy and bring it back into churches under the mantle of “scripture teaching” back in 1980’s. If you google Danvers statement and read it you will see that it is easy to drive mac truck sized holes into their interpretations of proof texts.
Why try to define a made up word? That is why we must always question the premises and concepts that are handed out like Holy Writ.
LikeLike
Gary I think they guys who had problems were trying to lead their wives like a king instead of a savior. When they figured out their role was to reflect the heart of a savior instead of the heart of a king it helped their marriage. It was not the comp position but their lack of understanding of their role that caused their problems.
Even before we became Christians my wife and I had a comp styled marriage. She is strong-willed, smart, and self-sufficient but she knows that she is loved and that I value her opinion and her happiness above my own. People do not have a problem with the comp view but with not being loved and valued.
LikeLike
“People do not have a problem with the comp view but with not being loved and valued.”
Wesley, When people are loved, valued and treat their spouse the same, there is no need for a “comp” anything. That is the point. And one missed by many who have swallowed the concept. Comp is about hierarchy of roles. Period. Or else there would be no need for it at all as a “doctrine”.
And what is funny is some of the signers of the statement found themselves in old age where their wives are making all the decisions for them and helping them into their Depends. Funny how life can come back to bite you when you start down a wrong road.
LikeLike
Brian said: Biblical complementarianism is an incredible thing.
Yep, absolutely unbelievable, as in false doctrine, heresy, etc., and not to be believed!
LikeLike
Lydia, I just read the Danvers Statement and stand by the fact that what is called comp has been around long before this statement was written and has many different nuances. Long before they crafted this document I was raised in a home that would have been characterized as comp in a culture that was really more matriarchal than patriarchal.
Patriarchy, however, is not deemed evil or good in Scripture. It is purely a cultural construct and offensive to American sensibilities though not condemned in Scripture. I am not supporting the neo-patriarchy but simply pointing out that many of our doctrinal stances are rooted firmly in cultural understanding instead of exegesis.
LikeLike
Scripture gives us a good construct for complementarianism:
Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
(Ephesians 5:15-33)
LikeLike
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” – 1 Cor. 11:3
LikeLike
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
(1 Timothy 3:17)
LikeLike
What does that headship look like in practical terms, Brian?
LikeLike
Wesley,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think part of what you are saying is that husbands and wives may divide their labors in a way that works out best in their particular marriage. It’s not like each one makes the bed 50% of the time, each changes the oil in the car 50% of the time, and so on. It’s just that they get to decide who will take on what responsibilities, and in exactly what ways will each minister to the other. There may be exceptional cases, and we shouldn’t reject help where help is needed, but in the ordinary circumstance, husband and wife can figure things out without outside help. Gender differences may come into play (with it being a matter of discussion what is nature and what is nurture), but gender is not the determinative factor. What counts is who is best equipped for a particular agreed upon task.
Whether or not that is consistent with your view, what I would say is that, if I have just described egalitarianism, I’m egalitarian. If what I have just described is complementarianism, I am complementarian. Trouble is, you’ll have a task ahead of you to convince me that I have just described complementarianism, which to my understanding always involves the husband having the final say.
The reason I have a problem with the idea of the husband having the final say is that the husband is commanded to love his wife (Eph 5:25), and love never insists on its own way (1 Cor 13:5). Well, O.K., I admit it, I only have a problem with the IDEA of the husband having the final say. In reality, the only time I’m tempted to think I’ve nearly arrived is when there is almost an argument because I’m insisting we do what my wife wants, while she is insisting we do what I want.
LikeLike
“What does that headship look like in practical terms, Brian?”
That is a GREAT question. Paul says it looks like the church and her relationship to Christ.
“This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
LikeLike
Brian said: That is a GREAT question. Paul says it looks like the church and her relationship to Christ.
——–/–
Well, then I’m just not seeing this in the vocal complementarians who are telling us how we should run our marriages. The vocal comps are all about flaunting their authority and I don’t see Jesus flaunting his authority.
LikeLike
Gary,
You are pretty accurately restating what I am saying. Gender only defines roles as the spouses determine. For instance my wife does not do yard work at all. She says that is man work reserved for me and our 8 sons who are still at home. I say that the task of cooking is primarily lady work reserved for her and the 5 daughters still at home. Now without a mutual agreement this arrangement would never work and there are exceptions like my bar-b-que ribs yesterday and seafood frying which is my arena. My wife on the other hand has no problem administrating yard work even though she doesn’t do it ………LOL.
I have no problem with the husband having the final word as long as he is guided by love because then the results will usually be something like your last paragraph…..LOL.
As I said egal and comp are theoretically different but in practice quite the same.
LikeLike
My wife and I are complementarians, which means that, yes, ultimately, I have the final say. But that in NO way works itself out practically like a tyrant over a peasant. For any who do weild this in that manner, I would say they have serious problems.
My wife is so much wiser than me in many respects, and I often go the route she has counseled we should go. But she understands that, ultimately, the final decision is up to me and she will respect and support that decision. We have a relationship of mutual love and respect and honor, and she would tell you that she is actually very happy and content that everything ultimately falls on my shoulders as the spiritual head.
Honestly, trying to describe this in a way that gives it justice is very hard to do.
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.” – Col. 3:18-19
LikeLike
“The vocal comps are all about flaunting their authority and I don’t see Jesus flaunting his authority.”
I agree. So please don’t read the vocal comps and judge us all by their words.
As Toula Portokalos’ mom said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, “The man may be the head, but the woman is the neck.” 🙂
LikeLike
“Honestly, trying to describe this in a way that gives it justice is very hard to do.”
Exactly, because you are trying to fit into a 1st Century construct where wives were chattel, often decades younger than the husband in an arranged marriage that had nothing to do with love. They often lived in a different part of the home with the children and slaves and saw their husbands when it was time for sex. To “submit” was a STEP UP for her.
How silly you think you need a “final;” say to feel important. I hope nothing happens to you because she will not be adept at making serious decisions. And who will be her spiritual leader then?
LikeLike
Another thought:
If you have to flaunt your authority, you really don’t have any.
I am convinced, though, that if you love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, your wife will have no problem at all with you being the head of the household.
LikeLike
“As Toula Portokalos’ mom said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, “The man may be the head, but the woman is the neck.” 🙂 ”
Yes, I have heard many pastors teach this. How insidious! Teaching women to be manipulating connivers because their husband is so full of himself and insecure for you to have a grown up discussion with. You have to manipulate to make him think it was his idea.
That teaching is unchristian.
LikeLike
“How silly you think you need a “final;” say to feel important. I hope nothing happens to you because she will not be adept at making serious decisions. And who will be her spiritual leader then?”
Lydia, you are embarrasing yourself with petty comments like this. You know nothing of me or my wife and her ability to make decisions. You are picking apart my words and are not hearing the spirit in which I am writing them.
LikeLike
“Teaching women to be manipulating connivers because their husband is so full of himself and insecure for you to have a grown up discussion with. You have to manipulate to make him think it was his idea. ”
Ummm…that was a joke. I was trying to lighten the mood a bit. Smile, Lydia, Jesus loves you!
LikeLike
” am convinced, though, that if you love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, your wife will have no problem at all with you being the head of the household.”
It is a metaphor. Chances are you will not have to “give up your life”.
BTW: What do you do with 1 Tim 5:14 where in the Greek the wife is referred to as the “despot” of the home?
LikeLike
“As I said egal and comp are theoretically different but in practice quite the same.”
I think this statement from Wes is dead on.
LikeLike
“Ummm…that was a joke. I was trying to lighten the mood a bit. Smile, Lydia, Jesus loves you!”
That means a lot coming from a Calvinist. :o)
Wait! How do you know for sure I am elect? (wink)
LikeLike
“As I said egal and comp are theoretically different but in practice quite the same.”
I think this statement from Wes is dead on.
”
Egal has a hierarchy of “roles” where the man is always the de facto leader? That will be a huge surprise to most mutualists.
LikeLike
I didn’t say you were elect, just that Jesus loves you. 😉
LikeLike
“Lydia, you are embarrasing yourself with petty comments like this. You know nothing of me or my wife and her ability to make decisions. You are picking apart my words and are not hearing the spirit in which I am writing them.”
I do not feel one bit embarrassed. I talked to and surveyed comps for 15 years. I know enough to know you would not be here defending your “status of role” if it were not important to you .personally. It defines you as a believer. It is part of your “pink and blue” Christianity. You need it.
And you did what EVERY Patriarchal man does….try to make sure we know your wife is “capable and smart” but defers to you. I could write the scripts. Because they ARE scripts.
LikeLike
Another Wheaton grad checking in here. It was ages ago, but I remember thinking the overall tone was complementarian (but not hardcore Calvinist). I only recently abandoned that label thanks to the wonderful paper by N.T. Wright on women in pastoral roles.
Let’s not forget Wheaton saints Jim and Elisabeth Elliot, leaders of the 20th century vanguard of Evangelical complementarianism. We were all heavily influenced by their legacy, mostly in a positive way. Their dedication was inspiring.
I loved their writings and had them memorized, but now feel they reflect some unhelpful youthful rigidity. I don’t recommend P&P to singles very often anymore, but I love “The Path of Loneliness.”
LikeLike