Reformed Complementarians Take on the Patriarchy Movement and Errant Ideologies

 ***

The errant Patriarchy Movement is getting some well-deserved attention by voices in Reformed Christianity

***

patriarchy movement, abuse, oppression, women, small__2340380788

Vyckie Garrison wrote an article which has been spread around quite a bit. If you haven’t read, it please be sure to do so. In the article, How Playing Good Christian Housewife Almost Killed Me, she discusses her life in the Patriarchy Movement as a mother of 7 and later discovered through counseling that she had been living a life of oppression under this movement.

Vyckie Garrison was once a minor celebrity in the Quiverfull Movement, made famous by TV’s Duggar family. As a devout, Bible-believing Christian and the mother of seven homeschooled children, Garrison spent 16 years, with her husband, publishing a newspaper for families on a similar path. Today, via a website called No Longer Quivering, she publishes resources for women leaving the movement. (Source)

I posted this article on my Facebook wall and it created quite a ruckus, and sadly, I’m realizing that when some people read a story like this, they often don’t understand the ramifications of years and years of oppression by spiritual or emotional abuse. They also don’t understand what happens when someone lives day after day, year after year, under false doctrine or in a cult-life environment in their own home. If they have never felt what it is like to be “owned” or used as an object by male authority, many times they just won’t get it. It seems they tend to filter this story through their simplistic personal spiritual paradigm, disregarding compassion, disregarding the emotional toll on one’s life. It becomes law over love. It was disheartening to see this kind of response.

It’s easy for someone on the outside to judge and say: “she shouldn’t have left Christ, she never should have divorced her husband because Jesus allows divorce for 2 reasons only, she should have gone to someone else for help.”  It’s also easy to be an armchair judge when sitting in a cozy home with a husband who loves you and treats you as his beloved wife, as he should.

But I am happy to report that there are some in the Reformed camp who are seeing the carnage as carnage and calling out the errant doctrine in the Patriarchy Movement, and finally, we are hearing voices say that this Patriarchy stuff is bad juju.

Since Vyckie Garrison’s article, Rachel Miller from A Daughter of the Reformation blog also addressed Garrison’s article in her own article entitled, The Soul-numbing Dangers of Patriarchy.  I think one of the most disturbing things for me when interacting with my friends was the blame put on Vyckie Garrison, rather than the errant teachings.  I completely concur with Miller’s response:

In her article, Vyckie discusses each type of abuse she experienced in the patriarchy movement. I would like to go through her points and address each of those points. My argument is not that it isn’t abuse, but rather that what she experienced was not Christianity. I understand why she equates patriarchy with Christianity, but I would urge others who read her post to consider that what she was taught was a twisting of Scripture. Most of all, I would like to encourage those interact with anyone who has experienced abuse and rejected Christianity to treat the abuse survivor with gentleness and much mercy. May God show them His love.

The way that I look at it, Garrison had to divorce herself from this wrong view of Christianity and Christ. I wouldn’t want any “Christian” to be held to a false view of Christ, especially when it means that their own personhood is denied. Garrison was right to leave that behind. And her article has done a good thing in bringing attention to the false doctrine.

 Umm, hello!!! shouldn’t it be godly Christians pointing out errant doctrine, not atheists?  

Am I comfortable with Vyckie’s new life as an atheist? Of course not. But it makes sense why she abandoned her faith and that horrible brand of false Christianity. But I do not lose hope. I pray that the true Christ will reveal Himself to her.

Carl Trueman seems to be pretty well-respected in Reformed circles and I think it’s important to give kudos when we see positive movement. He is the Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and has worked as editor of  IFES journal, Themelios (Source), and is contributor at Reformation 21 blog, an online magazine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

In his article,  The Problem for Complementarians Will Come from the Right , he discusses radical ideological movements and includes Patriarchy as one such radical movement. I greatly appreciated Trueman’s comment below as he gives the radical Patriarchy movement some much-needed push back. We need many more voices like Trueman to speak out in order to make a difference:

. . . it seems increasingly clear that the real challenge which patriarchy poses is going to be for the complementarians.  I have little personal interest in complementarianism beyond the issue of office bearing in the church.  As long as the women concerned can shoot straight, balance a budget or (as in the case of Mrs Thatcher) stop trade unions overthrowing democratically elected British governments, I am not worried about whether they fight for their country, run a bank, or hold elected office.  But it does seem to me as something of a bystander in the debate that the complementarian movement’s ability to distinguish itself from positions such as that represented by Quiverfull is going to be critical in the near future.  Given the language about sex, relationships and women which some high profile figures in the YRR movement have used, most notably Mark Driscoll, the time may well be right for the leadership to start focusing on problems on the right and not simply on the left of the issue.  The Problem for Complementarians Will Come from the Right 

 ***

Women in the Workforce

It was bold for Trueman to make that kind of statement regarding woman in the workforce, and also to specifically call out the YRR movement in how they have wrongly contributed to the problem. While Trueman specifically named Driscoll, there are so many more Young Restless and Reformed who have been promoting this agenda. Folks at Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have spoken out about women working outside the home. Here are a couple of “say what?” comments from John Piper:

With regard to women in military, Piper said:

The issue is that they are leading men. Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period. (Source)

Now take a look at how complicated Piper makes it seem for women and men in the workplace at a hypothetical law firm with both men and women working:

If, in the course of the day, a woman in the law firm calls a meeting of the attorneys, and thus takes that kind of initiative, there are still ways that a man, coming to that meeting, can express his manhood through culturally appropriate courtesies shown to the women in the firm. He may open the door; he may offer his chair; he may speak in a voice that is gentler.

It is true that this becomes increasingly difficult where a unisex mentality converts such gentlemanly courtesies into offenses and thus attempts to shut out every mean of expressing the realities of manhood and womanhood. It will be a strain for mature Christian men and women to work in that atmosphere. But it may be that through intelligent discussion and courteous, caring behaviors they may have a redeeming effect even on what their colleagues think and feel about manhood and womanhood. (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, pg 38)

What in the world is that man talking about? It’s like he’s on another planet when it comes to how men and women interacting in the work force. I highly doubt most men who work for female surgeons, scientists, engineers or managers are stirring in their seats wondering if she is robbing them of their manhood by calling them to submit to her on the job.

Podcast Discussing Patriarchy Movement, Duggars, Wife Spanking and More

Finally, I’d like to recommend the following 30-minute podcast, Bully Pulpit XL: Sinister Headship, with Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt and Aimee Byrd in which they tackle the Patriarchy Movement within the Reformed ranks.

Here is their summary of the podcast:

Join a provocative conversation with Rachel Miller, News Editor for The Aquila Report and blogger, as she enlightens us about the patriarchy movement, its driving forces, and its many dangers that have gone under the radar in reformed circles. It’s all talk about headship, gender roles, and the Duggars. Listen to the team tackle sinister elements of the movement and how to approach it from a pastoral perspective. They laugh, they pry, they get serious.

I’m glad to see Reformed folks taking on this abusive doctrine. In the podcast, they also address wife spanking.  Those who follow me on Twitter may recall a tweet in which I said I was saddened by the light-hearted laughing referring that topic. I later found out that the laughing segment was removed. I was grateful to hear that wife spanking is no laughing matter.

I find it interesting that Carl Trueman says Patriarchy is only new to him – only finding out about it within the last few weeks. Well, if he’s speaking up about it after having only heard about it recently, this is great news.  Let’s hope the public disdain for patriarchy spreads quickly.

In Conclusion

I am passionate about the abuse we see in Christianity. I know what it does to one’s core. I know how it can shipwreck one’s faith. I used to cry a lot about spiritual abuse in churches. Spiritual abuse is horrid. But one thing about spiritual abuse in a church is that you can leave the church. Of course the recovery is very, very difficult, as many SSB readers can attest, but think about a woman held hostage in her own home spiritually and emotionally.

Now I find myself crying a lot more about the spiritual abuse in homes where women are isolated and cannot get help from their husbands or even frequently, their pastors. I believe Patriarchy is one of the most dangerous ideologies a woman can face. It is dehumanizing, demoralizing and it must stop.

photo credit: Andre Delhaye via photopin cc

90 comments on “Reformed Complementarians Take on the Patriarchy Movement and Errant Ideologies

  1. I’m glad to hear that, Rachel. With the downfall of Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips, I’ve had an increasing number of wives reaching out to me. The stories are so, so sad. God surely is not pleased.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Vyckie’s portrayal of the Patriarchal atmosphere is spot on.

    I can see how some people may be upset that she decided to “divorce” Jesus, but, I’m telling you, it’s hard to separate Jesus from this type of abuse when you’ve been taught to EQUATE this environment as “biblical.” Coming out of this is grueling. It affects every part of your life.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Before I became a stay-at-home mom, I was a tech lead at a Fortune 500 company, developing in-house software. I had 4 men working for me. It was never awkward. I lead the team and they followed my lead. If I was wrong they pointed it out in the same way I did to them: kindly. It was never a problem. This kind of thinking is so ancient. We discussed things, shared ideas, and solved problems as a team with me as the lead. It was a good thing.

    Like

  4. BTDT – “it’s hard to separate Jesus from this type of abuse when you’ve been taught to EQUATE this environment as ‘biblical.’” EXACTLY! Julie Anne received a lot of push back on her FB when she posted that article. It was amazing some the words that came out of people’s minds/hearts. “She shouldn’t have left Jesus” seemed to be common note. To me, even though I have not lived in this type of environment, it makes sense. I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. As far as Piper’s thoughts about women being “in charge” in the work force, I don’t think he’ll ever understand. After all, that would most likely never happen in his church world environment, so he never has to know what it is like to work under the leadership of a woman.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Some reformed teachers are so hung up on courtship that they have a blind spot for the Duggars and other patriarchy advocates. I’m frankly sick of these guys deeming false teachers within the realm of orthodoxy just because they have similar ideas on how their daughters should find a mate.

    And does John Piper remember what it is like to work in a real job?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. JA wrote: “Am I comfortable with Vyckie’s new life as an atheist? Of course not. But it makes sense why she abandoned her faith and that horrible brand of false Christianity. But I do not lose hope. I pray that the true Christ will reveal Himself to her.”
    Agreed. Because of the spiritual abuse from our old church and the daughter church my parents attended later in another state, my middle sister is one who abandoned her faith. She feels God abandoned her long before she walked away from the abuse. It is heart breaking to see first hand the pain and brokenness that is done in Christ’s name. I love her, and we have a distant but loving relationship. I hope she gets the healing she SO deserves.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Until Trueman explains his exoneration of Mahaney on the panel brought into to say he was “fit” for ministry he has NO credibility with me…for which I am sure he does not care one whit. I wish others would hold him accountable, though. he is trying hard to rehab himself without explaining his part in some of the spiritual abuse out there and protecting the wolves. He has cleverly said “at the time he was fit for ministry” or something like that. As if not seeking out truth is his excuse? Not talking to victims?

    I am just a bit shocked at how many bloggers are promoting Trueman. It is like sweeping his part in protecting Mahaney under the rug. I don’t get it. He does seem to hope many forget it as he seeks a new audience. I find that deceptive.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Lydia, I knew this would come up.

    This blog article is not a blanket endorsement for Trueman. That kind of black/white thing will get us in trouble.

    I think many people have a hard time with me personally because it’s difficult to put me in a box. Here’s the deal – I hate abuse. He may have missed it on CJ, but he didn’t on Patriarchy. I’m not going to throw out the baby with the bath water. We need as many voices to speak out on this as we can.

    CJ’s primary influence was SGM. I think Patriarchy is has far more victims and potential victims. I will stand alongside anyone who calls out patriarchy. It doesn’t mean that I go along with everything else they believe.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Aimee Byrd is a friend of mine. She’s always worth reading even if she comes down on the comp side and I on the egal side. Same goes for Trueman. His insights are valuable even if I disagree with him on some points.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. I was listening soberly to the podcast until . . . they started playing Aretha Franklin’s and Annie Lennox’s “Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves” at the end. I LOVE that song. These people are ok.

    Oh, and the podcast was good, too. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  12. JA, I don’t see it as putting people in a box. There might be people reading here who don’t even know who he is or his part in exonerating CJ. I am just trying to figure out who Trueman really is. After all you don’t get more patriarchal than CJ Mahaney…. and his shepherding cult. Did he not have a problem with that at the time?’

    Like

  13. I’m glad to see Christian ministries denouncing patriarchy for what it is. Sadly, I wish more people of importance were willing to take on the topic years ago when, before the recent scandals, most people were too afraid to pull back the curtain on the abuse. I would have appreciated the support from influential ministries on the Reformed side when I begged for help a decade ago — or just for their help in peer review. They were few and far between because people didn’t want to risk it.

    Most all of the Reformed camp would agree with me privately, stating that we held very similar stances on the abuses and agreed about the lack of love and liberty in the Body. But asking them to step forward (so that I would not have to do so) was a different matter. They were terrified about being identified as “pro-egalitarian,” even if they were calling for balance and exposing the sad truth about the abuse. It’s safer now to call out the wrongs, now that so many big names have lost their reputations.

    I reject adopting any title in the spirit of liberty (and don’t fit the continuum that complementarianism has forced) — but yet, each camp tends to classify me in the opposite one, just to “stay clean” in the eyes of their supporters. I applaud those who were outside Christianity who had the courage and moral fiber to support the early voices when Christians would not listen. I am grateful to those who supported me after being maligned by many camps of Christians, mostly because of politics within Evangelicalism.

    If anyone reading here finds themselves to be a voice crying in the wilderness about moral wrongs with which no one in the Church will yet sully themselves, I encourage you to hang in there. Paul wrote “that we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth,” and Proverbs says to “buy the truth and sell it not.” Like Julie Anne learned in court, the truth comes at a price. Sometimes, people don’t even ever get justice in this life, and JA was blessed to get a just verdict. My husband says often that “no good deed goes unpunished.” But if you see an opportunity to do good, no matter how small, do it. You have no idea how just a few words of encouragement help to change things and lend courage to others who seek to do good. I think that everything, even or perhaps especially the little things all count.

    I’m grateful for the Vyckies and the Kathryn Joyces and the Gina McGalliards out there. I’m grateful for that Happy Athiest on Patheos. So far as I’ve been able to tell, they’ve done a better job of making honest assessments about abuse than the lion’s share of Christian leaders. If someone is telling the truth, you have nothing to fear, even if that person holds to a different belief system. The truth becomes a touchstone of commonality and trust and kindness. It’s sad that atheists have been more kind than those in the house of our friends who had the power to speak about hard matters before the bodies of the abused started piling up.

    Samuel wrote that when God’s own would not deal with their sins, that the Rod of Man would. I’m glad that the Church has finally found itself willing to catch up to the debate.

    I love that Winston Churchill quote:
    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” I’m grateful for all who risk the malice and ignorance, no matter who they are. It’s that kind of black and white thinking that has allowed such abuses to flourish.

    I applaud the Reformed camp for their efforts to formally challenge these ideas, despite the possibility that they might be misunderstood.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Patriarchy is simply an innocent sounding term for the practice of involuntary servitude. Complementarianism is a euphemism for patriarchy. Any differences between patriarchy and complementarianism are of a quantitative, not a qualitative, nature–if it is possible for one evil to be less than another in such matters. Both systems enslave women and their children, especially where divorce is denied on the pretextual basis of the permanency of marriage. (I maintain that where one party to a supposed marriage is in fact enslaved, there is no marriage.)

    The issue is whether we, as Christians, will work to emancipate women with, as a minimum, the same resolve and vigor as evangelicals worked for the emancipation of slaves from their Southern, ostensibly Christian, masters in the 19th Century. We are not working to change or redeem Evangelicalism, but to free women. If one evangelical movement or another contributes to the cause, well and good, but, again, the issue is not whether Evangelicalism will change–it is whether women will be freed.

    It may be that Evangelicalism will be reformed as an *effect* of joining in efforts to free women. Otherwise, Evangelicalism will be defeated, even destroyed, by the World system, which on this issue, ironically, is more just than probably most of Evangelicalism.

    “And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:16-18 ESV).

    Whether or not the prostitute is, as I believe, false religion, it is plain that all that is false to our Lord and to his bride will be destroyed.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. It is absolutely certain that none who would oppose me and those I indoctrinate with my theolatry can succeed. Being the Immutably Elect and Only True Prince of the Kingdom of Narcissia, I am simply superior to all others. I am smarter, I am better looking, I am more well adjusted, I am more entitled, and I am boss. All others than myself, and especially women, are inferior beings–and they simply cannot, therefore, prevail against me.

    Now if all these inferior beings without penises would just stop threatening my manhood.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. …the complementarian movement’s ability to distinguish itself from positions such as that represented by Quiverfull is going to be critical in the near future. Given the language about sex, relationships and women which some high profile figures in the YRR movement have used, most notably Mark Driscoll, the time may well be right for the leadership to start focusing on problems on the right and not simply on the left of the issue.

    He’s right. Unfortunately I have serious doubts that the big name public comps are willing or able to do this. Plus the average lay comp on the ground, at least in my experience, has some pretty deep-seated sympathies with patriarchy, either because of ignorance, simplistic thinking, or an overriding loyalty to something else (i.e., “But if I say women are equal then people will think I’m a liberal and a feminist! etc.). So I don’t have a lot of confidence that, even if comp leaders did start speaking out against patriarchy, that their base wouldn’t desert them over a perceived “compromise” with “liberalism” and “license.” What’s even worse is that some parts of the base might become even more extreme, just as a reaction to the perceived “backsliding.” (Granted, almost all of my experience with comps has been with homeschool comps, who might well be different or more extreme than “average” comps.)

    It will, needless to say, be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. FWIW – and I know nobody likes to talk about this, but here goes – I also question just how rare wife-spanking really is within patriocentricity. It’s really not a big leap to get there from the standard patriarchal justifications for other things – i.e., I as a father have authority over my children, and I “chastise” them for their own good when they disobey, so if I as a husband have authority over my wife, why can’t I “chastise” her for her own good when she disobeys? Dr. Phil featured a wife-spanker this past week, who beat his wife with a paddle because she allegedly had demons. And I get an appallingly large number of search strings on Scarlet Letters for “domestic discipline,” and that’s after briefly mentioning the practice in passing in one post. I have not done any in-depth writing about it at all, and yet the search strings keep coming.

    Basically, it’s nice and comforting to tell ourselves that this is a freakishly rare practice that has more to do with BDSM than theology, but if that’s true, then why does it keep showing up so often?

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Hester,

    “Wife spanking” or searches along those lines are the single-most search terms which land people at my blog. I imagine it’s because I have an article on it and have also discussed it here. I remember the day at BGBC when O’Neal said to get your wife under control and I wondered what that meant and how he proposed to enforce it. It’s not a logical stretch when in Patriarchy, a woman is to obey her husband and she is treated like an object to be owned. If children are spanked for disobedience, there is a logical progression to wife spanking.

    I’m working on two blog stories right now, one is a personal account of wife spanking. I’m so grateful this brave woman has decided to share her story.

    I’m back at school, so I have to juggle the blog and homework (and everything else at home), so hang tight.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. “But from what I’ve read, I don’t gather that Trueman knows CJ all too well. ”

    This is all really messy, isn’t it? Trueman may have been duped but why not admit such? As an educated theologian, did he not even attempt to interview SGM victims? So he could exonerate a man he did not “know well”?

    The vibe I am getting from Trueman is that since the tide turned he has found a niche writing about the some of the problems of celebrity, etc,which is making him somewhat popular with some bloggers. But, he fails to write about his part in propping it up which was a kick in the gut to SGM victims at the time. I guess I am wondering why he gets a pass when he says something right. I see it as deceptive behavior. If I remember correctly, he actually defended his exonerating Mahaney. I see arrogance all over that.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Gender complementarianism is patriarchy watered down a little. Based on what I’ve seen of different gender comps over the years, some admit to being on a continuum… some consider themselves “soft comps,” not as strict about gender roles.

    As has been discussed on other sites, gender comps and their view are not consistent, which should be a clue to them that their views are really not biblical, and they are reading their presuppositions about women into the text.

    (They also are slavishly devoted to discussing womanhood in terms related to marriage and motherhood only, and have next to nothing to say to or about women who are childless or single, another clue their gender views are not biblical.)

    Anyway, I thought this might be of interest (this is on a blog by people who believe in very strict gender roles):
    Russel Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…”

    Russell Moore: Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word ‘complementarian’, I prefer the word ‘patriarchy’…

    …I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…

    (Russell Moore = president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention)

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Russel Moore:

    ““No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship . . .”

    Jesus:

    “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25b-28 ESV)

    Patriarchy denies any possibility of greatness to men who would follow it’s precepts.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Russ Moore in a speech or paper to the Henry Institute a while back proclaimed that “comps are wimps”. He was especially offended that men asked their wives if they could attend a Promise Keepers rally. Evidently, they were to “tell” her they were going.

    I do think as more and more people become educated on the Greek and historical context, this stuff is going to become more and more fringe. If it starts to cost them too much money or fame, they will subtly change their views to be more and more mutual in their beliefs. I have seen that one happen quite a bit. Very few of these guys are devoutly ideological, surprisingly enough. It is more about position and followers than anything else. They will try to convert folks to their position, though.

    I saw it happen recently in a church that hired a YRR pastor who are losing members like crazy. He know believes the “Lord is telling him it is ok to have women deacons”. Funny how that works.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Here is another teaching with regard to which the patriarchists and complementarians exhibit their lawless disdain for our Lord:

    “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12 ESV)

    “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” (Luke 6:31 ESV)

    Liked by 3 people

  24. I just find it interesting and telling that some gender complementarians either admit that gender comp is either not severe enough, or, some others admit it’s patriarchy under another name.

    Regarding Lydia’s remarks. I don’t like gender complementarianism, but… I at least have some respect for a person who holds it out of true conviction, because they really think the Bible teaches it. I hope that people like that realize they’ve been misunderstanding the Bible on that subject the whole time, but at least their belief in it stems from genuine desire to please God or do what’s right.

    But for some church or preacher to either ditch the teaching (or keep it) as a way of making profit or getting more of an audience is maybe even worse than complementarianism itself (or it’s a close toss up which is worse, I guess).

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Gary, Here is another one the hierarchalists always ignore:

    I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. 10 So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

    3 John

    Liked by 2 people

  26. I almost forgot. Rachel Held Evans did a post about this. (I tend to agree with her on the gender role subject, but not a few other topics.) Here’s her blog post:

    It’s not complementarianism; it’s patriarchy, from Evans’ blog

    I’m not totally sure, my memory is shaky on this, but I think it was after Evans wrote that blog page that some complementarians on the internet began admitting that her point is right.

    But instead of re-examining their beliefs and maybe reconsidering their views on gender as being unbiblical (which is what I would hope they would do), some of them (like the Moore quote above) dug their heels in even deeper and were like, “Yeah, maybe we should just admit to being patriarchialists, and go even further with this stuff.”

    I can’t believe that some of them want to return to a way of life under the Old Testament that Christ was seeking to do away with in the New.

    Being a patriarchialist is not peaches and cream, so it’s beyond me why some Christians today want to go whole-hog patriarch. If you read the OT, those patriarch guys were constantly having family problems, some in part caused by the fact that they were in fact patriarchs (they had 15 wives, 654 kids, concubines, etc etc.)

    Wasn’t it Solomon or some other wealthy guy Old Testament guy who had 456,432 wives and 321 mansions, who said all the women and wealth did not satisfy in the end?
    Moses got worn out being the head guy of all the Israelites, and his friend (or father- in -law, I forge who the guy was) told him to elect judges to help him administer justice.

    Then you have these scandals where men today who are pretty much living this lifestyle out, or trying to, who are promoting it, and yet, they are doing things like fondling their live-in. teen age nannies.

    It looks to me like patriarchy (or harsh forms of complementarianism) creates more problems than it solves, and is certainly no guarantee of making a man or a family “more godly.”

    Liked by 1 person

  27. BTDT said:
    “it’s hard to separate Jesus from this type of abuse when you’ve been taught to EQUATE this environment as “biblical.” “

    In my early years of parenting and homeschooling, I relied so much on following parenting advice that was labeled “biblical” without ever checking out for myself if it really was “biblical”. That’s the reason I went along with spanking for so long. Michael Pearl’s book was highly recommended by our homeschool group and it seemed that everyone in our church were spanking, so I just went along with the crowd. Now its been shown it’s not biblical and there are so many better alternatives to follow, like gentle parenting resources.

    It’s encouraging to see some of these “biblical” teachings challenged and shown for what they are ~ just man made teachings.

    I hope and pray that all those who have lost faith in Jesus because of these abusive teachings and behavior will find a safe place to experience His love in a deep way.

    Like

  28. Honestly, I don’t care what people call themselves or how they choose to divide labor and such. It’s none of my business, frankly, and if it works, more power to ya. I don’t know that I would have taken any interest in the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine had it not been for the physical, psych/emotional, and spiritual abuse that it fosters. This isn’t true for everyone that practices this approach or makes sense of Scripture from this perspective. But for too many (or any in my opinion), it does.

    When you tell a woman that she has to be a sex slave and that’s why her husband is cheating on her, then it’s a problem. When you’re on the phone with a friend, and you hear her husband scream “Get off the phone now and submit to me, woman!”? It’s a problem. When a deacon beats up his wife and is allowed to remain a deacon, and the wife is “counseled” for provoking him somehow and to let “love cover” his multitude of beatings, it’s a problem. And when the basis of this attitude of dehumanizing and de-Christianizing women as something less than a man who needs a male covering to fully experience a spiritual life and physical activities is claimed to be God’s ordained gender hierarchy, then it’s a problem. When you call fellow Believers open theists or say that they’re worshiping a false God, then it’s a problem.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. The word “Biblical” has become a thought-stopping clique and is a buzz term in pseudoChristianity. Those who use it maliciously hope that you will just take the shortcut of their “discernment” and will turn off your own critical thinking. You learn to trust the label. Another one that I find revolting these days is “godly.”

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Julie Anne and Cindy, I agree with you that it’s good to see Truman speaking out on the dangers of Patriarchy, and I rejoice that he actually named Mark Driscoll! I just wish he would name more names! But at least that’s a start.

    Lydia, I too am concerned that Truman has never admitted his error of endorsing CJ Maheny, and until he makes that admission and whole-heartedly apologizes and asks forgiveness from all the SGM survivors who were betrayed by his backing of CJ, I can only have limited respect for Truman.

    I am also cautious about him for a number of other reasons. At his blog on Reformation21, comments are never allowed, so I can’t give him feedback. In my opinion, that is arrogance and haughtiness on his part. And even if it’s a policy of Reformation21, not his own policy, he could find a way round it by starting his own blog if he wanted to. Comments are also not allowed on the Mortification of Spin podcasts. That frustrates me greatly.

    I listened to the MOS podcast interview of Rachel Miller, soon after it came out. At that stage, the laughter between Truman and Pruitt was still there (had not been removed). They were laughing about what they saw as the ludicrousness of domestic discipline and in particular, the fact that on DD sites which they had just researched, there were ‘romance’ novels which included domestic discipline. Personally, I found that laughter of theirs highly offensive; it showed how little they appreciated the seriousness of the wife abuse that is going on in those circles. They seemed to be insensitive to how wives feel when they are entrapped in that paradigm. And although at the end of the podcast, Truman somewhat redeemed himself by saying that he was concerned about the psychological and physical abuse that could be going on under Patriarchy, it did not make up for that crass laughter he and Pruitt had been indulging in.

    I also have an ongoing concern that Truman seems to think that domestic abuse is just physical violence. I wish he would learn more about they real dynamics of domestic abuse. I’ve tried in many ways to get him to pay attention to our work at A Cry For Justice but he never seems to do so.

    I wonder who decided to delete the laughter parts from the MOS podcast. And I wonder if whoever it was would make a public apology for that laughter, rather than just scrubbing it. And I wonder if they might actually thank the people who gave them feedback about how offensive that laughter was. (Hint hint, Truman and Pruitt if you are reading this. . . )

    Thanks for the balanced article, Julie Anne.

    I

    Liked by 1 person

  31. I’m not too bothered that he has a blog with closed comments. It takes a lot of time and energy to moderate comments. I didn’t check, but I sure hope he has an e-mail address posted so people can correspond to him and share their thoughts.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. When Mark Driscoll spoke of a “Pussified Nation” honestly I think he was referring to men like John Piper who cower behind their pulpits, are opposed to women serving in the military yet refuse to volunteer to serve. John Piper doesn’t want women in the Marine Corps why doesn’t he enlist and ship out to Afghanistan so women don’t have to. I’ve met a lot of brave women in the military who have more balls than John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Mark Driscoll. Nuff said!

    Like

  33. “The vibe I am getting from Trueman is that since the tide turned he has found a niche writing about the some of the problems of celebrity, etc,which is making him somewhat popular with some bloggers. But, he fails to write about his part in propping it up which was a kick in the gut to SGM victims at the time. I guess I am wondering why he gets a pass when he says something right. I see it as deceptive behavior. If I remember correctly, he actually defended his exonerating Mahaney. I see arrogance all over that.”

    Hasn’t he been writing about celeb Christianity for at least a decade…or more? I remember researching his name + celebrity and finding articles that old. But, yeah, I think it’s fine and good that he wrote a post about the evils of patriarchy. I’ll take that from someone I don’t respect like Trueman, as well as from someone I do.

    Trueman admitted he had a speaking gig lined up for the 2012 T4$ conference in his *CJ Mahaney is innocent* supposedly impartial, exonerating of all wrongdoing paragraph. So what was Trueman supposed to do? Say Mahaney was not above reproach? If he did that, that might jeopardize his talking about the evils of celeb Christianity in the panel session with CJ at a celeb conference that he writes against.

    Even though Trueman stated below it was Dever who asked him to speak at T4$ in 2012, I guess THAT fact is supposed to imply that the other three had no input as far as lining up speakers because it was Dever who did the formal request. They evidently don’t discuss the speakers amongst themselves. LOL

    ” Carl Trueman:

    I am an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Westminster Theological Seminary, PA. Neither body has a formal relationship with Sovereign Grace Ministries. While I sit with C.J. Mahaney on the Board of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, I have never attended a Council meeting, nor interacted with him on Alliance business. I have met him three times, once briefly at a group breakfast at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in 2005, once for a brief lunch in 2006 and then when teaching a course for the Pastor’s College in 2007. I have also been interviewed by him for his blog. I will be giving a seminar at T4G next year, but that was at the request of Mark Dever. Beyond that, and the fact that I have appreciated the writings of C.J. Mahaney and others in SGM, I have no personal connection with him and no vested interest in, or extensive knowledge of, the work of SGM. – See more at: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Findings-from-our-preliminary-panel.aspx#sthash.DlSxESl2.dpuf

    Plus Trueman wrote a high praise indeed about Mahaney’s humility book…saying it was perhaps the most important book he’s read for a long time. But I guess we shouldn’t throw out CJ’s humility book just because it was written by him…since I assume he is able to write some truths even if he does not follow them.

    Like

  34. Eagle, I prefer word’s like courage and integrity over using genitalia in defining character in someone, but hey that’s me. a

    I’ve heard that term several times in my lifetime and quite honestly if John Piper is a coward and women who serve have courage that by itself is enough said.

    Like

  35. “Basically, it’s nice and comforting to tell ourselves that this is a freakishly rare practice that has more to do with BDSM than theology, but if that’s true, then why does it keep showing up so often?”

    The one time I looked at a “christian domestic discipline” site, even they were saying it had nothing to do with BDSM. One thing that may muddy the waters here are any couples getting into the latter and calling it the former.

    “If you read the OT, those patriarch guys were constantly having family problems, some in part caused by the fact that they were in fact patriarchs…”

    Which is really ironic given that neopatriarchy was getting sold as GOD’S way of conducting family life and preventing a host of modern problems.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. @ NJ:

    I know that it’s proponents say it’s not connected to BDSM (and I believe them, actually). What I meant was that, when you bring it up on a lot of forums, people laugh it off as “haha, looks like somebody wanted some theology to justify how kinky they are.” Basically it’s treated as a joke a lot of times, which prevents people taking it seriously. The other reaction I get is “can you please not talk about that, like, ever?” – which I do understand given that a lot of people on that kind of forum have triggers about abuse. But clearly DD’s not going away, so I think the time has come to start talking about it whether we like to or not. I guess we’ll just have to plaster trigger warnings all over everything.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. I wonder what all of these complementarians and patriarchy proponents would say about my husband. After all, he does all laundry, all vacuuming, more than half of the cooking, enjoys shopping and finds himself to be a cat person. 🙂 I have to give him a little credit though, he does not bring home flowers but rather a seasoned tri-tip roast from the local butcher a couple times a month. The thing that differentiates him from the comps/patriarchs is that all of his actions are an outflow of love and a desire to serve those he loves. His so-called “girly” actions reflect his love for me, a disabled woman who can’t be a “normal” wife.

    We need to speak out against the Duggars and patriarchy and complementarianism and courtship so much louder and more often. If there is one thing I have learned from husband’s struggles with his ex-abuser it is that abuse flourishes when nobody talks about it.

    And a quick note: I won’t be commenting much as I am visiting my family back in TX for a few days and somehow forgot to pack my laptop. Oops. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  38. @NJ:

    “If you read the OT, those patriarch guys were constantly having family problems, some in part caused by the fact that they were in fact patriarchs…”

    Which is really ironic given that neopatriarchy was getting sold as GOD’S way of conducting family life and preventing a host of modern problems.

    One Jewish contact of mine wouldn’t have called it “ironic”.

    He’d have called it “Subversive Wisdom of Torah”. Patriarchy and harems and slavery and the like were NORMAL for Semitic tribal cultures of the time. Come out against them and “That’s Crazy Talk”. So Torah tells you stories of “those patriarch guys constantly having family problems, some caused by the fact they were patriarchs” — emphasizing the DOWNSIDE, all the ways it can go wrong.

    Like

  39. @Diane:

    Plus Trueman wrote a high praise indeed about Mahaney’s humility book…saying it was perhaps the most important book he’s read for a long time.

    Trueman strikes me as someone who has not only drunk the cult kool-aid, but digested it. He seems incapable of going against his former cult beyond basic and insipid “big brother is ungood”. Even in his opposition, his choices are still bounded by cult thinking (chuckle chuckle).

    Like

  40. ” Dr. Phil featured a wife-spanker this past week, who beat his wife with a paddle because she allegedly had demons”.

    I watched that episode & I was delighted to see Dr Phil give him wjhatfor. The man said that he spanked his wife for not calling him “sir”. (Like, you know, he was talking to his slave & needed her to be reminded of the fact).
    But my favorite thing was that Dr Phil matched him Bible verse for Bible verse–only Phil’s weren’t pulled out of context. I suspect the guy will go on making life a hell on earth for all around him. He is goiung to get a wee bit of a surprise on judgement day, IMNSHO.

    Like

  41. “I have a lot of women friends who are fine with complementarianism. In reality, to me they function more egalitarian. And their husbands truly respect them”.

    Julie Ann, this is what I see amongst my friends & associates also.

    Like

  42. @ HUG-

    “Even in his opposition, his choices are still bounded by cult thinking (chuckle chuckle).”

    Controlled opposition.

    Like

  43. Lydia,

    “Hierarchalists.” What an excellent word! Whether within family, church, business, politics or whatever, here is another verse that should cause those who would be elevated over others to shake with fear:

    How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (John 5:44 ESV)

    Am I correct in thinking that, according to John 3:16, if there is no belief, there can be no salvation? I expect our Lord makes allowances for those whose parents or other primary care givers did not know how to bring them through and guide them in overcoming infantile delusions of grandeur, omnipotence and invincibility. Yet, when they become adults, we do these narcissists (and sociopaths) no favors when we enable them by failing to call them to account. Unfortunately, it seems the natural tendency is to be drawn to, rather than to resist, these “strong” personalities.

    Like

  44. “But, yeah, I think it’s fine and good that he wrote a post about the evils of patriarchy. I’ll take that from someone I don’t respect like Trueman, as well as from someone I do.”

    Diane, I guess I don’t get it. If he writes about the evils of patriarchy did he not notice those same evils inherent in the SGM shepherding cult which is based upon male heirarchy?

    If he has been writing about the problems with celebrity for the last 10 years then perhaps that is the reason he was asked to be on the panel exonerating Mahaney. Provide some cover? Here is a guy who writes about the problems of celebrity in xianty so if we choose him it looks like we are not really celebrities? Do folks not connect dots anymore?

    This is sort of the opposite response tactic that people don’t expect with these guys or don’t connect dots. TGC and T4G did it with child abuse/molestations in churches. All of a sudden they were churning out articles about how to deal with it after the SGM debacle…even though both had put out statements supporting Mahaney. They just ignored the latter..

    Bottomline? He totally disrespected the SGM victims. He kicked them in the gut…again. How quickly we forget these things.

    Like

  45. Gary,

    In the midst of doing some research on Hannah Arnedt and her “thinking” philosophy she wrote about after the Eichmann trial, I jotted down some testimony from Eichmann that made my blood run cold. Arnedt’s contention was that Eichmann was nothing but an “unthinking” little bureaucrat following orders because he believed his loyalty was his honor.

    Eichmann actually said in one part of his testimony that….. “IF Civil morals had been hierarchical” then it (Jews) would not have happened.

    See how that works? The leader must be moral for society/community/group to follow in that morality as a group. What an unthinking position. One of our biggest problems is we put too much confidence in who we think are “leaders”. One of my greatest hopes is we quit doing that. And quit giving them so much power and fame. It is almost as if one of the so called leaders throws us a crumb of understanding we are thrilled. I see it more as sticking a wet finger in the wind. I think we should be saying: Why should we listen to you?

    We, here, have access to at least two people who have poured their heart and soul into the false teaching of patriarchy and the issue of spiritual abuse. They have done this for nothing and often against great odds. They would be Jeff Crippen and Cindy K. Both are resources for deep understanding of these issues and ways to climb out of these pits of false teaching. God bless ’em. May their tribes increase.

    Like

  46. I know the difference, JA. I think Hester is right that this thing known as “domestic discipline” needs to be called out and discussed. If it’s been happening anywhere in the homeschooling world, I wonder if Homeschoolers Anonymous has any readers who would be willing to give their accounts of it. I am looking forward to your upcoming post on this issue.

    Most of all, I would be interested to find out if any recognizable names have been teaching this vile practice under the radar to impressionable men, whether in head of household meetings or elsewhere.

    Like

  47. Lydia, pouring your heart and soul into battling the issue of spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, etc., in the context of the reformed churches, will not change the churches. You and I both know everything flows from Luther’s Heidelburg disputation. A thesis that exalts suffering. God is hidden in suffering. Besides, God has ordained what has been brought into your life. This is why the secular world understands abuse, while the reformed pewsitters continue to wonder why this keeps happening.

    I see people holding onto the hope that if the pastors, especially the leaders, in the churches were aware of the issues, then things would change. The truth is they are aware of the issues, and have been aware for some time.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. NJ – In my earlier article addressing wife spanking, I discussed that my source said it was definitely connected with RC Sproul, Jr, and his network of churches. It was taught to the men privately, never with literature. These men are smart to not leave a paper trail. The trail will come from wives who start speaking out and will be given a platform on my blog and hopefully others.

    Like

  49. Diane, I guess I don’t get it. If he writes about the evils of patriarchy did he not notice those same evils inherent in the SGM shepherding cult which is based upon male heirarchy?

    He’s into male hierarchy…just not the P word.

    He admits Comp is biblical. He might not think it’s a gospel issue like the TGC boys do, but he likes comp. So he can party with the NOCO radio guys like Phil Johnson and Mike Abendroth, make videos about TD Jakes/ER and say he (Trueman) may be a middle aged balding guy, but he knows a con man when he sees one. lol Suuuure he does.

    Like

  50. “If he has been writing about the problems with celebrity for the last 10 years then perhaps that is the reason he was asked to be on the panel exonerating Mahaney. Provide some cover? Here is a guy who writes about the problems of celebrity in xianty so if we choose him it looks like we are not really celebrities? Do folks not connect dots anymore?”

    It’s my opinion it’s also a bit of controlled opposition.

    Like

  51. I found another article on this topic here from Sola Sisters. They are definitely complementarian. They include a good summary of the podcast in case you don’t have the time to listen to it. Also included are some links at the bottom of the article.

    Like

  52. “Bottomline? He totally disrespected the SGM victims. He kicked them in the gut…again. How quickly we forget these things.”

    He was just following orders, remember? Dave Harvey et al only gave the 3 member impartial (lol) panel certain questions re Mahaney to ponder. Nothing about child sexual abuse, IIRC. Very vague things for which to exonerate him. Is CJ above reproach, is CJ DQ’d from ministry, etc. I don’t think they were supposed to read the docs either, IIRC. IOW—a sham deal from the get go, obviously.

    Like

  53. @JA-

    “In my earlier article addressing wife spanking, I discussed that my source said it was definitely connected with RC Sproul, Jr, and his network of churches. It was taught to the men privately, never with literature.”

    That is just beyond gross and disgusting. All I can say about that.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Oh, and I want to be clear on this source. I still have his name and phone number – it was not an anonymous caller. I held on to his information for a year before coming out with it publicly and only did so after seeing two others with very similar stories to his, share their personal experience (who also named RC 2). Also, I was easily able to look up my source by name on the internet – was able to match his voice with an audio I found online. This is not something to throw around lightly. I really wish these men would come out publicly using their real names, but obviously, there would be a price to be paid if they do so (as those of us know in spiritually abusive environments).

    Like

  55. “A thesis that exalts suffering. God is hidden in suffering.”

    Carmen, What a timely comment.

    Last night my daughter attended a new youth group with a friend and my one condition was she had to take notes and bring them home so we could discuss. I did not even have to ask as she walked in the door because it was so obvious even she saw the problem right away from our many talks.

    This was a NON Calvinist church but the youth pastor attends SBTS. The entire evening was about suffering and how good it is for us. In fact, it was taken as far as if you are NOT suffering you cannot really know God. One knows God and gets endurance from suffering. (She took notes on her ipod and I wish it were in front of me because she referenced all the proof texts they use). And it goes on and on from there. They did not even catagorize suffering as in (real) persecution, disease, abuse, etc. It is ALL good and from God. Yes, from God because that is what makes us Holy. (Remind me to pass by a starving person next time because their suffering makes them Holy) I mean, why bother with a cure for cancer since suffering makes people Holy?

    The horrible irony? My daughter was attending with a friend who has lived through horrible parental abuse. To the point she has a totally crooked nose from being punched in the face by her mother. She has suffered abuse for years and only at 14 are the courts considering sole custody for her dad. So, she is taught that God orchestrated her suffering FROM HER OWN MOTHER to make her more holy. My daughter said she was very quiet even after it was over but she is not sure how to approach her on the fact it was false teaching since it is her church.

    She wants to tell her that suffering is from the evil one and corrupted earth and people and abusers are simply following that way. . Not God. God did not give her an abusive mother.. We, as believers are to do all we can to alleviate suffering. Not tell the sufferer that it comes from God. God is our comforter. Not the culprit.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. “He was just following orders, remember? Dave Harvey et al only gave the 3 member impartial (lol) panel certain questions re Mahaney to ponder. Nothing about child sexual abuse, IIRC. Very vague things for which to exonerate him. Is CJ above reproach, is CJ DQ’d from ministry, etc. I don’t think they were supposed to read the docs either, IIRC. IOW—a sham deal from the get go, obviously.”

    So he agreed to be on a panel to make a huge PUBLIC decision about Mahaney but had to follow their rules of engagement meaning no reading sgmwikileaks, no reading SGM survivors blog, no reading the lawsuit stuff (or whatever was available)? And he actually agreed to this? Sounds like a soft variation of the “loyalty oath” problem that plagues our society concerning movements, tribes, political parties, denominations, etc. My tolerance for Trueman is actually diminishing.

    Like

  57. Lydia,
    I know pretty much nothing about Trueman, but I understand your frustration.

    There is a highly respected theology professor at a local university who wrote a gushing piece for Christianity Today about my former cult. He even allowed himself to be interviewed on tape in their videos defending themselves against child sexual abuse cover-up. That hurt, That really hurt. I know that this man doesn’t really know what goes on in that place. I have to think that he doesn’t even really want to know. He has allowed a select few from that cult to spoon feed him what they choose to. I just don’t understand it.

    Like

  58. “So he agreed to be on a panel to make a huge PUBLIC decision about Mahaney but had to follow their rules of engagement meaning no reading sgmwikileaks, no reading SGM survivors blog, no reading the lawsuit stuff (or whatever was available)?”

    That is exactly how I understood things went down. The members of the panel were only asked very specific questions about Mahaney and I know I remember reading that the documents were not something that was to be addressed by them.
    Nice, right?

    But to stay on topic, I can appreciate anyone coming out and writing against patriarchy, even if they hang with those who practice it to varying degrees. The ones who may be reading Truman’s article may not know all of his associations-which are just that, associations. But you still do get to know someone by them…

    Whatever his motive, I say good that there is this post out there for people who do admire him to read.

    Like

  59. When I give slack to people, it’s likely because I only have to look at my own journey and the koolaid I was drinking which allowed me to stay in my cognitive dissonant mess. I don’t think we “get it” all at once. It comes in bite-size chunks. I had many people tell me my pastor was messed up and I disregarded them and thought they had lost their marbles. It takes a while for the fog to clear on some of this stuff.

    We really don’t know what is in a person’s heart – their core beliefs – what makes them come to their conclusions. If I see positive movement, I will applaud that – even if it’s only a baby step.

    Like

  60. Regarding Trueman and his involvement with the Mahaney conclusion . . . I think he got in over his head and was duped to a degree. I don’t think he really knew enough about about Mahaney’s character and the SGM organization to give an opinion. In saying that, I also don’t absolve him of his decision to be involved. Coming from the background he comes from, he should have known better than to give an opinion on someone that he didn’t know — HE WASN’T QUALIFIED to give a determination on Mahaney’s fitness for ministry. (neither were the other men on that board). For me, Trueman (along with the rest of that board) needs to apologize for involving himself and rendering Mahaney fit.

    Like

  61. Trueman had the plenary session and celeb panel discussion gigs coming up at T4$-I wonder if that’s why he was asked? Putting the pressure on him for a good report?

    Besides, Trueman wrote in a post T4$ article that “they” (whoever they are) sent the “guy who cries” to talk him into speaking at the 2012 T4$ (even though Trueman claimed it was Dever who asked him to speak as I posted way up thread). I wonder if the guy who cries is a reference to Mahaney because he sure does cry a lot…and he is/was one of the founders of T4$.

    “When invited to do a breakout at T4G, I had initially said no, not being a big conference person. I was ultimately persuaded by the fact that the preponderance of attendees are officebearers in the church; and by the fact they put the guy who cries on my case (yes, that bit is truly pathetic, I know).” – See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/04/t4g-made-me-look-like-a-girlym.php#sthash.ncWakSx9.dpuf

    The powers that were at SGM at the time chose those three (may have asked many others who knows- but those three said yes) to be the absolving board. DeYoung admitted he was a good friend of Mahaney’s at the time, as was Ortlund. Not sure why Trueman was picked other than his T4$ commitment that was 8 months away.

    Like

  62. It strikes me that one significant difference between complementarianism and Gothard/Philipps style “patriarchy” is that the latter often requires that the lines of accountability be broken, and where the exist in principle, they are often broken in reality. For example, Tim Bayly notes that his father denounced the sexual immorality tolerated in the Gothard camp back in the 1980s–and his father paid a dear price for that. It was a circle the wagons kind of thing. In the same way, at least some are saying that the Boerne church leadership had known for years about the misdeeds of Mr. Phillips.

    Same basic thing with domestic discipline discussions–1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19 don’t seem to faze anyone.

    And Mahaney/Trueman? It strikes me that the allegations made against Mahaney–aiding and abetting more or less–are really tough to prove unless you have clear evidence that he (a) knew it was going on and (b) failed to take action. If that’s it, Trueman should have begged off.

    What ought to have been telling, though, are the allegations documented by Detwiler et al that show a “council of apostles” in a denomination with theoretically presbyterian church government. Since when do Presbyterians have bishops or (living) apostles? What kind of muddled theology is this? Ought a man really presume to preach when he cannot get this straight?

    And yes, I think the message needs to get out to Mars Hill and Harvest Bible Chapel on the same regard, if you catch my drift.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. “When I give slack to people, it’s likely because I only have to look at my own journey and the koolaid I was drinking which allowed me to stay in my cognitive dissonant mess.”

    I see a difference, JA. You were not making a living teaching people what the bible says and means. For that reason I think he owes us an explanation if he is now seen to be writing against what he was actually working to protect.

    Like

  64. “For me, Trueman (along with the rest of that board) needs to apologize for involving himself and rendering Mahaney fit.”

    Yes. It is real simple: I was wrong. But if he does that and is specific his career is over. And he knows it so he tweaks around the edges.

    Like

  65. @Lydia:

    So he agreed to be on a panel to make a huge PUBLIC decision about Mahaney but had to follow their rules of engagement meaning no reading sgmwikileaks, no reading SGM survivors blog, no reading the lawsuit stuff (or whatever was available)? And he actually agreed to this? Sounds like a soft variation of the “loyalty oath” problem that plagues our society concerning movements, tribes, political parties, denominations, etc.

    I believe the word for this is “Good Little Party Member.”

    Like

  66. @Lydia:

    Arnedt’s contention was that Eichmann was nothing but an “unthinking” little bureaucrat following orders because he believed his loyalty was his honor.

    “My Honor is Loyalty” was the motto of the SS,
    engraved on every SS dress dagger.

    Like

  67. @Lydia:

    See how that works? The leader must be moral for society/community/group to follow in that morality as a group. What an unthinking position.

    Fuehrerprinzip.

    And German bureaucratic tradition of the time, where the one giving the orders is responsible, not the one carrying them out. (Provided the one following orders can provide a paper trail documenting they were given the order and by who. This is one reason Nazi atrocities are so well documented — Germans CYAed by documenting everything. EVERYTHING.)

    Like

  68. “Yes. It is real simple: I was wrong. But if he does that and is specific his career is over. And he knows it so he tweaks around the edges.”

    Actually, I don’t think Trueman’s career would be over if he admitted he was wrong. Take a look at Galatians 2:11-15, and ask yourself; Was Peter removed as an apostle because he had sinned in refusing to have fellowship with Gentiles? Nope; he repented, and fellowship was restored.

    One might infer that Trueman’s career ought to be considered if he does not, in light of the dual allegations against Mahaney, he does not reconsider. The Bible gives us assurance that one sin does not exclude one from church office permanently. Rather, it appears to be a pattern of sin and refusal to confess that does this.

    On the flip side, if Mahaney indeed is guilty of ignoring sex abuse, and was notified many times, that, along with the apostles’ council of SGM ought to exclude him from the pastorate for a while, if not permanently. His, if reports be trusted, does appear to be a pattern.

    Like

  69. I see that Mortification of Spin will be soon launching their own website. I hope this means we can give them more direct feedback.
    From the email I just received because I subscribe to updates from MOS:
    “The new site will maintain the same URL address and house the weekly Mortification of Spin podcast, but will feature articles from each of the three hosts: Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt and Aimee Byrd.”

    (I haven’t had time to follow all this thread so apols if someone else has already told your readers this, JA. )

    Like

  70. “Actually, I don’t think Trueman’s career would be over if he admitted he was wrong. Take a look at Galatians 2:11-15, and ask yourself; Was Peter removed as an apostle because he had sinned in refusing to have fellowship with Gentiles? Nope; he repented, and fellowship was restored. ”

    Bubba, I was speaking of the gurus and how they operate when one of them gets too “specific” about their involvement in anything they might disagree with later on.

    Believe me, it ruins careers cos that is how these ministry careers work. It is not about losing jobs. It is about the nasty deceptive tactic of “marginalization”. I know the playbook. What on earth makes you think these so called ministry careers have anything to do with living out the kingdom now? They don’t. And I doubt Trueman will ever get “specific” publicly about his involvement and why it was wrong.

    Like

  71. Lydia; if I’m reading you correctly, it sounds like you are suggesting that a great portion of pastors and theology professors are not in it for the love of God and His Word, but rather for the acclaim of men, and that there is a nasty tendency among people in many circles to “circle the wagons” when one of “their own” is threatened.

    Am I close?

    If I am, I’d love to be able to produce evidence that you’re wrong, but honesty compels me to concede that there are certainly many out there in the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” camp. Ugh.

    Like

  72. Bubba,

    “In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next it moved to Europe where it became a culture, and, finally, it moved to America where it became an enterprise.”

    Dr. Richard C. Halverson (1916-1995), chaplain to the U.S. Senate,

    Liked by 1 person

  73. Lydia: ugh and point well taken. May you and I both aspire to do what Billy Graham noted when he was accused of taking the church back a century; take her back 20 centuries instead.

    Like

  74. Can not imagine being subject to ongoing spritual invalidation – these women need our prayers and empathy for situations, which the Lord’s grace has spared us. It’s quite evident, (punkoid patriarchal) wolves are dining upon the sheep.

    Liked by 2 people

  75. Pingback: Shield of Faith | The Tree of Life |

  76. In my line of work I have to give male truck drivers directions in to our facility. So far I have never had one tell me he can’t take directions from a woman. If he did I would say give the phone to your wife and I’ll talk to her.

    Liked by 1 person

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