***
Is Complementarianism the Gospel? Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) Seems to Confuse the Gospel with Their Agenda
***
Today, Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) President, Owen Strachan announced three recent hires in their operations team: a director of operations, assistant operations director, and an intern. All three are men – as in, male. None are female. All three are students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Three men, no women, all in seminary. Interesting.
I tweeted the announcement and here are some of the funny responses:
Additionally, on February 18, 2015, it was announced that Gavin Peacock was joining the ranks at CBMW as the new Director of International Outreach at the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.
If you’re doing the math, we’re up to four (4) men and zero (0) women recently hired. I’ve been doing statistics lately at school. Let me throw in a probability question for your amusement (and mine):
If a sampling of four men were hired in the last few months at CBMW, what is the probability that a woman will be hired in the next few months? In the next year?
Gavin seems to be the perfect fit for the organization – one who makes “complementarianism” a primary doctrinal issue. It almost seems as if their brand of complementarian marriage is the Gospel. hat a shame for all you singles who can’t spread the Gospel with your Gospel Marriage.
Here are excerpts from Gavin Peacock (bolding is mine):
No one has spoken more clearly or passionately than John Piper on the issue of biblical sexuality over the past thirty years. He, along with Wayne Grudem and other pastors and scholars, formed the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1987. Owen Strachan, who is the current president, now spearheads the movement. For a while now, I have admired Owen’s conviction, passion and bravery in accepting the leadership of CBMW and taking them forward in a time where complementarianism is being attacked on all fronts. In fact, as I have said previously, this issue is the bite point where the gospel is confronting culture today.
And more:
I will work within the existing framework and ethos of CBMW to expand our reach to other countries and nations through preaching, teaching and writing. God’s plan is outward looking. It is to spread the fame of Christ’s name through the conversion of the lost and the establishment and growth of healthy churches. And key to a healthy church is a healthy vision of complementarianism. There are plenty of complementarian churches that need strengthening and there are plenty of others who don’t know what they believe, so conferences designed to set forth the teaching of Scripture on manhood, womanhood, and marriage will be high on the agenda. (Thoughts on Expanding and Establishing with CBMW)
Conferences? Did he say conferences? Yes, we need more conferences telling us what they believe Scripture says on manhood, womanhood, and marriage. Evidently the Bible is not enough for us.
From another article by Peacock in January entitled, The Battle for Biblical Marriage is a Mission Moment That Will Define the Church, he says:
Just look at the cross. Marriage being redefined in culture is the perfect opportunity to confront the culture with real marriage and the gospel it pictures. It’s a mission moment.
The battle is for the truth of complementarian marriage
To be more specific, complementarity is the biblical and historically Christian position on marriage. So the church must articulate a complementarian understanding of manhood and womanhood and must embody a complementarian picture of manhood and womanhood. (Source)
The church must conserve biblical gospel displaying marriage even as it commends biblical gospel displaying marriage to a watching world. (Source)
Now, just for kicks, I looked up a few places online in which “gospel” is defined, even from people who hold complementarian views of marriage. For instance, here’s Matt Slick of CARM on the Gospel. Nowhere in this article do you find anything on marriage as he describes the Gospel:
Do you want to be saved from the righteous judgment of God? If so, if you want to become a Christian and follow God, then you must realize that you have sinned against God and are under his judgment. You must look to Jesus who died on the cross and trust what he did in order for you to be forgiven of your sentence and be saved from the judgment of God. This is accomplished by faith alone in what Jesus has done. You cannot add any human works to what Jesus has done.
Let’s see what R.C. Sproul has to say about the Gospel. He’s a well-known and respected Christian leader. The following is taken from Sproul’s article, What Is the Gospel?:
The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.
Did you see any mention of marriage in his article explaining the Gospel? Neither did I.
Marriage isn’t referenced in John MacArthur’s article on Getting the Gospel Right, and you can be sure that he is complementarian.
Here’s more MacArthur in an older video with Kirk Cameron. There’s no marriage message noted here, either:
***
***
So, this should tell you something. The folks at CBMW sure seem to be going overboard with this marriage-as-Gospel thing. I’m pretty sure CBMW is taking the following verse as their reference of a Christian marriage being a picture of Christ and His church:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:25-33)
The battle that I’m reading about at CBMW seems to be more focused on what they describe as a cultural battle – keeping marriage between one woman and one man, not a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.
But are they twisting scripture for their “battle” agenda? I think so. Marriage can be a picture of Christ and the church when marriage is done well, but to make complementarianism as the Gospel, in my opinion, is a distortion of the real Gospel. This is just more of CBMW’s agenda hype.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
They’re playing it straight by the book, yet something just doesn’t seem right, JA. Maybe it’s because we’ve had 4 announcements from CBMW and not a single appearance of the word “winsome.” I’m telling you: something’s up.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I happened to notice an announcement on twitter about these hires. So I poked around in the male-dominated staff, etc., at CMBW.org. The few women listed in the Council Members all have listed first under their names either “home maker” or “pastor’s wife.” How come the men don’t have listed “income earner” or “husband” before any other titles? Heck, “income earner” or “husband” isn’t listed for any of them.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Interesting. The ways the guys use the word “gospel” to mean just about anything end up making the word have no special meaning at all.
BTW, I think Southern Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are the same place. The folks at SBTS like to call it Southern Seminary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, thanks for that, Tom. I wasn’t sure, so I listed what I saw in the bio at the CBMW site. Maybe they don’t know they are the same? 😉 Wait a sec . . one of the new hires is assistant blog editor. Maybe we should cut him some slack.
LikeLike
A summary: “The gospel is complementarianism.” I think that statement would surprise Paul.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You are amazing, Tim. You could have saved me time by doing this blog post in 13 words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am on another Forum – CBMW – stands for Christian Business Men and Women. Has a certain ring of equality. However this other CBMW have their tentacles well and truly wrapped around the Presbyterian Church here in Australia and I felt the full brunt of their male only eldership. However I am on a public awareness campaign so my fellow Aussies are aware of their brand of Christianity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know I have read the bible through several dozen times and listened through it close to a hundred times. I did a search about marriage and families as described by the conservative folks. They speak of a biblical marriage, just a few questions, Abraham, Adam and Eve, who are the federal head of the human race, what about the kids, I mean the human population after the fall was increased through generations of incest. The same, to some degree is true with Noah and the recreation of the human race. Then there is David, Solomon and many of the other patriarchs and biblical characters. I then thought of Mary and Joseph being a primary example of a modern biblical view of biblical marriage it is good. But Joseph had Divine revelation from God almighty to marry Mary. The apostles left their wives for many years and eventually were killed, Paul may or may not have been married. I really cant find an actual couple who looks anything like a modern version of a biblical marriage. I could go into Lot etc, but wont.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Obviously Brain you are confident with your appeal to the female sex. You don’t need the use of manipulation, intimidation, bullying, brainwashing, harassing, or force to get women to want to be with you and do things with you. You obviously also embrace integrity about what the bible says, not trying to get the bible to promote and condone your misogynistic fetishes.
It looks more and more like men who gravitate towards Christianity are men who can’t get a wife to stay with him after she gets to know him, can’t get a woman to have sex with him, can’t get a woman to have children with him, in these men’s world a wife doesn’t have a choice. Men who want to beat and rape his wife and needs the aid of Christianity to make sure she can’t escape/divorce him.
These men look embarrassing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And nobody thinks this is as simple as someone named Peacock compensating for his own shortcomings?
Cuing in music…..Dontchaknow it’s all about that bass ’bout that bass (no treble).
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are now six, not five, solas. To the standard list we must now add Sola Familia.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Are they twisting scripture for their ‘battle’ agenda? I think so. Marriage can be a picture of Christ and the church when marriage is done well, but to make complementarianism as the Gospel, in my opinion, is a distortion of the real Gospel.”
That ^
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How come the men don’t have listed “income earner” or “husband” before any other titles? Heck, “income earner” or “husband” isn’t listed for any of them.”
Ellen makes a good observation. I’ve noticed on those little twitter bios all the things certain comp men want to be noted for and chuckle when I see husband at or near the end, if at all. (Especially from a certain someone who screeches about his wife being his “first ministry” and how an OA preacher shouldn’t let preaching become his mistress.) But Miano’s reads:
“Official page for Tony Miano: open-air preacher, author, conference speaker, retired 20-year LE veteran (LASD), and unashamed member of #The15. Galatians 6:14.”
Where is his first ministry? Throw her a bone for working to support him, please.
Owen’s first ministry is way down on the list:
“Executive Director, Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood | Boyce College theology/history professor | Husband & father & churchman.”
Even “working on the garden of his marriage” John Piper fails the first ministry test:
“Founder-Teacher, Desiring God. Chancellor, Bethlehem College and Seminary. Advocate for serious joy in God through Jesus Christ at any cost.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
From Gavin Peacock: “No one has spoken more clearly or passionately than John Piper . . .”
John Piper speaks clearly? He certainly doesn’t tweet clearly. Is he referring to another John Piper? I could never take anyone seriously who thinks Piper “speaks clearly.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sola Familia is going in my “must use that phrase again” file!
Thanks Gary!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good morning Barbara–I think VERY early morning to you. I was just preparing to copy some links from cryingoutforjustice.com (what an excellent resource!) on the topic of whether abusers are believers. I’ll be pasting them into a previous thread here on SSB.
LikeLike
I truly enjoy watching these “men of god” throw out their credentials in the public forum for all of us to embrace and worship as if its a god. It is time these celebrity preachers and teachers go out and get a real job to support themselves and their families instead of being hirelings and a burden on the Lord’s sheep. And maybe it is time the sheep seek the True Shepherd instead of relying on dead men’s bones words of bondage and burden.
Credentials…..let’s see here.
“Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Phillipi; and on the road He asked His disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?” So they answered, “John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah, and others, on of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” Mark 8:27-29
Similar account can be found in Luke 9:18-20 “He said to them, “But who do you say I am?” Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” vs. 20
I may be a little harsh here as my personal worldview hinges on unleveled, gravel roads, not paved ones, but I used to faithfully follow the John Pipers, the John MacArthurs, and R.C. Sprouls and the like. So impressed was I, that my hard earned money was spent on one of those “John MacArthur Commentary Bibles”; the special one with his name on the front and a scrolled “M” on every page of the publication. I had become a religious fan and groupee, an exact replica of what I loathed in other Christians…..ye must listen to _________ (insert name of highly recognized favorite celebrity pseudo humble pastor/teacher) be born again.
I had become a follower of men instead of following the True Shepherd, Jesus, the Christ, and what a fool I was in being deceived. The process did not happen overnight, but was a slow fade into making men my Ameican gods, similar to the Greek/Roman gods in European mythology, turning me into a blatant idolater. That is what I truly was; an idolater. If Jesus made Himself of no reputation, why then was I following men who made themselves of great reputation……..how many churches have the Name of Jesus on their church signs or billboards as their “True Teacher.” Ever wonder why His Name isn’t placed above any man’s name?
Since reading, studying and meditating upon the Gospels for myself allowing God, His Holy Spirit minister to me, His Word has become alive and active to me, and the richness is more precious that anything on this fading earth. I look to Jesus’ credentials rather than man’s for at the end of the day, I will have to give an answer to Him.
Credentials, let’s see here:
Jesus is God. Jesus is LORD.
Good enough for me. Alleluia and Amen!
LikeLiked by 5 people
I wonder if the ‘international outreach’ will be, at least initially, mainly the UK… If we’re talking about the same person, Gavin Peacock is a former English professional footballer and radio/TV sports commentator turned preacher that recently raised a few eyebrows after publishing some rather ‘Complementarian’-sounding tweets.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2898926/Ex-Chelsea-footballer-Match-Day-pundit-turned-Christian-minister-accused-sexism.html
In my opinion, the Daily Mail is not the most reputable journalistic source on this side of the pond, but the article doesn’t look too bad.
Anyway, there are various churches over here where the ‘Complementarian’ view is presented as the proper Biblical way of doing things, so I can imagine Gavin being introduced as a former footballer if he ever comes round to talk to those congregations looking for support for the CBMW.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Martos – welcome and thanks for the link. It’s definitely the same Gavin Peacock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These people always insist that someone must be in charge and make the final decisions and that egalitarian marriages can’t work. That is not true. I have one; we are very happy and our marriage works well. I like my now retired pastor’s answer when asked by a church member as to who should be the head of his household. He said, “Jesus.”
That makes so much sense. The conflicts that can’t be resolved easily are those that involve different values. If you and your spouse share the same values, it is just a matter of talking things out and coming up with the best plan, regardless of who proposes it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@BTDT:
It’s the Hands.
It’s the Fluttering Hands.
It’s the Jedi Mind Trick gestures of the Fluttering Hands.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Marsha:
“Someone” as in “MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!”?
LikeLike
“I will work within the existing framework and ethos of CBMW to expand our reach to other countries and nations through preaching, teaching and writing.” Oh, yay! He’s taking on a missionary position of spreading complimentarianism throughout the entire world! What will he do when he approaches groups that practice matriarchy?
LikeLiked by 2 people
IF marriage should proclaim the gospel, with the man portraying Jesus and the wife the church, THEN
1) Men should not be picky in the least – Jesus accepts all who come to Him.
2) Women should be unfaithful sometimes, to accurately portray how the church is often unfaithful to God.
3) Men should love their wives, warts and all. Women should not tolerate any faults in husbands – Jesus has none.
4) Unmarried church women should portray the lost, so marriage can portray salvation. Have you any ideas what I, as a single woman, can do to portrait the lost?
LikeLiked by 8 people
Essentially, he’s doing what Tony Miano does, Kathi. In the article that has “battle” i the title, you can see that it is about a battle for him. He’s going to fight to have his way – the CBMW interpretation of complementarianism – heard. When you use words like “battle” it means you are trying to force someone to your side. How is this love?
LikeLike
^^^^Wow, Retha, those are great points!
LikeLike
Yes, evangelicals love to use word imagery that relates to fighting for something. I think most people are tired of hearing the war/battle/fight for the culture by Christians. They will never tire of it though because there is always something to fight for. Why not marriage, especially in a time where states and people are more open to gay marriage? Oh, and there’s the dreaded f-bomb word (feminism) that has threatened marriage from its onset. Although, I have yet to hear of the war against Easter.
LikeLike
Give ’em time…
LikeLiked by 1 person
War against Easter… Oh, yeah. At least, in our former circles, “Easter” was a banned word. The politically correct term was “Resurrection Day”. Many of the more dedicated among us (more spiritual?) even refused to use the pagan word “Sunday” and instead said “Lord’s Day”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and you never said, “Good luck!” “Luck” stood for “Lucifer”, you see. And shared meals were not “potlucks”, but “shared meal”. I’ve also heard them called “Pot Providence” at related churches.
LikeLike
Opineme wrote,”Cuing in music…..Dontchaknow it’s all about that bass ’bout that bass (no treble).”
I think the CBMW types have it bass-ackward (or maybe baritone-ackward).
They say marriage pictures the gospel. Or as Russell Moore says, “God designed the one-flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage and sexuality, among the most powerful pulls in human existence, are designed to train humanity to recognize, in the fullness of time, what it means for Jesus to be one with his church, as a head with a body.”
In this ackwards system, God supposedly will train humanity about Jesus through marriage. Gospelly marriages and families are a mens (I ment to type “means”, but like my typo better) of spreading the gospel, and as such cannot be secondary issues– hence sola familia. Fred and Ethel are supposed to icon the gospel to Ricky and Lucy via headship and bodyship. If Ricky and Lucy never say, “Now we see what Christ and the church are like!” it must be Fred’s fault for insufficient headshippyness, and he’ll seek to improve by better teaching Ethel about bodyshippyness. If she fails to learn, it’s all Ethel’s fault and he may need to tattle about her to the elders.
OR, we could have a Forward Gospel where Christ is the “picture” and his example informs all our human relationships. But that’d likely be *unbiblical*. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
BTW, tenor-ackwardness may be permissible, but not preferable due to the culture possibly confusing it with alto-awkwardness, which is very bad and must be confronted.
LikeLike
@refugee
We called them pot-blesses. Sounds like your peeps and my peeps had some craziness in common. I now find it ironic that celebration of certain holidays was deemed un-biblical, yet child sexual abuse was dealt with in-house. (Swept under the rug to save the institution’s reputation.)
Is it any wonder that our perceptions of Christianity get skewed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are gender complementarians, such as the people at CBMW, intentionally staying blind to the shift in American demographics, that there are now more single adults than married couples?
_Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds_
(that is from a 2011 NY Times article- there is a newer study from 2014 that say the gap has grown even bigger, with more singles than married couples)
I don’t care for gender complementarianism, but if I were one and wanted it to survive, I’d stop pushing marriage- and- motherhood as being a woman’s only design or option in life and start embracing all the single and childless women.
Which means embracing those singles where they are as singles and not shaming them for being single, or screaming at them to get married immediately.
A pet peeve of mine: using human marriage to compare humanity’s relationship with Jesus or God or whatever. Adult singles who accept Jesus are ALSO part of the “bride of Christ.”
Singles too are a picture of what marriage between God and the church looks like – because in the afterlife, there will be no more human marriage, your only groom (and this is true if you are a man too), is that Jesus is your groom, not your earthly spouse.
It’s kind of like parents who repeatedly tell their child free or childless friends (and we childless people find this insensitive), “You can never know what true love is until you have children,” it’s the same.
Please don’t tell (or imply to) single adults that they can never really know what God’s love is like, unless they marry and have a spouse. It’s not true, and it’s condescending. But many conservative Christians do this all the time!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The folks at CBMW sure seem to be going overboard with this marriage-as-Gospel thing.”
Well, don’t forget that this carries over into all of eternity. If we don’t get this right here on Earth . . . well, we know where we won’t be spending eternity, don’t we?
“There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God’s “very good” creation will remain.”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/12/is-the-council-for-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-drinking-mormon-flavored-koolaid/
I think they just make it all up as they go along.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Regarding:
HUG has mentioned seeing the phrase “Salvation by marriage alone” turn up on blogs.
There are some Christians who do act as though a person must be married and have kids to receive salvation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the Gavin Peacock tweet:
“Biblical marriage: 1. Displays God’s glory, 2. Pictures the gospel, 3. Conforms husband and wife to Christ, 4. Serves mission.”
How exactly does marriage do all that? -Rhetorical question, as I don’t think it does. Especially not for points 1 and 2. (Unsure what point 4 really means, “serves mission?”.)
As someone at the other blog mentioned, they’ve never once come across a NonChristian who looks at a Christian marriage and gets the Gospel from it, or is so won over by seeing God in the marriage, that the convert and become a Christian.
I think using marriage to draw all these allusions to God is Christian manufactured twaddle, used to sell books and tickets to conferences.
Sometimes marriages go horribly wrong. You can have two self professing Christians, married to each other, and one is having a steady stream of affairs or physically or emotionally abusing the other spouse. Given that not even all Christian marriages are steady, good, or healthy, I think it’s a waste of time for the complementarians to make as much of out marriage as they do.
People are saved by accepting Jesus as their savior, not by getting married or being married.
LikeLike
Kathi said, ” Although, I have yet to hear of the war against Easter.”
It kind of already started, a few years ago. Some Christians are upset with the word “Easter,” and prefer the term “Resurrection Day.” I’ve even seen the term “Resurrection Day” turn up on TBN around Easter holiday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave AA. Just wanted to say I like your post of FEBRUARY 25, 2015 @ 12:05 PM.
“headshippyness”? LOL.
On a more serious note, all the over emphasis on marriage and child bearing excludes those of us who never marry and never have children, which I don’t think God intended with marriage.
The over emphasis upon marriage (for any reason, whether as teaching tool or whatever reason), also excludes divorced people, widowers, infertile people. Complementarians needs to stop defining manhood and womanhood by marital or parented status. Not everyone in life marries or has children.
LikeLike
BTDT said (from a complementarian web page):,
“There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator.”
Their idea of heaven sounds like hell to me. They basically want to believe that women will be subservient to men in the afterlife and act like slaves to men. It’s not enough to hoodwink Christian women into thinking they have to be maids, servants, cooks, and sex toys for male husbands now, but they hope that this continues in the afterlife.
Muslims have a somewhat similar view of the afterlife, in that they (the men) think if they get martyred now, they get 72 (lady) virgins in the afterlife. I wonder what lady Muslims martyrs are taught to get in the afterlife?
Anyway, it’s bad enough that Christian gender complementarians want to argue that women have to be subservient to men now, but they want it to continue in the afterlife as well speaks volumes of how deeply perverse, entitled, and sexist their views are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IF marriage should proclaim the gospel, with the man portraying Jesus and the wife the church, THEN
1) Men should not be picky in the least – Jesus accepts all who come to Him.
2) Women should be unfaithful sometimes, to accurately portray how the church is often unfaithful to God.
3) Men should love their wives, warts and all. Women should not tolerate any faults in husbands – Jesus has none.
4) Unmarried church women should portray the lost, so marriage can portray salvation. Have you any ideas what I, as a single woman, can do to portrait the lost?”
Positively Brill, Retha!
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW; One of my major pet peeves is the way they make up words such as “headship”. There is NO SUCH THING if we are talking about the Greek Kephale a literal “head” used as a metaphor for relationship between head/body.
That would be like saying armship or bodyship. It is so ridiculous. And the worst part about it is because they define head as boss. Or “kingship”.
Silly boys who need to feel like kings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Praying for a friend’s wedding tomorrow:Bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, headship and submission,Christ and the church – pure gospel!” Peacock Tweet
Creepy! Wrong!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Praying for a friend’s wedding tomorrow:Bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, headship and submission,Christ and the church – pure gospel!”
They use the word gospel as a code word that actually means evangelical Talmud. Line upon line, precept upon precept…
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re playing it straight by the book, yet something just doesn’t seem right, JA. Maybe it’s because we’ve had 4 announcements from CBMW and not a single appearance of the word “winsome.” I’m telling you: something’s up.
Sergius,
Yes, that is strange. However the real question is, did they call us bitter? I just won’t know what to do if they drop that!
LikeLike
it seems to me that complementarianism is a reaction to the social changes which occurred beginning most markedly in the 1960’s,but traceable to earlier events/
Thus I would be interested to know if any of you have an opinion regarding the following: Are people better off now, than before these changes? Are society and societal institutions healthier now?
Kathi: I am sorry for deleting your replies on the FB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gavin Peacock played at Newcastle United and Chelsea. He probably made some money while there.
LikeLike
Keith, our society is certainly better off now that African Americans can vote without being lynched or having their churches blown up, that people may not be discriminated against for race, ethnicity, religion or gender, now that women have some equal rights, all movements in the sixties. Juveniles brought before the court are now presumed innocent, which was not the case before the early seventies. There are better tools for prosecuting child abuse; before prior events could not be brought up to establish a pattern. The crime rate, especially violent crime is down.
Some things are worse such the militarization of the police (with citizens seen as enemy combatants), the anti-science attitude in politics, the decline of unions, policies which have increased the wealth of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, and the school to prison pipeline, but none of those things are related to the movements of the sixties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Headless Unicorn Guy said in response to”@BTDT:
John Piper speaks clearly? He certainly doesn’t tweet clearly. Is he referring to another John Piper? I could never take anyone seriously who thinks Piper “speaks clearly.”
It’s the Hands.
It’s the Fluttering Hands.
It’s the Jedi Mind Trick gestures of the Fluttering Hands.
*****
This had me laughing for a good ten minutes. But seriously many of these guys are just closet Gnostics dressed up in reform garb to be honest. No offense to real practicing Gnostics.
LikeLike
Bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, headship and submission,Christ and the church – pure gospel!
Pure gospel? Where? The pictures God left us that show forth the gospel — communion and baptism — speak to Christ’s death, and baptism speaks also to His resurrection. Marriage does neither. Where is Christ’s death pictured in marriage?
Further, to say the gospel is Christ’s relationship with the church is to make the gospel, and therefore salvation, corporate and not individual. But Christ uses words like “whoever” and “he* who” and “anyone” (John 3 and 6) which are generally understood as indicating individuals, not groups.
And it makes the basis headship and submission and not death and new life. Christ’s death is not mentioned here at all, yet Peacock says “pure gospel.”
???
*”He” not being limited to male persons.
LikeLike
Kathi “I will work within the existing framework and ethos of CBMW to expand our reach to other countries and nations through preaching, teaching and writing.” Oh, yay! He’s taking on a missionary position of spreading complimentarianism throughout the entire world! What will he do when he approaches groups that practice matriarchy?”
And he comes up against me here in Australia. I am on a mission also and mine is to expose what goes on ‘behind closed doors’ in the Presbyterian Church of Australia and they have very close ties to the CBMW.
LikeLike
Reading through the comments as a man I could feel emasculated but thankfully I don’t. One comment that struck me by a guest who said men are drawn to Christianity because they can’t find a wife…… Obviously I missed something during my 36 years as a Christian. I thought I was drawn to the church through Christ Jesus unto salvation, I have meet very few men in the church during this time that haven’t acted in any way other than complimentary towards their wives and children. Unless of course you are talking about Bill Gothard and that ilk. However I guess anyone who stands up for family and traditional values is fair game to be caricatured and misrepresented. How about instead of posting the snippet you have here post the whole video and let the viewer make up their own mind without the agenda. What John MacArther says in this snippet has everything to do with salvation, I saw no mention of men dominating their wives or even a mention of Patriarchy. Jules are you so blinded by your bitterness and anger that you can dishonestly play part of a video and then use it to support your agenda when it obviously has nothing to do with that you claim it does? I can understand why you have a dislike for Patriarchy, I do as well because Scripture doesn’t support it. I can understand your feelings of betrayal from your own family, church and friends who bought Gothard’s lies. But don’t use the same kind of tactics to make your point its disingenuous and undoes any kind of good you may have attempted to do
LikeLike
Marsha: Thank you. Do you think the family is stronger, weaker, or about the same? What about the self-esteem of individuals?
LikeLike
Thank you, Keith, for the apology. I appreciate that.
LikeLike
rhondajeannie – I studied missions in college and I cringe at how these ways of Western Christianity are attempted to infiltrate other cultures.
I confess to all that I’m a bit disappointed no one picked up on my use of “missionary position.” I guess I wasn’t clever enough with it. Although, I did make myself laugh, so not all is lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the Ephesians passage says marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. I think it tells people in first-century male-rule marriages to look at how Christ gave up His power and laid Himself down for the church, so that He could raise her up to be beside Him, and to make their marriages look like that instead of male-rule.
In any event, the idea that a husband representing diety by being in authority, and his wife representing the worshiper of that diety by being in submission, somehow gives the non-believing world a picture of the gospel, is nonsense. That picture just makes most of the modern world think there’s something really, really wrong with Christianity.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Chrissymmonds, you need to read the article again. Julie Anne used the video of MacArthur to show that his explanation of the Gospel says nothing about complementary marriage, not to claim that it did!
Please do not use the word ‘bitter’ in an abuse survivor community. It is an unjust way to discredit and silence survivors and minimize suffering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve never been called Jules before here 🙂
My agenda was to show that even prominent Christian leaders like John MacArthur do NOT use the illustration of marriage in their Gospel presentations as CBMW does. I intentionally highlighted leaders who are known for supporting complementarianism to point out that CBMW has gone over the top in their marriage focus being representative of the Gospel. It just is not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m glad you told me about it privately because if I would have read it, I likely would have snorted wine up my nose. I hate to waste good wine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keith, the institution of the family is of real concern. I suspect that the percentage of strong, healthy, happy marriages are about the same today as they were fifty years ago. What has changed is the decreasing number of children being raised in two parent families because of divorce and increasingly parents who never married.
This is a problem because the sociological evidence is clear – on average children do better in two parent homes than in one parent homes by every possible measure of well being.
Let me be clear. There are many single parents doing a great job of raising children. No one should conclude that a two parent home where one parent is abusive is preferable to one where a single parent has fled abuse to protect themselves and the children. However, on average, children do better in two parent homes and perhaps that is just because, with the availability of divorce, the remaining marriages are good ones. But there are worrisome economic factors at play.
The custom of having children with a partner one isn’t sure about marrying is clearly dysfunctional and frankly, bewildering to me. More single parents live in poverty than married parents. And one disadvantage of divorce is that the standard of living goes down for mom and the kids and goes up for dad. And on average, poverty puts children at risk although again many poor parents do a good job of raising kids.
A major source of dysfunctionality in families is economic. Daniel Moynihan warned us fifty years ago that policies that provided aid to mothers and their children only when fathers were absent rather than helping struggling families were going to hurt families in general and devastate minority families because they were disportionately in poverty. The incentive for the father who couldn’t fully support his family was to leave and not stay. Moynihan was right.
I also think that the erosion of the middle and working class is devastating to families. Good paying manufacturing jobs are all but gone and white collar jobs with benefits are going too. In my day, we got graduated from college and got jobs that would support us. Now even college graduates stay home for years before they can afford a home and family. But pregnancies occur among young adults anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kathi very funny 🙂
LikeLike
Regarding:
I’m right wing, a social conservative, and I respect traditional values and pretty much adhere to them myself.
The Bible, however, does not talk about or defend “family values.”
The Bible talks about avoiding sin, about being righteous, etc, but does not defend or discuss these topics under the guise of maintaining “family values.”
I am a never-married, childless, middle-aged woman.
(BTW, I was brought up by a very traditional Christian mother to believe in “gender complementarianism,” but I realized by my mid-30s or so that gender comp is un-biblical).
It’s very marginalizing for Christians to continually frame discussions about morality or anything else when they use the term “family values.”
Jesus taught you are suppose to de-emphasize family, not build it up, please see this page (this is from a Christian site that is not “anti family”):
_“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”
_
LikeLike
Keith Blankenship said,
That is a point I have raised here and at the other blog on previous occasions.
Christian gender complementarians are by and large right wing and socially conservative, as I am.
I agree with their views on some topics, but I don’t agree with them on how to change those things (i.e, I don’t believe limiting or oppressing women is the way to fight against certain concerns).
Christian gender complementarian fear or dislike of developments in secular society, which they blame on things like secular feminism, abortion, and legalization of homosexual marriage, is, I am convinced, one of the reasons why they bother pushing gender complementarianism.
They do not have a positive case to make for their side. They do not care about building up women, or defending or explaining “biblical womanhood.”
The Christian gender complementarian side is based on and interested in maintaining the power for men in churches and fighting against various expression of secularism or liberal policies (such as abortion, homosexual marriage, etc).
One big clue that Christian gender complementarians don’t care an iota about men and women in general is almost all their energy is directed towards defining what MARRIED MOTHERS may or may not do (caps for emphasis, not yelling).
They occasionally discussed MARRIED FATHERS, or defend/promote fatherhood.
Christian gender complementarians do not spend nearly as much time and effort on discussing never-married, celibate adults such as myself.
They have almost nothing to say to or about women such as me, who do not marry and reproduced.
Ask yourself why they expend so much time and effort writing about wife-hood and motherhood but hardly ever say anything about adult singleness and celibacy. It’s because they have an agenda to promote, not because they actually care about women.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daisy makes a good point when she observes that Jesus taught we are supposed to deemphasize family. In fact, what Jesus says on the topic is shocking:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26 ESV)
LikeLike
I confess to all that I’m a bit disappointed no one picked up on my use of “missionary position.” I guess I wasn’t clever enough with it.
I spotted it, Kathi. Unfortunately, I saw it just a few minutes ago, and several hours after you posted it. Ah, the travails of following a conversation on another continent. 😉
Did you mean to make a funny? Or was it only after you hit “enter” that you noticed your bon mot? (Or faux pas, as the case may be.)
LikeLike
I haven’t read the comment thread yet.
But I hope that someone has pointed out that Jesus laughed at the Pharisees for idolizing marriage:
1. There won’t be marriage in heaven (so much for the Christ-and-bride talk.)
2. Jesus wasn’t married; Jesus and Paul recommended singleness.
Why the obsession with marriage? Is that the Gospel?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops! That last comment of mine was for Kathi. I definitely need more sleep…
LikeLike
Very good and concise points, Anonymous2.
My guess: It’s probably the obsession of those in desperate need of One More Thing to Sell. And some way to stay famous and relevant.
LikeLike
Marriage and family is indeed botched up today in so many cases. We all agree with that. We all know that divorce isn’t God’s plan – He intended marriage to be a blessing, a gift, and to be for life. But we live in a fallen world where wickedness oppresses victims, and thus where victims need to be led to freedom. And that is a good thing when that freedom comes – often through divorce.
All that being said, what is the “fix”? Well, the fix is the gospel. The gospel is the remedy for sin. We are restored to God’s perfect will through salvation and new birth in Jesus Christ. This is what the apostles were sent out to preach – the good news. Where people came to saving faith in Christ, their minds were renewed. They saw their sin and understood God’s truth and they repented and turned from evil. Fixes in marriage, the family, society — are all the fruit of faith and repentance in Christ that effects new hearts of flesh where stony, cold, rebellious hearts once reigned. So the gospel is our mission. If we bypass it and focus on “fixing” various evils, we soon end up with a “gospel” of legalism, a works righteousness that cannot save.
LikeLike
It occurs to me that BCMW sounds more like a Mormon organization than a Christian one. Mormons see marriage as being a necessary rung on the step to the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. And so do these men.
LikeLike
Dear Chrissy,
Guest has commented here before, on other threads, Chrissy. She has spoken more than once about her horrific childhood, in which she was raped repeatedly by her own father, an evangelical preacher. According to Guest, he abused his wife and daughter in various disgusting ways, and used “reasoning” of the sort employed by CBMW to justify his criminal behaviour.
She has stated elsewhere that she has a hard time trusting Christian men, and can’t understand why any decent man would want anything to do with Christianity. As a Christian man myself, that’s very painful for me to hear, but I can’t say that I blame her, given her abusive past.
I can understand if you find it difficult to read some of the comments here. But I hope that you, too, will try to understand where you are. This blog deals with spiritual abuse — it’s meant to be a place where people like Guest can feel safe. Stories like hers need to be heard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids – I meant it. Of course, since then I’ve been thinking of other ways I could have worded it without being inappropriate. I don’t want Julie Anne to put me in the dog house! 😉
LikeLike
Barnabasintraining said: Pure gospel? Where? The pictures God left us that show forth the gospel — communion and baptism — speak to Christ’s death, and baptism speaks also to His resurrection. Marriage does neither. Where is Christ’s death pictured in marriage?
Where is Christ’s death pictured in marriage? I suspect it is in the death of the woman to herself, her dreams, her hopes, her aspirations, her gifts and talents, all subsumed to the main goal of the upward call of… not Christ, unless you equate that with supporting her husband’s vision.
LikeLike
Audience, put your caps on and buckle down the hatch for a long winded post….the cold winds are blowing, lifting that dirt and sand from the hills of a field with no planted ground cover, painfully drilling those tiny crystals into the faces of the proud. Painfully speaking, that is ALL of us, for we ALL have it in us, and to deny such would be a terrible lie. There are times within the religious sect called Christianity, the proud display of the visible church outright denies Jesus and His Way/Ways. It is with faith like a child, we must approach that blood stained cross with profound humility, for man loves to label our Savior a “conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat” and we attach ourselves, like blood thirsty leeches to any one of these disgusting fruits of the flesh. Jesus was and is none of those…He is God…for He “humbled” Himself in going to that place of “The Skull.”
Amen to Jeff Crippen. Alleluia and another Amen to Jesus! You hit the rusty nail smack on the head without smashing the proverbial thumb. Since my brain cannot figure out how to do the “Like” thing, would like to give you, among others, two thumbs up, for speaking truth. Many, many likes on this thread…with a few burn it in the back forty comments.
And speaking of truth, one cannot be but filled in awe and wonder at the mercy seat of Jesus…..while earthly men bicker, argue, debate, and lord it over the LORD’S sheep, putting fancy labels on everything like “complementarianism and egalitarianism”, two words of which I cannot find in the Bible; but then again, maybe they are there hidden between the lines, or mysteriously coded as another harbinger. I have been called out as being “simple minded”, not very complimentary, admittedly so, by both men and women (egalitarianally (new made up word) speaking, by those holding leadership offices.
Speaking in love here, I find it quite astounding how bitter and angry corporate church systems have become in debating differences between genders, or how “offended” people become in defining roles within Americanism. I am still in awe and wonder at how Jesus treated/respected women in the New Testament, cowering not, behind some leadership title.
Luke 7:36-50 states: ( Similar accounts can be found in Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8)
“The one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.”
“Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”
“And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.”
continued……
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be fair, the man is called to die to himself, as well, to grow up, take on adult responsibility, support a wife and family (it’s not easy to make it on a single income for most families I know in our homeschooling circles — I’m looking at going back to work, after 20 years out of the workforce, scary), give up buying toys (powerful computers, other electronics, sports gear, boat, fancy car, motorcycle, etc).
LikeLike
Katy, your post just now reminded me of the sad old joke where the punchline is Jesus speaking to a rejected homeless man, thrown out of a church after trying three times to get in. Jesus says, “Don’t worry about it. I’ve been trying to get in there for years!”
LikeLike
“There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owned five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.”
“Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head.”
“You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in.”
“You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed has anointed my feet with fragrant oil.”
“Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”
“Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
“And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
“Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
For some reason, I am drawn by the Holy Spirit, back to this truthful account over and over again, seeing the Bridegroom at work in the presence of men. To completely fathom the truth presented here limits us to the very core of what the Gospel truly is. For we can only ponder how we would have reacted to the scene taking place between Jesus, Simon and others, and that sinner, the woman.
While organized, leadership based, and gender focused church systems spend much time and energy debating over the power structures of our society, and making the sheep of Christ live in the bondage to the belief they are “not equipped” if they don’t purchase these religious leaders’ books, cd’s, dvd’s, bibles, attend their expensive conferences, and accredit them with exorbitant amounts of praise, compliments, and the best seats at the feast tables, for their great service and verbal claims of “rightly dividing God’s Word,” then in comes Jesus and this, this, this, well
“this sinner, a woman.” And then we must ask, “What in the world do we do with this woman, a wretched, pitiful, disgusting sinner, who is worth no more than a dog?”
continued…….the dust is still a blowing……
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right refuge, you are so right. Amen.
This woman, a portrait of the Bride of Christ, was pouring out her love on One whom the religious grew to hate and despise.
Let’s sit on that one for awhile.
We, the Body of Jesus Christ, are considered the Bride, while Jesus, the Christ, is our Bridegroom and the perfect picture of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. Speaking for myself here, can I truly grasp what is actually taking place in this house of the Pharisee? And what side of the fence would I support…..Jesus, or the minds of men?
In being a glorious part of the Bride of Christ, could I or would I have given Jesus, my Bridegroom water for His feet, would I have washed His feet with my tears and wiped them with the hair of my head. And were Jesus’ feet gross and disgusting with dirt and filth, or clean and white as the driven snow? I do not know. So then, would I have kissed the feet of Jesus unceasingly from the time He entered the house? Would I have anointed Jesus’ head with oil or anointed His feet with expensive, fragrant oil, or saved and coveted it all for myself, given the fact that it could have received a pretty penny in the marketplace?
And why didn’t Jesus, in His complementarian and egalitarian ways (???)……………
correct, criticize, and condemn……….this sinner, this woman, this low life in the presence of men, so as to give the institutional church a platform with which to pit one gender against another and call it “Christianity?”
If anyone has any words of wisdom here with which to wipe the dirt off of my face so as to see truth, please offer up some without the unwarranted “bitterness and anger” phrase, please.
In personally working with brides and bridal parties in getting them ready for their special day, and truly loving and enjoying the work that I do, I witness a great amount of preparation, stress, anxiety, and volumes of money spent for that one day. It is a part of the wedding ceremony….it is what it is.
And as I meditate upon these precious Scriptures, I see the Bride of Christ, not any particular gender here, freely giving, loving, and expecting nothing in return, for she had little to begin with. Only the love of Jesus.
So then, organized religion, 501c., and kingdoms of men here on earth….I believe the dirt is settling now, so the Way seems more clear, let me put it this way….in farm speak…..so as to not insult George Orwell……
“In terms of what is defined as “Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood”, I will confess this in the public forum….When your semi truck is headed down the highway at 57 mph, your tailor is filled with corn on its way to the grain elevator, and your back cab tire blows, ripping the metal guard and spewing pieces all over the highway….meanwhile throwing your combination unit into the next lane headed for the ditch……and you literally urinate your britches because you believe you are headed for a bloody accident, possible earthly death…..the last thing on your mind is
“gender, gender benders, Biblical manhood, Biblical womanhood, complementarianism, egalitarianism, or any man or woman roles in our society!”
Seriously, the only One on my mind was my Savior, Jesus, as His Name was called upon in one of the most horrific, frightening farming situations of my life. And by His mercy and His grace, He delivered His child from harm once again. So go ahead, organized religion, argue “men’s and women’s roles in society” all you desire….go right ahead. For many of us coming out of these religious systems that cannot save a soul, we will cling to that old rugged cross, and lie down in peace at the feet of
Jesus. Only He is Mighty to save. Alleluia!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was really hoping that Chrissymmonds would come back and apologize to Julie Anne.
LikeLike
A translation of chrissymonds65 (2/25/15 @ 4:47PM), with commentary:
“I could feel emasculated.” Translation: I have been attacked.
“But thankfully I don’t [feel emasculated].” Translation: Me Tarzan, you Jane.
“Obviously I missed something during my 36 years as a Christian.”
“However I guess anyone who stands up for family and traditional values is fair game to be caricatured and misrepresented.” Translation: Anybody who challenges my privileged and entitled status vis a vis women is fair game to be caricatured and misrepresented.
“Jules.” Translation: Julie Anne isn’t even entitled to her own name. I will tell her who she is.”
Eh, there’s more, but I’m out of time. Others could doubtless do better.
LikeLike
You’re good, Gary.
LikeLike
Thanks, JA, but none is good but God alone. Lk 18:19.
Besides, the comments I had set off between greater-than and less-than symbols didn’t make the trip. Must be an HTML thing or something. No matter, except that since there was one comment with no translation I’ll take another run at this one:
“Obviously I missed something during my 36 years as a Christian.” Comment: Seems to be in the nature of a Freudian slip. What’s he been since the 36 years were up?
LikeLike
Katy,
You aren’t “simple minded” by any means, but you don’t make the Gospel hard. The Gospel is easy enough that a child can understand. The Gospel is Jesus and His work on the cross. I loved what you wrote here. “the only One on my mind was my Savior, Jesus, as His Name was called upon”. That is what we should be striving for. To remember Jesus in all situations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary – in Genesis God looked at all that He created and said it was good, so doesn’t it reason that if He made you, then you are good?
LikeLike
JA, Well, O.K., if you want to argue with Jesus. Perhaps it’s that Genesis is speaking qualitatively while Jesus is speaking in terms of moral absolutes. Then again, again, I probably need to take into account that Jesus was addressing a per-resurrection reality.
“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20 ESV)
LikeLike
Someone posted this on our Linkedin discussion–if women can be pastors or elders or not. Since this discussion here has been coming up with some good comments, I thought that I would ask y’all to give some feedback on this person’s comment.
“From my understanding of Scripture, women cannot be either elders or pastors in the Church of Jesus Christ…and there are deep theological reasons for this prohibition which have nothing to do with ability or gender, but have everything to do with the theology tied to symbolic roles.
The Church is the only institution created by God which restricts the role of women to serve as pastors (teachers/shepherds). Women can lead in business (Prov 31 woman) and can lead in government (Deborah the Judge) with no Scriptural prohibition. Even in the cases of broken homes, they can even lead in the family (when the father is absent), but not in the Church. Paul’s teaching is clear in the English versions of the bible as well as in the interlinear (Koine) Greek versions.
In Eph 5:22-32, Paul discusses the true meaning and symbolism behind marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is a “type” of the relationship that exists between Christ and His Church (the anti-type). In that relationship, God has created strict ordinal positions in which He (Christ – the man God) assumes the headship position over His Bride (the Church – the female). In this relationship, it is Christ who oversees, rule and provides for His Bride. In turn, the Church has the subordinate/submissive role in the relationship and, as a sign of love and obedience, obeys His rulership (John 14:15).
For the aforementioned reason, the Church cannot redefine ecclesiastical functions (i.e. redefine worship or bring marketing or labor concepts into the Church). The Church lacks the authority to redefine what God has established. A good example can be found in Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple. Israel had mixed business/labor concepts with the Temple which Christ scorned the leaders and the people
Paul restricts a women from teaching a man nor allows a women to exercise authority over a man (within the context of the Church) since it is tantamount to the Church ruling over Christ and that is rebellion…it’s the same episode we witnessed in the garden (Gen 3)…Eve wanting to rule over Adam.
Now. these are temporal roles. Once in heaven, there’s no longer the need for “symbols, shadows, and types” because the unclear will be made crystal clear. The final union between Christ and His Bride will have been consummated and now a new role is assigned. Pastors, as a role or function within the Church, is done away with since we now have the true Pastor and the true Shepherd – Christ Himself – to lead and teach us (Rev 22:5). Additionally, the gender (functional) roles are done away with as well (Matt 22:30) and we all become priests and kings. However, that only occurs AFTER time is eliminated and we’re in heaven.
Incidentally, in case we think that symbols are somehow secondary to the Lord and that He doesn’t care about symbols, let me ask you to consider the following:
1. What was going to happen to Moses had Zaporah not circumcised his son (symbol of the covenant)?
2. What was God’s reaction to Israel when they would brought blemished lambs (a symbol of Christ)?
3. Why was Cain’s offering rejected (symbol of worship)?
4. Why did Jesus force John to baptize Him (a symbol of regeneration, repentance, and admission into the covenant community) when Jesus needed no baptism?
5. What is Communion and why the admonition for those who take Communion in an unworthy manner (1Cor 11:27) if it’s only symbolic?
6. Why would God hate divorce?
God honors and takes seriously the reality which the symbol illustrates.
So…for the present…women who serve as pastors violate God’s commandments and His design for the Church.
Not popular…but biblical and I’ve provided the theology behind the prohibition.”
So folks, how ‘biblical’ do you think this person’s comments are??
There are a lot of parts to this explanation. Have a go at it. Thanks a bunch. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s right – the Christ in you makes it impossible for you to not be good.
I guess this topic is one that gets to me because I sat in pews for two years hearing about my lowly worm status which made me wonder what Christ’s death on the cross was for if I was still a lowly worm.
LikeLike
Thanks Brenda R. for that less than wordy Word of encouragement. It is always welcome in my faith. You are blessed for sure.
And Julie Anne, one of my bestest friend’s (that’s the word we used “bestest”) name in high school was named “Julie.” She became a born again Christian woman like myself years later after coming to know the truth of God’s Word. Praise Jesus.
Funny thing though, for some reason I cannot remember, her nickname became “Myrtle” and our other bestest friend Jodie, became “Toad.” And me, well, they called me “Mouse”, and I have no idea what hat they pulled that one out of.
All said to give you a smile, Julie Anne. You go girl!!!
LikeLike
“Not popular…but biblical and I’ve provided the theology behind the prohibition.”
Yep, a whole lot of THEOLOGY built upon the foundation of only a smattering of of conveniently out of context, mistranslated and highly twisted scripture.
What I would like to see this person do is make their case by giving us Scripture and only Scripture–no human analysis allowed.
The irony is that this person who is cherry picking Scripture (proof texting) to promote their predetermined theological agenda probably purports to subscribe to the principle of sola scriptura.
LikeLike
Daisy wrote:
‘“headshippyness”? LOL.’
I’m hoping head’s-hippy-ness and body’s-hippy-ness will become as popular as “sola familia”!
And
“‘On a more serious note, all the over emphasis on marriage and child bearing excludes those of us who never marry and never have children, which I don’t think God intended with marriage.’
And it’s bad even for those who are married with children. Spouses and children will all disappoint in some way, and most married people must eventually be unmarried one way or another.
But I have now been convinced that CBMW types MUST over-emphasize marriage and childbearing, now they’ve made these things “imbedded icons” of the gospel. AND– someone may be complementarian (believing in male elders or preachers and complementary roles in marriage) while totally rejecting the gospel-picturing heresy— thus able to hold these beliefs as secondary and not causes of division.
LikeLike
It sure seems to me like “The Church” has been redefining itself since the beginning and if you don’t like what your current church is doing then just split off … call yourself a reformed and apply your rules, regulations and theological variation.
Just saying …
LikeLike
Barb, your friend is confused about the point of Ephesians 5 and is *assuming and asserting* that 5:22 starts a narrative about a type/anti-type. That is simply not the case. Paul’s topic in Ephesians is Life in the Spirit, not How to Order the Church and Home.
Paul does draw a comparison between the way that husbands and wives relate to one another and the way that Christ and the church relate to one another. But not every analogy is a type, and the commenter’s opinion depends upon this part of Ephesians being a type rather than an analogy. I believe he is reading a lot into “mystery” and making that somehow transform the analogy into a type. It doesn’t work that way.
The commenter is also depending on “head” meaning “authority over” but that is not how Paul describes “head” in this context, and context determines meaning. Paul describes what he means by “head” in verses 28-29, and “authority over” is not mentioned. It is true that Christ is the authority over the church, but that is not the point of comparison that Paul is drawing. It is invalid to say that there is a one-to-one correspondence between husband and Christ, and that is what must be assumed in order to import authority into this passage.
Paul says that a wife’s submission to her husband is like the church’s submission to Christ. Elsewhere Paul tells people to do whatever they do as unto the Lord. Paul tells husbands to love their wives like Christ loves the church, submitting their very lives for their wives and loving their wives as they do their own bodies.
Paul then quotes Genesis where the man leaves father and mother and is joined to his wife and the two become one flesh. Then Paul says this one-fleshness is a great mystery and moreover that mystery applies Christ (the Head) and the church (his Body). The Bible uses Bride-Bridegroom and Head-Body imagery for Christ and the church, but that does not make marriage a type of Christ and the church that will be fulfilled sometime in the future. Your commenter states, “Additionally, the gender (functional) roles are done away with as well (Matt 22:30) and we all become priests and kings. However, that only occurs AFTER time is eliminated and we’re in heaven.” That is simply not true, and we are already a holy priesthood, males and females alike.
Another problem with your commenter’s analysis is that there is no textual evidence of “Eve wanting to rule over Adam.” That is pure eisegesis and speculation since the text nowhere tells us Eve was usurping Adam’s authority, and God never mentions either the usurpation or the supposed authority. The text does not indicate God placing Adam in authority over Eve. However, this insertion into the narrative is necessary to make the storyline work.
There is also no textual evidence that the presence of women in the Temple caused Jesus to overturn the tables. The discussion about the importance of symbols to God is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely whether or not Ephesians 5 is typology and whether that typology sets up God’s order for the church.
So, in summary, your commenter has demonstrated neither the textual evidence nor the theology for his rather bold assertions. I could go on, but this is a start at least.
LikeLike
Gram3,
Thanks so much for taking the time to put these thoughts together. Yes, this is a new commenter on our topic thread, so maybe a brother in the Lord, but definitely not a ‘friend’. 🙂
Yes, his way of putting things together is rather convoluted and woven together with slightly different pieces, which he, of course, thinks that he is backing up with Scripture. We have been at this discussion for over 14 months now so many of us have gotten seasoned through the dealing with the whole patriarchy/comp. system of belief. It has been an amazing journey.
This new fellow comes across as congenial yet his piecing things together as biblical truths is somewhat novel. He has made some further comments and a number of people have taken on various points. It is like pulling strings of spaghetti out of the bowl–and time consuming for sure.
I hope some others will feel free to chime in here as well on this person’s flawed persuasion. I hope to start fresh in the morning. All the best!
LikeLike
Just after reading this, I read a rant by Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner against independent women, who “compete with men” in the marketplace.
I then realized that my question on how I, as a single woman, can symbolize the lost is not trivial. Under marriage-as-gospel-salvation theology, single women are the lost.
They need us to be poor, unhappy, and under-educated, otherwise complementarian marriage cannot be much of a salvation. https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/why-biblical-womanhood-theology-is-even-worse-news-for-single-women-than-for-married-women/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barb, Gram3 and others: Are you saying that a church which does not ordain women is in error?
LikeLike
Keith,
Nowhere in Scripture is there any example of anybody who is called a pastor or shepherd who functions as those we now call pastors. Therefore, I contend that it is error to ordain anybody, either male or female, granting them the coercive authority that is customarily conferred on people we call pastors.
I further contend that the terms apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher do no more than describe the nature of the ministry certain people are gifted to perform. These are job descriptions, not titles of authority-bearing offices.
While mutual accountability is always in order, anybody, whether male or female, should be allowed and encouraged to serve according to their gifts, talents, training and experience. Nobody should be given a title. If I am correct to suppose that a pastor/shepherd’s gifting includes nurturing, and if we prohibit women from serving in this capacity, the church (in the true sense of the fellowship of believers) will fail to thrive.
Another problem with the idea of a “church” ordaining anybody is that Scripture does not sanction the wielding of authority by church as an institution or organization. All authority in Heaven and on Earth belongs to only Jesus. His authority appears to have been delegated where required to protect, such as with the civil authorities and where wolves must be expelled from believers’ fellowship. However, relationships between believers are to be structured on the principle of Love, never on the basis of coercive authority.
Because church-as-institution is founded on the exercise of arrogated or stolen authority, I contend that organized “church” is to be identified with the Great Whore who sits on many waters. There may be instances of organized fellowships where authority is not so abused as to bring a “church” within the order of the Great Whore, but in my experience they are few and far between.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary W: Thank you for your response.
LikeLike
Marsha and Pastor Crippen: I think society and its institutions are not better off today, at least on the whole. The question about self-esteem was asked because I read a report several days back regarding female suicide in my state. It has steadily risen over the years, and it is unclear why. The male rate has also risen, and still outpaces females by a wide margin.
LikeLike
Keith, I think it depends on what you mean by ordain and also the reasons why a church might not ordain women. AFAIK there are no “church offices” prescribed in the NT, and I believe that idea is an artifact of the church/state fusion where the church took on the form of the state, complete with an authority hierarchy. If, by ordination, you mean that the church comes together and affirms someone they have recognized from their body as being gifted for a particular ministry, then I have no problem with that, and it can even be a positive thing for the church. In that case, it would not be conferring authority.
I do not believe that a church *must* ordain only women or a particular ratio of male/female. I believe I have read that some denominations require this, and I believe that is wrong to do for the same reason that I believe it is wrong to exclude women. I think that redeemed women and redeemed men are to be viewed as being in Christ rather than being merely a gender, and that is what the “complementarian” view effectively teaches.
If a church will not “ordain” a woman simply because she is a woman and if she is at least as gifted and qualified as a man that they would ordain, then I think they are in error. That is because the Holy Spirit is the one who gifts people as he wills to do, and to deny the gifts he has provided to the church based solely on gender is, in reality, denying the power of the Holy Spirit and also denying the benefits to the body of the gifts he gives to women.
LikeLike
Gary W: That is quite an interesting perspective. Please don’t take this observation as argumentative, but under your analysis most churches would be at least somewhat in error. This is a very unusual perspective, and transcends comp, egal, and other views.
LikeLike